HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 BART Park and Ride Project AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 24, 1986
SUBJECT: Report from Planning Director regarding BART
Park/Ride Project
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: A. TJKM Comments dated November 19, 1986
B. LAVTA (Wheels) Comments dated October 10,
1986
C. Reduction of Tentative/Preliminary Plans
dated September 19, 1986
D. Copy of Dublin General Plan Map
E. BART Dublin Park/Ride Project Negative
Declaration
F. Staff Letter to BART dated September 18,
1986
G. BART Notice dated September 4, 1986
RECOMMENDATION: Review and direct Staff to send comments to BART.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None.
DESCRIPTION:
. BART is proposing a Dublin Park/Ride Project in Dublin and Pleasanton.
The proposed project has 706 parking spaces on approximately 7.25 acres at the
end of Golden Gate Drive in Dublin, and 715 parking spaces in Pleasanton. The
project also includes bus transfer facilities and a pedestrian bridge across
I-580 (see Exhibit C) .
BART proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration for the Dublin/Park Ride
Project (see Exhibit E) . BART will accept written comments on the Negative
Declaration until December 5, 1986. BART will also accept public comments at
meetings on December 16, 1986, and December 18, 1986.
Staff has .reviewed both the Tentative/Preliminary Project plans dated
September 19, 1986, and the Negative Declaration. Staff has the following
comments on 1) Dublin General Plan Policies regarding BART, Kand 2) project
mitigation measures.
I. DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RE. BART
The Dublin General Plan contains the following policies regarding a BART
facility that is shown on the Dublin General Plan Map at the end of
Golden Gate Drive (see Exhibit D) :
- Policy 2.2.1B "Provide a downtown BART station that will serve
customers and workers with and without cars. Add offices and
apartments within walking distance - and eventually over BART
parking."
- Policy 5.1F "Connect existing cul-de-sac streets near proposed BART
station south of Dublin Boulevard."
- Policy 5.2A "Support a compact multi-story downtown BART station and
a second station to the east along I-580, provided the BART rail line
is extended at least to the eastern limits of the City of Pleasanton. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. COPY TO: Planning Department
x i Yw w P'�4"g c.:ri'r°
` T{ `�( p'A4 T3
:;:�'
Policy 5.2C "Urge BART cooperation in' maintaining availability of
station sites and develop standards for review of public and private
improvements in the vicinity of BART stations that take account of
both future traffic needs and development opportunities" .
The Dublin General Plan establishes the intent to have a mix of both
BART uses and retail/commercial uses at the BART facility on Golden Gate
Drive. The General Plan also identifies the need for a new street
parallel to Dublin Bouelvard to serve future developments and to
distribute BART traffic to three Dublin Boulevard intersections.
II. PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed BART Dublin Park/Ride Project will not have any significant
adverse impacts only if the following mitigation measures are included:
A. Land Use
1. To be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, BART and the
City of Dublin will need to have an agreement which assures that
there will be a mix of both BART uses and retail/commercial uses
at the BART facility, and that the retail/commercial uses conform
to Dublin zoning and land use policies.
Without such assurance, a General Plan Amendment would be required
to delete the policy of mixed BART and retail/commercial uses.
B. Traffic
1. To adequately distribute BART traffic and to be consistent
with the Dublin General Plan, BART should dedicate and develop
sufficient right-of-way to accommodate a new collector street
along the 500-foot long property line on the north side of the
parcel (see Exhibit A - TJKM Comments) .
2. To mitigate incremental and cumulative traffic impacts, BART
should contribute its proportionate share to the improvements of
Dublin Boulevard (see Exhibit A - TJKM Comments) .
C. Design
1. BART Staff and City Staff need to meet and resolve the
following design concerns and other design details (also see
Exhibit A - TJKM Comments and Exhibit B - Wheels Comments) :
a. Bus Exit - The bus exit would be better located at the
cul-de-sac bulb to allow for easier u-turns.
b. Kiss-Ride Facility - The kiss-ride facility would be
better located within the lot.
C. Driveway Design - The driveways should be wide
conventional driveways without curb returns. A driveway at
the cul-de-sac bulb should be aligned to radiate from the
center of the bulb.
d. Bus Loading Area - The bus loading area should
accommodate both BART and LAVTA (Wheels) buses.
e. Pedestrian Routes - Pedestrian routes and areas need
to be clarified, and potential conflicts with vehicles need
to be resolved.
f. Bus Shelters - Bus shelter locations and design, and
facilities such as pay phones, restrooms, and maintenance/
utility structures need to be clarified.
-2-
Eff
g. Landscaping - Some additional landscaping within the
lot is needed to avoid the sea of asphalt proposed for the
center of the parking area. English ivy and other ground
cover that can harbor rodents should be avoided. Size,
intensity, and placement of landscaping should be clarified.
h. Fencing - Vinyl clad chainlink fencing or other
fencing alternatives should be clarified.
i. Bridge Design - The pedestrian bridge should be
enclosed to provide shelter from the strong winds and other
elements. Pedestrian safety while on the bridge needs to be '
addressed.
j . Handicapped Usage It may be more effective to have
buses pick up and drop off handicapped users at each lot
instead of requiring them to use the pedestrian bridge.
k. Other Design Elements - Lighting, signage, stall and
aisle dimensions, paving,_ drainage, and other design
elements should be clarified.
Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to send appropriate
comments to BART.
-3-
urYq,YlEA-0. �`+,�' ` �'-bI'I NW- '„mow,-F`�'ti4,�' -
i k�YSfrf
LW IQN 4637 Chabot Drive,Suite 214
Pleasanton Ca. 94566 .
(415)463-0611
MEMORANDUM -
DATE: November 19, 1986
, ECEIVED
TO: Larry Tong, Planning Director
NOV 1 1986.
FROM Chris D. Kinzel, Traffic Engineer -
LUBLIN Pl.AMNING
SUBJECT: Possible Mitigation Measures/Comments on BART
Dublin Park/Ride Project
I have reviewed the Negative Declaration with the idea of determining any
required mitigation measures.
1) The Dublin General Plan identifies an east-west collector street linking
Regional Street, Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza. Such a street would
lie on the north side of the proposed;-Dublin Park/Ride project. It is
recommended that BART dedicate and develop sufficient right-of-way to
accommodate such a street along the 500-foot long property line on the north
side of the parcel.
2) The City of Dublin is intending to restripe Dublin Boulevard to accommodate
six moving traffic lanes, partially in anticipation of the Park/Ride facility.
This will require the removal of on-street parking and bus stops along Dublin
Boulevard. The Neg. Dec. does not identify to what extent the Park/Ride
facility will allow removal of bus stops on Dublin Boulevard.
3) Due to its incremental traffic impacts, BART should contribute its
proportionate share to the improvements of Dublin Boulevard. Such a
requirement is not unprecedented. When the BART systems and stations were
developed in the 1960's and 1970's, BART paid for the cost of many required
local street improvements near stations. It will be appropriate to do so also in
Dublin.
4) The operation of the Park/Ride facility will increase traffic volumes on
Golden Gate Drive. To increase intersection capacity on Golden Gate Drive
south of Dublin Boulevard, it likely will be necessary to prohibit on-street
parking. While this action is the responsibility of the City of Dublin, it is
not described in the Neg. Dec.
5) The bus loading area accommodates approximately three buses. Will this be a
layover area for express buses or LAVTA buses? If so, additional loading
area may be necessary or desirable.
6) The final design of the parking lot should include wide driveways at the
connection with Golden Gate Driveway. The southern driveway should enter
the cul-de-sac bulb at a center line alignment which is radial to the center of
the bulb.
7) It is unusual to have the kiss-ride facility: 1) on-street and 2) positioned so
as to require all vehicles using the lane to U-turn in the cul-de-sac in the
same general area where a main driveway access to the parking lot is located
PLEASANTON•
SACRAMENTO•FRESNO•CONCORD
Larry Tong -2- November 19,! 1986
and where buses are U-turning. In addition, access to the currently vacant
lot east of the Park/Ride facility may occur in the cul-de-sac bulb,area.,
Although the kiss-ride area is 250 feet long and can accommodate eight to ten
vehicles, a better location (at least for pick-ups) might be in a specially
designated short-term parking area within the lot itself.
8) All pedestrians using the pedestrian overcrossing must walk across or parallel
to a main vehicle access point for the parking lot. This results in potential
vehicle/pedestrian conflicts which need to be resolved.
rhm
157-001
Livermore �.
Amador Valley
Transit '
Authority
5500 Ouonn?uulevard
surte 203
Ouo.lin. C:94563 XAOV
4l5 82a 5,i5o �p,Nr1lNG
PUSU% P
Cctober,'10 , . 1986
Mr. James P. Evans, Jr.
Transportation Planner
Planning and Analysis Department
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
800 Madison Street
Cakland, CA 94607
Ref: R. C. Wenzel to V. Sood letter dated 9/4/86, Initial Study
Proposed - Park. & Ride Lots, Dublin and- Pleasanton .
Dear Jim:
We wish to express our thanks to you for giving us the preliminary
plans for the proposed Dublin/Pleasanton Station Park/Ride Lots.
The Technical Advisory CommJtLtee of this Authority reviewed the
preliminary plans, and wish to Offer the following suggestions and
comments.-
o Bus Parking
Sawtooth configuration is believed to be safer than parking
parallel to curbing for drivers and passengers. Another
advantage is that sawtooth configuration is also easier for
passengers to recognize their coach as buses are pulling in
and out.
o Environmental issues
A detention pond with oil separator should be considered to
prevent oil from seeping into the around or washing away.
o Curbing
Full depth, poured concrete is recommended for all curbing. as
it, holds up better and requires less maintenance.
o Shelters
A pay-phone should be available. Secure restrooms should a
be provided with keys made available to the drivers. SI
cleaning and maintenance will also reed to be conside " �5►�1
before the lots are operational. .........
EY, 2
-2-
Security
The referenced letter mentions that the project will include
lighting and "will provide safe. . . .parking for BART patrons" .
Does this mean the lots will be patrolled by the BART police
force? The Committee feels a 4 ' chain link fence for the
perimeter covered with vegetation should also be considered.
Although lighting is mentioned, it was not apparent from the
preliminary drawings what lighting levels would be met
throughout the lots.
o Lot access for buses
What are the planned bus routes to access the lots? The
Committee believes direct ramps on and of= Interstate 580
should be investigated and pursued. The mode of access must
be consistent with Caltrans plans for the 580/680
interchange. While there is - need for these park and ride
lots to residents of the valley, another lot should be planned
east of the 580/680 area to prevent further congestion of this
interchange.
• Patron access
Easements should be provided for Dedestr?ans and bzcycl?sts .
It would be ideal i f the bike lanes tied in with the regional
bike system. In addition to this , bike lockers should also be
Provided at the lots .
• Elderly and handicapped access
Will eastbound and westbound express bus service circle each
lot? If this is not the case, how will handicapped and
elderly patrons get from one lot to the other?
Are elevators planned to ease transfers between lots for E&H
patrons? What are the Federal standards on the minimum number
of handicapped parking stalls required? The preliminary plans
indicate 18/1421 or 1% of the spaces would be reserved for
handicapped. How was this number derived, from ridership
statistics?
• Dublin lot
For auto access the arrow on the Dublin lot appears to be
incorrect. The Dublin lot also needs internal breaks within
the parking area to improve traffic flow. There are too few
bus bays shown on the Dublin preliminary drawing.
• Landscaping
It is apparent much thought has gone into landscaping of the
lots . It is assumed the vegetation is hardy and requires
minimal maintenance. These plans would have to meet each of
the city' s approval.
If we can be of any assistance or you require any further
information, please do not hesitate to call me at 829-6330.
Sincerely,
Susan Bruestle
Transit Development Planner
SB:RR
cc: Marianne Payne, BART
Gail Gilpin, City of Pleasanton
Maureen O'Halloran, City of.Dublin
:.•:. .. •:.-,.,,,•'. .. ...=z'!w'Ll�aFY:kl'Y.R;;.xl�' '?.t•t7L;29�viilnYl'�3+A:P.:'✓4i�._-7.YS.Y,fisc.-.•...ia<•d.m?:arF% -. v ar v.—wev:e•.e...-s
_ P
UN N1 cvJr1JocJE :G„'K _,qr., yy ;K
Ic J..GHI 6N rlai. '�' s'1 :'•,y i'�':..l��4-''•"'-'!;`:-':
r - •::: Grp. .:�''� F:f•`ir,'.,;:�'f.,. ';_,-�•,�;,,;.
.7'r`S,. Y1,' - .'.I,i" ��•.::.: -1:•_::7:J�:' J 1 :•..•.1-1...1: ��•`hf.:
�•.';,i_nY.JS . K.,._.
66'{'1L .p :J, _7`:`V-t;•.i•,.r%3; nt;f'w ^.I: �t._ V"'r?.•' rtc • �•�a�:i
f:�_.:1i•:jv; :;tr
it
• kr
J Ni!EY,U •A�-'S
o INV`--: =`ia' .tc� •t"<4- �Cf'�1}
1
F vI`21":JOf/J6- IJ. F'.. 'J97_C� `:r. - ^vb+• xJ. X:1,•iA.�t
t �.
T. 't
r/•
l ^
,S4
t. �•' _,F' 4•. .
44 ::z7 •I
t:r•
_ _I ,r.
r: �11A
.�
- c;;•�-:%Te3�i. :'7,;:, :,ti?„ �•j x.. .J : L ..�/ .J'fU�. : y'[{:.i M:T•
•'r '1_I.'Q,y-.. t t'i.r'' ,. .t3::y,C•„!i ,.-<':;�!..c- 'Y', r
'.al •�t.lblh.c2�t�1� - ..a .•r., •f}..'.'�.jr.�..f T ,,ti-.. •'Yd Y.!� _ T..x.s`t3:
.X.. St•,, :a C
f' .:T4
\•
.'r. .•rtpA -Jr .J•
1. 't •yr.
.K
c
A
o
i
i;: t
.a �
TO
F
{
'LMT ,s is-•.-
r Y• 7”
•1.� •: /v
U
pl 'spy
olio I Th
oq
Nrw ice• `r
.,, �'''�J� --yt,,,,rr ♦- �1
v f
• v- .
•r :1
d r, 1
.
•1 %1:'•'':a, .:\- - r's.....k.{'1i:� '�N 1. rc ''t� 'L� �.j� i]
•:1 :f'a'r r•.i�.l`:11.
4y��� - Vic;;.• . ? i,r... L .
- r •C
i�A '�
I �•i. f'
'D•-�•— S.Y. P�:fi�;
- t/J'b' Y
�'•Li'A
r
.I
'j-<' ...: �i •:ems='-' J r: l �.:
:i =1
t:
t '- �7 r•,tr
- f
- f�v
rf'L
•T'
/
-1 -
•
L
f :L :•,�
.Y
r� .e� - .•�C 'tA
•Yf.�
2
I°c'1 •ice®' i R.. •v:
•.+• y r
_ ,ice .-:fL '•iv
IN J~ .fw �t
I� - !;7>t�`.....: ::�tv -:'+.y....d .4��:�`,�,4•-+:w;�•a�;r•'•r•-aa
I - ,�., .,: 'i-":+ :3:'•:`7...t. - ,.-i .t'•S-
F M-
e,
I.
,/
.J-. 4
�-I l
d
OI J•.
1•.
4 N 1
-t ... _..;;:.: :. .. ... .. r. .. �- -r,4+� �4� _.,..�... `r •:1. - fir. -'n) :
•f�:r
cif: r..`cS"'<• +� ..,7I
•'1:' .1'L of -1:.
f.:
$'than• .i.., , :�• 'i�L _.f.
�. „ ":'fir:•:• ?v�'`:i
-
ar
cP`N I n..i, J•.•
`1 )
r
•S
,i
t.
!1.
e _
Y
w 1 z •I� s�,
q�
- +t
,,•.
I
e.l
. ' rd
.v :1
c i=- T .wj :•"e.
rUcJ.:GJ'r•2/iF=fR :..i,l• ..} J,'•:n c� '::i:.`•..� •-1.:
_ i
Tr � .4;•T
•rs. .�:Kb;
-o.
•: G r7i •r.r -
hL
fit. CI4 •1'�� ti..,
r i•
,t•
.J.::' ,.1...,.
ti?
N
r7
r,y \
f•
4-
Lf
T L s:
i. 7..\.
le b p
- F :�,•' _�.. �•';>�_ :'JliNit°�Iwc,
O•ccuro ccv&R,II n N� IIcLI� - -}i,r:,;:-; - _,•I
U1aa1NO Go12 3��t144'IIELI� t:'r•. :'.'.
- � - I rt•% .. " fiP1GILIc7N.I•/'�' :.i`
t � 1 _ -� _'' -•.� -� � GINNAMoMUM G�!"IwFEot',�+ . . 5.
lid, t,
r{��M �;r;,.:,'•�;:'-.:r .
LO-U`t t ,
'.fir;:}.:.':^�•:' oFiGJ
J� � auI b GOJET�I l�=n�F:. ,ut� :F,F.s, :,.�_ . '(c'(�.L-:p�.12KING1 �x�•GI'('�` �o��ipPt
J,,�
;?` rac??;.? l; :'' TEPITATI E PkELIMIMAP,Y
For Discussion Purposes Only
'''i• OE516NEO: GATE TR7E:
GthlloN
BART P".,K W&j Lo•(
• SRE NFF./b OrrO.Jaa NEV.
CNEGREO:
-- fN UUPGf, SCN.E OMi STOCK Ib. SNEEf Of
uANAGCN Of OCS:GN
1 '
Dublin General Plan Land Use and Circulation Sectior
`„� /
cc;
w^ -•- wt Residential -
`'ryk'r _
Primary Planning Area 1 <::<?::: <?:'> f Single-Family Residential
:1jd:
Y�t.s;,;3:• . Medium Density Residential
City Revised to include Council
/,:a: ;•[ �.-.'��.•-•.•�...•'•'. �•-•.-�•.••�•.••�••-•--•�'»�.
,(!�'.t(.i;r •f�'..•.•.•.•:.•:.•.•.•........•.•.•.•:•
changes through July 31, 1984 � - '. '�' ,• ... 'c"!•3'waiy�_,
� � ,' Medium-High Density Residential
�• «,1iwY::F .. •
,M
�-�`C-. .. DStP gOUI`pPP i •��i�'� ..\� �4�•j�.���[��7`.�� -'••,:.:�I r
r '.:.:.:.:.::.:.:, t .. ct! Commercial/Industrial
';`�. /�f'. �� <rx�• l' o...• •'�!, a Tl 'Jy« '/r ��'FF'. �P° •. ► %///l/� RetalVOffice
- Retail/Office BAutomoWe
l:
r o'•; 4 Business Park/Industrial
ANs= Business Park/Industrial:
o,mw,r001[3k j � Outdoor Storage
,``' ', :. Public/Semi-Public/Open '
1.•. :a.,.. .E r � Y ��-��i� a,r.N,ow o,Na •
jY ••y)) ! T^ , vu.��•;•�,1-�J-t.sl alj�1;•- 'j��.f ,�. .. ® Public/Semi-Public Facility
it .:...
�_ i.':., j 'i Imo , Q1 :� ( ((�' '• ,: :. 0
Parks/Recreation
_ :1^ - +,, :•�:.-•r'�-L, ' _1,:. � r, y � � Open Space;Stream Corridor
?•?, 1•'•':'•'•'•'•'.•:•:• t• _ "'(/ir> �� ti �•�r.ti.C• _3.
6).f: scnoplk..=� \ •11�'.
_`-� I::; .i•; �"`•`•'^�: J:gl�.1�•�s"�, :.� a '�'„�`�• / - r:T /��yy"�•.(�mrLr'�l(( ..�,: �a- ,. aa Circulation
• I r�t PaA..-•.i r�y({ Du01N SUyq //..� 'I: ''.,,1(
Arterial Street
"Ic _ ,• ¢y , �JJ '� 'O'- '� s Vz-
< EEE Collector Street
-1 [+ I•.:.•.'.'.'.'.':'''.•.'.•.'...'.'. � r,.T_] G�"Gw 9 'p°�1{\ � �L a.J� ♦! F-. � \ r f ` Q!y
Fjj •1 .\..�}•Y� [.\• a 1.
BART
C,.. `G'��
^I - 4 ':.; t s'•j +• f �4.�;^... 1. . / Transportation Corridor
OkL
I. 1`
,•. - t. �� �: �"T\�'� •� oon....y. //?\ �j'%'�it Gwn 'r:�' l•fl� .1�+ ✓ .♦��•�'
`it+ Y�iA / ``'JL� !'.��.-,.• ,.. \. ,/ / `�t// ,/, 5[11°01 :����::� -�� •♦♦ �1
lr;�,��•I+��N�yR✓•' „'7`SY vl. �� "a- '�' j � ��u.. / //,�+ ttr��22t`%(?<i?r�Zh„_ / ! l�� � � '
�s ® I MF/ C`• „' n'�('.. 1� +�n ''/ /�` \ �f/ // irff % i .�.t �jY •�
yc��(,,k� � °unlrluuu
1 ss+. e/ ,j� ��:�fi�l•: �;' �X11...•RG?�,�� /� ,l•:
-•'? thti?�it.2�)I.:M ��� 1 Y 3.� 1 �j'ru� o jj/ •(/ ! !'Y�• i:�'-•:.5.'�.lg...i.:5•�`.'.//li
(\�{ "� a� � ��,,� � ���� j%°=.•s::�.�•t't;=.;,' ,.�j//%%/�
WEi
\.�� �l"'�• ads 11'�•ti�y'Y/ �.�� V j ow•�'_y3—� P '.�
�.✓ .......•.........................................................................-. .......................•
s [
INTERSTATE Sao o uoo
- l
etAYNEY-DYErr•URBAN AND REGIONAL KANNERS
B A R T BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT ,
800 Madison Street 7
P.O. Box 12688
Oakland, CA 94604-2688 7, k, C v
Telephone(415)464-6000
November 7, 1986 NOV. 1�ilgan.
DUBLIN F3.Q+NNING
NELLO BIANCO Mr. Laurence L. Tong
PRESIDENT planning Director
EUGENE GARFINKLE City of Dublin
VICE-PRESIDENT P.O. Box 2340
KEITH BERNARD Dublin, CA 94568
GENERAL MANAGER 4-1-nt,
Dear M'on,.
DIRECTORS Thank you for meeting with BART staff and for your comments on
BARCLAYSIMPSON the proposed Dublin ParVRide Project. Attached for your
IST DISTRICT review and further comment is a copy of the Negative
NELLOBIANCO Declaration which BART proposes to adopt for the proposed
2ND DISTRICT project.
ARTHUR J.SHARTSIT A communit meetin is scheduled for Thursda November 20,
3RD DISTRICT Y 9 y
MARGARET K.PRYOR 1986 at 7:00 P.M. at the Community Club House located at 4455
4TH DISTRICT Black Avenue in Pleasanton. The purpose of this meeting will
ROBERT S.ALLEN be to present the findings of the Initial Study for the pro-
5TH DISTRICT posed Dublin Park/Ride Project and to obtain input from agen-
JOHN GLENN cies and members of the community on the Proposed Negative
6TH DISTRICT Declaration. Written comments on the document may be submit-
WILFRED T.USSERY ted no later than December 5, 1986.
7TH DISTRICT
EUGENE GARFINKLE The adoption of a Negative Declaration will be considered by
8TH DISTRICT the BART Board Engineering and Operations Committee on
JOHN H.KIRKWOOD Tuesday, December 16, 1986 at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room .
9TH DISTRICT located at 800 Madison Street in Oakland. It is expected that
the Board will take action on Thursday, December 18, 1986 at
9:00 A.M. in the same location. At these Board meetings, the
opportunity will be offered for interested parties to provide
public comment on the adoption of a Negative Declaration.
Thank you for your interest in this project. Marianne Payne,
Project Coordinator, may be contacted at (415) 464-6173 for
further information.
Sincerely,
1r�
Richard C. Wenzel
Project Manager
its I IT
Attachment
cc: Maureen O'Halloran, Transportation
-
. . N�V 11"►9a6 -
Negative Declaration
pUBLI-�4 PLAN+`!II`IG
for the Proposed
Dublin Park/Ride Project
1.
Prepared for:
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
L.
1 _
November, 1986
P1
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT (BART)
PROPOSED DUBLIN PARK/RIDE PROJECT
Pursuant to: Division 13, Public Resources Code
PROJECT LOCATION. The proposed project consists of two project sites sepa-
rated by Interstate 580 and located just west of the Interstate 680 inter-
, ; change in eastern Alameda County. One site of approximately 7.25 acres is
lcoated at the southern end of Golden Gate Drive in Dublin. The other site,
approximately nine acres in size, is on Stoneridge Mall Road in Pleasanton.
Figure 1-1 of the attached Initial Study presents the regional setting of the
project area and Figure 1-2 of the attached Initial Study shows the local
setting. Figure 1-3 of the attached Initial Study presents a larger scale
representation of the location of the sites.
Both sites are undeveloped and generally level, with grasses and bare soil the
dominant groundcover features. Also, both sites have been identified in local
General Plans as possible locations for transit facilities.
The Dublin site is surrounded by light industrial, office, and retail land
uses. The site is bordered on the north by banking offices currently under
construction; on the east by an auto sales and service complex, light in-
dustrial uses, such as a clinical laboratory and an auto body shop, and
{ several vacant lots; on the west by a warehouse and shopping center; and on
�! the south by the channelized Dublin Creek and Interstate 580.
Land uses surrounding the Pleasanton site include a recently constructed four
r_..1
story office building to the west; vacant land and a three building office
complex of three, five, and six stories to the southeast; Stoneridge Mall and
its parking area to the south; and Interstate 580 to the immediate north.
Ili
PROJECT DESCRIPTION. BART has identified the need for an approximately 1 , 100
space park/ride facility located near the Interstate 580/680 interchange. The
proposed project has been designed to complement freeway-oriented BART Express
(V Bus service proposed for the Interstate 580/680 corridors and to solve
existing transportation problems in the area. These problems include BART
Express Bus patron parking impacts on the Dublin business community and
I_ Stoneridge Mall area, unmet transit needs, and anticipated population and
`- employment growth which will further exacerbate these current problems.
The proposed project intends to provide safe and convenient satellite parking
for BART patrons residing in Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and eastern
points. The project would be served by the U, UP, UL, D, DX and DX1 BART
Express Bus routes, as well as by buses from the Livermore/Amador Valley
1 Transit Authority (LAVTA) . The project would also aid in reducing congestion
I!
and parking problems in the Hayward and Bay Fair BART station environs.
The proposed project consists of construction and operation of a 706 space
park/ride facility in Dublin, a 715 space park/ride facility in Pleasanton, an
off-street bus transfer facility at both lots; and a pedestrian bridge
crossing of Interstate 580 to connect the two park/ride facilities. The
L_ project would include paving, drainage, bus pad construction, lighting, bus
shelter installation, and pedestrian bridge construction. The preliminary
L
site plans and landscaping plans for the project are shown in Figure 1-4 of
the attached Initial Study.
The Dublin site would have two driveways along Golden Gate Drive. Along the
site's Golden Gate Drive frontage would be a bus loading/unloading area and a
kiss-ride lane for vehicles stopping momentarily at the facility to drop off
or pick up a non-driving passenger. Although three bus stops are shown in
Figures 1-3 and 1-4, project plans for the Dublin site may be revised to
I.° provide for six bus stops. The proposed plans provide 706 parking spaces,
including 10 spaces for handicapped parkers. - Some parking spaces would be
r. located within a mid-day parking area reserved for motorists arriving after
the morning commute. Access to the proposed pedestrian bridge across Inter-
state 580 would be provided at the southeast corner of the site, beyond the
Golden Gate Drive cul-de-sac.
Perimeter landscaping materials at the Dublin site would include English ivy
for groundcover and thornless honey locust and camphor trees. Parking area
landscaped islands would include juniper bushes for groundcover and evergreen
P j P 8 g
elm trees. A densely landscaped area between the bus loading area and the
parking area would include junipers for groundcover, pink India hawthorn
shrubs and karo hedges, and Canary Island pines, photinias, coast redwoods,
+ tulip trees, and columnar Italian cypress trees.
The Pleasanton site would have two driveways along Stoneridge Mall Road. A
t � bus loading/unloading area, a kiss-ride lane, and access to the proposed
i ,
pedestrian bridge across Interstate 580 would be located in the northwestern
corner of the site. The proposed plans provide 715 parking spaces, including
eight spaces for handicapped parkers. Some parking spaces would be located
within a mid-day parking area reserved for motorists arriving after the
morning commute.
Landscaping materials at the Pleasanton site would include English ivy and
juniper for groundcover, karo hedges, and thornless honey locust trees,
camphor trees, evergreen elm trees, Canary Island pines, photinias, coast
redwoods, tulip trees, shiny xylosma trees, and columnar Italian cypress trees
interspersed along the perimeter, along internal roadways, and within parking
areas.
The proposed 360 foot long pedestrian bridge across Interstate 580 to link the
- two sites would be 12 to 13 feet in height with a minimum 20 foot clearance
over Interstate 580 and the Dublin Creek channel. A higher clearance of up to
38 feet may be needed if a potential Dublin BART station in this area is
l._ required to be elevated rather than at-grade in the median of Interstate 580.
All westbound BART Express Buses would stop at the Dublin site and all east-
bound BART Express Buses would stop at the Pleasanton site, requiring passen-
gers to use the proposed pedestrian bridge at least once each day. The bridge
design has not been finalized, but it would either be the standard CALTRANS
bridge design with an open walkway and metal fencing or an enclosed bridge
with a roof and windows. BART will coordinate with CALTRANS on the design of
the bridge.
FINDINGS. BART has conducted an Initial Study of the proposed project to
determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
(' The Initial Study was prepared by Earth Metrics Incorporated, an environmental
L
i. .
C; mental and planning consulting firm. BART finds that the Initial Study
adequately, accurately, and objectively evaluates the proposed project's
effects on the environment. This Initial Study, which is hereby incorporated
by reference, is attached to this Negative Declaration. On the basis of the
Initial Study, it has been determined that:
1. The project will not have a significant impact on land use, housing,
j- businesses or the economy and will not be significantly growth inducing.
2. The project will have no significant effect on air quality or noise.
. 3. The project will have no impact on rare or endangered species or wetlands.
4. The project will have no significant effect on prime agricultural lands.
r
5. The project will have no significant impact upon neighborhood, educa-
tional, cultural, recreational, social, and/or religious facilities of
the area.
6. The project will not have significant construction related effects.
7. The project will not have a significant, adverse effect on traffic and
parking.
8. The project will not increase potential geologic or seismic hazards.
i
9. The projet will not have a significant impact on floodplains.
10. The project will not adversely affect the area's aesthetic features.
11 . The project will complement the operations of regional and local transit
agencies; relieve existing parking problems in Dublin, Pleasanton, and at
East Bay BART stations; and assist in serving the transit needs of
existing and future eastern Alameda County residents.
The Bay Area Rapid Transit District, therefore, finds that the proposed
project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that no
mitigation measures are needed.
' - Proposed:
C .JMA November 6, 1986
Richard C. Wenzel, Acting Manager of Date
Access and Extensions
Approved Pursuant to Resolution No.
i
Phillip 0. Ormsbee, Secretary Date
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
INITIAL STUDY
FOR THE PROPOSED
DUBLIN PARK/RIDE PROJECT
Prepared for:
L�
i San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
1 -
i�. November 6, 1986
l_.
Prepared by:
EARTH METRICS .INCORPORATED
i
859 Cowan. Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
(415) 697-7103
i
J'
a TABLE OF CONTENTS
(? SECTION PAGE +
PREFACE . ... . . . . . . .. . .. . ..•.. .. . ... :. .. ... .. .... . ......... ... . .. .iii
1 . PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION . . .. 1-1
--; 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE -CHECKLIST, ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION,
i AND MITIGATION MEASURES . . . :..... . .... .. : ......... .... .. .... ... .. 2-1
1- 2.1 Environmental Checklist . .. . ... . ... .. . .... . ... .. . . . .. ..... ... . . 2-1
l.� 2.2 Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures . ....... .. .. . 2-8
3. REFERENCES: PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PUBLICATIONS CONSULTED . . . 3-1
4. PREPARERS OF THIS REPORT . .. ... ... . .. . ....... .. .. ... . .. .. ...... . . .. 4-1
i
1
i-
i �
I
I .
r .•
1 '
�r
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
r. 1-1 . Regional Setting of the Project Area ': ..'... .......... ... .. .. . ... . 1-3
1; .
1-2. Local Setting of the Project Area . .. . ... .... ...... .......... .. .. .. ... 1-4
r 1-3• Locations of the Proposed Project Sites . ..:.... . . . 1-5
V 1-4. Proposed Project Preliminary Site Plans .. ....:.. .. 1-6
( : LIST OF TABLES
I TABLE PAGE
2-1 . Existing Air Quality of the Project Area, 1981 to 1985 . ... ... . .. .. 2-11
i .
1 .
i ,
1
i
,
}
PREFACE
This Initial Study has been prepared in conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) as currently amended. It has also
been prepared in conformance with San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District (BART) procedures for the preparation, processing, and review of
environmental documents. .
The primary purpose of an Initial Study is to determine if a project may have
a significant effect on the environment. If any aspects of the project,
either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the
environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is
beneficial or adverse, then an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be
prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15063) . Other purposes of the Initial Study
are:
i .
- to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for
deciding whether to prepare an EIR or Negative Declaration;
r-
- to enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating
adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project
to qualify for a Negative Declaration;
_ - to assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required;
- to facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project;
1. and,
to provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a
y Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on
the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15063) .
The Initial Study is used to provide a written determination of whether a
Negative Declaration or an EIR must be prepared for a project. Where a
project is revised in response to an Initial Study so that potential adverse
effects are mitigated to a point where no significant environmental effects
would occur, a Negative Declaration would be prepared instead of an EIR.
If the project would still result in one or more significant effects on the
environment after mitigation measures are added to the project, an EIR must be
prepared (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15063 and 15060. Where appropriate, this
Initial Study incorporates by reference documents that are readily available
to the general public.
� iii
f
-
1 . PROJECT LOCATION "AND 'DESCRIPTION x
PROJECT LOCATION. The 'proposed project .consists of.::two project sites sepa-
rated by Interstate 580 and located`just west`of the -Interstate 680 inter-
change in eastern Alameda County. One site of approximately 7.25 acres is
lcoated at the southern end of Golden Gate Drive in .Dublin. The other site,
approximately nine acres in size,: is on Stoneridge Mall Road in Pleasanton.
Figure 1-1 presents the regional setting of the project area and Figure 1-2
,1 shows the local setting. , Figure ..1-3 'presents a larger scale representation of
the location of the sites. '-': ..
fBoth sites are undeveloped and 'genelrally.level, withlgrasses and bare soil the
dominant groundcover features. Also,'.both sites have been identified in local
General Plans as possible locations for transit facilities.
iThe Dublin site is surrounded by light industrial, office, and retail land
uses. The site is bordered on the north by banking offices currently under
construction; on the east by an auto sales and service complex, light in-
dustrial uses, such as a clinical laboratory and an auto body shop, and
several vacant lots; on the west by a warehouse and shopping center; and on
,Irk the south by the channelized Dublin Creek .and Interstate 580.
Land uses surrounding the Pleasanton site include a recently constructed four
story office building to the west; vacant land and a three building office
complex of three, five, and six stories to the southeast; Stoneridge Mall and
its parking area to the south; and Interstate 580 to the immediate north.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION. BART has identified the need for an approximately 1 ,400
ti space park/ride facility located near the Interstate 580/680 interchange. The
proposed project has been designed .to complement freeway-oriented BART Express
Bus service proposed for the Interstate 580/680 corridors and to solve
existing transportation problems in the area. These problems include BART
Express Bus patron parking impacts on the Dublin business community and
Stoneridge Mall area, unmet transit needs, and anticipated population and
employment growth which will further exacerbate these current problems.
1 �
The proposed project intends to provide safe and convenient satellite parking
for BART patrons residing in Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and eastern
points. The project would be served by the U, UP, UL, D, DX and DX1 BART
Express Bus routes, as well as by buses from the Livermore-Amador Valley
Transit Authority. The project would also aid in reducing congestion and
parking problems in the Hayward and Bay Fair BART station environs.
The proposed project consists of construction and operation of a 706 space
park/ride facility in Dublin, a 715 space park/ride facility in Pleasanton, an
off-street bus transfer facility at both lots; and a pedestrian bridge
crossing of Interstate 580 to connect the two park/ride facilities. The
project would include paving, drainage, bus pad construction, lighting, bus
' shelter installation, and pedestrian bridge construction. The preliminary
site plans and landscaping plans for the project are shown in Figure 1-4.
I � '
The Dublin site would have two driveways along Golden Gate Drive. Along the
site's Golden Gate Drive frontage would be a bus loading/unloading area and a
kiss-ride lane for vehicles stopping momentarily at the facility to drop off _
or pick up a non-driving passenger. Although three bus stops are shown in
Figures 1-3 and 1-4, project plans for the Dublin site may be revised to
`f
- P rovide for six bus stops. The proposed plans provide 706
parking spaces
including 10 spaces for handicapped parkers. ' Parking spaces would be set
R aside in a mid-day parking area reserved for motorists arriving after the
,.
morning commute. Access to the proposed pedestrian bridge across Interstate
580 would be provided at the southeast corner of the site, beyond the Golden
Gate Drive cul-de-sac.
Perimeter landscaping materials at the Dublin site would include English ivy
,- for groundcover and thornless honey locust and camphor trees. Parking area
landscaped islands would include juniper bushes for groundoover and evergreen
elm trees. A densely landscaped area between the bus loading area and the
parking area would include junipers for groundoover, pink India hawthorn
shrubs and karo hedges, and Canary Island pines, photinias, coast redwoods,
tulip trees, and columnar Italian cypress trees.
r- The Pleasanton site would have two driveways--along Stoneridge Mall Road. A
11 bus loading/unloading area, a kiss-ride lane, and access to the proposed
L
pedestrian bridge across Interstate 580 would be located in the northwestern
._� corner of the site. The proposed plans provide 715 parking spaces, including
eight spaces for handicapped parkers. Parking spaces would be set aside in a
mid-day parking area reserved for motorists arriving after the morning
commute.
Landscaping materials at the Pleasanton site would include English ivy and
juniper for groundcover, karo hedges, and thornless honey locust trees,
camphor trees, evergreen elm trees, Canary Island pines, photinias, coast
., redwoods, tulip trees, shiny xylosna trees, and columnar Italian cypress trees
interspersed along the perimeter, along internal roadways, and within parking
areas.
The proposed 360 foot long pedestrian bridge across Interstate 580 to link the
Lu
two sites would be 12 to 13 feet in height with a minimum 20 foot clearance
over Interstate 580 and the Dublin Creels channel. A higher clearance of up to
11: 38 feet may be needed if a potential Dublin BART station in this area is
required to be elevated rather than at-grade in the median of Interstate 580 .
All westbound BART Express Buses would stop at the Dublin site and all
eastbound BART Express Buses would stop at the Pleasanton site, requiring
passengers to use the proposed pedestrian bridge at least once each day. The
bridge design has not been finalized, but it would either be the standard
CALTRANS bridge design with an open walkway and metal fencing or an enclosed
�... bridge with a roof and windows. BART will coordinate with CALTRANS on the
design of the bridge.
L2
1-2
1I:
•A V in w ..
SONOMA
r
*St."Nan.
.,. Santa no" i
• 1.
Saoauopo: Roseland W / N A P A
•Rohnert Park \ •Daon i
Hot Spnngsfu)• 1 f
1. � • •v.pa.ale
`\ P9uwma Sonoma •wpa y—.�,� I
f �'�� • �`I SOLANO
�.\ r Sursun City
Novato �.\
M A R I N \� •vallero 01.0 Vista
rIK
FaiAaa• San A
Rod90
• / Prnole watt PttbDurpfu) -�
Rost 11191/ Son PadO Manina7 • '
-` LarksPur• 1 • •Concord Pntsowl;
• ne •R.chmond _1
VaIl• M era I into Kensington(u) Anto:h
' Vdlay R , • Or nda •Pleasant"111
r.•._ l '�'I vmape Lafayette
i s. mo 9 r
Alba w • 0••walnut Crsek C O N T R A
•B9rl�lley •Brenn.00d
Walnut Crsek West(w) r
i 9%N •MOnpa
SAN • PrefnwQ, •Alatgoannlle C O S T A
" /.
• kl1
FRANCISCO moo•
J •San Ramon
•_�' �._.� San Leandro\
ty • „'Dan• �ndlu) Castro PROJECT AREA
wit,San an•••vauey Nt DuDtrn
Pacifica B.�no• r.ncnco \ Lor nzo(„)•Cnerrynnd a.l• '
• 0 May.ar0 •Lwermon i
I YillDrae � Pleasanton•
i 8urtingama• j
Itix.eoroupn•San osur� •union City t
M•'•O•`'ry �� A L A M E D A
BNmont• �` •Framoni '
"all Moon• San Carlos• .ly \ Newark ;
Be y • Menlo S ,I Alto
Norte Fair Oaks.)•par t
At no '\
wood 40! {eS Palo All
SAN •)Los Altos Mountain V” •
i Portots Valley 000
l.._. S Los Altos •Sunnyvale
MA7E0 "ill,
Sams Gara •Alum Rat(u)
(� Cupertino •
Rancho�,onad.WO •San Jose
1 I }SaralOp: •LampDNl SANTA f
� I M004,S.r►no 0 0 amOrun Pa-k Oil f"
�t Loa Gatos C L A R A
t
SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION is
COUNTIES AND LOCALITIES •MOrpan Hill
. • •'Loca11rr s" irclu a caws and u cnc awd am 9 \^
I or 7500 v mtn Dop.Aatvl'w em Garwra \\
tA+•corpan.d b-*— are wOcawe (W 1 •Gilroy
scume 1M us as •s.• Fr.oco M organ Mao .t
i
FIGURE 1-1. REGIONAL SETTING OF THE
® N PROJECT AREA
' earth metrics SCALE
1" = 15 MI.
I
1-3
I _
I
LY n �W.t r.�• � C .
a d
/g� • �\a� G r � •Darr caw � t�o� .
�` a /ct w q •'wm: rows I �••_::�::��:'.�,;:.•:.•:?:;:�.:'.'.:::'ii•�;�..�;:
1. \ rl wt o e
t 9 F� v°s+llt a�� c s r► vows %�+� $ = rr. .o+w �♦ ` W '�i['.�i°�3i�'s�'::i:`;.%'( ; 1,;�::�'.7
pp t o .,, n ■ � II rya c 4 •,.� e u
r t1t+.' �� r'�r a'}� /• c 8 •! ' ♦i . 1.
My � !yMMMU'. •t. '✓D w n r aa�` r� _ �q J. .� a +
r nlss prl rirn. �� ! r�� a sn.cs`' � �' !' ��.'� .•!
I F
�F. r
1
c C
H
L
.wdr
6
� e a•••n� r ° � 4 E ��rt Y r^t � � nr o�r � c'`� t arw �' •�::'..�'::::'1.:{'::'i ::;});;:};
1 I i+ ° �n "` , o P �� •► ,. �S ,j�;vw n y�l :::>:'•rRAININGAREI::r:i:`•'.
-�•� .:i'i�. a-_ice:=:�"'::
� e _ t ya• /w•r n. N .„ E c
lug o � �:° � �
w�s�a � o• � 4 � c'Nr 4 1 sta R.
/ /' 4rr•• .ar cI :j I ors°a y1 ,/}
uufr
DUBUN �tb �Rz4
pyr°M°a
1 \ M
PROJECT SITES M+
• \ ! 1 g DR
\ to DR f �pNENO°E q a-:•';
4
t _.- c •p �,.awn
_ I it�� �•�d 4�dtr !.'.� ^,1 w�rriE ...cwc n•.v- `.r, �t,w000
i o•± t 'r' u
rrrf T� ♦ � � �� � s[1►/oE�•'�D�1 i �+; 4ss � a.
I ���•.VQ 9v� .r..Nr 111EIrrfM 41d'
NO
s r rMgpp •aa.»'+1�. .- H.i ii?S;'.� C��.y'
pia I N•'+ Q ' j '(�,�•�r� •yYD N.rR C t
s oc� 4 ..it`••.. t•ast s • `a' � P
\ pr� .y.. �, v z g fi 4.�,,•
;r .��� t Y�`�►°° A' s at� d
• t•s a sL:iM°C paar, °�..� 2`y 3 t wy
FIGURE 1-2. LOCAL SETTING OF THE
comma N PROJECT AREA
SCALE
earth metrics
1" = 2400'
�- 1-4
ua�=!IUD
Woe"!
.,
DUBLIN
SITE
' DUBLIN CREEK CHANNEL
I
INTERSTATE 580
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
17. C7
i'
1
i ; + ! - - - r_� l�TT' TiT1TfTiTTTTf�fTiUn
C
�Ao ., �!// PLEASANTON
SITE
SOURCE: BART, 1986
I
FIGURE 1-3. LOCATIONS OF THE PROPOSED
SCALE LE PROJECT SITES
�
earth metrics 1" 240'
1-5
a) 0
/ LANDSCAPING
to '
3
ct H
co
TE
N r
JJ�
no _ t —
ol C-1
1
• f
41 —i—
H O ' I
En
C=7 b
O I
C
E ' �•
�d (j1 —f��LJ
—,BU LO I
ty ACCESS TO BRIDGE
r y J
'� ---
z
cn %
�-+ r GOLDEN GATE DRIVE
� H �
V�1! A A V= - V V V A V A A�L7.V. C V.V.CMMMMM�ViMVI.IM�
ACCESS TO BRIDGE
WE
"Em, ��'0-! �� m IN a im '
arm
earth SCALE FIGURE 1-4 (CONTINUED) . PROPOSED PROJECT PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS
metrics (PLEASANTON SITE)
x -
2 ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST, ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION, AND
1 MITIGATION MEASURES
r} 2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1'
Background
I. Name of Proponent San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 800 Madison Street,
P.O. Box 12688, Oakland, CA 94604-2638 (415) 464-6173
II 3. Date of Checklist Submitted November 6, 1986
4. Agency Requiring Checklist
I 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Dub lrn Park/Ride Project
11. Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
Yes M L No
I. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? x
I.
�. b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil?
I
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? x
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? x
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
} any bay, inlet or lake? x
.J
* See Section 2.2 2-1
Yes M No
g. Exposure of people or property to geolo-
gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
I ` of ambient air quality.
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
{ c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? X
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course=of di-
rection of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters? X
1 b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat-
terns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters? X
{ d. Change in the amount of surface water in
any water body? X
{ e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
` alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters? X
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? X
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public water
supplies? X
I
i. Exposure of people or property to water re-
lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves.) X
1
See Section 2.2 2-2
Yes May
be No
l
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
-j number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
:.� rare or endangered species of plants? X
'{ c. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? X
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
Icrop? X
.5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
( shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
{ rare or endangered species of animals? X
c. Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals? X
1 .
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat? X
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantiol alteration of the present or planned
land use of an area?
L', 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
f a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
I resources? X
See Section 2.2
��:, 2,-3
Yes M No
C
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource? X
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release
�^ of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? X
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
�.... plan? X
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area? X
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous-
ing, or create a demand for additional housing? X
( 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
I. result in:
I a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor-
tation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or goods?
1 " e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
l..
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection?
�.._ b. Police protection?
c. Schools? x
* See Section 2.2 2-4
i
_. Yes
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? " _X
1 e. Maintenance of public facilities, including .
roads?
f. Other governmental services? x
r,
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
t a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist-
ing sources of energy, or require the
development of new sources of energy? X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
r the following utilities: _
- a. Power or natural gas? R x
I b. Communications systems? X
!
c. Water? X
l d. Sewer or septic tanks? x
i
e. Storm water drainage? X
f. Solid waste and disposal? x
j 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
i
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? X
j�
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? x
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
I impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? x
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
` historic archaeological site?
i
* See Section 2.2
2-S
I
Yes Maybe No
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? - X
` c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
X
unique ethnic cultural values?
r
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses within the potential impact X
area?
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
! a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-
life population to drop below self sus-
' taining levels, threaten to eliminate a
. plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods X
of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts X
will endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those X
impacts on the environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly. X
Ill. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
�_. (.See Section 2.2)
IV. Determination
I --
L .
2-6
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
a
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect I I
on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
r because the mitigation measures.described on an"attached sheet have
1 } been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ-
ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. —�
I �
November 6, 1986
ate igno ure
For EARTH METRICS INCORPORATED
I ;
I '
L .
I
I .
I :
t'
t
I
1 2-7
K 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
For the asterisked (*) items identified in the preceding Environmental
Checklist, environmental evaluations were performed with mitigation measures
recommended, where appropriate.
CHECKLIST ITEMS 1b, 1e, AND 1g: GEOLOGY
i
EXISTING SETTING
Regional Geology. The project sites are located at the southern end of the
San Ramon Valley near the mouth of Dublin Canyon. The San Ramon Valley merges .
with the Amador Valley in this area to form a broad valley within the heart of
the Coast Range of Central California. The topography of the Coast Range in
Central California is governed by a series of northwest/southeast trending
right lateral transform faults that are components of the highly active San
Andreas Fault system. Two major active branches include the Calaveras Fault,
i which runs along San Ramon Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard immediately west
;r of the sites, and the Hayward Fault which runs parallel to the Calaveras on
the bay side of the ridge of hills to the west.
The hills west of the site consist of upper Miocene and Pliocene marine
sedimentary overlying rock overl in Jurassic to Cretaceous bedrock of the Franciscan
Assemblage. These rocks are intensely fractured and folded, due to the long
history of transform movement along the Hayward and Calaveras Faults.
Tectonic movements have uplifted the fractured hills into steep unstable
slopes that are highly susceptable to landslides.
The valley floor east of the hills is buried with as much as 4,000 feet of
alluvial sandstone and shale, washed out of the surrounding hills by streams
such as Dublin Creek which flows through Dublin Canyon west of the project
(( site.
Seismicity. Numerous highly active faults capable of producing severe
I.' earthquakes transect the region in close proximity to the project site. These
L. faults include the Calaveras (0.3 miles west), Hayward (eight miles west), San
Andreas (25 miles west) , Concord (12 miles north) and Greenville (12 miles
east), all of which are regional strike/slip faults capable of producing
significant surface displacements.
The Calaveras Fault is considered capable of generating an earthquake of
Richter magnitude 7.0 (maximum credible earthquake - MCE) and has produced
several earthquakes of moderate intensity in the recent past. The Hayward
Fault has a maximum credible earthquake magnitude of approximately 6.9 and has
produced several of this magnitude in the last two centuries. The San Andreas
4_l has an MCE of 8.3, which is the estimated Richter Scale magnitude of the great
San Francisco earthquake of 1906 (Pleasanton General Plan, 1986).
The Concord Fault is less well known than the others and could be an extension
-° of the Calaveras Fault. No major earthquakes have been generated along this
fault, but it is considered capable of generating an MCE of 6.3. The Green-
ville Fault to the east produced two moderate earthquakes in 1980 which result-
ed in some local damage. An MCE of 6.5 has been estimated for this fault.
2-8
? The greatest risk to the project sites is from an MCE of 7.0 along the
(; Calaveras Fault near Dublin Canyon. Despite their close proximity to the
Calaveras Fault, the 'sites are not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, the State Geologist is
required to delineate special studies zones of appropriate width to encompass
all potentially and recently active fault traces deemed sufficiently active
and well defined (fault trace clearly detectable) as to constitute a potential
hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. No structure for
f human occupancy shall be permitted to be placed across the trace of an active
fault.
Soils. Soils on the project site consist of the Yolo-series loam variety that
occurs in large bodies on nearly level valley floors. Yolo soils are
moderately deep and were formed under grasses and scattered oaks in shale and
sandstone alluvium. Surface soil (0 to 16 inches) is grayish brown, massive,
( and mildly alkaline loam. The subsoil (16 to 46 inches) is brown, very fine
t sandy loam and very dark grayish/brown fine sandy loam; both are moderately
alkaline and very slightly calcareous. The substratum (46 to 60 inches) is
dark brown massive loam, moderately calcareous and moderately alkaline (USDA,
(( 1966) .
The Yolo-series loam soil is well drained and moderately permeable with high
water holding capacity and slow runoff due to its flat gradient. Small areas
' are gravelly while others have clay two to three feet below the surface. In
places, an intermittent water table is within five feet of the surface (USDA,
I 1966).
I.._
IMPACTS
Seismicity. The greatest potential for damage due to seismic activity on a
` nearby fault would be ground shaking effects on the proposed pedestrian
overpass structure. The design of the structure, however, would meet all
seismic design criteria for stability under maximum credible earthquake
conditions.
The deep unconsolidated alluvial valley fill deposits in the project area and
�_. shallow groundwater occurrences indicate a moderate potential for liquefaction
and lateral spreading along the Dublin Creek channel south of the Dublin site
I during intense seismic activity. Lurch cracking typically results from lique-
faction and lateral spreading especially in deep alluvium. This would affect
primarily the proposed asphalt parking surfaces which could subsequently be
( relatively easily repaired.
Soils. During grading and site preparations, soils would be disturbed and the
potential for wind and ,water erosion would exist. This would be most serious
during the wet weather season from November to April.
The proposed project will incorporate all necessary erosion prevention and
soil conservation measures necessary to prevent erosional impacts to the sites
and surrounding area.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Seismic design and erosion control measures are included
in the proposed project. No additional mitigation measures would be needed
�. for the proposed project. .
II 2-9
L:;
F-11 CHECKLIST ITEM 2a: AIR QUALITY
EXISTING SETTING. The project sites are located in the San Francisco Bay Area
air basin, a basin which is a nonattainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, '
# and particulates. Nonattainment refers to the fact that Federal ambient air
°j quality standard is violated in the region.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) air quality monitoring
station nearest the project sites is located at 2614 Old First Street in
Livermore. Table 2-1 summarizes recent air quality data recorded at the
Livermore air monitoring station.
Data from the Livermore air quality monitoring station is representative of
the air quality in the vicinity of the project area. Ozone and particulate
violations have occurred at the monitoring station. There have been no carbon
monoxide (CO) violations monitored.
IMPACTS
Construction Emissions. During site preparation and. construction, particulate
levels would be elevated above ambient levers locally within 150 feet of the
jworking zone. Standard dust control practices, such as paving disturbed areas
as soon as possible and spraying water or applying dust palliatives to mini-
mize dust entrainment by the action of the wind, are included in project
construction plans.
L
Construction activities also result in pollutant emissions from gasoline and
diesel powered equipment. Carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide emissions would
be the primary pollutants generated from the operation of construction equip-
ment. Construction of asphalt parking areas also would produce emissions of
hydrocarbons, which are one of the precursors of ozone. It is not expected
that these emissions would be significant at the regional level, nor would
they create local violations of air quality standards.
Operational Emissions. The impact from project related motor vehicle exhaust
I:. emissions would be considered insignificant. At full occupancy, the proposed
project may generate approximately 4,263 daily automobile or bus trips to or
from the project site. Some of these trips are already being made (1) by
Tri-Valley commuters who drive between home and parking spaces near the
existing bus stops in Dublin and Pleasanton; (2) by Tri-Valley commuters who
drive between home and the Hayward and Bay Fair BART stations; (3) by
Tri-Valley commuters who drive between home and their place of employment to
-• the west, outside of the Tri-Valley; (4) by other East Bay commuters who drive
between home and their place of employment in the Tri-Valley; and (5) by buses
operating in the Tri-Valley.
I_.
For present and future drivers who otherwise would commute to/from work or
BART by automobile, the length of their daily automobile trips would be
reduced considerably by parking at the project sites and riding a bus to BART.
i-. This reduction in automobile commute distance due to the project would result
in fewer miles traveled per vehicle trip and a corresponding net reduction in
air pollutants generated than without the project. Air quality impacts on a
regional or countywide level due to the proposed project, therefore, would be
beneficial.
2-10
L �
TABLE 2-1 . EXISTING AIR QUALITY OF THE PROJECT AREA, 1981 TO 1985
fNUMBER OF DAYS IN WHICH CRITERION
LEVEL WAS EXCEEDED
( STATE OR FEDERAL ---------------------------------
AIR POLLUTANT CRITERION LEVEL 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
Ozone 0.12 ppm during 2 1 8 7 4
one hour (F)
I. . Carbon Monoxide 9 ppm during 0 0 0 0 0
eight hours (F)
20 ppm during 0 0 0 0 0
1 one hour (S)
Particulates 100 mcg/m3 during -- 0 0 1 0* 0$
24 hours (S)
60 mcg/m3 annual 45 42 43 55 53
( average (S)
I_.
(S) State (F) Federal mcg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
In 1984 and 1985, the Federal particulate standard of 150 mcg/m3 during
24 hours was used.
I
Source: BAAQMD, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986
I
In addition, the proposed project would serve as an air quality mitigation
measure for approved developments for which Transportation System Management
(TSM) measures are required.
L.
MITIGATION MEASURES. The use of construction related air quality mitigation
' measures are included in the proposed project. The operational air quality
impact of the project is beneficial and no mitigation measures are necessary.
i
I
i
1 .
I
I .
2-11
CHECKLIST ITEMS 3b AND 3e: HYDROLOGY
EXISTING SETTING
. Drainage. The project sites are located at the mouth of Dublin Canyon where +
Dublin Creek flows out of the hill and into the southern San Ramon and Amador
Valleys to the east. The creek is channelized to the south of the Dublin
j^ site, which drains over land into the creek. Dublin Creek flows east past the
Dublin site to the Alamo Canal, then south to Arroyo de la Laguna. The
Pleasanton site drains to the Stoneridge Mall Road drainage system which
IF connects to the Alamo Canal and Arroyo de la Laguna and Alameda Creek. Runoff
from both sites ultimately flows from Arroyo de la Laguna to Alameda Creek,
which is used to recharge the Niles Cone groundwater basin in the Fremont area.
t-~-.
( Flooding. Neither project site is located within a designated floodplain.
In the project area, the 100 year stormwater flows in Dublin Creek are
adequately contained within the creek channel.
Groundwater. Depth to groundwater varies throughout the area, but has been
estimated to be approximately five to ten feet below the surfaces of the
project sites. The variance in depth results from differences in the clay
content of the substrata.
The presence of discontinuous, impermeable clay stringers throughout most of
the Tri-Valley area would suggest that the project area probably is not a
primary groundwater recharge area. However, some recharge capability is
probable due to the area's alluvial soils and proximity to the edge of the
alluvial valley fill where less clay exists.
Water Quality. Existing runoff from the project sites probably contains
sediment, nutrients, and organic matter since both sites are undeveloped and
�. unpaved. Runoff from the sites also probably contains some typical urban
pollutants, such as litter and lead from motor vehicle exhaust due to the
proximity of the sites to Interstate 580. Water in area creeks also contain
such pollutants, since these creeks drain both urban and rural areas.
Shallow groundwater in the Tri-Valley area is generally of poor quality,
is although deeper aquifers produce water of adequate quality for local municipal
uses.
j IMPACTS
Drainage and Runoff. Construction of the proposed project would modify the
natural drainage of both project sites. The increase in impervious surface
area would result in an increased volume of surface runoff due to the loss of
the soil's infiltration capability. With the planned design of project storm
drainage systems, the project would add only incrementally to the existing
runoff to Dublin Creek and the Stoneridge Mall Road drainage system.
f.
Flooding. The project sites are not contained within a 100 year floodplain.
Therefore, the sites would not be expected to be subject to flooding. The
project is not expected to have any impacts on downstream floodplains because
of recent flood improvements designed to accommodate area drainage. Cumula-
tively, however, buildout of the Tri-Valley area may result in flooding along
l �
2-12
Arroyo de la Laguna during a future 100 year storm event, despite recent
improvements, and the project is a small part of that cumulative buildout.
Groundwater. The sites do not function as significant, natural groundwater +
recharge areas. Therefore, the project would not significantly affect the
groundwater supply in the vicinity.
F"; Water Quality. An insignificant amount of urban contaminants from the
proposed parking areas would be added to the -existing contaminant load
-
currently being carried by Arroyo de la Laguna into Alameda Creek and
ultimately the Niles Cone groundwater basin.
Any wells encountered during site preparation would be capped in accordance
with the requirements of the Alameda County Health Department.
MITIGATION MEASURES. No additional mitigation measures are needed for the
proposed project.
C T
l»
2-13
V
rte. CHECKLIST ITEMS 4a and 5a: BIOLOGY
EXISTING SETTING. The project sites are currently undeveloped and are not _
used for agricultural purposes. . The project area has previously been used for
a variety of agricultural purposes, ranging from the farming of grains to
grazing. Although still capable of supporting agricultural uses, the pro-
ductive potential of land in this area suffers from the overall reduction in
agricultural lands in the vicinity and from the expansion of adjacent urban
uses. The build-up of the surrounding office and commercial uses has in-
creased the value of the site for nonagricultural use, and has made agricul-
tural use of the sites inappropriate.
i
The project area is located in a valley grassland community. The composition
of grassland communities in the project vicinity has changed from its natural
! state due to overgrazing and the inroduction of annual weeds and grasses.
Native valley grasees are nonexistent on the site. Grasslands support
numerous wildflowers such as buttercups, poppies, and lupinee. In addition,
grasslands provide both cover and food for small animal species, such as
rodents, and serve as important feeding areas for raptors (predatory birds),
such as hawks.
Presently, the majority cover on both the Pleasanton and Dublin sites is bare
ground. Small patches of wild oats, ripgut brome, and weeds are found
throughout the project sites. On the Pleasanton site, the area is bordered
on the north and south by landscaped berms consisting of ground cover, bushes,
and trees. In addition, there are nine mature trees approximately 40 to 50
feet tall found on the Pleasanton site consisting of seven locust trees
(Robinia pp) , one elm tree (Ulmus s2.) , and one walnut tree (Juglans sp) .
The project sites have only a limited potential as a wildlife habitat due to
the surrounding roadways and commercial developments. The urban grassland
habitat of the sites, however, could still support a variety of wildlife.
Mammals typically occurring in this habitat type include a variety of rodents
which have adapted to existing conditions. These species include the Califor-
nia meadow mouse, western harvest mouse, California mole, and botta pocket
gopher. Other mammals possibly living at the sites include the black tailed
hare, desert cottontail, California squirrel, raccoon, skunk and opossum.
! Reptiles such as the western fence lizard, southern alligtor lizard, gopher
snake, western skink, and garter snake are also expected to be found on site.
Birds found in the area would include those adapted to suburban areas and
farmland areas, such as the western meadowlark, California quail, savannah
sparrow, lesser goldfinch, Brewer's and redwinged blackbirds, horned lark,
barn swallow, Say's phoebe, mourning dove, starling, house finch and Anna's
hummingbird.
i
Also, raptors may range over the project area in search of small mammals,
reptiles and smaller birds as prey. Raptors observed or expected to be found
in the area include several hawk species, American kestrel, several types of
owls, and turkey vulture (a scavenger). The extent of species diversity and
abundance is limited by urban influences, including surrounding buildings,
domestic pets (cats and dogs), and the presence of barriers, such as Inter-
, _. state 580, Golden Gate Avenue, and Stoneridge Mall Road.
2-14
i
No rare or endangered species of plants or animals are known to occur or have
been documented in or 'around the project.area (California Natural Diversity
Data Base, 1984).
IMPACTS. Development of the project sites would eliminate the existing
�w grassland habitat. Nine mature trees on the Pleasanton site would be lost.
Vegetation utilized in landscaping of the bite, including grasses, shrubs, and
trees, would replace the existing vegetation.
The proposed project and surrounding area development would disturb or destroy
existing wildlife habitat. The project would reduce the number and diversity
i of wildlife species at the sites, although wildlife is currently limited by
` surrounding urban development and the extensive bare ground areas. Wildlife
intolerant of intense human activities would be discouraged from the project
sites. More tolerant species of common rodents and songirds may adapt to the
developed conditions at the sites.
Impacts on rare and endangered species and their habitats are not expected to
occur since no species of rare and endangered plants or animals are known to
occur in the vicinity of the proposed project.
MITIGATION MEASURES. The proposed project landscaping would mitigate the loss
of vegetation on the project sites. No additional mitigation measures are
necessary,
i
ti
I
2-15
CHECKLIST ITEM 6a: NOISE
EXISTING SETTING. The primary noise source in the project area is motor
vehicle traffic on Interstates 580 and 680, and on local roadways such as
Stoneridge Mall Road and Dublin Boulevard. Automobile traffic is the most
prevalent noise source; however, medium and heavy trucks generate higher noise
levels than most automobiles. Other noise sources, such as aircraft flyovers
and the operation of equipment and machinery, contribute to the noise environ-
ment in the project vicinity. These other sources are infrequent and tempo-
rary in most locations.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed Federal design noise
level guidelines for specific land use categories. The FHWA guidelines are 70
dBA L10 for residential uses and 75 dBA L10 for office and commercial uses in
relation to exterior noise levels. The L10 level as used by FHWA is the noise
level which is exceeded ten percent of the time in the peak traffic hour.
The cities of Dublin and Pleasanton have also established standards for
exterior noise levels. The Dublin and Pleasanton standards for exterior noise
levels are 60 Ldn/CNEL for residential uses-and 70 Ldn/CNEL for commercial and
industrial uses. The Ldn and CNEL averaging systems accounts for the greater
C annoyance potential of nighttime noise by weighting nighttime sound levels
greater than daytime levels. The Leq, or energy-equivalent level, is the
level of a steady noise having the same sound energy as a-time-varying noise.
There are no sensitive receptors in the immediate area of the project sites.
Sensitive receptors are those land uses, both residential and non-residential,
which are particularly susceptible to noise levels which could interfere with
human activities. These land uses include residences
parks, schools, hos-
pitals, and convalescent facilities.
Existing sound levels at the
g project sites are greater than 65 dBA
primarily
due to motor vehicle traffic on Interstates 580 and 680 (City of Pleasanton,
1986) . In addition, adjacent areas along Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road,
San Ramon Road, Foothill Road, Stoneridge Drive, and Hopyard Road in and near
- the project area are subject to a sound level of 60 dBA or more.
The City of Pleasanton has implemented a comprehensive program for reducing
traffic noise impacts. The program includes: installation of soundwalls;
insulation of individual homes; establishing truck routes away from residen-
tial areas; and careful designation of land uses throughout Pleasanton. The
�. developers of some projects in North Pleasanton, such as Hacienda Business
Park, are paying for acoustical analyses to be performed along certain residen-
tial streets in order to determine what mitigation measures may be necessary
to meet city standards. In relation of Interstates 580 and 680, exist-
ing sound levels are already so high, and existing development has occurred in
certain noise sensitive areas, so that noise mitigation to meet the City's
standards is infeasible.
Noise measurement data at locations near sensitive receptors in North Pleasan-
ton have been collected for a variety of studies completed over the past four
I . years. The data include continuous 24 hour measurements and measurements
conducted during A.M. and P.M. peak hour
periods. Soundwalls in North Pleasan-
ton have been installed by Hacienda Business Park developers and by the City,
2-16
J
'�Y• ,
:.., and more are expected to be funded through the North Pleasanton Improvement
District (NPID) .
The noise mitigation program designed for Hacienda Business Park includes the
construction of soundwalls and the installation of acoustical insulation, such
as double-paned windows, in certain homes along major arterials. These miti-
gations are based on cumulative traffic volumes as identified in previous en-
l-4; analyses for the Hacienda Business Park project and formation of
a the NPID. Follow-up acoustic measurements have been taken behind existing
soundwalls. These measurements have confirmed the effectiveness of the sound-
walls in maintaining existing noise levels within City standards. Future
sound mitigation is proposed under NPID and is also required by other projects
in the area.
IMPACTS. Initial noise impacts of the proposed project would result from
construction activity. Construction noise, which includes noise from grading,
operation of paving equipment, trucks, and other equipment, would increase
( ambient noise levels in the contruction vicinity. Major sources of contrue-
tion noise and the typical A-weighted sound level at 50 feet are: dump trucks
(88) , portable air compressors (81 ) , concrete mixer (85) , piledriver (101 ) ,
jackhammer (88) , bulldozer (87), paver (89�, pneumatic tools .(85), and back-
hoes (85) (EPA, 1971 ).
The effect of construction noise would be temporary and confined to relatively
small areas at any one time; also, the adjacent land uses are not highly sen-
sitive and mitigation measures to assure minimization of impacts will be
applied by BART. These measures include properly muffling all construction-
related vehicles and equipment as specified in the State Vehicle Code, address-
ing local noise control ordinances, and restricting construction activities
which exceed the ambient noise level at the project site to the weekdays and
to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. , whenever feasible.
!"-- The sound levels in some nearby areas would be slightly increased due to the
redistribution of traffic on major roadways near each site. However, the
" expected increase in traffic on any one roadway would not result in a signi-
ficant increase in peak sound levels near sensitive receptors. The Dublin and
Pleasanton General Plans have assessed the noise impacts associated with build-
out of the project area. In these General Plans, it was found that the noise
level impacts associated with area buildout will be mitigated by measures
which have already been planned. However, noise levels at some receptors
along Interstates 580 and 680 near the project area may continue to exceed the
exterior noise standard (60 Ldn) in the future after noise mitigation is
conducted to meet FHWA standards for residential exterior noise level (67 Ldn) .
In summary, the proposed project would result in an insignificant noise impact
because the project would not noticeably increase regional sound levels. The
local areas near the two project sites would experience a redistribution of
traffic and the consequent increase in sound levels, but this impact would
also be considered insignificant because the increases would be relatively
minor and measures to mitigate these impacts have already been implemented or
will be implemented by others.
MITIGATION MEASURES. The use of construction noise mitigation measures is
included in project construction plans. No additional mitigation measures
would be needed for the proposed project.
I:" 2-17
CHECKLIST ITEMS 7 AND 18: LIGHT AND GLARE, AESTHETICS
EXISTING SETTING. The two seven acre project sites straddle Interstate 580 in
a commercial/retaiil/office setting. The sites are currently vacant wiith
f-` grasses and exposed soil being the dominant visual features. Eight mature
trees each approximately 40 feet in .height' are situated in the center of the
Pleasanton site. A row of trees approximately 20 feet in height line the
r western boundary of the site. The Dublin site is void of trees although a
�!r group of trees each approximately 40 feet in -hei ht is situated just beyond
the southeast corner of the site. The topography of the Dublin site is fairly
_ level. The terrain of the Pleasanton site falls several feet in elevation to
the east.
Both sites are visible from the surrounding office buildings and are partially
visible from Interstate 580. Only those residences situated along the valley
�:..,., Y g Y
hills and ridges have views of the sites. The Dublin site can be viewed from
the three-story office building to the north, the six-story and four-story
office structures situated across Interstate 580 to the south, and can be
partially viewed from the six-story Compri Hotel to the southwest. A view
P Y
spanning Interstate 580 into the Dublin site must originate ten to fifteen
feet above the ground as fencing and berm vegetation along the highway
obstruct ground-level views.
The Pleasanton site can be viewed from the six-story office complex to the
east, the four story office building to the west, and the three-story office
building situated across the highway just north of the Dublin site. A viewer
at one of these locales must be at least one floor above-ground in order to
view the site.
Distant visual resources from the Dublin site include Mt. Diablo and Pleasan-
ton Ridge. Partial obstructions of these vistas are created by the two-story
warehouse to the immediate west of the site and the multi-story buildings
across Interstate 580 to the south. The Pleasanton site provides similar
vistas of surrounding landscape features. Views of portions of Pleasanton
Ridge are completely obscurred by the multi-story buildings to the west of the
site. Stoneridge Mall to the south obstructs views of the lower half of the
Pleasanton Ridge. The entirety of Mt. Diablo can be viewed from the Pleasan-
ton site. Both sites are situated in a commercial/retail setting that con-
stitutes the dominant visual features for a viewer on either site.
Both project sites are situated within the Interstate 580 corridor. The
Dublin and Pleasanton General Plans contain scenic-highways policies related
to visual resources along Interstate 580. Interstate 580 is considered an
integral segment of the statewide Scenic Highways System, according to Califor-
nia's Master Plan for scenic roadways. Pleasanton's scenic-highways policies
call for review of site planning, and landscape and architectural design for
areas encompassing scenic viewsheds. To implement this policy, Pleasanton is
preparing a Specific Plan for properties along Interstate 580, from the City
limits near Foothill Road east to E1 Charro Road. The Dublin General Plan
cites the need for design review of all projects within 500 feet of a scenic
route and visible from it.
IMPACTS. The project would replace approximately 16 acres of relatively flat,
vacant land with a paved park/ride facility. The project would consist of
2-18
two, ground-level, paved parking lots with landscaping, lighting, bus shel-
ters, and a 360 foot long pedestrian bridge spanning Interstate 580. The
bridge would be 12 to 13 feet in height with a minimum 20 foot clearance over _
- Interstate 580 and the Dublin Creek channel. A higher clearance of up to 38
feet may be needed if a potential Dublin BART station in this area is required
to be elevated rather than at-grade in the median of Interstate 580. Land-
scaping, consisting of trees, shrubbery, and grass, would exist around the
perimeter of the project site, at the end of each row of parking, and along
pedestrian walkways (see Figure 1-4 in Section 1 for landscaping plans).
The pedestrian bridge would be one of two designs: either the standard
CALTRANS bridge with an open walkway and metal fencing or an enclosed bridge
with a roof and windows. The enclosed bridge may be a more aesthetically
pleasing design and would provide shelter from wind and rain, but would be
more expensive to construct than the open walkway design. With up to 38 feet
of clearance, the height of the bridge would be no greater than the height of
the four-story building located immediately west of the Pleasanton site. The
bridge height would be comparable to the heights of the latest developments in
I ' the project area and the maximum clearance would be approximately equivalent
to the height of the light standards located along the freeway. BART will
-. coordinate with CALTRANS on the design of tthe bridge since the bridge would be
constructed within the Interstate 580 right-of-way.
Views to the project sites from adjacent properties would be shielded to some
( extent by proposed landscaping on the perimeter of the sites. Views onto the
!--- site would be available from the upper floors of nearby multi-story buildings.
No significant blockage of views of major visual resources would occur. The
low profile and blending appearance of the parking area with surrounding
development would create no significant visual impacts.
No new view opportunities would be created at either the Dublin or Pleasanton
sites. However, pedestrians on the bridge spanning Interstate 580 would
experience new opportunities for distant views of the hills surrounding the
Livermore/Amador Valley.
Motorists on eastbound Interstate 580 would experience a view of the pedes-
trian bridge which may block the view of the freeway sign for the Interstate
680 exit. BART will coordinate with CALTRANS on the possible relocation of
the freeway sign (such as mounting it directly on the bridge), on the design
of the bridge, and on the possible use of non-reflective materials to avoid
potential glare impacts on motorists. The bridge is not expected to have a
significant impact on the views of Mt. Diablo or any of the valley ridges.
Views from Interstate 580 to the parking areas on both sites would be ob-
seurred by landscaping. The project would comply with the intent of the
scenic-highways policies in the Dublin and Pleasanton General Plans. The
Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton have been, and will continue to be, consulted
regarding site design and landscaping as project plans are finalized.
I. MITIGATION MEASURES. No additional mitigation measures would be necessary for
the proposed project.
i
L_.
� - 2-19
i
-� CHECKLIST ITEM 8: LAND USE
EXISTING SETTING. The project sites consist of two, seven acre parcels
situated to the north and south of Interstate 580. One site is located in
Dublin and the other site in Pleasanton. Both sites are currently vacant with
grasses and bare soil the dominant groundcover features.
F-11 The Dublin site is surrounded by commercial, office, and retail land uses.
The site is bordered on the north by banking offices currently- under
construction; on the east by an auto sales- and service complex, light
industrial uses, such as a clinical laboratory and an auto body shop, and
several vacant lots; on the west by a warehouse; and on the south by
Interstate 580.
Land uses surrounding the Pleasanton site consist of a recently constructed
four story office building to the west; a six story office structure and
vacant land to the east; Stoneridge Mall and its parking area to the south;
ff ' and Interstate 580 to the immediate north.
The Dublin General Plan currently designates the Dublin site as open land with
development potential. The site is identified in the Circulation Element (5.2
Transit) as a possible BART facility. The General Plan's guiding and imple-
mentation policies support an improved transit system as being essential to a
quality urban environment.
CThe Pleasanton General .Plan has designated the site as a possible location for
a park/ride lot with eventual development into a BART station. The plan also
calls for reserving other potential park/ride locations along the Interstate
580 and Interstate 680 corridor. These park/ride facilities would be
established to encourage coordinated locations for ride sharing and transit
uses.
I~- IMPACTS. The project would replace 14 acres of relatively flat, vacant land
with a paved park/ride facility. The project would consist of two ground-
level, parking areas totaling 1400 spaces with landscaping and lighting, bus
L shelters, and a pedestrian bridge spanning Interstate 580.
The proposed project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on
L the surrounding land uses. The proposed park/ride facility would be
compatible with the existing adjacent commercial, retail, and office land
uses. No visual or noise-sensitive land uses exist adjacent to the project
1 sites.
L_
The proposed park/ride land use is consistent with the potential transit uses
identified for the project sites in the Dublin and Pleasanton General Plans.
An Encroachment Permit from CALTRANS would be needed to construct the proposed
pedestrian bridge across Interstate 580.
L- MITIGATION MEASURES. No additional mitigation measures are necessary for the
proposed project.
L_
�- 2-20
CHECKLIST ITEMS 13a, 13b, 13c, 13d, AND 13f: TRAFFIC AND PARKING
P
EXISTING SETTING
- Access. Regional roadways in the project area include Interstate 580, an
eight-lane east/west freeway which connects the Tri-Valley area with the
Hayward/Oakland area, and Interstate 680, a four-lane north/south roadway that
widens to six lanes north of its interchange with Interstate 580. Interstate
680 connects the Tri-Valley with the cities of Walnut Creek and Martinez to
the north and with the cities of Fremont and San Jose to the south. Near the
project area, Interstate 580 has an interchange with Foothill Road/San Ramon
Road to the west of the project sites and with Interstate 680 and Hopyard Road
/Dougherty Road to the east (see Figure 1-2 in Section 1).
r�
' Major project-related local roadways include San Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard,
Golden Gate Drive, and Dougherty Road in Dublin, and Foothill Road, Stoneridge
Drive, Stoneridge Mall Road, Canyon Way, and Hopyard Road in Pleasanton, (see
Figure 1-2 in Section 1).
Traffic Conditions. Neither project site Werates any vehicle trips. The
most recent traffic studies prepared for the project area were the traffic
analyses for the recently adopted Pleasanton General Plan and for the Dublin
General Plan and the Dublin.Downtown Improvement Plan Study. These traffic
Lstudies were performed by TJKM Transportation Consultants and are incorporated
by reference.
According to these studies, existing daily traffic volumes on Interstate 580
are as follows: west of Foothill Road/San Ramon Road, 86,000; between Foot-
1.:=: hill Road/San Ramon Road and Interstate 680, 92,000; and between Interstate
680 and Hopyard Road, 100,000. Existing daily traffic volumes on Interstate
680 are 61 ,000 to the south of Interstate 580 and approximately 73,500 to the
I_ north of Interstate 580.
Other daily traffic volumes for local roadways include Foothill Road south of
Interstate 580, 32,336; Canyon Way east of Foothill Road, 13,0114; Stoneridge
Drive east of Foothill Road, 9,850; San Ramon Road north of Dublin Boulevard,
18,600; Dublin Boulevard east of San Ramon Road, 21 ,000; Dublin Boulevard west
of Golden Gate Drive, 20,000; and Dublin Boulevard east of Golden Gate Drive,
-. 17,100.
� . According to the traffic studies, most project area intersections are current-
ly operating at acceptable levels of service during the P.M. peak hour with
the exception of the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (.99 V/C,
LOS E) (TJKM, 1986; City of Pleasanton, 1986; City of Dublin, 1985)•
I.- Planned Improvements. The planned widening of San Ramon Road by the City of
Dublin will increase the capacity of the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard
intersection and improve the level of service. Another planned improvement
which would reduce traffic volumes at the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard
intersection would be the addition of an Interstate 680 interchange between
Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard. This potential interchange has
been designated in the Dublin General Plan and is being considered by
CALTRANS, although there is no formal agreement to construct such a facility,
no federal approval has been received, and the construction is not included in
the State Transportation Improvement Plan.
2-21
I .
Other planned improvements near the project area include the City of.Dublin's
restriping of Dublin Boulevard to six lanes by. parking removal and minor
widening east of Golden Gate Drive; improvements to the Interstate 580/680 -
interchange which are now being studied by CALTRANS and are anticipated .to be
completed by the year 2000 (City of Pleasanton, 1986); construction of a new
Interstate 680/Stoneridge Drive interchange, which needs Federal approval but
is anticipated for completion by 1990 (City of Pleasanton, 1986) ; and modifi-
cations to the Stoneridge Drive intersections with Stoneridge Mall Drive and
Johnson Drive, coinciding with the Interstate 580/Stoneridge Drive interchange
improvements (City of Pleasanton, 1986).
The Stoneridge Drive interchange and intersection improvements are being
financed in part by the North Pleasanton Improvement District (NPID). The
- Pleasanton site is located within Benefit Zone 1 of the NPID but is one of
several properties in the northern and western Stoneridge Mall area for which
no roadway assessments will be imposed.
Relevant to the proposed project, the Dublin General Plan includes a policy of
constructing a new road just north of the Dublin site to connect the existing
Regional Avenue, Golden Gate Avenue, and Amador Valley Plaza Road cul-de-sacs
- south of Dublin Boulevard. This new road mould serve a 100 acre commercial
area and distribute traffic from a future BART station to three Dublin Boule-
vard intersections.
The City of Pleasanton will be preparing a study of potential park/ride facil-
ity locations in the city. Potential sites are located at the Gibralter/Owens
Drive intersection in the Hacienda Business Park, the Interstate 580/Santa
Rita Road interchange, the Pleasanton Fairgrounds near Valley Avenue, and the
Interstate 580 interchanges with Bernal Avenue and Sunol Road.
Transit. Public transit services in the area are provided by the Livermore-
Amador Valley Transit Authority and BART. Near the Dublin site, the primary
BART transit stop is located at Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street, although
other stops are located along Dublin Boulevard. Near the Pleasanton site, the
primary BART transit stop is at Stoneridge Mall near Macy's.
The Dublin and Pleasanton General Plans both designate .the project sites as
potential locations for a future BART station. The adopted alignment of the
BART extension from the Bay Fair BART station to the Tri-Valley area would
follow the State Route 238 and Interstate 580 right-of-way to the eastern
portion of Livermore, near the Interstate 580/First Street interchange, where
it leaves the freeway corridor for a transit yard site proposed in East
Livermore near Vasco Road. The first section of the extension that may be
expected to be constructed would only include Castro Valley and Dublin/
Pleasanton area stations.
This extension is not a reasonably anticipated project, as defined in the
State CEQA Guidelines, since alternative transit modes for this extension are
i still being studied. Additionally, although Alameda County's Measure B, which
was approved by the voters in November, 1986, includes some funds for a rail
extension to the Dublin/Pleasanton area, complete funding for this extension
has not been finalized. Therefore, the impacts of a potential BART station in
the project area are not required by CEQA to be addressed in this Initial
Study.
I
2-22
z
Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities. No sidewalks currently exist along either
� . project site. The Dublin General Plan designates the sidewalks along Dublin
Boulevard as part of its bikeway system. San Ramon Road has an existing
separate bike lane. In Pleasanton, Stoneridge Drive and Foothill Road near +
Stoneridge Mall are part of an existing bicycle route network.
Parking. Neither project site generates a demand for parking, nor does
parking occur on either site. On-street parking is allowed on Golden Gate
Drive in Dublin, but not on Stoneridge Mall Road in Pleasanton. Off-street
parking is provided on all developed properties near the Dublin and Pleasanton
sites.
A commuter parking survey of downtown Dublin was performed as part of the
Downtown Dublin Improvement Plan Study. There were 22 commuters parked in
on-street spaces on Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street and 101 commuters
parked in off-street commercial parking spaces near Mervyns, Ross/Levitz, and
Montgomery Ward. Commuter parking at these locations is related to use of the
BART Express Bus which stops along Dublin Boulevard at Regional Street and
._ Golden Gate Drive. There also were 24 commuters parking at the Pak N' Save
lot near the Dublin Boulevard/Dublin Court intersection, another BART Express
Bus stop.
I .
Some commuter parking also occurs in the Stoneridge Mall parking area in con-
I. nection with the Stoneridge Mall BART Express Bus stop located near Macy's.
No survey has been conducted to assess the actual number of commuters cur-
rently parking at Stoneridge Mall.
IMPACTS
L .
Access. As shown in Figure 1-4 in Section 1 , the Dublin site would have two
driveways along Golden Gate Drive. Access to the Dublin site would be via
Interstate 580 and Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard, and via Village Parkway
or San Ramon Road to Dublin Boulevard.
The Pleasanton site would have two driveways along Stoneridge Mall Road.
Access to the Pleasanton site would be via Stoneridge Drive, Springdale
Avenue, and Stoneridge Mall Road, or Foothill Road and Canyon Way.
Although the ideal bus access situation for the project would be the provision
of direct freeway access to the project sites via a frontage road, CALTRANS'
response to this concept has been negative.
Trip Generation. The proposed 1 ,421 space park/ride facility is projected to
generate an average of 4,263 daily, one way trips to or from the project sites
(2,118 trips by the Dublin facility and 2,145 trips by the Pleasanton facil-
ity) , based on a trip generation rate of three daily, one way trips per park-
ing space. This rate would include the two daily, one way trips which would
occur if each parking space were occupied once during the day (2,842 daily one
� . way trips) ; the remaining 1 ,421 daily, one way trips would be generated by
l._
buses and kiss-ride patrons. Since it is likely that the proposed facility
would be used only by long distance commuters, an average of only one
I .. automobile per parking space is assumed in this analysis.
2-23
I
Est Based on existing bus ridership information compiled by BART, approximately
six percent of the daily trips occur during the existing morning peak hour of
travel on local roadways (7:30 to 8:30 A.M. ) and approximately eight percent _
occur during the existing evening peak hour of travel on local roadways (4:30
to 5:30 P.M. ) . As such, the proposed project would generate approximately 256
A.M. peak hour trips and approximately 341 P:M. peak hour trips. The Dublin
facility would generate 127 A.M. and 169 P.M. peak hour trips. The Pleasanton
�s facility would generate 129 A.M. and 172 P.M. peak hour trips. Most of the
A.M. peak hour trips would be inbound 'to the project sites and most of the
P.M. peak hour trips would be outbound.
Some of the trips projected to occur from the proposed project are already
being made (1) by Tri-Valley commuters who drive between hone and parking
spaces near the existing bus stops in Dublin and Pleasanton; (2) by Tri-Valley
commuters who drive between home and the Hayward or Bay Fair BART stations;
I° (3) by Tri-Valley commuters who drive between home and their place of
employment to the west, outside of the Tri-Valley; (4) by other East Bay
commuters who drive between home and their place of employment in the
Tri-Valley; and (5) by buses operating in the Tri-Valley. It is acknowledged,
however, that some of these trips may be rerouted with operation of the
proposed project. --
p
�^ Future Traffic Conditions. The traffic analysis for t he
Dublin ZHwYt•ws
Improvement Plan Study evaluated six future traffic scenarios. Under Scenario
6, this study assumed development of the Dublin site with a 1 ,200 parking
space BART station at seven daily trips per parking space and a 15 percent
peak hour share. This traffic analysis, therefore, assumes a trip generation
from the site of 8,400 trips and a P.M. peak hour generation of 1 ,260 trips.
These assumptions exceed the trip generation of the proposed Dublin site by a
factor of four for the daily trips and a factor of more than seven for the
JIP.M. peak hour trips (TJKM, 1986) .
The traffic analysis also assumes that a BART station would not be developed
Pe
until after 1995 and includes in Scenario 6 a significant number of trips
expected to occur from other development anticipated by 1995. In comparison,
the proposed project would be developed in the next two
• p po p � pe years although full
occupancy of the facility may take longer.
The traffic analysis, therefore, represents a worst case analysis of the
proposed project which is so extreme as to need modification. In Scenario 6,
the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection was projected to be at LOS F
(1.07 V/C) and the Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive intersection was pro-
-- jected to be at LOS E (.91 V/C) (TJKM, 1986) .
A subsequent traffic model prepared by TJKM in late October, 1986 assumed
construction of a 700 space park/ride facility at the Dublin site. This
subsequent model assumed three daily trips per parking space, a 25 percent
peak hour share, and a 20 percent inbound/80 percent outbound directional
split, resulting in 2,100 daily trips and 525 P.M. peak hour trips (105
inbound/405 outbound) . The model also assumed that traffic would be generated
from approved, but unconstructed projects and from various projects which have
not yet been approved (Kinzel, 1986) . This model also overestimates the P.M.
-� peak hour project trip generation and includes more potential projects than
requred for a cumulative analysis under CEQA.
V
2-24
If.
The results of the analysis of this subsequent traffic model indicate LOS D or
better at all Dublin intersections analyzed, except at the San Ramon Road/
Dublin Boulevard intersection, which would operate at LOS F (1 .01 V/C). '
(" Approved and planned residential development in the Dublin hills west of the
downtown area, however, will reorient the direction of some of the modeled
commercial trips to and from the downtown -area. This reorientation of trips
would improve the projected ,level of service at the San Ramon Road/Dublin
Boulevard intersection to an acceptable level (Kinzel, 1986). Therefore, the
project is not expected to have a significant impact on Dublin area traffic
_ operations.
�. . The traffic analysis for buildout of the Pleasanton General Plan assumes
development of the, Pleasanton site as a 1 ,000 parking space BART station at
r seven daily trips per parking space and a 15 percent peak hour share. This
General Plan traffic analysis, therefore, assumes a trip generation from the
site of 7,000 trips and a P.M. peak hour generation of 1 ,050 trips. These
assumptions which would exceed the trip generation of the proposed Pleasanton
site by a factor of more than three for the daily trips and a factor of more
than six for the P.M. peak hour trips.
' The General Plan traffic analysis also assumes buildout of the General Plan
_ but gives no specific year. In comparison, the proposed project would be
developed in the next two.years although full occupancy of the facility may
take longer. Therefore, the buildout levels of service projected in the
General Plan traffic analysis may not occur for decades in some cases.
With buildout of the Pleasanton General Plan and traffic from the Pleasanton
site overestimated, most of the intersections around Stoneridge Mall were
(. projected to be operating at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better).
The Foothill Road/Canyon Way intersection would operate at LOS D (.81 V/C)
during the P.M. peak hour. All other Foothill Road intersections would
operate at LOS A. The Stoneridge Drive/Springdale Avenue intersection would
operate at LOS B ( .67 V/C) . Future Stoneridge Drive interchange ramp
intersections would operate at LOS A and LOS B (City of Pleasanton, 1986).
Stoneridge Drive intersections with Stoneridge Mall Road and with Johnson
Drive were projected to operate at LOS F at buildout, but with future
improvements to be financed by the NPID, these intersections would operate at
I_ LOS D ( .85 and .84 V/C, respectively) . The General Plan traffic analysis
assumed completion of the Interstate 680/Stoneridge Drive interchange which,
as previously stated, is expected to be completed by the year 1990 (City of
Pleasanton, 1986). It is unlikely that the proposed project will reach full
occupancy before completion of this interchange (Evans, 1986; Franklin, 1986) .
j The proposed project, therefore, would not significantly affect traffic
operations in either Dublin or Pleasanton. Cumulative impacts will be
mitigated with the implementation of improvements identified in the General
i Plan of each city.
Transit. The proposed project would increase demand for public transit by
providing centralized transit facilities for an already growing area. BART
will coordinate routing and scheduling of existing and future bus service with
the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, and the Livermore/Amador Valley Transit
Authority.
2-25
a Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety. Some pedestrian ,..travel to/from 'the project site is
likely. Project plans allow for access from adjacent properties and sidewalks
are proposed along the Golden Gate Drive and Stoneridge Mall Road frontages.
F` The project may generate some bicycle trips. ' Bicycle storage facilities could
be made available at the park/ride facilities' if the demand warranted, as BART
currently does at some of its existing stations. '. Traffic from the proposed
project would increase the potential for automobile or bus conflicts with
pedestrians or bicyclists, although this increase is not expected to be
significant due to the improvements proposed. .. •
Parking. The proposed project would improve the availability of parking
spaces in downtown Dublin and at Stoneridge Mall by relocating commuter
parking from on-street spaces and shopping center parking lots to the project
sites. Parking availability at the Hayward and Bay Fair BART stations would
also improve to the extent that Tri-Valley residents who commute by automobile
to these BART stations instead commute by bus from one of the project sites.
If demand for parking spaces at the project sites were to exceed capacity,
there would be some overflow of vehicles parking on the street and in adjacent
parking areas. To prevent spillover parking from occurring, BART will period-
ically monitor the parking availability at--:the proposed facilities. If the
parking occupancy reaches 50 percent at either proposed facility, BART will
encourage LAVTA to provide additional feeder bus service so that more local
residents could travel to the .park/ride facilities by bus rather than by auto-
mobile. At 75 percent occupancy, BART will begin informing parkers at the
proposed facilities of the locations of other available park/ride facilities,
such as those being planned by the City of Pleasanton; also, BART will begin
Iw assessing the economic feasibility of constructing parking structures at the
project sites.
The likelihood of the demand for parking exceeding supply at these facilities
I`^ in the foreseeable future is remote, considering the existing transit rider-
ship levels in the area and the rate of expected growth in transit use (Evans,
1986; Franklin, 1986) .
I- MITIGATION MEASURES. No additional mitigation measures are necessary for the
proposed project.
1.J
2-26
CHECKLIST ITEMS 14a. 14b, and 14e: PUBLIC SERVICES ,-'
y
EXISTING SETTING
Fire Protection. In its undeveloped state, the Dublin site currently .
generates little, if any, demand for fire protection services. ' Fire
protection for the Dublin site is provided by the Dublin-San Ramon Services
District Fire Department. The fire station nearest the site is located at
7494 Donahue Drive in Dublin. The emergency response time to the Dublin site
f is one to three minutes (Fulwood, 1986) .
The undeveloped Pleasanton site also currently generates little, if any,
demand for fire protection services. Fire protection for the Pleasanton site
is provided by the City of Pleasanton Fire Department. The fire station
nearest the site is located at 6300 Stoneridge Mall Road, approximately one
half mile south of the site. The emergency time to the
ge y res nse po project site
is two to three minutes (Hilborn, 1986) .
Police Services. Neither project site currently generates a demand for police
services. The City of Dublin Police Department contracts with the Alameda
j County Sheriff's Department for police services. The City of Pleasanton
f maintains its own police department of approximately 50 officers.
- Road Maintenance. Neither project site currently generates automobile trips.
Each city is responsible for maintaining public streets within its own
jurisdiction.
.. IMPACTS
Fire Protection. The proposed project would incrementally increase the demand
for fire protection services from the Dublin-San Ramon Fire Department and the
Pleasanton Fire Department. The project, by itself, would not require either
department to add personnel or equipment. Cumulative development in Dublin
and Pleasanton, however, would eventually require an expansion of. staff or
equipment (Snyder, 1986; Hilborn, 1986) .
I_
Police Services. The proposed project could incrementally increase the demand
for police services from the Dublin and Pleasanton Police Departments. The
I.: project, by itself, would not require either department to add personnel or
equipment. Cumulative development in Dublin and Pleasanton, however, would
eventually require an expansion of staff or equipment (Severi.ni, 1986 ; Todd,
1986) .
Road Maintenance. The proposed project would create no new public streets to
be maintained by either city. Project traffic would add insignificantly to
road maintenance requirements in the project area and throughout each city.
.:: MITIGATION MEASURES. No additional mitigation measures are needed for the
proposed project.
2-27
CHECKLIST ITEM 15a: ENERGY
EXISTING SETTING. The energy setting of California and the nation in general
is a critical one of increasingly higher energy costs and depleting non-
renewable energy sources. The energy problem is compounded by the trend of
recent years of increasing demand for energy resources, which has abated
somewhat since 1979. State and federal policies seek resolution through
energy conservation and development of alternative energy sources. The degree
�rl of success of this strategy depends on coordinating local and regional
policies, and fostering public awareness. Federal funding for programs in
these areas has been reduced under the current administration.
The proposed proje c t sites s are within the service area of Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (PG&E), a public utility which supplies gas and electricity.
PG&E obtains electric power from a variety of renewable and non-renewable
resources. PG&E plans to meet future increased demands of electric power by
expanding its use of fossil fuels and nuclear fuel. Existing and planned PG&E
facilities will be sufficient to meet future needs of the Livermore-Amador
Valley.
The proposed project sites are presently undeveloped. There is no energy use
i^ associated with the proposed project sites. Accordingly, there is no
consumption of energy sources in relation to the sites.
IMPACTS. During the construction of the proposed project, energy consumption
I.. . would occur from the use of the earthmoving and grading vehicles, electric
and pneumatic tools, and various other construction equipment. Commuting of
construction workers and hauling of construction materials would result in
additional consumption of energy. Construction energy consumption would be
temporary and the impact to local and regional energy resources would be
considered insignificant.
The operation of the project would require energy for lighting and for a
possible increase in the frequency of bus service in the area. Energy for
lighting would be supplied by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which
can adequately meet project site energy demands. The proposed project would
result in a local and regional beneficial energy impact. The proposed project
would serve as an energy mitigation measure for approved area developments for
which Transportation Systems Management (TSM) measures are required. The
length of approximately 2,800 automobile trips by present and future commuters
would be reduced significantly, as private automobile commute trips would end
at the project sites rather than at East Bay BART stations. The reduced trip
lengths would result in a major reduction in gasoline consumption.
In addition, the proposed project would reduce congestion on Interstate 580
and in the area of the Hayward and Bay Fair BART stations, resulting in a more
efficient traffic flow and better fuel economy for other motorists.
IJ MITIGATION MEASURES. Since the proposed project would result in a local and
regional beneficial energy impact, no mitigation measures would be necessary.
I
�., : 2-28
i CHECKLIST ITEM 20a: CULTURAL RESOURCES
EXISTING SETTING. A records search and field reconnaissance of the project
sites was performed by Mr. Miley Paul Holman of Holman and Associates,
archaeological consultants, of San Francisco, California. : The complete
archaeological report by Mr. Holman is on file at the BART Planning and
Analysis Department.
`i Prior to the actual field reconnaissance, maps and records on file at the
California Archaeological Inventory Northwest Information Center located at
Sonoma State University were checked for any evidence of recorded prehistoric
or historic sites in and around the project area. The Center reported that
there were no recorded prehistoric or historic sites within 1 ,000 feet of
either project site.
The field reconnaissance was performed by walking each project site in 50 foot
transects. The Dublin site yielded no material of either a prehistoric or
historic nature; the soils on this site are the typical silty clay found in
this portion of the Valley, and contained only small amounts of water worn
rock, all smaller than fist-sized.
The Pleasanton site, where it is evident that the top layer of soil (as much
as a foot of it) has been scraped away and where fill has been deposited on
the western edge, did yield evidence of an historic farmstead. Broken glass
and pieces of wood and metal can be found on site where grading has occurred
in the recent past.
The prior removal of topsoil from the surface of the Pleasanton site probably
also has removed any substantial traces of the farmstead. What is visible on
the surface at present are the remains of the removal of the structures and
later soil removal.
IMPACTS. Project impacts on archaeological resources could occur in
connection .with any subsurface construction, including the removal of project
site trees or grading of filled areas on the Pleasanton site. As yet
unidentified subsurface archaeological resources could be disturbed and/or
destroyed as a result of project related construction activities. However, it
is not possible at this time to determine definitively whether such impacts
would occur.
If archaeological or historic resources are encountered during subsurface
construction, land alteration work will be halted and BART will retain a
qualified archaeologist to assess the signficanee of the find and prepare
acceptable plans for mitigation of further impacts. Local Native American
organizations will be consulted if human remains are encountered (although no
evidence of their presence has been found at this time).
MITIGATION MEASURES. No additional mitigation measures are needed for the
proposed project.
i
2-29
i
F7
I:
3 REFERENCES: PERSONS, ORGANIZATIDNS AND PUBLICATIONS CONSULTED
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Contaminant and Weather
Study ( 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986)
California Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity .Data Base
(1984).
Dublin, Y Cit of, Dublin General Plan (1985) .
Evans, Jim, Express Bus Planner, BART, personal and telephone communications
(1986) .
Franklin, Randy, Supervisor of Bus Operations, BART, personal and telephone
communications (1986) .
Fulwood, Russ, Captain, Dublin-San Ramon Services District Fire Department,
telephone communication (1986) .
Henderson, Roger, Traffic Engineer, TJKM Transportation Consultants, telephone
`` communication (1986) .
Hilborn, Gareth, Captain, Pleasanton Fire Department, telephone communication
(1986) .
Kinzel, Chris, Principal, TJKM Transportation Consultants, telephone
communications (1986) .
Pleasanton, City of, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Hacienda Business
Park, Phase II ( 1985)
Pleasanton, City of, Draft Environmental Impact Report, North Pleasanton
Improvement District and General Plan Amendment for Inclusion of the
Interstate 580/Hacienda Drive Interchange (1984) ..
" Pleasanton, City of, Draft Pleasanton General Plan (1986) .
_ Severini, John, Police Chief, Dublin Police Department, telephone
�. .
communication (1986) .
Snyder, Tonia, Fire Inspector, Dublin-San Ramon Services District Fire
_ Department, telephone communication (1986) .
Thompson, Lee, Dublin Public Works Department, telephone communication (1986) .
TJKM Transportation Consultants, City of Dublin Downtown_ Improvement Plan:
Summary of Traffic and Parking Constraints (1986) .
I.. Todd, Larry, Captain, Pleasanton Police Department, telephone communication
(1986) .
IL U.S. Department of Agriculture, Sail Conservation Service, Soil Survey:
Alameda Area. California ( 1966) .
I ..
3-1
i
("ts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and .
Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances (1971) .
Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons, Inc. , Dublin Downtown Improvement Plan Study:
Phase 1 - Issues and Opportunities (1986) .
p.:
I ..
,1
3-2
4. PREPARERS OF THIS REPORT
This report was prepared by Earth Metrics Incorporated, environmental
( consultants, of Burlingame, California. Earth Metrics has no financial
I interest in the approval or disapproval of the proposed project. Earth
Metrics staff who participated in the preparation of this .report are:
- John Torrey, M.Areh. , AICP, Project Director
Russell Leavitt, B.A. , Project Manager
Richard Vonarb, B.S.
Dan McCullar, M.S.
Paul Hoffey, B.S.
Diane Schuck, Production Manager
Caesar Jhanapin, Graphic Artist
Mr. Miley Paul Holman of Holman and Associates performed the cultural
resources analysis.
i
I :
I .
i
I
is
I :
4-1 -
I
�� ^
a n ice•r ti� 2.e_. _
J t r �s v s
►9 - -� �82 .-CITY. OF UBI IN. S
�� � �- ' .. .... .: _ !''. :,may tir•y.i_r .. } -.
P.O. Box 2340 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 94568 "
'.ITY OFFICES .F*
6500 DUBLIN BLVD,
September 18, 1986 }
1 �� r
kDMINISTRATION alt• es;c,:.;' .
829-4600 _
BUILDING INSPECTION
829-0822 "
Ms. Marianne Payne, Project. Coordinator
:ITY COUNCIL Planning & Analysis Department
829-4600 Bay Area Rapid Transit District
800 Madison Street
Oakland, CA 94604-2688 -
:ODE ENFORCEMENT
829-0622 Dear Ms. Payne: c x
NGINEERING Thank you for contacting the City .of Dublin in 'regards to the
829-4927 preparation of the Initial Study ,for the proposed park/ride
facilities in Dublin and Pleasanton. Based upon your letter, it
= appears that BART intends to address many of the major issues
1NANGE
629.6226 required to be included in an Initial Study.
- '-
In as much as the proposed facility will be a regional park and ride
PLANNING facility, attracting users not only from Dublin and Pleasanton but
829-4916 from surrounding communities as well, we would like the Initial Study
to specifically address the traffic and circulation impacts to Dublin
POLICE streets. Additionally,' the Initial- Study should address the impacts
829-0566 this facility will have on surrounding land use development and
public service.
PUBLIC WORKS We look forward to having the opportunity to review and comment on
829-4927 the Initial Study once it is complete.
RECREATION If you have any-questions, please do not hesitate to call Maureen
829-4932 O'Halloran, Associates Planner or me.
Sincerely,
J-1
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
TA&A-06
LLT/MO'H/slh
B,•A R' T BAY-AREA RAPID.TRANSIT DISTRICT
800 Madison Street'
R.
P.O: Box 12688 1 V F p -
Oakland, CA 94604-2688 •� _..:.., '.,::,:�,: -
Telephone(415)464-6000 '• ;` =: :SEP -
September 4,==.1986 ::;.::':` '. = A:'_. c^USLIy pL4NNING
Mr. Larry Tong, Director of Planning
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 9456
Z.
NELLO BIANCO Dear
PRESIDENT
EUGENE GARFINKLE BART is in the process-,of preparing an Initial Study
VICE-PRESIDENT for proposed park/ride facilities in Dublin and
KEITH BERNARD Pleasanton. ' The project description and location
GENERAL MANAGER are contained in the attached materials.
We would like to" know the environmental issues and
DIRECTORS information which �youragency views as necessary to
be discussed in the Initial Study. The results of
BARCLAY SIMPSO the Initial Study will be used to determine whether
1ST DISTRICT T a Negative Declaration • or an Environmental Impact
NELLO IANCO Report is needed to process the
2ND DISTRICT proposed project.
ARTHUR J.SHARTSI
3R0 DISTRICT preliminarily, BART has selected the following
T
issues to be addressed in the Initial Study: geol-
MARGARET K PRYOT ogy (soils, and seismic safety) ,, air
4TH DISTRICT � Y quality, drain-
ROBERT S.ALLEN age, biology (vegetation -and wildlife) , noise, light
STH DISTRICT and glare, land use and planning, traffic circula-
JOHN GLENN tion, parking, energy, aesthetics, and cultural re-
6TH DISTRICT sources.
WILFRED T.USSERY
7TH DISTRICT res our please send Y response. September 17, 1986 to
EUGENE GARFINKLE the following address:
8TH DISTRICT
JOHN H.KIRKWOOD Ms. Marianne Payne
9TH DISTRICT Project Coordinator
Planning and Analysis Department
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
800 Madison Street
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
If you have questions or need further informaton,
please call Marianne Payne at (415)464-6173 . Thank
you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,, 1
Richard C. Wenzel
Project Manager _
Enclosures
cc: Maureen O'Halloran, Transport;
n: ].
g.a,? ._t.r. •w-4' .,'.3: ?ice^ '
ATTA01ME NT '1 -
r; PROJECT DESCRIPTION - -
ak
Purpose '`and Need
BART .has' 'identified the -need fora 1,400 space park/ride project
located near the ...Interstate 580/680 interchange in the Dublin/
Pleasanton' area '. of eastern Alameda County. The proposed project
has been designed to complement freeway-oriented BART Express Bus
service proposed " for the Interstate 580/680 corridors and to
solve existing transportation problems . ir_ this area. These prob-
lems include BART Express Bus patron parking impacts on the Dub-
lin business community and Stoneridge Mall area, unmet transit
needs, and..:anticipated population growth which will further exac-
erbate .these ,current. problems. -. •The park/ride project will pro-
vide 'safe -',_ .::convenient -satellite -parking for BART patrons
residing-in.*Dublin, -Pleasanton, Livermore, and eastern points.
The project'. ,will also serve to reduce congestion and parking .
problems in .the Hayward and Bay Fair BART Station environs. The
project ..,,will be served by the U, UP, UL, D, DX and DX1 BART
Express Bus routes.
Project Design
The project encompasses two 7-acre sites, one located on the
north side of Interstate 580 in Dublin, and the other on the
south side of Interstate 580 in Pleasanton. The project in-
cludes: two - 700-space park/ride lots; an off-street bus transfer
facility at both lots; and a pedestrian bridge crossing at Inter-
state 580 to connect the two park/ride lots. The project will
include paving, drainage, bus pad construction, lighting, bus
shelter installation, and pedestrian bridge construction with
associated wheelchair ramps and stairways.
Location and Configuration
The northern site of the project is located on 7.25-acres
directly west of Golden Gate Avenue in Dublin. The southern site
of the project is located along Stoneridge Mall Road directly
south of the northern site, across Interstate 580 in Pleasanton.
A 20-foot high, 360-foot long pedestrian bridge would be con-
structed across Interstate 580 to connect the two park/ride lots.
" ATTACHMENT L r+♦*=
.at•y
CONCEPTUAL':PR
OJECT DESIGN
Wit
U. B
wow—
/J 1 �. ti //• • ~ �•�u
� �/ �' \ ._. .. — :4^==vim .._.9i� _- �• ••o a+y "`' i -
t ? y PLEASANTON
iz
ir
TM = —
�1�Rs1..S� 580
of
STo i � 3^�..=tia � I � �•
ua.c+rn o.n rrrtu
BART P�e:.rr1 -TL Er6r.rt Tort
oti... Pf•RK�RiCE Lo'(
o+um sr= .s
c.cr a szctor w.cc. acn�� wr s=oon *