HomeMy WebLinkAbout*April 3, 2018 Agenda PacketApril 3, 2018 Dublin City Council Agenda Page 1 of 4
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
Council Chamber, 100 Civic Plaza DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
A G E N D A
• Agendas and Staff Reports are posted on the City’s Internet Website (www.dublin.ca.gov)
• Agendas may be picked up at the City Clerk’s Office for no charge, or to request information on being placed on
the annual subscription list, please call 833-6650.
• A complete packet of information containing Staff Reports and exhibits relate to each item is available of public
review at least 72 hours prior to a City Council Meeting or, in the event that it is delivered to City Council
members less than 72 hours prior to a City Council Meeting, as soon as it is so delivered. The packet is
available in the City Clerk’s Office and also at the Dublin Library.
CLOSED SESSION 6:00 P.M.
I. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (d) of
Section 54956.9: 2 cases
II. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: 12+/- acre parcel located about 1,000 feet northwest of intersection of Dublin
Blvd. and Arnold Road (portion of the Camp Parks property)
Agency negotiator: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
Negotiating parties: Dublin Unified School District
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.1. Employee Introductions: Megan Mabry
The City Council will be introduced to new City Staff member Megan Mabry, Office
Assistant I, City Clerk's Office.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Welcome the new City of Dublin Staff member.
3.2. BART Presentation - BART to Livermore Extension Project Alternative Selection
Process
The City Council will receive a presentation from BART staff on the proposed alternatives
for the BART to Livermore Extension Project. BART staff will also discuss the process of
selecting the final alternative by the BART Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the presentation from BART staff, support the Conventional BART alternative, and
provide feedback.
April 3, 2018 Dublin City Council Agenda Page 2 of 4
3.3. Public Comment
At this time, the public is permitted to address the City Council on non-agendized items. Please step to the podium and
clearly state your name for the record. COMMENTS SHOULD NOT EXCEED THREE (3) MINUTES. In accordance with
State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Council may
respond to statements made or questions asked, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the
matter. Any member of the public may contact the City Clerk’s Office related to the proper procedure to place an item on a
future City Council agenda. The exceptions under which the City Council MAY discuss and/or take action on items not
appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(1)(2)(3).
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the City Council with
one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or the City Council who would like an item removed from the Consent
Calendar for purposes of public input may request the Mayor to remove the item.
4.1. Approval of the March 20, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the March 20, 2018 Regular City
Council meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the minutes of the March 20, 2018 Regular City Council meeting.
4.2. Bike to Work Day and Bike Month Proclamation
During National Bike Month, a series of regional events such as Bike to Work Day are
organized by Bike East Bay and numerous other agencies, including the City of Dublin, to
promote bicycling as an alternative mode of transportation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Proclaim the month of May as “Bike Month” and May 10, 2018 as “Bike to Work Day” in
the City of Dublin.
4.3. The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, Senate Bill (SB) 1 - Fiscal Year 2018-
19 Project List
The City Council will consider approving a list of projects funded in Fiscal Year 2018-19 by
Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving a List of Projects Funded in Fiscal Year 2018-19 by Senate
Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.
4.4. Notice of City Engineer’s Receipt of Final Map for Review for Tract 8325
The City Council will receive a notification of the City Engineer’s receipt of a Final Map for
review for Tract 8325 Tassajara Hills, Phase 3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the notification.
4.5. Tract 8361 - Final Map Notice
The City Council will receive a notification of the City Engineer’s pending approval of the
Final Map for Tract 8361, Boulevard development, located just north of Dublin Boulevard
between Scarlett Drive and Arnold Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the notification.
4.6. Amendment No. 1 to Consulting Services Agreement with S&C Engineers, Inc. for the
Dougherty Road Improvements, Project No. ST0911
The City Council will consider amending the consulting services agreement with S&C
Engineers, Inc. for construction management, material testing, and inspection services for the
Dougherty Road Improvements project (CIP No. ST0911).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with
S&C Engineers, Inc. for the Dougherty Road Improvements, Project No. ST0911.
April 3, 2018 Dublin City Council Agenda Page 3 of 4
4.7. Report on 2018 Dublin Pride Week Activities
The City Council will receive a report on the planned activities for the 2018 Dublin Pride
Week, scheduled for April 28 - May 5, 2018.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the 2018 Dublin Pride Week activities report.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION – NONE.
6. PUBLIC HEARING
6.1. Weed and Combustible Refuse Abatement Order
In accordance with Resolution 08-18 (adopted February 6, 2018), the City Council declared
that there is a public nuisance created by weeds and combustible debris growing and
accumulating upon the streets, sidewalks and property within the City. Notice of this
declaration was posted and letters sent to those property owners with violations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and by motion, direct Staff to continue the weed
abatement process.
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – NONE.
8. NEW BUSINESS
8.1. Town Hall Meeting
The City Council will discuss potential topics for a future Town Hall meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss and provide direction on topics for future Town Hall meeting.
8.2. Discussion Regarding City Council Salary
The City Council will discuss options regarding adjustments to Councilmember salaries.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss and provide direction to Staff regarding adjustment to City Council salaries.
8.3. Appointments of City Councilmembers to Committee/Commission/Board Vacancies
The City Council will discuss filling the Committee/Commission/Board vacancies left
following the recent passing of Vice Mayor Don Biddle.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss and approve the appointments to fill the Committee/Commission/Board vacancies.
8.4. City Council Representative to Serve on Public Safety Complex Art Selection
Committee
The City Council will consider selection of a City Council member to serve on the Public Art
Selection Committee for monumental artwork to be installed at new the Public Safety
Complex.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Select a City Council member and alternate to serve on the Public Art Selection Committee
for a public art monument to be installed at the new Public Safety Complex.
8.5. Designation of Two City Councilmembers as City Representatives to Discuss
Compensation with City Attorney
The City Council will discuss the appointment of two City Councilmembers to serve as the
City’s representatives to discuss terms of the City Attorney’s contract, including
compensation, with the City Attorney.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Designate two City Councilmembers to discuss compensation with the City Attorney.
April 3, 2018 Dublin City Council Agenda Page 4 of 4
8.6. Designation of Agency Labor Negotiators, Unrepresented Employee: City Manager
The City Council will consider the appointment of two Councilmembers as representatives to
discuss conditions of employment for the City Manager.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Appoint two Councilmembers as representatives to discuss conditions of employment for the
City Manager.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
Brief information only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports
and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB1234).
10. ADJOURNMENT
This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a)
If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate
alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make
a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833 -
6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Mission
The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, and fosters
new opportunities.
Vision
Dublin is a vibrant city committed to its citizens, natural resources and cultural heritage. As Dublin grows, it will
balance history with progress, to sustain an enlightened, economically balanced and diverse community.
Dublin is unified in its belief that an engaged and informed community encourages innovation in all aspects of City
life, including programs to strengthen our economic vitality, and preserve our natural surroundings through
environmental stewardship and sustainability. Dublin is dedicated to promoting an active and healthy lifestyle
through the creation of first-class recreational opportunities, facilities and programs.
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Employee Introductions: Megan Mabry
Prepared by: Walfred Solorzano, Deputy City Clerk
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will be introduced to new City Staff member Megan Mabry, Office
Assistant I, City Clerk's Office.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Welcome the new City of Dublin Staff member.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
DESCRIPTION:
New City Staff member, Megan Mabry, Office Assistant I, City Clerk's Office, will be
introduced to the City Council.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
None
3.1
Packet Pg. 5
3207
None
Page 1
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
N
o
n
e
(
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
)
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
BART Presentation - BART to Livermore Extension Project Alternative
Selection Process
Prepared by: Obaid Khan, Transporation and Operations Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a presentation from BART staff on the proposed
alternatives for the BART to Livermore Extension Project. BART staff will also discuss
the process of selecting the final alternative by the BART Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the presentation from BART staff, support the Conventional BART alternative,
and provide feedback.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
On July 31, 2017, BART issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
proposed BART to Livermore Extension Project. The DEIR also evaluates alternatives
to the Conventional BART design and construction. These alternatives include:
Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) or Electric Multiple Unit (EMU)
Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Enhanced Bus
No project
At the October 3, 2017 meeting, the City Council approved staff comments on the DEIR
(Attachment 1). The comments were submitted to BART staff before the October 16,
2017 comment period deadline.
On February 16, 2018, BART issued an Evaluation of Alternatives Report (Attachment
2). BART is now seeking public input to assist the BART Board in their selection of a
preferred extension plan. The BART Board will review and certify the Final EIR and
3.2
Packet Pg. 7
Page 2 of 3
select a preferred alternative in May, 2018.
The BART Board has until June 30, 2018 to select a preferred alternative. If the Board
is unable to meet this deadline, the newly formed Tri-Valley San Joaquin Regional Rail
Authority will select the preferred alternative.
The Tri-Valley San Joaquin Regional Rail Authority was created on January 1, 2018 by
Assembly Bill 758. This Authority is tasked with planning, developing, and delivering
cost-effective transit connectivity between BART a nd the Altamont Corridor Express
(ACE) commuter rail service.
BART to Livermore Extension Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed project, as stated in the DEIR, are:
Provide a cost-effective intermodal link of the existing BART system to the inter-
regional rail network and a series of Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
identified by the City of Livermore, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
and the Association of Bay Area Governments. These PDAs include the
Livermore Isabel Avenue BART Station PDA, the Livermore Downtown PDA, and
the Livermore East Side PDA.
Support the regional goals of integrating transit and land use policies to create
opportunities for transit-oriented development in PDAs in the Livermore area.
Provide an effective commute alternative to traffic congestion on I-580.
Improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and other emissions
associated with automobile use.
Comparison of Alternatives
All of the alternatives have more environmental impacts compared to the Conventional
BART alternative. The DMU/EMU comes closest to meeting the BART to Livermore
Extension Project objectives, but the ridership is lower with the DMU/EMU. It also
results in a smaller parking facility constructed at Isabel Station and more vehicles
continuing to drive and park at the Dublin/Pleasanton Stations. This in turn increases
vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.
The Conventional BART alternative is best suited to address growth in traffic congestion
in the Tri-Valley Area and has the greatest environmental benefits as compared to other
alternatives. Below are some of the key findings on a comparison of Alternatives as
presented in the DEIR and the Evaluation of Alternatives Report:
Conventional BART would score higher on most measures under the BART
system expansion policy.
Conventional BART would have the shortest travel time along the I -580 corridor,
resulting in the most new transit riders, and most traffic congestion relief west of
Livermore on I-580.
Conventional BART would increase BART ridership by 11,900 riders per day and
up to 13,400 riders per day with the Livermore Isabel PDA.
Conventional BART would result in over 3.4 times more riders than the Express
Bus/BRT Alternative, resulting in 151,400 fewer vehicle miles traveled per day
and about 7,400 fewer metric tons of GHG emissions per year.
The DMU/EMU alternative would cost about the same as full BART ($1.6 billion)
3.2
Packet Pg. 8
Page 3 of 3
but would serve fewer riders.
Conventional BART would have the least impacts to the land uses in Dublin.
Based on the cost per rider estimates, the Express Bus/BRT would be the most
cost-effective alternative, followed by full BART. The ridership projections and
associated benefits described in the Draft EIR are based on travel m odel and
land use assumptions. The model may overestimate Express Bus/BRT ridership
due to land use and operational assumptions.
Schedule
July 31, 2017 Draft EIR Released
Oct. 16, 2017 Comment Period Closed
Feb 16, 2018 Release Evaluation of Alternatives Report
Feb-March 2018 Public Outreach
April 12, 2018 Preliminary BART to Livermore Recommendation to BART Board
May 2018 Release Final EIR
May 24, 2018 BART Board Consider Certifying EIR and Adopting Project
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Comments on BART to Livermore DEIR - City Council Meeting October 3, 2017
2. Evaluation of Alternatives Report - BART to Livermore Extension Project
3.2
Packet Pg. 9
Page 1 of 6
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 3, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Christopher L. Foss, CityManager
SUBJECT: BART to Livermore Draft Environmental ImpactReport - Staff Comments
Prepared by: Obaid Khan, Transportation andOperationsManager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
TheCityCouncilwillreceiveStaffcommentson the Draft Environmental ImpactReport
DEIR) for theBARTtoLivermoreExtensionProject. Staff comments are focusedon
DEIR sections for AirQuality, Land-Use, Noise and Transportation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive StaffcommentsontheBART to LivermoreExtension Project Draft
Environmental ImpactReport.
FINANCIALIMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
On July31, 2017, BARTissued a DraftEnvironmentalImpactReport (DEIR) for the
proposed BARTtoLivermoreExtension Project. The commentperiod for theDEIR will
close onOctober16, 2017. TheProposed Project, which is also referred to as the
ConventionalBART Project, wouldextendtransitservice 5.5 m iles east intoeastern
AlamedaCounty from theexistingDublin/PleasantonBARTStation (Dublin/Pleasanton
Station) within and adjacent to the I-580right-of-way (ROW), through the citiesof Dublin
andPleasanton, to a proposed new terminusstationlocated at the IsabelAvenue/I-580
interchange in theCityofLivermore.
TheDEIRevaluatesthepotentialimpactsoftheProposedProjectandthreeBuild
Alternatives - the Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Alternative (whichincludes a variant
referredto as theElectricalMultiple Unit [EMU] Option), the Express Bus/Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) Alternative, and the EnhancedBusAlternative. The three Build
Alternativesanda No ProjectAlternative (or No BuildAlternative) are evaluated at the
samelevel as theProposedProject in the DEIR. Below are summarydescriptions of the
Proposed Project andthethreeBuildAlternatives.
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 10
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
Page 2 of 6
Conventional BART Project (Proposed Project). TheProposedProject involves
extending the DalyCity-Dublin/Pleasanton Line from its existing terminus at the
Dublin/Pleasanton Stationapproximately 5.5milesto the east, to a new stationlocated
at the Isabel Avenue/I-580 (State Route 84) interchange in theCity of Livermore. The
new alignmentandthenewIsabelBART Station (Isabel Station) would be constructed
in the I-580median. Newparkingfacilities, a parking structure and surface lot
containing a total of approximately 3,412spaces, wouldbe constructed immediately
south of I-580alongEast AirwayBoulevard. In addition, anew, approximately 68-acre
BARTstorageand maintenance facility would be constructednorth of I -580, beyond the
IsabelStation.
To accommodate the widening of the I -580median for thenew BARTalignment and
IsabelStation, theCaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation (Caltrans) ROWwould be
widened along approximately 5.6 miles. I-580laneswould be relocated by a total of
approximately 46feet, from just eastoftheHaciendaDriveinterchangeto west of the
PortolaAvenue/I-580 overcrossing. Atthe proposedIsabel Station, I-580 would be
relocated by approximately 67 feet to accommodate the new station within the median.
The relocation of I-580 would require modification ofsome interchanges and surface
frontageroads.
DMU/EMU Alternatives. TheDMU Alternative differs fromtheProposed Project in
terms of vehicle technology. DMUs are self-propelled railcarsthat use a dieselengine
togeneratetheirownpowerand run on a standard -gauge rail track, whereas BART
trains use electricity and runon wide-gauge rail track.
The DMUAlternative would have a similarmedian alignment and stationconfiguration
as theProposed Project, butwould have a longer total lengthof freeway alignment
changes and includes a newtransfer platform at the Dublin/Pleasanton Station. Anew
parkingstructure forthe Isabel Station, withapproximately 2,428parkingspaces, would
be constructedimmediately south of I-580alongEastAirwayBoulevard. In addition, a
new, approximately 32-acre storage and maintenancefacilitywouldbe constructed
north of I-580, beyond the terminus of thealignment.
To accommodate the medianwidening, approximately 7.1miles of I -580 would be
relocated by a total of approximately 46 feet, from west of the Dougherty Road/Hopyard
RoadinterchangetothePortola Avenue/I -580 overcrossing. Aroundthe
Dublin/Pleasanton Station, the north side ofI -580 would be relocatedtoaccommodate
the new DMUtransfer platform. At the proposed IsabelStation, I-580would be
relocatedapproximately 67 feet toaccommodate the stationwithin the median. The
relocation of I-580 would require modificationofsome interchanges and surface
frontageroads. The DMU Alternativeincludesthesame feederbus component as the
ProposedProject, including newand modified bus routesconnecting the new sta tion to
areaseastoftheBARTsystem.
A variantofthe DMU Alternative-the ElectricMultiple Unit (EMU) Option is alsobeing
considered. TheEMUOption is generally the same as the DMUAlternative, exceptthat
it is electricallypoweredratherthan diesel-powered.
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
Page 3 of 6
Express Bus/BRT Alternative. The Express Bus/BRT Alternative seeks to achieve the
projectgoalsusingbustechnology only. This alternative does notinclude an extension
of BARTrailservice or development of anew rail station. Under thisalternative, new
bustransferplatformswould be constructed attheexisting Dublin/PleasantonStation.
Buses would enter these bus-onlytransferareas via direct bus-only rampsfrom the I-
580express lanes, allowing passengers to transferfrom bus toBART within thestation.
To accommodate the newbus transferplatformsandfacilitiesunder this alternative,
approximately 2.2 miles of I-580, fromwestofthe Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road
interchange to the Tassajara Road/SantaRita Road interchange, wouldberelocated by
approximately 88 feet. The relocation of I-580 would require modification ofsome
interchanges andsurfacefrontageroads.
Anew parkinglot or garage onthe Pleasantonside withapproximately 210parking
spaceswould beconstructed at theDublin/PleasantonStation to replacethe210
parkingspaces removed for the relocation of I-580toaccommodatethe bus platforms.
Inaddition, a remote, approximately 230 -space park-and-ride lotwould be constructed
atLaughlinRoad; regular bus servicewouldbeprovidedduringpeakhoursfromthe
Laughlin parking lot to the Dublin/Pleasanton Station.
Enhanced BusAlternative. Likethe Express Bus/BRTAlternative, the Enhanced Bus
Alternative usesbus-related technology onlyanddoes notinclude an extension of
BART rail service orthedevelopmentof a newrail station. Unlike the Express Bus/BRT
Alternative, however, this alternativedoesnotinclude any majorcapital improvements
andwould not involve the development of bus transferplatformsordirect bus ramps.
Table 1 provides asummary of ROW take for ConventionalBART and Build
Alternatives.
Table 1
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 12
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
Page 4 of 6
Staff Comments:
Staff has reviewed the relevant sections of the DEIRand has preparedcomments
Attachment 1) for the CityCouncil’s considerationandinput. The key issuesand
concerns for theCity to consider are summarized below.
Land Use and Business Impacts - While the Proposed Project wouldhave some
impacts to theCity’s ROW along the north side of the I -580, the two build alternatives
DMU/EMUand Express Bus/BRT) would causesignificantimpacts tothe businesses
andproperties in the City.
Staff has significant concerns aboutsomeof the ROW acquisitionrequired for the
DMU/EMU and Express Bus/BRT Alternatives. ManyofDublin’s key revenue and
employmentgenerators are locatedalong I-580. Assuch, anypotentialpurchase of
ROW will need to identify the full impacts, including short and long -term viabilityof
affectedbusinessesandongoingrevenueimpacts to boththebusinessesandto th e
City.
The DEIRidentifies thesurface frontage roads and structuresadjacent to I -580 that
would need to berelocated in order to accommodate the Proposed Projectand
Alternatives. The relocation of the frontage roads wouldresult in potentially sig nificant
impacts to some of theexisting andkey businesses in theCity of Dublin.
TheDEIR did not provide specific detailsoneach ROWimpact. However, BART staff
providedadditional detailsthatare shown in attached Figures 1 to 3. Staff’s specific
comments on theland use concerns are detailed in Attachment 1.
Transportation Impacts - The DEIR discloses many Transportation Impactsand
provides mitigations. However, Staffnotedseveralmodelingassumptionerrorsand
issues that couldresult in incorrectanswers. Some of the key issues are listedbelow:
1) An overall problem with the DraftEIR is its failure to adequately analyze the
impacts of the DMU, Express Bus/BRT, and EnhancedBus alternativeswithin
theCityof Dublin, and particularly near the Dublin/PleasantonBART Station.
2) TheDEIR has assumed that theBART garageexpansion at the
Dublin/PleasantonStationwould onlyoccur with the IsabelNeighborhoodPlan
INP) implementation in Livermore. However, the DEIRdid not includethe
fundingforthe garage expansion as partof the BARTsystem. This isnot the
correct way to assumeimprovements while not including the funding for it,
especially when garage construction is theresponsibility of BARTon itsown
property.
3) The DEIR assumedthatunder the Cumulative scenarios for 2025 and 2040, INP
in Livermorewillhaveadditionalland -use changes that could notbe evaluated
separately fromtheDublin/Pleasanton GarageExpansion trafficpatterns. This
leads to not knowing the impacts that would be with the INPland-useaddition to
theProposedProjectand alternatives in conjunction withor without a
Dublin/Pleasanton Garage Expansion.
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
Page 5 of 6
4) TheDEIR has proposedmitigation at DublinBlvd and DoughertyRoad
intersection due to the Proposed Project and the Alternatives. Theproposed
mitigationwould adda third southbound left-turn lane and a secondwestbound
right turn lane, whichwillrequirewideningof the intersection through property
acquisitions from existing businesses. Widening of the intersection is not
recommended due to a longercrossingdistance for pedestrians and property
impacts to existingbusinesses. Asan alternative mitigation, staffsuggests that
BARTshould implement an Adaptive Traffic Signal systemalongDougherty
Road to mitigatethesignificant impacts.
5) The DEIR has several incorrectmodel assumptions for theCityofDublin’s
roadway infrastructure. Theincorrectassumptionswould create incorrect model
results for impacts to theCity of Dublin roadway infrastructureand intersections,
and any relatedmitigationsneed to be redone.
6) UndertheDMU/EMUand Express Bus/BRTAlternatives, DEIR (Chapter 2,
ProjectDescriptions) didnot provide any timeloss for transfer of passengers
from onetype of vehicle to the Conventional BART at Dublin/PleasantonStation.
This loss of time is critical in comparing the ConventionalBARTwith other
Alternatives.
Air Quality and Noise Impacts - TheDEIRdiscusses Air QualityandNoiseimpacts
but didnot disclose the impactsassociatedwith the relocation of I-580thatwillbring the
freeway closer to theCityboundary, thus creating potentialsignificant Air Qualityand
Noiseimpacts. Additionalconstruction related Noiseimpacts were disclosedby the
DEIR, but it failed toprovidealternativeapproaches and technologies that could fully
addressthese impacts.
CONCLUSION:
Staff hasfound significantimpactstotheCityofDublin's land -uses due to the BARTto
Livermore ExtensionProject's Build Alternatives (DieselMultiple Unit/ElectricMultiple
Unit [DMU/EMU] and Express Bus/BRT) as comparedtotheProposed Project
ConventionalBART). These Build Alternativeswillsignificantlyalter the City's ROW
along the northsideof I-580freewaycausingimpactsto the existingbusinessesand
publicfacilities. Furthermore, the DEIRfailed to provideappropriatemitigationdetails for
the land-useimpacts in theCity of Dublin.
Staff has notedseveralerrors in modeling assumptions in Transportationimpacts
analysis. These errors may haveled to incorrectresults associated with various traffic
circulationandaccessimpacts for theProposed Project and Alternatives. Therefore it is
requestedthat the model assumptions be correctedanddisclosed in the FinalEIR.
Air Quality and Noise impacts are not properly analyzedespecially those thatwill occur
due to thewideningof the I-580. This shift willbringthefreeway traffic closerto the City
ofDublin’s land-uses, thuscreatingsignificantimpacts.
NOTICINGREQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Comments on theBARTto LivermoreExtension ProjectDraft Environmental
ImpactReport
2. Exhibit A to theStaff Comments on the BART to Livermore Extension ProjectDraft
Environmental ImpactReport
3. Figure 1 - ConventionalBARTAlternative Impacts
4. Figure 2 - DMU/EMU AlternativeImpacts
5. Figure 3 - Express Bus/BRTAlternativeImpacts
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
Attachment 1
Staff Comments onthe DraftEnvironmentalImpact Report for the
BART to Livermore Project
Proposed Project and AlternativesDescriptions
Conventional BART Project (Proposed Project). TheProposed Projectinvolves extending
the Daly City-Dublin/Pleasanton Line fromits existingterminus at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station (Dublin/Pleasanton Station) approximately 5.5 miles totheeast, to a new station located
attheIsabel Avenue/I-580 (StateRoute84) interchange in thecityof Livermore. The new
alignment andthenewIsabel BART Station (Isabel Station) would be constructedin the I-580
median. New parkingfacilities—a parkingstructureandsurface lot containing a total of
approximately 3,412 spaces—would be constructedimmediatelysouth of I-580 along East
Airway Boulevard. In addition, a new, approximately 68-acre BARTstorageandmaintenance
facilitywould be constructednorth of I-580, beyond the IsabelStation.
To accommodate the widening oftheI-580median for the new BARTalignment and Isabel
Station, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way (ROW) would be
widenedalongapproximately 5.6 miles. I-580 lanes would be relocated by a total of
approximately 46 feet, from just east ofthe HaciendaDrive interchange to west of the Portola
Avenue/I-580 overcrossing. Atthe proposedIsabelStation, I-580 would be relocated by
approximately 67feetto accommodate the newstation within the median. The relocation of I-
580 would require modification of someinterchangesandsurfacefrontage roads.
Diesel MultipleUnit/Electric MultipleUnitAlternatives. The (DMU) Alternative differsfrom
the ProposedProject in terms of vehicletechnology. DMUs are self -propelled rail carsthat use
a diesel engine to generate their own powerand run on a standard-gaugerail track, whereas
BARTtrains use electricityand run on wide-gauge rail track.
The DMU Alternative would have a similarmedianalignment and stationconfiguration as the
Proposed Project, but would have a longer total length of freeway alignmentchanges and
includes a newtransferplatform atthe Dublin/PleasantonStation. A new parkingstructure for
the Isabel Station, withapproximately 2,428 parkingspaces, would be constructedimmediately
south of I-580 along East AirwayBoulevard. In addition, a new, approximately 32-acre storage
andmaintenance facility would be constructednorth of I-580, beyond the terminus ofthe
alignment.
To accommodate the median widening, approximately 7.1 miles of I-580 would be relocated by
atotalof approximately 46feet, from west ofthe Dougherty Road/HopyardRoadinterchange to
the PortolaAvenue/I-580overcrossing. Around the Dublin/Pleasanton Station, the north side of
I-580 would be relocated to accommodate the newDMUtransfer platform. At the proposed
IsabelStation, I-580 would be relocatedapproximately 67feetto accommodate the station
within the median. The relocation ofI-580 would require modification of some interchanges and
surfacefrontageroads.
The DMUAlternative includes the same feeder bus component as the Proposed Project,
including new and modified bus routesconnecting the new station to areas eastofthe BART
system.
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A variant ofthe DMUAlternative—the Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Option—is alsobeing
considered. The EMU Option is generally the sameas the DMU Alternative, exceptthat it is
electricallypowered rather thandiesel-powered.
Express Bus/BRT Alternative. TheExpressBus/BRT Alternative seeks to achieve the project
goalsusing bus technologyonly. This alternative doesnot include an extension of BART rail
serviceordevelopment ofa new rail station. Under this alternative, new bus transferplatforms
would be constructed atthe existing Dublin/Pleasanton Station. Buseswould enterthesebus-
onlytransfer areas via directbus-onlyramps fromthe I-580 expresslanes, allowing passengers
to transfer from busto BARTwithin the station.
To accommodate the new bustransfer platforms and facilitiesunderthis alternative,
approximately 2.2 miles of I-580, fromwest of the DoughertyRoad/Hopyard Roadinterchange
tothe TassajaraRoad/Santa Rita Roadinterchange, would be relocated by approximately 88
feet. The relocation of I-580 would require modification of someinterchanges and surface
frontage roads.
A newparkinglot or garage onthe Pleasanton side with approximately210parkingspaces
would be constructed atthe Dublin/Pleasanton Station to replace the210 parking spaces
removed for the relocation of I-580 to accommodate thebus platforms. In addition, a remote,
approximately 230-space park-and-ride lot would be constructed at Laughlin Road; regularbus
servicewould be providedduringpeakhours fromthe Laughlinparkinglot tothe
Dublin/Pleasanton Station.
Enhanced BusAlternative. Like the Express Bus/BRT Alternative, the Enhanced Bus
Alternative usesbus-relatedtechnology only and does notinclude an extension of BART rail
serviceor the development ofa newrail station. Unlike the Express Bus/BRTAlternative,
however, this alternative doesnot include any majorcapitalimprovementsand would not
involve the development of bustransferplatforms or direct bus ramps.
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
DEIR’s Analysis Scenarios
Year 2040
Land use at
Isabel
Landuse
elsewhere
DP
garage1
expansion
BART or
Alternative
FutureBaseline
PBA)
PBA2 2040 PBA 2040NoNo
FutureProjectPBA2040 PBA 2040 No Yes
Future Cumulative INP3 2040 PBA 2040YesYes
Year 2025
Landuse at
Isabel
Land use
elsewhere
DP garage
expansion
BART or
Alternative
Future Baseline
PBA)
PBA2025 PBA 2025 NoNo
FutureProject PBA 2025 PBA 2025NoYes
Future Cumulative INP 2025 PBA 2025YesYes
Year 2013
Land use at
Isabel
Landuse
elsewhere
DP garage
expansion
BART or
Alternative
ExistingConditionsExisting ExistingExistingNo
1. DP Garage – Dublin Pleasanton BART Garageexpansion
2. PBA – Plan BayArea/ABAG
3. INP – IsabelNeighborhood Plan
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
City of Dublin COMMENTS
A. Land Use Impacts
The Cityof Dublin has significantconcernsabout some of the right-of-way (ROW) acquisition
required by the ProposedProject, DMU & EMU Alternative and Express Bus Alternative
currently being considered and weappreciate the opportunity to providecomments on the
DEIR. Many of Dublin’s key revenue and employmentgenerators are located along I-580. As
such, any potentialpurchase of ROW will needto identify the full impactsincludingshortand
long-term viability of affected businesses and ongoingrevenue impact to both the businesses
and to theCity.
The DEIRidentifies the surfacefrontageroads and structures adjacent to I-580 that would need
tobe relocatedoutwardinorder to accommodate the ProposedProjectand Alternatives. The
relocation ofthe frontageroads results inpotentiallysignificantimpacts tosomeofthe existing
and key businesses in the City of Dublin. The proposed roadway footprintsas provided in
Appendix B: FootprintMapBooks of the DEIR, provideinsufficient information to determine the
severity ofthe potentialimpact to eachparcel. The DEIR does notprovide any dimensions or
details onthe necessaryroadwayandparcelmodificationsrequired to relocate the ROW and
howthoseimpactswill be mitigated. For example, under the DMU Alternative, the relocation of
ScarlettCourt shows the potential roadway to extend into the Hyundai and Volkswagen
Dealershipsparkingareas; however, no detailsareprovidedas to how muchofthe existing
parking lots will need to removed, number of parkingspaceseliminated, how the removal of the
landscapebuffer strip willimpact the publicsafety and aesthetics and how the newroadway
alignment will impacttheon-sitecirculation. Nomitigation has been provided to addressthese
impacts. Auto dealerships are verysensitiveaboutlocation, visibility of dealershipand
automobiles, and inventorystorage. The ability to showcase and store vehicles is critical and
theseROWpurchasescould havesignificant impacts, not only to the dealership’s revenues, but
potentially the City’s tax base. Thetablebelow provides an outline ofall potentiallysignificant
ROW impacts totheCityof Dublin identifiedinAppendix BoftheDEIRthat are not sufficiently
detailed inthe analysis.
Table A. Potentially Significant ROW Impacts
PROPOSED PROJECT – Conventional BART
ROW Parcel Impact Potential Impacts
NorthsideDriveLowe’s
985-0061-007-00/-015-
00)
Therelocation of Northside Drive shows the
potentialroadwayandROW need impacting the
Lowe’s parkinglot. Any reduction in parking level
may impact future ability to constructnewstores
or replaceexistingtenants in the future.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVE – DMU & EMU Alternatives AND Express Bus Alternatives
ROW Parcel (APN) Potential Impacts
ScarlettCourt Hyundai Dealership
941-0550-025-02)
Volkswagen Dealership
941-0550-032-02/-03)
Therelocation of ScarlettCourtshows the
potentialroadway to extend intothe Hyundai and
VolkswagenDealerships parkingareas, thus
removing the landscape buffer, parking area and
impacting on-site circulation. This parking impact
is a significantimpact to accessand circulation,
and no mitigation has beenprovided to address
thisimpact.
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
ScarlettCourtElMonte RV Rentals
941-0550-016-04)
U-HaulTruckRental
941-0550-037-05)
Therelocation of ScarlettCourtcreatespotential
accessissues for the business west of Scarlett
Drive. Thisroad serves the recreational vehicle
operator, U-HaulTruckRental and ElMonte RV
Rentals as well asautomotivedelivery trucks to
the DublinMazda Dealership. City stafffeelsthat
any narrowingwould cause significantimpacts to
the adjacentuses.
ScarlettCourtAlamedaCounty Fire
Department and Dublin
City Maintenance
Building
941-0550-077-01)
Therelocation of ScarlettCourt has significant
impactsfor theCity andAlamedaCounty’s
operations. In 2014, the AlamedaCountyfacility
wasremodeledand theCity CorporationYard
wasconstructed. Both of thesefacilitiesprovide
maintenancesupport tolocal andregional
governmentagencies and will be challenging to
relocate, if necessary. Therelocationwill impact
the parking and frontage improvements at a
minimum. The loss ofthe City’s maintenance
facilitywill be costly to replicate.
I-580 Frontage Hacienda Crossings
986-0008-001-00)
Hacienda Crossings is avery popularregional
shoppingandentertainmentdestinationwithtight
parkingduring the weekend.
Express Bus Alternative:
ROWexpansionidentifiesremoval ofthe
landscape buffer along I-580whichserves both
an aestheticand public safety functionbetween
the parking lot andthe freeway. This impact
could be a significant impact; however, no site
leveldetails are providedsothat theimpacts can
be identified and no mitigation hasbeen provided
to address this potentialimpact.
DMU/EMUAlternative:
The ROWexpansion includes thoseimpacts
identifiedabove for the Express Bus Alternative
andfurtherremoval of a large portion of the
parking areanear the Hacienda Drive off-ramp.
This ROW expansion will have a significant
impact to parkingand on-site circulation in this
area of the shopping center and no mitigation
hasbeen provided to address this impact. Any
proposedROW adjustment willneed tobe
carefullycrafted withthe propertyowner to
ensure full replacement ofthe displacedparking,
as well asthoughtfulconstruction placement to
ensure no loss of visibility of existing businesses.
I-580 FrontageToyotaDealership
986-0016-023-00/024-
00)
ROWexpansion identifiesremoval ofthe
landscape buffer along I-580whichserves both
an aestheticandsafety function between the
parkinglot andthe freeway.
I-580 Frontage Chevrolet/Cadillac
Dealership
ROWexpansion identifiesremoval ofthe
landscape buffer along I-580whichserves both
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
986-0016-004-01) an aestheticandsafety function between the
parkinglot andthe freeway.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVE – DMU & EMU Alternatives ONLY
ROW Parcel Impact Potential Impacts
NorthsideDriveLowe’s
985-0061-007-00/-015-
00)
Therelocation of Northside Drive shows the
potentialroadwayand ROW need impacting the
Lowe’s parkinglot. Anyreductioninparking level
may impact future ability to construct new stores
or replaceexistingtenants in thefuture.
I-580 FrontageIKEARetail Center
Project
986-0033-005-02/-006-
00)
The impact to thefuture development of this
parcel is significant. The currentproperty owner
is exploringdevelopment scenarios forthissite
andwebelieve theimpacts would be
unacceptable astheywouldsignificantly impact
the ability to develop the site.
Dublin/Pleasant
BART Station
AccessRoad
Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station (986-
0034-019-00)
This alternative relocates the ROW intothe
surface parking area ofthe future garage
expansion atthe Dublin PleasantonBART. This
alternative willmoveAltamirano Roadintothe
surfacelotfor Dublin/PleasantonBART station
onthe Dublin sidenext to theexisting BART
garage removingavailable parking. This parking
impact is a significant impact to access and
circulation, and no mitigation has been provided
to address this impact. Our review indicates that
a similarparkingimpact on the southside of I-
580in Pleasantonunder the Express Bus/BRT
alternativewas mitigatedbyeither providing new
surfacelotparking or by building a garage (see
Chapter 2, Page 151). So it is notclearwhy
BART has notaddressed a similarsignificant
impact onthe north side of I-580 inDublin under
a differentalternative. Additionally, the
Cumulativeanalyses for the Project andall
alternativeshave assumed a future BART
garageexpansion atthe DublinPleasanton
BARTstation. By having thespace for thefuture
BARTgarageexpansionimpactedwithout
mitigation, cumulative analysis results for the
Express Bus/BRT alternative are not valid and
need tobe redone.
Asstatedin the DEIR, “Acquisition of privatelyowned land—including businesses, farm
operations, and/or parking”—is considered a significant impact. Therefore, the Proposed Project
DMU/EMU AlternativeandExpress Bus Alternative] would resultin a potentiallysignificant
impactrelated to displacement of businesses. This impactwould be reduced to a less-than-
significantlevel with implementation of Mitigation Measure PH-2, which would requireBART to
implement an acquisitionandrelocation program. (p. 543)
Mitigation Measure PH-2: Acquisition of Property and Relocation
Assistance. (Conventional BART Project and DMU Alternative/EMU
Option)
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
BART’s Real EstateDepartmentwill implement an acquisition and relocation
program thatmeetsthe requirements of applicable State acquisition and
relocation law. Acquisition will involve compensation atfair marketvalue for
properties, and relocationassistance would include, but is notlimited to, down
payments or rental supplements, movingcosts, business reestablishment
reimbursement, and goodwill offers as appropriate. Allbenefits will be provided
inaccordancewith the CaliforniaRelocationAssistance and RealProperty
Acquisition Guidelines.
While the acquisitionandrelocation program maymeetthe applicable Stateacquisition
andrelocation law, theissuelies in theDEIRnot disclosing the actual physical impacts
toeach property. The level of detailprovided in theDEIRdoesnot provide sufficient
information to determinewhatacquisitionwould be required and how that acquisition
wouldimpact eachparcel. Aspreviously stated, the propertiesalong I-580 are home to
some of the community’s key businesses and impacts to public safety, aesthetics and
functionality ofthe property that remove parking, modify circulation patterns, limit
visibility from I-580 areconsidered tobe significantimpactsand no mitigation has been
provided to addresstheseimpacts.
RequestedChange:
Provide detailedROW acquisition needs byeach parcel and provide
description on how each acquisition would impactthe property. Include
proposedmitigation to address publicsafety, aesthetics and functionality
of the property withremovedparking, changedcirculation patterns, and
visibility fromI-580.
B. Transportation Impacts
An overall problem with the DraftEIR is its failure to adequatelyanalyze the impacts of the
DMU, ExpressBus/BRT, andEnhancedBus alternatives within theCityof Dublin, and
particularlynear the Dublin/PleasantonBART Station. Both the DMU and Express Bus/BRT
alternatives contemplatesignificant infrastructure improvements atthe Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station, including newplatforms and trackextensions. And the Enhanced Bus Alternative
contemplatesoperational changes atthe Dublin/PleasantonBART Station, particularly a
significantincrease in bus trafficon existing streets. And yet, portions ofthe EIR expressly
excludeanalysis of impacts in and around this station. Forexample, page 252 states that "The
bicycle studyareasinclude allbicyclefacilitieswithin a 15-minute bike ride ofthe proposed
IsabelStation" and page256similarly states that "Thestudy area for pedestrianscomprises all
pedestrianfacilities . . . within a 15-minutewalkfrom the proposedIsabel Station." These
statements suggest thatthe Draft EIRdidnotstudy bicycle andpedestrian impacts resulting
from project changes tothe Dublin/PleasantonBART Station, notwithstanding the fact that
these alternatives contemplatesignificantinfrastructure and/or operational changes at that
location. This is a problemwith theDraftEIR's analysis of thosethree Buildalternatives butnot
of theConventionalBART Projectalternative, since that alternative does not contemplate
significantinfrastructure or operationalchanges atthe Dublin/PleasantonBARTStation.
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
Traffic Model Assumptions
1. TheDraftEIR (DEIR) has assumedthat the BARTgarage expansion at the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station would occurwith the Project in Cumulative conditions, butdid
notinclude the funding for the garage expansion. This is notthe correctway to assume
ProjectCumulative conditionswhile not including the fundingfor it, especiallywhen
constructing agarage is the responsibility of BART on its own land. Thisneeds tobe
corrected inthe model to reflect the proper No-Projectconditionsthatwouldalsochange
the traffic patterns underthe “With” and “Without” Projectscenarios. Garage Expansion
atthe DublinPleasantonStationshouldeither be part ofthefuture baseline (background
development) without Project or bekept as currently it is in theDEIR but with funding
provided for the garage construction as part ofthe Project. Furthermore, as per the
Chapter 3, EnvironmentalAnalysis, Page 226, DEIR assumed that under the Cumulative
scenarios for 2025 and 2040, Isabel Neighborhood Plan (INP) in Livermore will have
additionalland use changesthat could not be evaluated separately fromthe Garage
Expansion traffic patterns, which in turn impacts theWith Projectanalysisresults. For
example, it is notclear what impacts would be with the INP landuse addition in
conjunctionwith the Project and the Alternativealonewouldhave onthe system.
Requested Change:
Move the BART Garage expansion at Dublin/PleasantonBARTStation to
thefuture 2025and2040baselineWithout Project Conditions, similar to
many other local and regionalprojects in this corridor.
2. TheDEIR’s Chapter 3, EnvironmentalAnalysis, Table 3.B-18, Page 281, provides 2025
and 2040 roadwayimprovementsassumptionsused intrafficmodels. Thereare several
incorrect assumptions in this table for theCityof Dublin’s roadwayinfrastructure. The
incorrectassumptionswould create incorrect model results for impacts to the City of
Dublin roadwayinfrastructureand intersections, and any relatedmitigationsneed tobe
redone.
Requested Change:
Usethe attached (Exhibit A) corrections to Table 3.B-18 andupdate the
trafficmodels network.
Other Transportation Related TechnicalIssues
1. Under the DMU/EMU and Express Bus/BRTAlternatives, DEIR (Chapter 2, Project
Descriptions) did not assume any timeloss for transfer of passengers fromone type of
vehicle to the ConventionalBART at Dublin/Pleasanton Station. This lossof time is
criticalin comparing the Conventional BART with other Alternatives. Additionally, there
was no mention oftraveltime forbuses underthe ExpressBus/BRT Alternative. Thiswill
bean important factortoknow andcompareaspart ofthe informationdisclosure about
projectalternatives.
Requested Changes:
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
i. Provide the transfertime loss for DMU/EMU andExpressBus/BRT
Alternatives.
ii. Provide traveltimeof ExpressBus/BRTfrom ParkandRidefacilities
connecting the Express Bus/BRTto conventional BART at Dublin
Pleasanton BARTstation.
2. DEIR failed to evaluatebicycleandpedestrianrelatedimpacts outside the INP. The
bicycle and pedestrianimpactevaluationwasconsidered for access within 15 minute
ride or walk from the futureIsabelStation.
Requested Change:
Identify andevaluate the bicycleandpedestrianimpacts at
Dublin/Pleasanton Stationand surroundingstreets that will be impactedby
the Project and Alternatives.
3. Chapter 3 oftheDEIR on Page226 provides the Cumulative Projections for population,
employment, and housing. It states that “For the quantitative sections, the cumulativeNo
ProjectConditions for 2025 and2040 are based onthetraffic volumesforecast for those
years determined by the TravelDemand Model. The Travel DemandModel is a
computer model used to forecast travel volumes bydifferent travel modes (BART, bus,
automobile, etc.) across a transportation network based on projectedlanduses.”
However in Appendix E, the DEIRstates, “theproposedDublin/PleasantonStation
ParkingExpansion andtheCityof Livermore’s INP aretwospecific probable future
projects/plans that are thefocusofthe projects/plans considered in the cumulative
analysis. In addition, alistof other approved or reasonably foreseeable projects in the
BART project corridor was developed.” Then in Chapter 3, Page 226, DEIRstates, “This
EIR uses a combination ofthe two approaches for the analysis of cumulative impacts;
that is, the projections-basedapproach is used, but is augmented where appropriate
with thelist-based approach ofpast, present, andprobable future projects in the project
area.” It is not clearif list projectswere coded into the model by replacing the assumed
land use in the Alameda CTC’s regionalmodel’s TAZs with the projects in thelist.
RequestedChange:
Provide a clarification on how thelist projects were usedin thetravel
demandmodelforecasts for Cumulative conditionsin2025 and2040. Was
the modelland use modified or not? Or something else?
4. Table 3.B-23 of the DEIR shows the Dublin/PleasantonBARTstationboardings. Then
onthe next pagethird paragraph, it states “Under 2040 CumulativeConditions, which
includes a net expansion ofthe Dublin/Pleasanton Station parking by 540 spaces, that
stationattracts a largenumber of additionalpark -and-rideBARTpatrons—a higher
number than the increase in supply, as some spaces are usedmore thanonceduring
theday or servemultiplepatronswhoarecarpoolingtogether.” However, a similar
changeor relative change didnot occurbetween the No Projectand With Project
conditions for Park and Ridemodewhen there willsignificantly bemore BARTservice to
theIsabel Station. So why no change? Additionally, a recentBARTBoardaction has
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
modified the garage construction withhybridparkingsupplyplan. Thesupply of hybrid
parking willnotbe concentrated at the plannedgarage site. How this Boardaction would
impact the assumed circulation underthe cumulativescenarios for Project and other
build alternatives.
RequestedChanges:
i. Provide the reasoningbehind no changeinParkandRidemodeshare
between the No Project and Project ConditionsinTable 3.B-23.
ii. Provide an analysis ontraffic circulationchangesdue toa decision by the
BARTBoard on supplyingplanned 540 parkingspacesthrough a hybrid
parkingsupplyschemeinstead of a parkinggarage on DublinSide of
the Dublin/PleasantonBARTstation. Also tonotethatthe hybrid
parkingsupplywillhavedifferent traffic circulationandoperationsdue to
the distributedlocation of parking as compared to a garage. Dueto
these changesmany ofthe currenttraffic analysis outcomes mayno
longer be valid.
5. Table 3.B-30 provides VMT Reduction summary for the Project and Alternatives for
various futureyear scenarios. Theresults indicate an increase in VMTwhen there is
additional parking spaces are provided atthe IsabelStation andat the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station. The explanation on thenextpagestates; “The cumulative
analysis for 2025resultsinsmallerVMT reductions for the ProposedProjectand DMU
Alternative than the VMTreductions for the Proposed Project and DMUAlternative in the
2025 projectanalysis. Thisis due to thelevel of parkingsupply assumed for the
ProposedProjectandtheDMUAlternative under the cumulativeanalysis in comparison
tothe projectanalysis. The Proposed Project andDMU Alternativeprovide enough
parking supply atthe IsabelStation to meet the parking demandprojected for the
station, as well as to absorb a substantialportion ofthe latentparkingdemand
originating from areas relatively close to the Dublin/Pleasanton Station. Thepresence of
newparking at the Dublin/Pleasanton Station under the cumulative analysis—inaddition
tothe significantproposedsupply of parking at the Isabel Station—in total offers enough
parking to attract park-and-ride trips tothe station fromgreater distances, ultimately
resultingin an increase in auto VMT underthe cumulativeanalysis relative tothe project
analysis.”
This conclusion is confusing. Given thefactthat if one passenger goes to BARTStation
due to theavailability of additionalparking supply, then there should be a reduction in
the length of the tripwhencompared tothe same passengerdriving to thefinal
destination, likeSan Francisco. So it is critical to check the difference orthedelta of trip
length to BART andto that of driving allthe way to thefinal destination. Also it is not
clearwhatshare of riderscame fromSan Joaquin Countydue tothe expanded BART
service. This would provide someideaontrip lengthsthatwere attracted to BARTwith
andwithout expanded parking.
Requested Changes:
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
i. Provide a comparison oftrips diverted fromthe roadwaynetwork
including I-580 under various scenarios for 2025 and2040 due to the
availability of expandedBARTserviceandadditionalparking at
Dublin/PleasantonBARTStation andIsabel Station.
ii. Provide an explanation on how the Passenger VMT was calculated as
indicated in Table 3.B-30.
iii. Provide the actualnumber of riders that came fromSan Joaquin
County totake BARTunder the Project and Alternatives to properly
disclose the impacts.
iv. Provide a table that showsdelta of trips thatwereattracted to BART
parkingexpansion VS thosethat hadto driveafternotfindingparking.
6. Tables 3.B-32to 3.B-35have several discrepancies in V/Cfor freeway laneswhen
compared to earliertables 3.B-14and3.B-15. For example, V/C for freewaysegment
betweenVasco Road and Greenville Road is shown as LOS D in Table 3.B-14 with
delay of 0.87. But in Table 3.B-32 it is shown asLOS E with a delay of 0.977. Similar
issueswerenoted in Tables 3.B-36to3.B-39.
RequestedChange:
Review and reconcile different numbers in tablesfor Freewaysegments.
7. Table 3.B-40 indicates a significant impact at Segment 7 (Livermore Ave to Springtown
Blvd/FirstStreet). But the text on Page 337 (pageafterTable 3.B-43) indicates a wrong
segment for mitigationunder the DMU Alternative.
Requestedchange:
Correcttextaccordingly.
8. MitigationMeasures TRAN-7a, TRAN-7b, TRAN-19b, TRAN-19c, TRAN-20a, TRAN-
20b, TRAN-20c, and TRAN-20drecommendadding a third southbound left-turn lane
and a secondwestbound right turnlane atthe intersection of Dublin Blvdand Dougherty
Road. This mitigation is suggested to addressthe peakhour significant impacts to this
intersection in 2025, and 2040under with project/alternatives and CumulativeScenarios.
Theproposedmitigation is not compatiblewith the existing landuse at thisintersection.
Italso wouldimpact the pedestrian access by increasing the crossingdistance for
pedestrians on two approaches. Thereforethismitigation is notsupportedby the Cityof
Dublin. In order to improve operations at this intersection, the City recommendsthat
BART contributestowards implementing an Adaptive Traffic Signalsystemalong
Dougherty Road. Enhanced signal operationsunder the Adaptive TrafficSignalsystem
would minimize the significantimpacts.
Requested Change:
ModifyTRAN-7a, TRAN-7b, TRAN-19b, TRAN-19c, TRAN-20a, TRAN-
20b, TRAN-20c, and TRAN-20d by providing Adaptive TrafficSignal
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
system along Dougherty Road in theCity of Dublin to minimize the
significantimpacts atthe intersection of DublinBlvd and DoughertyRoad.
C. Air Quality Impacts
1. The Draft EIR Does Not Adequately AddressToxic Air Contaminants and Health
Risks. The methodology andimpact analysis (DraftEIRpages 1,120 – 1,125 and pages
1,160 – 1,165, respectively) indicate thatthe risk/TAC analysis focusedon passenger
vehicles, DMU vehicles, maintenancetrucks, buses, shuttlevans, andemergency
generators. However, there is no mention of an analysis associatedwithwidening of the
I-580 freeway right-of-way (ROW ). I-580currently has219,000daily vehicles, including
14,828 daily trucks travelingthrough Dublin.[1] Freeway ROW wideningwouldmove
truck traffic (and associateddieselparticulate matter [DPM] emissions) closer to
receptorsalong the freeway. It should be notedthat the VMTreductionsassociatedwith
implementation ofthe BuildAlternativeswouldaffectpassengervehicles and wouldnot
reduceheavy dutytruck traffic. As such, the Draft EIR does not demonstrate that it has
adequatelyanalyzed operational TAC/riskimpacts.
RequestedChange:
TheDraft EIRmustbe revised to clearlyidentifyimpacts
associatedwith movingheavyduty diesel vehicles (dueto ROW
widening) closer to receptorslocated along the freeway.
D. Noise and Vibration Impacts
1. The Draft EIR Should IdentifyAdditional Options to Mitigation Pile Driving Noise.
Whentechnicallyfeasible, silentpress-inpiling (suchas theGiken SilentPiler) should be
the preferred method ratherthan drilling to reducenoiseandvibration impacts. This
optionshould be includedinMitigationMeasure NOI-1.
2. The Draft EIR Does NotInclude All Feasible Options to Mitigate Construction
Noise. MitigationMeasure NOI-1 shouldinclude noise monitoringduring construction to
ensure the90dBA Leq limit is notexceeded. If it is exceeded, constructionactivities
shouldhalt until a remedy is implemented to reduce the noise levels below the90 dBA
Leq limit.
Requested Change:
Thenoisemonitoringshould be incorporated intothe followingsection of
MitigationMeasureNOI-1:
To reduce potentialdaytime constructionnoiseimpacts to
residentialusesimmediately south of the realignment of the
easternextent of East Airway Boulevard (Proposed Project and
DMUAlternative), BART contractorsshallemploy moveablenoise
curtainsorbarriersalong the southern side ofEast Airway
Boulevard to shield daytimeconstruction noise impacts to
residential uses tothe south. These temporary noisebarriersshall
be employed for construction along East AirwayBoulevard, east
of Sutter Street. Implementation of thismeasure willensure that
1] CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation, Traffic DataBranch, Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on
theCaliforniaState Highway System, 2015.
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
daytimeconstructionactivities donot exceedFTAnoisecriteriafor
daytime construction at residentialuses (90 dBA Leq).
Additionally, noise monitoringshall be conducted during
construction to ensure this limit is noteexceeded. If it is
exceeded, construction activities shouldhalt until a remedy is
implemented to reducethenoise levels below the90dBA Leq
limit.
3. The Draft EIR Does NotInclude All Feasible Options to Mitigate Construction
Vibration Impacts. Vibrationmonitoringshould be conducted while these construction
activities are takingplace to ensure the vibrationlimit (0.2PPV in/sec and 72VdB) is not
exceeded. If it is exceeded, constructionactivities shouldhalt until aremedy is
implemented to reduce the vibration levels below the limit.
Requested Change:
MitigationMeasureNOI-1 should be revisedas follows:
To reduce potentialvibrationimpacts to residentialuses
immediately south ofthe realignment of the eastern extentof East
AirwayBoulevard (Proposed Project andDMUAlternative), BART
contractors shalluse non-vibratory excavator-mounted
compaction wheels and smallsmooth drum rollers for final
compaction of asphalt baseand asphalt concrete. If needed to
meetcompaction requirements, smallervibratoryrollers willbe
used to minimizevibrationlevelsduringrepavingactivitieswhere
needed to meet vibration standards. Thesemethodsshall be
employed for constructionalong EastAirwayBoulevard, east of
Sutter Street. Vibrationmonitoringshall be conducted while these
constructionactivities aretakingplace to ensure the vibration limit
0.2 PPV in/sec and72 VdB) is not exceeded. If it is exceeded,
construction activitiesshall halt until aremedy is implemented to
reduce the vibrationlevelsbelow the limit.
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
Attachments:
Exhibit A
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
EXN /B /T_ q
JULY 2017 BARTTo LIVERMoRE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. TRANSPORTATION
TABLE 3.8 -18 LOCAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, 2025 AND 2040 NO PROJECT CONDITIONS
RelevantRelevant
Analysis Study
Street Limits Improvement Year Intersection #
Livermore
Isabel Avenue 1 -580 EB Ramps Widen overpass 2040 30
Isabel Avenue 1 -580 WB Ramps Widen overpass 2025 and 28 and #29
Dublin Dougherty Road to North Extension
2040
Isabel Avenue Stanley Boulevard to Ruby Widen to four lanes 2040 33
Fallon Road
HIII Drive
Extension N/A
Isabel Avenue Isabel and Jack London Intersection 2025 and 36
Gleason Drive
Boulevard improvements 2040
Csv PLiEta
Vasco Road Northfront Road to Las Widento eight 2040 43 and #44
Fallon Road
Positas Road lanes
2040 ' #20
Greenville Road Interchange improvements Widenunderpass 2025 and 48
Dublin To Schaefer Ranch Road
to six lanes 2040
Greenville Road Las Positas Road to Widento four lanes 2025 and 48
Paterson Pass Road 2040
Greenville Road Westbound ramp Signalize 2025 and 46
intersection and 2040
add westbound
left -turn pocket
and eastbound
right -turn pocket
Greenville Road Greenville Road and Signalize 2025 and 48
Altamont Pass Road intersection 2040
Greenville Road Greenville Road and Signalize 2025 and 50
Patterson Pass Road intersection 2040
Pleasanton
El Charro Road Stonerldge Drive to Jack Extension 2040 #23
London Boulevard
El Charro Road Jack London to Stanley Extension After N/A
Boulevard 2040
Dublin
Dublin Brannigan Street to Fallon Widen toj{ -- 2025 and #19
Boulevard Road lanes six 2040
Dublin Dougherty Road to North Extension 2040 N/A
Boulevard Canyons Parkway
Fallon Road Connect to Tassajara Road Extension N/A
291 2025/2 o jv
Gleason Drive To Fallon Road Extension N/A Csv PLiEta
20 S -2o &
dREyDf
Fallon Road N/A Upgrade 2040 ' #20
Interchange
Dublin To Schaefer Ranch Road Extension 010 N/A
Boulevard CoA%e/2
281
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
BART To LIVERMOREEXTENSION PROJECT EIR
CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYsis
B. TRANsPORTAT1oN
JULY 2017
TABLE 3.6 -18 LOCAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, 2025 AND 2040 No PROJECT CONDITIONS
Relevant Relevant
Analysis Study
Street Limits Improvement Year Intersection #
Tassajara Road Dublin Boulevard to 1 -580 Widen to eight 2025 and #14
lanes 2040
Tassajara Road Fallon to Dublin Widen to six lanes 2040 #14
Hacienda Road Dublin Boulevard to Central Widen to six lanes 2040 #9
Dougherty Sierra Court [ ityLimits Widen to 2025 and #1
Road lanes .SiX 2040
Notes: EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; N/A = no applicable.
Local roadway improvement assumptions were mad ith inputfrom the Cities of Livermore, and
Pleasanton. I/ to 7—,9 .7- Sb —0 6'-* G T Li 11T
Sources:
49 % E l O91r# - City of Livermore, 2009; City of Pleasanton, 2009; City of Dublin, 2013. A D 7
ThePleasanton General Plan has identified major roadway improvements. Table 3.13-18
summarizes the intersection and roadway lane improvements near the study area.
Completion of the Stoneridge Drive extension, Busch Road, and El Charro Road are
significant andnecessary parts of Pleasanton's local circulation system. The extension of
Nevada Street has the potentialto provide some traffic relief to the Stanley
Boulevard/ValleyAvenue /Bernal Avenue intersection.
In addition to these improvements, the Triangle Study" identified projects required for a
strategic approach to relieving traffic congestion in the Tri- Valley Area. The Tri - Valley
Triangle Study Final Plan Recommendations were approved in February 2011. This
included an agreementon the sequencing of projects, specifically that the Stoneridge
Drive extension be completed before construction can begin on State Route 84 as a
four -lane facility betweenwest of Ruby Hill Drive and 1 -680.
Table 3.6 -19 presentsthe No Project Conditions in 2025 and 2040.
n Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC), 2007. Tri - ValleyTriangle
Study.
282
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
Figure 1 - Conventional BART Alternative
Lowes: 30
parkingspaces
lost
N
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
Figure 1 - Conventional BART Alternative
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
Figure 2 - DMU/EMU ALTERNATIVE
Dublin
Volkswagen:
25 parking
spaceslost
Dublin
Hyundai: 45
parking
spaces lost
Scarlett Court
moved35 ft North.
Turnaround at E endof
Scarlett court is moved
35 ft. northand100 ft.
west
Parkingalong the
southernedge of the
Corp yard wouldbe
removed
I-580 road wideningbegins .2 miles West of
Dougherty/Hopyardovercrossing and reaches maximum at .2
milesWestof Iron Horse Trail. Widening continues on Dublin
sideuntilLivermoreborder.
N
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
Figure 2 - DMU/EMU ALTERNATIVE
Dublin Toyota Scion: 40
parkingspaceslost
HaciendaShopping center: 75
parkingspaceslost
I-580 road widening begins 0.2 mileWest of Dougherty/Hopyard
overcrossingandcontinues to Livermore
N
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
Figure 2 - DMU/EMU ALTERNATIVE
Lowes: 30
parkingspaces
lost
N
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
Figure 2 - DMU/EMU ALTERNATIVE
N
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
Figure 3 - Express Bus/BRTAlternative
Dublin
Volkswagen: 25
parkingspaces
lost
Dublin
Hyundai:
45 parking
spaces lost
Turnaround at east endof
Scarlettcourt is moved 35 ft.
northand100 ft. west
Parkingalong the
southern edge of theCorp
ward would be removed
Scarlett Court
moved 35 ft. north.
Widening of I-580begins 0.2 miles West of Dougherty/Hopyardovercrossing. Widening
gradually startsand reachesmaximum at0.2 miles West of Iron HorseTrail. The maximum
wideningoccurs fromthere to about .2 miles Eastof Iron Horse Trail. From there, widening
tapers down and ends on Dublinside at Tassajara/SantaRita overcrossing.
Maxwidening of 88 ft.
fromabout 0.2 miles
west of Iron HorseTrail
to about 0.2 M east of
Iron Horse Trail. More
widening on
Pleasanton side then
on Dublin
N
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
Figure 3 - Express Bus/BRTAlternative
N
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
Figure 3 - Express Bus/BRTAlternative
Widening ends on Dublin
side.
N
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives
Evaluation Report
February 2018
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
na
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
Credits
BART
Andrew Tang
Don Dean
Rachel Russell
Ellen Smith
Val Menotti
Arup
Chester Fung
Chris Hrones
Nancy Mathison
Jasmine Stitt
Allison Dawson
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
Contents
Executive Summary 1
1 Introduction 6
1.1 Background and Project History 6
1.1.1 BART to Livermore Program EIR 6
1.1.2 BART to Livermore Project Draft EIR 6
1.1.3 Proposed Project and Alternatives 7
1.2 Report Purpose 15
1.3 Report Organization 15
1.4 Abbreviations 16
2 Approach and Methodology 17
2.1 Evaluation Frameworks 17
2.1.1 Consistency with Project Goals 17
2.1.2 BART System Expansion Policy 17
2.1.3 Other Considerations 18
2.2 Evaluation Methodology 19
3 Project Goals Evaluation Framework 20
3.1 Overall Performance 21
3.2 Goal 1A: Provide a Cost-Effective Link 22
3.3 Goal 1B: Provide an Intermodal Link Between BART, Inter-Regional Rail and PDAs
24
3.4 Goal 2: Support integrating transit and land use policies to create transit-
oriented development opportunities 26
3.5 Goal 3: Provide Alternative to I-580 Congestion 29
3.6 Goal 4: Improve Air Quality, Reduce Greenhouse Gases 31
4 BART System Expansion Policy Evaluation Framework 33
4.1 Approach 34
4.2 Overall Results 34
4.3 Transit Supportive Land Use and Access 36
4.4 Ridership Development Plan 38
4.5 Cost Effectiveness 40
4.6 Regional Network Connectivity 41
4.7 System and Financial Capacity 41
4.8 Partnerships 43
5 Additional Evaluations 44
5.1 Significant Environmental Impacts 44
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
5.2 Equity Assessment 45
5.2.1 Impacts 46
5.3 MTC Performance Assessment 50
5.4 MTC Resolution 3434 TOD Policy 51
Appendix A – Project and Cumulative Results for the Proposed Project and Build Alternatives
Appendix B – Summary of Significant Impacts – BART to Livermore Extension Draft Project EIR
Appendix C – Air Quality Emissions
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
Table of Figures
Figures
Figure 1 – Proposed Project (Conventional BART) Overview 9
Figure 2 – DMU Alternative / EMU Option Overview 11
Figure 3 – Express Bus / BRT Alternative Overview 12
Figure 4 – Enhanced Bus Alternative Overview 14
Figure 5 – Low-Income Population within ½ Mile Buffer of Proposed Project 47
Figure 6 – Minority Population within ½ Mile Buffer of Proposed Project 48
Figure 7 – Limited English Proficiency Population Within ½ Mile Buffer 49
Tables
Table 1 – Project Goals and Key Metrics 20
Table 2 – Consistency with Project Goal Comparison: Overall 21
Table 3 – Consistency with Project Goal 1A Comparison: Provide a Cost-Effective Link 23
Table 4 – Consistency with Project Goal 1B Comparison: Provide an intermodal link between
BART, inter-regional rail and PDAs 25
Table 5 – Consistency with Project Goal 2 Comparison: Support Integrating Transit and Land
Use Policies to Create Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Opportunities 28
Table 6 – Consistency with Project Goal 3 Comparison: Provide Alternative to I-580 Congestion 30
Table 7 – Consistency with Project Goal 4 Comparison: Improve Air Quality, Reduce
Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) 32
Table 8 – BART System Expansion Policy 35
Table 9 – Cost Effectiveness 40
Table 10 – Environmental Justice Populations 45
Table 11 – Resolution 3434 TOD Policy Housing Thresholds 51
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
1
Executive Summary
This Evaluation Report supplements the information provided in the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
to Livermore Extension Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). While the purpose of the EIR is to
disclose the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project and alternatives and propose mitigation
measures to avoid or reduce adverse environmental impacts, the Evaluation Report provides a
comparison of the benefits and costs of the Proposed Project and build alternatives.
This report is intended to provide an evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives,
primarily using two major evaluation frameworks: consistency with established project goals, and
the BART System Expansion Policy (BSEP). Additional evaluations considered significant
environmental impacts, an equity assessment, and application of the MTC’s Resolution 3434
Transit-Oriented Development Policy.
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives
The Proposed Project and three build alternatives are as follows:
• Proposed Project – The Proposed Project is an extension of the BART system using
conventional BART technology from the existing system terminus at the Dublin/Pleasanton
Station to a new station located near the Isabel Avenue (State Route 84) / I-580 interchange in
the city of Livermore.
• DMU Alternative / EMU Option – The Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Alternative uses a similar
alignment as the Proposed Project but differs in vehicle technology. DMUs are self-propelled rail
cars that use a diesel engine to generate power and run on a standard-gauge rail track. The
Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Option is generally the same as the DMU Alternative, except that it
is electric-powered rather than diesel-powered.
• Express Bus / Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative – Under this alternative, new bus ramps
from the I-580 express lanes to new bus transfer platforms would be constructed at the existing
Dublin/Pleasanton Station to facilitate direct connections between BART and connecting buses.
No rail extension would be included.
• Enhanced Bus Alternative – This alternative provides modest, lower-cost bus enhancements
on local streets to improve access to the Dublin/Pleasanton Station, but no new bus transfer
platforms or other infrastructure in the median of I-580.
Project Goals
The BART to Livermore Extension Project goals are as follows:
• Provide a cost-effective intermodal link of the existing BART system to the inter-regional rail
network and to a series of Priority Development Areas (PDAs) identified by the City of
Livermore, the MTC, and the Association of Bay Area Governments. These PDAs include the
Livermore Isabel Avenue BART Station PDA, the Livermore Downtown PDA and the Livermore
East Side PDA.
• Support the regional goals of integrating transit and land use policies to create opportunities for
transit-oriented development (TOD) in the Livermore-area PDAs.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
2
• Provide an effective alternative to traffic congestion on I-580.
• Improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and other emissions associated with
automobile use.
Project Goals Evaluation
The BART to Livermore Extension Program EIR, adopted in 2010, established the project’s goals for
improving transit mobility, increasing BART ridership and supporting TOD. These goals were further
developed in the Notice of Preparation for the Project EIR (2012) and refined in the BART to
Livermore Extension Project Draft EIR (DEIR). This Evaluation Report analyzes the extent to which the
Proposed Project and build alternatives meet these goals.
Table ES-1 provides an overview of the performance of the Proposed Project and build alternatives
in light of each of the project goals. The Proposed Project has medium or medium-high ratings for
all five goals. The DMU Alternative and EMU Option rate medium or low-medium on all goals. The
Express Bus / BRT Alternative rates medium-high under the first goal, to “provide a cost-effective
link.” However, the Express Bus / BRT Alternative rates as medium or low-medium for all other
goals. The Enhanced Bus Alternative rates as medium for one goal, low-medium for one goal, and
low for three of the goals.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
3
Table ES-1 – Proposed Project and Alternatives Compared to Project Goals
Project Goals and
Objectives
Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative
EMU Option Express
Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced
Bus
Alternative
Provide a cost-effective
intermodal link
Link existing BART, inter-
regional rail, Priority
Development Areas (Isabel,
downtown, East Side)
Create transit-oriented
development (TOD)
opportunities
Provide alternative to I-580
congestion
Improve air quality, reduce
greenhouse gases (GHG)
High Medium-high Medium Medium-low Low
The BART System Expansion Policy (BSEP) is a BART Board-adopted policy for considering system
expansions. This policy includes several criteria that must be considered: the potential for
generating new ridership, cost effectiveness, surrounding land uses, accessibility, connectivity with
other transit systems, effects on the existing BART system, and the degree of inter-agency
partnering and community support. These criteria constitute the second framework used for
evaluating the Proposed Project and build alternatives.
As shown in Table ES-2, neither the Proposed Project nor any of the build alternatives rate high
across a majority of evaluation criteria. The Proposed Project rates high for only one criterion — the
Operating Finance Plan. It rates medium or medium-high for most other criteria but rates low in the
areas of Existing Land Use, Existing Intermodal Connections, Station Context, and Regional
Transportation Gap Closure. The DMU Alternative / EMU Option rates high for Operating Finance
Plan as well, and low under the same criteria as the Proposed Project, and rates medium or low-
medium in other categories. The Express Bus / BRT Alternative rates high for two criteria, Capital
Finance Plan and Operating Finance Plan, and medium-high for one criterion, Cost per New Rider:
Base Case. It rates low or low-medium for all other criteria. The Enhanced Bus Alternative rates high
for Capital Finance Plan, low for Existing Land Use and Regional Transportation Gap Closure, and
medium or low-medium for all other categories.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
na
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
4
Table ES-2 – Proposed Project and Alternatives Compared to BART System Expansion Policy Criteria
Proposed
Project
DMU
Alternative /
EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Transit-Supportive Land Use and Access
Existing Land Use: Residential and/or
Employment
Existing Intermodal Connections
Land Use Plans and Policies
Ridership Development Plan
Ridership Threshold
N/A N/A
Station Context
N/A N/A
Cost-Effectiveness 1
Cost per New Rider: Base Case
Cost per New Rider: with Transit-
Oriented Development N/A N/A
Regional Network Connectivity
Regional Transportation Gap
Closure
System and Financial Capacity
Core System Improvements
Capital Finance Plan
Operating Finance Plan
Partnerships
Community and Stakeholder
Support
Not assessed at
this time.
Not assessed at
this time.
Not assessed at
this time.
Not assessed at
this time.
High Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low
1 Cost/Transportation System User Benefit, a suggested BSEP metric, was not utilized as it is no longer employed by the Federal Transit Administration and
was never phased into the BSEP by BART.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
na
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
5
Overall Results
The evaluation results of the Proposed Project and build alternatives are as follows:
• The Proposed Project (conventional BART) and the Express Bus / BRT Alternative perform better
than the other alternatives. The Proposed Project, which has the highest ridership projections,
would result in the greatest number of benefits, such as reductions in regional vehicle miles
traveled and GHG emissions.
• The DMU Alternative / EMU Option has higher benefits, such as improved transit travel time,
increased transit ridership, and reduced regional vehicle miles traveled, than the two bus
alternatives, but less than the Proposed Project. Its costs are comparable to the Proposed Project.
• The Express Bus / BRT Alternative performs better than the Proposed Project for the cost-
effectiveness and financial capacity measures, but generally worse for the other measures.
• The Enhanced Bus Alternative performs equal to or worse than the Express Bus / BRT Alternative
under all frameworks.
Neither the Proposed Project nor any of the alternatives achieves a high rating for any of the goals.
The BSEP ratings, meant to guide decisions about expansions, are highly variable for the Proposed
Project and all the build alternatives.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
6
1 Introduction
This report evaluates the proposed Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to Livermore Extension Project
(Proposed Project) and three build alternatives to the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project, also
referred to as the Conventional BART Project, was developed in partnership with the City of Livermore
and consists of a proposed 5.5-mile BART extension along I-580 to a new station near the Isabel
Avenue/I-580 interchange.
The purpose of this evaluation is to compare the Proposed Project and build alternatives and provide
information to policymakers, stakeholders, and the general public.
1.1 Background and Project History
1.1.1 BART to Livermore Program EIR
In November 2009, BART released the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the BART
to Livermore Extension Program. The Draft PEIR considered nine alignment alternatives for extending
the existing BART service eastward from the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station (Dublin/Pleasanton
Station) to Livermore. The PEIR assumed use of conventional BART technology; its analysis focused on
alignment alternatives and was not intended to evaluate alternative technologies. The evaluation of
alternative technologies was deferred to a project-level EIR.
On July 1, 2010, the BART Board of Directors certified the Final PEIR and selected Alternative 2B
(Portola-Vasco) as the preferred alternative. This alternative would originate at the existing
Dublin/Pleasanton Station in the median of I-580, diverge from the I-580 corridor (just west of the
existing Portola interchange), transition to a subway under Portola and Junction Avenues to an
underground station adjacent to the existing Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) station in downtown
Livermore, and extend at-grade parallel to the existing Union Pacific Railroad tracks to a terminus
station and maintenance yard at Vasco Road.
Initially, the City of Livermore recommended the Alternative 2B (Portola-Vasco) alignment; however,
following further public discussion, the City determined that it preferred an alignment along I-580
from Dublin/Pleasanton Station to Greenville Road, with stations at Isabel Avenue and Greenville Road.
This alignment was then incorporated into the City of Livermore’s General Plan.
As part of the continuing BART to Livermore planning process, BART released a project-level Draft EIR
(DEIR) in July 2017 for a BART extension to a new station at Isabel Avenue. The Proposed Project in the
project-level DEIR corresponds to the alignment of Alternative 4 (Isabel Avenue/I-580 interchange) in
the PEIR. In addition, both the City’s preferred I-580 alignment and BART’s adopted Portola-Vasco
alignment share the 5.5-mile segment from Dublin/Pleasanton Station to Isabel Avenue in the I-580
median.
1.1.2 BART to Livermore Project Draft EIR
The project-level DEIR evaluates a Proposed Project and three build alternatives. The Proposed Project
would extend the existing BART system in the I-580 median to a proposed station east of the Isabel
Avenue/I-580 interchange, together with tail track, a storage and maintenance facility, and other
facilities such as wayside facilities and station parking.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
7
The Proposed Project does not preclude extending transit service farther east in an alignment within or
extending out of the I-580 median. From Isabel Avenue, a future expansion farther east beyond Isabel
using conventional BART or another technology could extend to either Downtown Livermore or along
I-580 to Greenville Road. Such an extension, as contemplated in the PEIR, would be the subject of a
separate project-level evaluation in a future environmental document.
BART released the project-level DEIR for public review in July 2017. The DEIR informs public agency
decision-makers and the public of the significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Project and
its alternatives, and includes mitigation measures for significant impacts where feasible. Following a
77-day public review and comment period, BART is preparing the Final EIR (FEIR). The FEIR will contain
all the comments received on the DEIR and a written response to each substantive comment. The FEIR
is scheduled to be completed by late spring 2018.
1.1.3 Proposed Project and Alternatives
The Proposed Project and three build alternatives, as well as the No Project Alternative (or No Build
Alternative), are evaluated in the DEIR in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The three build alternatives were identified in initial screening as alternatives with the
potential to meet most of the project goals and be completed within a reasonable timeframe;
therefore, they merited full evaluation in the DEIR.
The three build alternatives (shown with Proposed Project in the figures on the following pages) are as
follows:
• Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Alternative, which includes a variant referred to as the Electrical
Multiple Unit (EMU) Option;
• Express Bus / Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative; and
• Enhanced Bus Alternative.
Proposed Project
The Proposed Project, shown in Figure 1, involves extending the BART system using conventional
BART technology, from the existing terminus of the Dublin/Pleasanton–Daly City Line at the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station to a new station located at the Isabel Avenue (State Route 84) / I-580
interchange in the city of Livermore. The new alignment and the new Isabel BART Station (Isabel
Station) would be constructed in the I-580 median. New parking facilities — consisting of a parking
structure and a surface lot containing approximately 3,412 spaces — would be constructed
immediately south of I-580 along East Airway Boulevard. In addition, a new, approximately 68-acre
BART storage and maintenance facility would be constructed north of I-580, beyond the Isabel Station
near Hartman Road.
To accommodate the widening of the I-580 median for the new BART alignment and Isabel Station,
the California Department of Transportation right-of-way would be widened along approximately 5.6
miles. The I-580 lanes would be relocated by a total of approximately 46 feet, from just east of the
Hacienda Drive interchange to west of the Portola Avenue/I-580 overcrossing. At the proposed Isabel
Station, I-580 would be relocated by approximately 67 feet to accommodate the new station within
the median. The relocation of I-580 would require the modification of some interchanges and surface
frontage roads.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
8
The Proposed Project includes new and modified feeder bus routes that would connect the new Isabel
Station to the Livermore Downtown Priority Development Area (PDA), the Livermore East Side PDA
(which includes the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), and other areas east of the BART
system, as well as to the ACE Stations in downtown Livermore and Vasco Road. The overall
performance of these bus routes would be improved via the implementation of transit priority
infrastructure enhancements, such as signal timing priority, bus shelters and bus bulbs.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
9
Figure 1 – Proposed Project (Conventional BART) Overview
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
10
DMU Alternative / EMU Option
The DMU Alternative, shown in Figure 2, differs from the Proposed Project in terms of vehicle
technology. DMUs are self-propelled rail cars that use a diesel engine to generate their own power
and run on a standard-gauge rail track, whereas BART trains use electricity and run on wide-gauge
rail track.
The DMU Alternative would have a similar median alignment and station configuration as the
Proposed Project, but would have a longer alignment and include a new transfer platform at the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station. A passenger wishing to travel further on the BART system would need to
transfer from DMU to BART at Dublin / Pleasanton Station. A BART-to-DMU or BART-to-EMU
platform would provide a direct transfer across a platform. This transfer facility would require
widening of the BART right-of-way at the existing Dublin/Pleasanton Station with corresponding
relocation of I-580 and reconfiguration of adjacent roadways beyond that required for the
Proposed Project. A new parking structure for the Isabel Station, with approximately 2,428 parking
spaces, would be constructed immediately south of I-580 along East Airway Boulevard. In addition,
a new, approximately 32-acre storage and maintenance facility would be constructed north of I-
580, between the terminus of the alignment and Hartman Road.
To accommodate the median widening, approximately 7.1 miles of I-580 would be relocated by a
total of approximately 46 feet, from west of Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road interchange to the
Portola Avenue / I-580 overcrossing. Around the Dublin/Pleasanton Station, the north side of I-580
would be relocated to accommodate the new DMU transfer platform. At the proposed Isabel
Station, I-580 would be relocated by a total of approximately 67 feet to accommodate the station
in the median. The relocation of I-580 would require modification of some interchanges and
surface frontage roads.
The DMU Alternative includes the same bus components as the Proposed Project, including new
and modified feeder bus routes connecting the new station to areas east of the BART system.
A variant of the DMU Alternative — the EMU Option — is also being considered. The EMU Option
is generally the same as the DMU Alternative, except that it uses electrical-powered vehicles rather
than diesel-powered vehicles.
Express Bus / BRT Alternative
The Express Bus / BRT Alternative, shown in Figure 3, seeks to achieve the project goals using bus
technology only. Under this alternative, new bus transfer platforms would be constructed at the
existing Dublin/Pleasanton Station. The bus platforms would be located to the outside of the
existing BART station platforms. New bus ramps from the I-580 express lanes would be constructed
for buses to enter and connect directly to the bus transfer platforms, allowing passengers to
transfer from bus to BART without leaving the station.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 55
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
11
Figure 2 – DMU Alternative / EMU Option Overview
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
12
Figure 3 – Express Bus / BRT Alternative Overview
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
13
To accommodate the new bus transfer platforms and facilities under this alternative, approximately
2.2 miles of I-580, from west of the Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road interchange to the Tassajara
Road/Santa Rita Road interchange, would be relocated by approximately 88 feet. The relocation of
I-580 would require modification of some interchanges and surface frontage roads.
A new parking lot (or garage) with 210 parking spaces would be constructed at the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station to replace the existing parking lost due to the I-580 relocation. In
addition, a remote, approximately 230-space park-and-ride lot would be constructed at Laughlin
Road, with regular bus service during peak hours from the lot to the Dublin/Pleasanton Station.
This alternative includes a feeder bus operation like that of the Proposed Project and DMU
Alternative. It would be designed to enhance direct connections between the Dublin/Pleasanton
Station, downtown Livermore, both the downtown Livermore and Vasco Road ACE stations, and
Livermore-area PDAs, as well as to maximize use of the I-580 high-occupancy vehicle/high-
occupancy toll lanes. Bus service improvements include, but are not limited to, two new
express/rapid bus routes.
Enhanced Bus Alternative
Like the Express Bus / BRT Alternative, the Enhanced Bus Alternative, shown in Figure 4, uses bus-
related technology only and does not include an extension of BART rail service or the development
of a new rail station. Unlike the Express Bus / BRT Alternative, this alternative does not include any
major capital improvements and would not include the development of bus transfer platforms or
direct bus ramps. This alternative provides lower-cost bus service improvements to enhance access
to the Dublin/Pleasanton Station.
The Enhanced Bus Alternative includes bus operation like those for the Proposed Project and other
build alternatives, designed to enhance direct connections to the Dublin/Pleasanton Station from
Las Positas College, downtown Livermore, and both the downtown Livermore and Vasco Road ACE
stations, as well as to serve existing and future Livermore PDAs.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
14
Figure 4 – Enhanced Bus Alternative Overview
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
15
1.2 Report Purpose
This report is intended to provide an evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives,
primarily using two major evaluation frameworks — consistency with established project goals and
the BART System Expansion Policy (BSEP). The report will be used in association with a public
outreach process in early 2018 to inform stakeholders about the merits and demerits of the
Proposed Project and build alternatives and to receive stakeholder input.
This report supplements the information provided in the EIR prepared for the BART Livermore
Extension Project. While the purpose of the EIR is to disclose the environmental impacts of the
Proposed Project and alternatives and to propose mitigation measures to avoid or reduce adverse
environmental impacts, the Evaluation Report provides a comparison of the benefits and costs of
the Proposed Project and build alternatives.
This report is included in the administrative record for the FEIR. However, this report is not a part of
the EIR itself — the public comment period for the EIR has ended, and any stakeholder input
received by BART in response to this report will not be considered as comments on the EIR.
The BART Board of Directors must certify that it has reviewed and considered the information in the
FEIR and that the FEIR has been completed in conformity with CEQA requirements before any
decision can be made regarding the project. The Board will also consider this Evaluation Report in
weighing the potential project impacts against the benefits and any other economic, legal, social,
technological and other considerations, and the feasibility of alternatives, to determine whether the
Proposed Project or an alternative should be approved as proposed, approved with modifications,
or not approved.
1.3 Report Organization
Section 2 provides an overview of the approach and methodology employed in this report,
including a description of the two major evaluation frameworks.
Section 3 presents an evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives based on the
consistency with the established project goals evaluation framework.
Section 4 presents an evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives based on the
consistency with the BSEP evaluation framework.
Section 5 discusses other evaluation considerations.
Appendix A presents evaluation data assembled or generated for this report in a comprehensive
form.
Appendix B provides a summary of significant impacts from the BART to Livermore Project EIR.
Appendix C provides details on the impact of the Proposed Alternatives and the build alternatives
on air quality emissions.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
16
1.4 Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used throughout this report.
ACE Altamont Corridor Express
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BRT bus rapid transit
BSEP BART System Expansion Policy
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
DMU Diesel Multiple Unit
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMU Electric Multiple Unit
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
GHG greenhouse gas
INP Isabel Neighborhood Plan
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
PDA Priority Development Area
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
TOD transit-oriented development
VMT vehicle miles traveled
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
17
2 Approach and Methodology
2.1 Evaluation Frameworks
In this report, the Proposed Project and build alternatives are evaluated based on a set of categories
and metrics that provide a rational and comprehensive basis for comparison. The categories and
metrics for this evaluation primarily come from two sources: 1) the stated goals for the project and
2) the adopted BART System Expansion Policy. Other considerations are also discussed below.
2.1.1 Consistency with Project Goals
The project goals to improve transit mobility, increase BART ridership, and support transit-oriented
development (TOD) were expressed in the adopted 2010 BART to Livermore Extension PEIR. These
goals were further developed in the Notice of Preparation for the Project EIR (2012) and refined in
the BART to Livermore Extension Project DEIR. This report analyzes the extent to which the
Proposed Project and build alternatives meet these goals.
The BART to Livermore Extension Project goals, as listed in the DEIR, are as follows:
• Provide a cost-effective intermodal link of the existing BART system to the inter-regional
rail network and a series of Priority Development Areas (PDAs) identified by the City of
Livermore, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of
Bay Area Governments. These PDAs include the Livermore Isabel Avenue BART Station
PDA, the Livermore Downtown PDA and the Livermore East Side PDA.
• Support the regional goals of integrating transit and land use policies to create
opportunities for TOD in the Livermore area PDAs.
• Provide an effective alternative to traffic congestion on I-580.
• Improve air quality and reduce GHG and other emissions associated with automobile use.
Specific metrics were selected for evaluating the Proposed Project and build alternatives under each
of these goals. The metrics used for the analysis are detailed in Section 3.
2.1.2 BART System Expansion Policy
The BSEP is a BART Board-adopted policy for considering system expansions. This policy includes
several criteria that must be considered. These criteria include the potential for generating new
ridership, cost effectiveness, surrounding land uses, accessibility, connectivity with other transit
systems, effects on the existing BART system, and the degree of inter-agency partnering and
community support. These criteria constitute the second framework used for evaluating the
Proposed Project and build alternatives. The metrics used for analyzing each of these criteria are
specified in Section 4.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
18
2.1.3 Other Considerations
The report also includes several other factors that are useful for comparing the Proposed Project
and build alternatives, but which are not explicitly covered by the two evaluation frameworks
discussed above.
Environmental impacts, disclosed in the EIR for this project, are relevant not only to meeting CEQA
requirements, but also in alternatives evaluation. Section 5 provides an overview of impacts and
mitigation measures associated with the Proposed Project and build alternatives.
Equity is a category not explicitly addressed in the project BSEP or the project goals. Equity is
nonetheless an important consideration and BART has a written environmental justice policy that
outlines its commitment “to taking reasonable steps in order to ensure equitable public
transportation service.” Accordingly, a separate assessment of equity is included in Section 5.
Section 5 also includes a discussion of the MTC’s process for assessing projects competing for
discretionary regional funding, and a performance assessment of the Proposed Project and build
alternatives under MTC’s Resolution 3434 TOD policy.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
19
2.2 Evaluation Methodology
For each goal/criterion of the two evaluation frameworks, one or more specific performance metrics
were developed to assess how well the Proposed Project and build alternatives perform in
comparison with each other. For the project goal framework, the evaluation identified performance
metrics for each project goal, as detailed in Section 3. For the BSEP framework, quantitative and
qualitative BSEP metrics for each criterion were used to assign a low to high evaluation rating, as
detailed in Section 4.
Performance of the Proposed Project and build alternatives by evaluation categories are presented
and allow for some overall conclusions about the merits and demerits of the Proposed Project and
build alternatives. No weights were assigned to individual categories, nor was there an effort to
total or average the category ratings to create a total or average score.
The DEIR has two different future analysis years — 2025 and 2040. This Evaluation Report uses
2040 as the evaluation year, as it represents a timeframe when the full impacts and benefits of the
Proposed Project and the build alternatives will be realized.
The DEIR also has two different scenarios for future years — project scenarios and cumulative
scenarios. The project scenarios include the Proposed Project or alternative, and assume only
population and employment growth and transportation network improvements consistent with
regional projections. The cumulative scenarios include, in addition to the growth and improvements
assumed in the project scenario, (1) the build-out of the Isabel Neighborhood Plan (INP), which
proposes a mixed-use TOD near the proposed Isabel station, and (2) the construction of additional
parking at the Dublin/Pleasanton station. 2 Unless otherwise noted, the evaluations in this report
utilize data from the project scenario. Appendix A provides more detail on the evaluation metrics
using the project scenario and the cumulative scenario.
2 BART has expanded its consideration to include a variety of parking strategies to increase parking near the Dublin/Pleasanton and West
Dublin/Pleasanton station. The results in this report are not substantially affected by the use of alternative parking strategies.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
20
3 Project Goals Evaluation Framework
An important consideration in comparing the Proposed Project and build alternatives is determining
how well they meet the project goals established in the DEIR. For purposes of evaluation, these
goals as worded in the DEIR and shown in 2.1.1 are abbreviated in Table 1 below. In addition, the
first DEIR goal is expressed in two parts to differentiate between cost effectiveness and intermodal
connectivity. Metrics were selected to represent the project goals, as shown in Table 1. Some of
these metrics were previously employed in the DEIR. In these cases, the results from the DEIR
analyses were used here. A full set of analysis results is presented in Appendix A.
Table 1 – Project Goals and Key Metrics
Project Goals Key Metrics
Provide a cost-effective link New Net BART Systemwide Boardings
Total Capital Cost
Annual Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Cost
Farebox Recovery Ratio 3
Lifecycle Cost 4 per New BART Boarding
Provide an intermodal link between BART, inter-
regional rail and PDAs
Accessibility: Isabel Station to Downtown San Francisco
travel time (measures link to Isabel PDA)
Accessibility: Downtown Livermore to downtown San
Francisco travel time (measures link to downtown Livermore
PDA)
Regional Transportation Gap Closure (measures link to
regional rail)
Support integrating transit and land use policies to
create transit-oriented development (TOD)
opportunities
Land Use Plans and Policies
Provide alternative to I-580 congestion Travel Time (downtown Livermore to downtown San
Francisco)
Reduction in Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) GHG Emission Reduction
Reduction in Regional VMT
EIR Emissions Thresholds
A performance matrix comparing the Proposed Project and build alternatives was developed for
each project goal, using the selected metrics to provide a rating for each goal. The following
section provides a summary of the overall performance assessment. Subsequent sections provide
results for each individual goal.
3 Farebox recovery ratio is the percentage of operating and maintenance costs covered by fares. Both bus and rail costs and revenues were considered
in this analysis.
4 Lifecycle costs add annualized rehabilitation and replacement costs over the course of the expected lifetime of a project to capital expenses and
annual operating expenses.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
21
3.1Overall Performance
Table 2 provides an overview of the performance of the Proposed Project and build alternatives in
light of each of the project goals. The Proposed Project has medium or medium-high ratings for all
five goals. The DMU Alternative and EMU Option rate medium or low-medium on all goals. The
Express Bus/ BRT Alternative rates medium-high under the first goal, to “provide a cost-effective
link.” However, the Express Bus / BRT Alternative rates as medium or low-medium for all other
goals. The Enhanced Bus Alternative rates medium for one goal, low-medium for one goal, and low
for three of the goals.
Table 2 – Consistency with Project Goal Comparison: Overall
Project Goals Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT
Alternative
Enhanced
Bus
Alternative
Goal 1A: Provide a cost-
effective link
Goal 1B: Provide an
intermodal link between
BART, inter-regional rail and
PDAs
Goal 2: Support integrating
transit and land use policies to
create transit-oriented
development (TOD)
opportunities
Goal 3: Provide alternative to
I-580 congestion
Goal 4: Improve air quality,
reduce greenhouse gases
High Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
na
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
22
3.2 Goal 1A: Provide a Cost-Effective Link
Table 3 summarizes the evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives for the goal of
providing a cost-effective link. This goal is focused on the affordability and effectiveness for BART
to provide new service. Systemwide boardings represent ridership, an important component of
cost-effective service. To evaluate affordability, the total capital cost, operations and maintenance
costs, farebox recovery, and lifecycle costs for the Proposed Project and build alternatives were
analyzed and rated.
Capital costs are provided primarily in year of expenditure dollars (YOE$); that is, inflating current
costs to the estimated midpoint of construction of each build alternative. Values in 2016 dollars are
provided in parenthesis. Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are provided in 2016 dollars.
Conventional BART Project: Medium. The Proposed Project would have an estimated
capital cost of YOE $1.635 billion (2016 $1.329 billion), annual O&M costs of $22.8 million,
and would generate 11,900 net new BART boardings in 2040. The Proposed Project would
thus be the most expensive option but also the one that attracts the greatest number of
users. It would have a farebox recovery rate of 88% and a total cost per boarding of $20.56.
The Proposed Project rates medium because its higher ridership is offset by high costs,
making it less cost effective than the Express Bus/BRT Alternative.
DMU Alternative / EMU Option: Low-Medium. The DMU Alternative would have an
estimated capital cost of YOE $1.599 billion (2016 $1.353 billion) and would generate 7,000
net new weekday BART boardings in 2040. Its yearly O&M cost would be $16.8 million,
74% of the Proposed Project’s O&M cost. The DMU Alternative would have a farebox
recovery rate of 72% and a total cost per boarding of $30.60. The EMU Option for this
alternative would have a slightly higher capital cost of YOE $1.665 billion (2016 $1.353
billion) due to the additional electrical infrastructure (catenary system and wayside facilities),
but a slightly lower annual O&M cost of $16.6 million. It would have a farebox recovery rate
of 73% and a total cost per boarding of $31.33. The DMU Alternative/EMU Option rates
low-medium because it has similar costs as the Proposed Project, but would attract fewer
users.
Express Bus / BRT Alternative: Medium-High. The Express Bus/BRT Alternative would
have 3,500 net new BART boardings in 2040, which is only 29% of the Proposed Project’s
net new boardings. However, it would also have a lower capital cost of YOE $367 million
(2016 $305 million), which is 23% of the Proposed Project’s capital cost, and a yearly O&M
cost of $3 million or 13% of the Proposed Project’s O&M cost. It would have an excellent
farebox recovery of 196% and a total cost per boarding of $14.11. The Express Bus/BRT
Alternative rates medium-high because it is the most affordable and effective option that
would attract any significant number of passengers.
Enhanced Bus Alternative: Medium. The Enhanced Bus Alternative would have 400 net
new BART boardings in 2040, which is only 3% of the Proposed Project’s boardings. The
Enhanced Bus Alternative would have a low capital cost of YOE $25 million (2016 $21
million), which is 1.6% of the Proposed Project’s capital cost, and a low yearly O&M cost of
$1.7 million or 7% of the Proposed Project’s O&M cost. It would have a comparatively low
farebox recovery of 42% and a total cost per boarding of $21.24. The Enhanced Bus
Alternative rates medium under this goal because it is the most affordable option, but would
attract a low number of additional users to BART.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 67
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
23
Table 3 – Consistency with Project Goal 1A Comparison: Provide a Cost-Effective Link
Project Goal Provide a cost-effective link
Metrics Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Net New BART
Systemwide Boardings in
2040
11,900 7,000 7,000 3,500 400
Total Capital Cost (Millions
of YOE$) $1,635 $1,599 $1,665 $376 $25
Total O&M Cost in 2040
(2016$) $22,800,000 $16,800,000 $16,600,000 $3,000,000 $1,700,000
Farebox Recovery Ratio 88% 72% 73% 196% 42%
Lifecycle Costs per New
BART Boarding $20.56 $30.60 $31.33 $14.11 $21.24
Overall Performance
High Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low
Notes: YOE$: Year of expenditure
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
na
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
24
3.3 Goal 1B: Provide an Intermodal Link Between BART, Inter-Regional
Rail and PDAs
Table 4 summarizes the evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives for this goal. To
evaluate this goal, transit travel times 5 from key origins and destinations under the Proposed Project
and build alternatives were calculated, and the regional gap closure was evaluated qualitatively.
The Proposed Project and all build alternatives make transit travel time improvements to PDAs in
Livermore, but none provide a rail connection to ACE and therefore do not close this regional
transportation gap. Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) express, Rapid and local
routes currently connect ACE stations to the Dublin/Pleasanton and West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
stations. The Proposed Project and all build alternatives improve marginally on these connections
with more frequent express bus service. Only the Proposed Project was rated as medium for
providing the best transit connections in terms of travel time to Livermore destinations.
Conventional BART Project: Medium. The Proposed Project would link the existing BART
system to the Livermore Isabel Avenue/BART Station PDA and improve travel times to this
PDA and the downtown Livermore PDA more than any of the build alternatives. However, it
does not provide a rail connection to ACE and therefore does not close this regional
transportation gap. For this reason, the Proposed Project rates medium under this goal.
DMU Alternative / EMU Option: Low-Medium. The DMU Alternative//EMU Option
would link the existing BART system to the Livermore Isabel Avenue/BART Station PDA (with
a transfer required) and improve travel times to this PDA and the downtown Livermore PDA,
though travel times savings would be less than the Proposed Project. Like the Proposed
Project, it does not provide a rail connection to ACE and therefore does not close this
regional transportation gap. The DMU Alternative//EMU Option is rated low-medium under
this goal.
Express Bus / BRT Alternative: Low-Medium. It is unlikely that the Livermore Isabel
Avenue/BART Station PDA would be implemented under the Express Bus / BRT alternative.
However, this alternative would have improved travel times to this PDA as well as to the
downtown Livermore PDA, but not as much as either the Proposed Project or the DMU
Alternative//EMU Option. Like the Proposed Project and all the build alternatives, it does not
provide a rail connection to ACE and therefore does not close this regional transportation
gap. The Express Bus / BRT Alternative is rated low-medium under this goal.
Enhanced Bus Alternative: Low. It is unlikely that the Livermore Isabel Avenue/BART
Station PDA would be implemented under the Enhanced Bus Alternative. However, this
alternative would have improved travel times to this PDA as well as to the downtown
Livermore PDA, but not as much as either the Proposed Project or other build alternatives.
Like the Proposed Project and all the build alternatives, it does not provide a rail connection
to ACE and therefore does not close this regional transportation gap. The Express Bus / BRT
Alternative is rated low under this goal.
5For travel time estimations, it was assumed that travelers used the fastest transit option (bus or train) for all legs of their total trip.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
25
Table 4 – Consistency with Project Goal 1B Comparison: Provide an intermodal link between BART,
inter-regional rail and PDAs
Project Goal Provide an intermodal link between BART, inter-regional rail and PDAs
Metrics Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Transit travel time Isabel to
downtown San Francisco
(minutes/minutes less than
no project )*
57/23 60/20 60/20 66/14 71/9
Transit travel time
downtown Livermore to
downtown San Francisco
(minutes/minutes less than
no project )**
71/19 74/16 74/16 74/16 90/0
Regional Transportation
Gap Closure*** Low Low Low Low Low
Overall Performance
High Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low
*Connection to Isabel PDA; **Connection to downtown Livermore PDA, ***Connection to inter-regional rail
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
na
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
26
3.4 Goal 2: Support integrating transit and land use policies to create
transit-oriented development opportunities
Table 5 summarizes the evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives against this goal.
To measure how well each contributes to TOD opportunities, the single metric of land use policy
and plans was employed. Plans that were reviewed included the following:
• Isabel Neighborhood Plan (draft);
• Livermore General Plan;
• Livermore Downtown Specific Plan; and
• Plan Bay Area.
There are three PDAs in Livermore: Isabel Avenue/BART Station Planning Area, Downtown and East
Side (east of Vasco Road). PDAs are transit-accessible areas designated by municipalities for growth,
and are used by the regional Plan Bay Area to allocate planned future growth. The first two are
addressed in the proposed INP and Downtown Specific Plan, while there is no Specific Plan
underway for the redevelopment of the East Side.
Land use plans and policies in the area were reviewed and rated for transit supporting land use and
access. For the Proposed Project, land use plans and policies provide a medium-high level of transit
supportive land use and access. The City of Livermore is in the process of creating the INP which, if
implemented, would increase development density around the transit station. The City of Livermore
expects to consider adopting the INP before the BART Board is expected to consider adopting the
BART to Livermore Extension Project; however, the INP is being developed only for the Proposed
Project. Should BART wish to adopt the DMU Alternative / EMU Option, the City of Livermore
would need to reassess the INP and potentially undergo a new planning process. The INP does not
apply to the Express Bus / BRT Alternative because it does not include a new Isabel station, nor for
the Enhanced Bus Alternative, which consists of minor bus infrastructure improvements.
The INP proposes increasing development density around the station, encouraging mixed-use
development and enhancing the transit-oriented character of the area. However, even with these
plans implemented, the development will not result in the level of densities observable at many
other BART stations (e.g., downtown Oakland and downtown Berkeley). A medium-high rating is
given to the Proposed Project, recognizing that the INP is proposed specifically for a conventional
BART extension. A medium rating is given to the DMU Alternative / EMU Option, with the
understanding that a new INP process would be required to develop a transit oriented development
plan for this alternative.
For the Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative, land use plans provide a
low-medium level of transit supportive land use and access. The bus alternatives’ bus stops are
located throughout the City of Livermore. Some locations have land use plans and policies in place
to support transit use, such as the Downtown Livermore PDA, while others do not. Downtown
Livermore is zoned to concentrate development around existing ACE rail stations and established
communities. A Downtown Livermore Plan encourages medium density housing and mixed-use
development. Other bus stop locations have low opportunities that would likely not support TOD
with zoning and parking requirements that do not encourage transit usage. Many bus stops are in
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
27
built-out neighborhoods with limited transit-oriented in-fill development potential, especially given
that much of Livermore’s existing neighborhoods are predominantly low density.
• Proposed Project: Medium-High. The plan that would most significantly create TOD
opportunities in association with the Proposed Project is the INP. This plan, which is currently
in draft form and has not yet been approved, proposes zoning the station area to increase
development density, encourage mixed-use development and enhance the transit-oriented
character of the area. However, even with these plans implemented, the development will
not result in the level of densities observable at many other BART stations (e.g., downtown
Oakland and downtown Berkeley). The Downtown Specific Plan encourages strengthening
Livermore’s Downtown through redevelopment as a mix of uses including housing.
However, it is not particularly relevant to the Proposed Project, given that rail will not be
extended to Downtown Livermore. A medium-high rating is given to the Proposed Project
for land use plans and policies.
DMU Alternative / EMU Option: Medium. It is likely but not certain that the INP would
also be implemented in association with the DMU Alternative / EMU Option. The City of
Livermore would need to reassess and potentially conduct a new planning process. For this
reason, a medium rating is given to the DMU Alternative / EMU Option for the land use
plans and policies.
Express Bus / BRT Alternative: Low-Medium. It is not expected that the INP would be
implemented in association with the Express Bus / BRT Alternative, as the INP builds around
a future rail station. Therefore, the most relevant plan is the Downtown Specific Plan. The
Downtown Specific Plan encourages strengthening Livermore’s Downtown through
redevelopment as a mix of uses including housing. It is debatable whether this alternative’s
improvements to bus routes accessing the Livermore Transit Center and ACE station will
create TOD opportunities. The Express Bus / BRT Alternative is rated low-medium for this
reason.
Enhanced Bus Alternative: Low-Medium. It is not expected that the INP would be
implemented in association with the Enhanced Bus Alternative, as the INP builds around a
future rail station. Same as Express Bus / BRT Alternative.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
28
Table 5 – Consistency with Project Goal 2 Comparison: Support Integrating Transit and Land
Use Policies to Create Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Opportunities
Project Goal Support integrating transit and land use policies to create TOD opportunities
Metrics Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Land Use Plans and
Policies Medium-High Medium Medium Low-Medium Low-Medium
Overall Performance
High Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low
.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 73
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
na
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
29
3.5 Goal 3: Provide Alternative to I-580 Congestion
Table 6 summarizes the evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives against this goal.
Metrics were chosen that represent the potential for each to provide a viable alternative to
congestion. The metric “Transit Travel Time 6 - downtown Livermore to downtown San Francisco” is
an important indication of how competitive the Proposed Project and build alternatives are, and the
metric “Reduction in Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)” directly indicates vehicles being taken
off the road. This goal does not directly address the impact of the Proposed Project and build
alternatives on I-580 congestion, but rather the degree to which they provide an alternative to that
congestion. The EIR did evaluate level of service (LOS)7 and volume-to-capacity (V/C)8 ratios for
freeway segments. This is presented in detail in the Transportation Chapter of the EIR.
Conventional BART Project: Medium-High. The Proposed Project would offer the fastest
transit travel times between downtown Livermore and downtown San Francisco (71
minutes), and reduce regional VMTs by 244,000 per weekday in 2040.
DMU Alternative / EMU Option: Medium. The DMU Alternative / EMU Option would
provide a transit travel time of 74 minutes between and Downtown Livermore and
Downtown San Francisco. It would reduce regional VMTs by 140,600 per day in 2040. For
all three metrics, the DMU Alternative / EMU Option performs worse than the Proposed
Project but better than any other build alternative. For this reason, it rates as medium.
Express Bus / BRT Alternative: Low-Medium. The Express Bus / BRT Alternative would
provide a transit travel time of 74 minutes between and downtown Livermore and
downtown San Francisco (identical to the DMU Alternative / EMU Option). It would reduce
regional VMTs by 92,600 per day in 2040. It generally performs worse than the DMU
Alternative / EMU Option and thus rates as low-medium.
Enhanced Bus Alternative: Low. The Enhanced Bus Alternative performs significantly
worse than the Proposed Project and other build alternatives with a travel time of 90
minutes between and downtown Livermore and downtown San Francisco, and a regional
weekday VMT reduction of 6,500 per day in 2040. It rates as low.
6For travel time estimations, it was assumed that travelers used the fastest transit option (bus or train) for all legs of their total trip
7 Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of operating conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by motorists/passengers. A LOS
definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, comfort and convenience, and
safety.
8 Volume to capacity (V/C) is a ratio of vehicle volume to roadway capacity, with numbers greater than 1.0 indicating the roadway capacity is
exceeded.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 74
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
30
Table 6 – Consistency with Project Goal 3 Comparison: Provide Alternative to I-580 Congestion
Project Goal Provide alternative to I-580 congestion
Metrics Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Transit travel time
downtown Livermore to
downtown San Francisco
(minutes/minutes less than
no project)
71/19 74/16 74/16 74/16 90/0
Reduction in Regional
Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) in 2040
244,000 140,600 140,600 92,600 6,500
Overall Performance
High Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 75
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
na
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
31
3.6 Goal 4: Improve Air Quality, Reduce Greenhouse Gases
Table 7 summarizes the evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives against this goal.
As there is a strong correlation between VMT reduction and air quality, VMT reductions are used to
measure this goal along with relevant emissions and GHG reductions.
Conventional BART Project: Medium-High. In 2040, the Proposed Project would reduce
GHG emissions by 11,200 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year, and
reduce regional VMT by 244,000 per day. The Proposed Project will also have net reduction
in emissions for PM2.5 and PM10. ROG and NOx emissions would increase but not exceed the
threshold of significance. For these reasons, the Proposed Project is rated medium-high
under this goal.
DMU Alternative: Medium. In 2040, the DMU Alternative would reduce GHG emissions
by 3,500 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year, and reduce regional VMT
by 140,600 per day. The EMU Option would remove an additional 2,500 metric tons of
CO2e per year because of cleaner vehicle technology. The DMU/EMU Alternative would also
have reductions in PM2.5 and PM10 compared to the No Project Alternative. ROG and NOx
emissions would increase but not exceed the threshold of significance. For these reasons,
the DMU Alternative and EMU Option are rated medium.
Express Bus / BRT Alternative: Medium. In 2040, the Express Bus / BRT Alternative would
reduce GHG emissions by 3,700 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year,
and reduce regional VMT by 92,600 per day. This reduction is significantly less than those of
the Proposed Project. The Express Bus / BRT Alternative would have lower ROG emissions
compared to the Proposed Project, but higher NOx, PM2.5 and PM10. For these reasons, the
Express Bus / BRT Alternative is rated medium.
Enhanced Bus Alternative: Low. The Enhanced Bus Alternative would not reduce GHG
emissions. VMT reduction is also very low compared with the Proposed Project and the other
build alternatives. The Enhanced Bus Alternative would have lower ROG emissions compared
to the Proposed Project, but higher NOx, PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. For these reasons, the
Enhanced Bus Alternative rates low.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 76
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
32
Table 7 – Consistency with Project Goal 4 Comparison: Improve Air Quality, Reduce
Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
Notes: Emissions types include ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; PM25 = fine particulate matter
More detail on the impact of the Proposed Project and the build alternatives on air quality emissions
is provided in Appendix C.
Project Goal Improve air quality, reduce GHGs
Metrics Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Annual GHG Emission
Reduction in 2040 (Metric
Tons CO2e)
11,200 3,500 6,000 3,700 No Benefit
Reduction in Weekday
Regional Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) in 2040
244,000 140,600 140,600 92,600 6,500
EIR Emissions Thresholds Does not
exceed
thresholds
Does not
exceed
thresholds
Does not
exceed
thresholds
Does not
exceed
thresholds
Does not
exceed
thresholds
Overall Performance
High Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 77
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
na
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
33
4 BART System Expansion Policy Evaluation Framework
To guide BART in the extension and expansion of its system, its Board of Directors adopted a Policy
Framework for System Expansion in 1999 and a System Expansion Project Advancement Criteria
and Process in 2002 (together known as the BSEP).
The BSEP identifies criteria for project advancement to be applied when determining whether a
new BART expansion project should be recommended for advancement. These criteria include:
• Transit Supportive Land Uses and Access – How well do existing residential and/or
employment land uses, intermodal connections, and local land use plans and policies
support transit use?
• Ridership Development Plan (RDP) – How well does the project support BART ridership goals,
and have the local jurisdictions prepared plans to promote transit supportive land uses and
improve access to proposed stations?
• Cost-Effectiveness – How much does it cost to increase ridership?
• Regional Network Connectivity – How well does the project close gaps in the regional
transportation network?
• System and Financial Capacity – How does the project affect BART’s existing system, and is
there a viable capital financing plan and operating financing plan?
• Partnerships – How much community and stakeholder support exists for the project?
Among the chief elements of the BSEP is the requirement that one or more RDPs be undertaken for
proposed expansion projects of the existing BART system. The RDP(s) seek to increase ridership to
support the proposed BART extension and to support development of that ridership through local
measures such as transit-supportive land uses and investment in access programs and projects.
As a steward of public funding for transportation investments, BART employs this policy to:
• Ensure cost-effective transportation investment decisions;
• Protect the taxpayers’ investment in the District’s physical infrastructure;
• Ensure the financial health and sustainability of the District; and
• Enhance the Bay Area’s environment and quality of life.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 78
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
34
4.1 Approach
The BSEP evaluation categories and the metrics used in each category are shown in Table 8. The
rating scale for each criterion is from low to high.
For some metrics, the BSEP provides guidelines on how to conduct quantitative assessments, along
with thresholds that correspond to the low to high rating scale. In certain cases, the provided
guidelines are more applicable to a rail extension rather than a bus extension, particularly for the
station-related evaluations. In those cases where the methodology for evaluating the bus
alternatives was not clear, approaches that are rational and consistent with the perceived intentions
of the BSEP were developed and employed.
4.2 Overall Results
Neither the Proposed Project nor any of the build alternatives rate high across a majority of
evaluation criteria. The Proposed Project rates high for only one criterion — the Operating Finance
Plan. It rates medium or medium-high for most other criteria but rates low in the areas of Existing
Land Use, Existing Intermodal Connections, Station Context, and Regional Transportation Gap
Closure. The DMU Alternative / EMU Option rates high for Operating Finance Plan as well, and low
under the same criteria as the Proposed Project, and rates medium or low-medium in other
categories. The Express Bus / BRT Alternative rates high for two criteria – Capital Finance Plan and
Operating Finance Plan – and medium-high for one criterion – Cost per New Rider: Base Case. It
rates low or low-medium for all other criteria. The Enhanced Bus Alternative rates high for Capital
Finance Plan, low for Existing Land Use and Regional Transportation Gap Closure, and medium or
low-medium for all other categories.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
35
Table 8 – BART System Expansion Policy
9 Cost/Transportation System User Benefit, a suggested BSEP metric, was not utilized as it is no longer employed by the Federal Transit Administration
and was never phased in to the BSEP by BART.
Notes: N/A: Not applicable
Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative /
EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Transit Supportive Land Use and Access
Existing Land Use: Residential
and/or Employment
Existing Intermodal Connections
Land Use Plans and Policies
Ridership Development Plan
Ridership Threshold
N/A N/A
Station Context
N/A N/A
Cost-Effectiveness 9
Cost per New Rider: Base Case
Cost per New Rider: with TOD
N/A N/A
Regional Network Connectivity
Regional Transportation Gap
Closure
System and Financial Capacity
Core System Improvements
Capital Finance Plan
Operating Finance Plan
Partnerships
Community and Stakeholder
Support
Not assessed at
this time.
Not assessed at
this time.
Not assessed at
this time.
Not assessed at
this time.
High Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
na
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
36
4.3 Transit Supportive Land Use and Access
The metrics used for evaluating transit supportive land use and access around the proposed new
Isabel Station include the existing residential and employment densities, existing intermodal
connections, and land use plans and policies. For the Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the
Enhanced Bus Alternative, the quality of land use and access around areas served by bus routes was
evaluated, as these alternatives do not include a major station.
Existing Land Use: Residential and/or Employment Densities
The staff-recommended BSEP metrics include density thresholds for this category. For the Proposed
Project and the DMU Alternative / EMU Option, existing residential and employment densities
within a ½ mile radius of the proposed Isabel Station were calculated using census data. Residential
density is 0.85 households per acre, and employment density is 6.11 employees per acre. This
results in a low Existing Land Use rating for the Proposed Project and the DMU Alternative / EMU
Option.
For the Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative, no major stations are
planned at Isabel or elsewhere. Thus, the existing residential and employment densities were
measured within a ¼ mile buffer of major bus routes serving Dublin/Pleasanton Station. The result
was a density of 1.99 households per acre, and 4.52 employees per acre, translating into a low
Existing Land Use rating for the Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative.
Existing Intermodal Connections
Existing pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections to the Proposed Project and build alternatives
are evaluated qualitatively. Overall, a low rating is assigned to the Proposed Project / DMU
Alternative / EMU Option and a low-medium rating is assigned to the Express Bus / BRT Alternative
and the Enhanced Bus Alternative.
Proposed Project and the DMU Alternative / EMU Option. Existing pedestrian conditions in
the future Isabel station area provide low connectivity. The ½ mile area surrounding the station has
sidewalks, but it lacks consistency and continuity. The roadways that surround the station area,
including Isabel Avenue and Airway Boulevard, are wide, multi-lane arterials, and adjacent
development is sporadic, with stretches of undeveloped land in between developed parcels.
Crosswalks exist at most of the surrounding intersections, but on many major arterials, pedestrian
crossings are only in place along one approach in the north-south or east-west directions, with long
crossing distances that expose pedestrians to vehicle traffic and long signal cycles that cause
pedestrian delay.
Existing bicycle conditions for the Proposed Project and the DMU Alternative / EMU Option provide
similarly poor connectivity. While some roadways have bicycle lanes, these facilities are
uncomfortable for bicyclists of all ages and ability and do not provide key connections. The bicycle
lanes along Isabel Avenue are particularly stressful, requiring cyclists to ride adjacent to high-speed
traffic that is merging on and off the I-580 freeway. There is one bike path within a ½ mile radius
of the rail station along Stealth Street, but this path dead-ends at a four-lane arterial, providing no
connection across for cyclists traveling south.
Existing transit connections for the Proposed Project and the DMU Alternative / EMU Option also
provide low connectivity. The area around the potential Isabel Station currently has very limited
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 81
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
37
transit connections. The closest bus stop served by Wheels route 30R is at Las Positas College,
which is about ¾ mile away.
Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative. Existing pedestrian conditions
were rated low-medium. Areas in a quarter-mile buffer around proposed bus routes generally have
completed sidewalks. Pedestrian facilities around downtown Livermore are well connected with high
intersection density, pedestrian-oriented land uses and many pedestrian amenities such as benches,
trees, blub outs and pedestrian-scale lighting. Other areas around bus stops have land uses that are
not oriented towards pedestrians. These places appear uninviting towards pedestrians and are closed
off from the activity of the street. Many streets are wide, high-speed arterial roadways that act as a
barrier to pedestrians, such as Vasco Road, East Avenue, Portola Avenue, West Jack London Boulevard
and North Canyon Parkway. These roadways have been built particularly wide to accommodate peak
traffic levels, with large crossing distances and high vehicle speeds that are problematic for
pedestrians by making them vulnerable to more severe collisions.
Existing bicycle connections for the Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative
were also rated low-medium. Bicycle facilities exist, but many are adjacent to high volume streets,
making them uncomfortable for most cyclists. There are some bike paths adjacent to bus routes,
but these do not provide access to the majority of Livermore. The lack of high-quality and
connected facilities is reflected in the existing bicycle usage for Livermore, which is 0.7% according
to the US Census Journey-to-Work data, lower than the California average of 1.1%.
For the bus alternatives, existing transit connections are of low-medium quality. The areas within a
¼ mile buffer of proposed bus routes have multiple bus routes, including Wheels routes 11, 14, 15,
20X, 580X, 10R and 30R, and a rail station in downtown Livermore and Vasco road, served by ACE.
While the bus alternatives are connected to many existing transit routes, only the 10R and the 15R
have peak minute headways of 15 minutes.
Land Use Plans and Policies
Land use plans and policies in the area were reviewed and rated for transit supporting land use and
access. For the Proposed Project, land use plans and policies provide a medium-high level of transit
supportive land use and access. The City of Livermore is in the process of creating the INP which, if
implemented, would increase development density around the transit station. The City of Livermore
expects to consider adopting the INP before the BART Board is expected to consider adopting the
BART to Livermore Extension Project; however, the INP is being developed only for the Proposed
Project. Should BART wish to adopt the DMU Alternative / EMU Option, the City of Livermore
would need to reassess the INP and potentially undergo a new planning process. The INP does not
apply to the Express Bus / BRT Alternative because it does not include a new Isabel station, nor for
the Enhanced Bus Alternative, which consists of minor bus infrastructure improvements.
The INP proposes increasing development density around the station, encouraging mixed-use
development and enhancing the transit-oriented character of the area. However, even with these
plans implemented, the development will not result in the level of densities observable at many
other BART stations (e.g., downtown Oakland and downtown Berkeley). A medium-high rating is
given to the Proposed Project, recognizing that the INP is proposed specifically for a conventional
BART extension. A medium rating is given to the DMU Alternative / EMU Option, with the
understanding that a new INP process would be required to develop a transit oriented development
plan for this alternative.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 82
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
38
For the Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative, land use plans provide a
low-medium level of transit supportive land use and access. The bus alternatives’ bus stops are
located throughout the City of Livermore. Some locations have land use plans and policies in place
to support transit use, such as the Downtown Livermore PDA, while others do not. Downtown
Livermore is zoned to concentrate development around existing ACE rail stations and established
communities. A Downtown Livermore Plan encourages medium density housing and mixed-use
development. Other bus stop locations have low opportunities that would likely not support TOD
with zoning and parking requirements that do not encourage transit usage. Many bus stops are in
built-out neighborhoods with limited transit-oriented in-fill development potential, especially given
that much of Livermore’s existing neighborhoods are predominantly low density.
4.4 Ridership Development Plan
BART’s BSEP requires a Ridership Development Plan (RDP) be developed for each proposed new
station to support increased ridership along with meeting the goals of the BSEP. Strategies for
boosting ridership include planning and implementation of transit supportive land uses,
improvements in local transportation programs and infrastructure, improvements to multi modal
access including pedestrian and bicycle access, increases in transit feeder services, and development
of additional automobile serving parking facilities (including parking in the station area).
To meet the requirement for a RDP, the City of Livermore is preparing the INP to guide future
development around a potential Isabel Station. The draft plan consists of a mixed-use development
with over 4,000 residential units, 1.6 million square feet of office space, and other commercial
uses. The City of Livermore expects to consider adopting the INP before the BART Board is expected
to consider adopting the BART to Livermore Extension Project; however, the INP is being developed
only for the Proposed Project.
Should BART wish to adopt the DMU Alternative / EMU Option, the City of Livermore would need
to reassess the INP. For the purposes of evaluation only, BART is assuming the INP would apply to
the DMU Alternative / EMU Option. The City of Livermore has indicated this would reasonably
characterize the maximum amount of development around the Isabel station under this alternative.
A RDP is not required for the Express Bus / BRT Alternative because it does not include a new
station, nor for the Enhanced Bus Alternative, which consists of minor bus infrastructure
improvements.
The effectiveness of the RDP is measured by assessing ridership thresholds and station context
evaluation.
Ridership Threshold
The ridership assessment compares the ridership forecasted for proposed extensions with ridership
thresholds. This assessment evaluates the effectiveness of extension projects in achieving adequate
ridership.
The staff-recommended BSEP metric, projected average daily trips for an extension (daily entries
and exits associated with new stations), is categorized into five grades from low to high:
• Low: less than 5,000 average daily trips
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 83
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
39
• Low-Medium: 5,000 to 9,999 average daily trips
• Medium: 10,000 to 13,999 average daily trips
• Medium-High: 14,000 to 20,000 average daily trips
• High: above 20,000 average daily trips
Based on year 2040 BART ridership projections, the Proposed Project would have an average of
15,800 daily boardings and alightings at Isabel Station, attaining a medium-high rating. The DMU
Alternative / EMU Option would have an average of 9,400 daily boardings and alightings at Isabel
Station, attaining a low-medium rating.10 The BSEP ridership criterion is not used for the Express Bus
/ BRT Alternative because it does not include a new station, nor for the Enhanced Bus Alternative,
which consists of minor bus infrastructure improvements.
The ridership projections cited above are from the cumulative scenario which include the INP. The
analysis was also performed using the project scenario ridership projections and yielded the same
ratings.11
Station Context
This is a qualitative assessment of how well a station location would support TOD and the station
experience for patrons. The proposed Isabel station site has space to provide a mixed-use
neighborhood with both employment and residential centers with high densities of uses for the Tri-
Valley area. However, the station location in the median of I-580 will negatively affect patron
experience. The freeway acts as a barrier between land uses to the south and the north of the
station, and provides a poor environment for walking and biking. The BSEP guidelines indicate that
a medium rating is only achieved with an acceptable station experience for patrons; thus, a low
rating was selected for the Proposed Project and DMU Alternative / EMU Option.
Station context is not applicable to the bus alternatives since no new stations are provided as part
of those alternatives.
10 The number of projected entries at Isabel Station was doubled to determine the BART ridership numbers (entries and exists) consistent with the
BSEP.
11Cumulative scenario projections for Isabel Station boardings and alightings are slightly lower than project scenario projections. This is because the
additional parking capacity included at Dublin/Pleasanton attracts passengers from Isabel Station, despite the overall ridership increases generated by
INP development.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 84
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
40
4.5 Cost Effectiveness
This category evaluates cost effectiveness through a cost per rider measure with and without the
inclusion of future TOD.
The annualized lifecycle costs per net new annual BART boarding for 2040 in 2016 dollars were
calculated. To develop BESP ratings, the costs were adjusted to 2002 dollars based on historic
inflation rates. The BESP cost per rider scale ranges from low (more than $40 per rider in 2002
dollars) to high (less than $10 per rider in 2002 dollars).
Table 9 shows the results of these calculations and the BSEP cost effectiveness ratings for the
Proposed Project and the build alternatives.
Table 9 – Cost Effectiveness
Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Lifecycle Cost per BART Boarding – Base Case
2016 Dollars $20.56 $30.60 $31.33 $14.11 $21.24
2002 Dollars $15.40 $22.94 $23.50 $10.60 $16.09
Cost per Rider - Base Case
rating
Medium Medium Medium Medium-High Medium
Lifecycle Cost per BART Boarding – With TOD
2016 Dollars $18.26 $25.81 $26.43 N/A N/A
2002 Dollars $13.68 $19.34 $19.82 N/A N/A
Cost per Rider - with TOD Medium-High Medium Medium N/A N/A
Notes: N/A: Not applicable
Cost per New Rider: Base Case
The cost per new rider is first evaluated for the Proposed Project and build alternatives under base
case land use assumptions that do not include future TOD. The base case corresponds to the EIR
project scenario. As shown in Table 9 the Proposed Project earns a medium rating. The DMU
Alternative and EMU Option both also receive a medium rating. The Express Bus / BRT Alternative
receives a medium-high rating. The Enhanced Bus Alternative, result is a medium rating.
Cost per New Rider: with TOD
The cost per new rider is also evaluated for the Proposed Project and DMU Alternative / EMU
Option under future TOD conditions (see Table 9). The future TOD conditions correspond with the
EIR cumulative scenario, which includes the INP. The Express Bus / BRT and Enhanced Bus
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 85
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
41
alternatives were not evaluated with TOD because development of the INP is not assumed to occur
under these alternatives.
The Proposed Project receives a medium-high rating. The DMU Alternative and the EMU Option
both earn a medium rating.
4.6 Regional Network Connectivity
Regional Transportation Gap Closure
The regional transportation gap closure measure is the only metric used to evaluate regional
network connectivity. The evaluation of this metric qualitatively “assess[es] the interconnected
relationship of the transit expansion project and the existing transportation network, identifying
opportunities for major gap closures.”
The Proposed Project and the DMU Alternative / EMU Option perform low in terms of regional
transit gap closure since they do not establish any new rail connections. Most notably, no new
ACE/BART rail connections are made with this project, though the project does not preclude a rail
connection in the future. While no new rail connections are made, rail-bus connections to ACE,
Amtrak, LAVTA and San Joaquin Regional Transit District (SJTRD) are made more convenient than
current, with decreased travel times, and more frequent service.
The Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative also rate low in terms of
regional transit gap closure since neither establishes any new rail connections, though they improve
rail-bus connections with ACE, Amtrak, LAVTA and SJRTD with decreased travel times and more
frequent service.
4.7 System and Financial Capacity
The system and financial capacity category is evaluated through a qualitative evaluation of the core
system improvements, capital finance plan and operating finance plan.
Core System Improvements
The core system improvements evaluation is a qualitative assessment of how well the expansion
project “enhances (at best) or minimizes demands on core system yard/support facilities,
redundancy/recovery capabilities and station and line haul capacity.”
Overall, the Proposed Project is rated as medium-high for core system improvements. The Proposed
Project is rated high for yard and support facilities because it includes a new BART yard and shop
facility at the start/end of line able to support the entire Blue Line. Its redundancy and recovery
capabilities are medium, as the new yard and shop facility may provide some greater ability to
respond to incidents on the Blue Line. The impact on station and line haul capacity is rated
medium, since the impact on any individual station or car crowding is minimized by providing
additional Blue Line peak period BART service included as part of the Proposed Project.
Overall, the DMU Alternative / EMU Option is rated as low-medium for core system improvements.
The DMU Alternative / EMU Option is rated medium for yard and support facilities because it
provides additional BART tail track capacity to support the increased load on the BART system
generated by the DMU Alternative / EMU Option, but not additional BART yard or shop capacity to
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 86
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
42
support the entire Blue Line.12 Its redundancy and recovery capabilities are rated low, as no new
facilities that benefit the system as whole are constructed. The impact on station and line haul
capacity is rated medium, since the impact on any individual station or car crowding would be
minimal due to the new capacity proposed as part of the DMU Alternative / EMU Option and due
to the increased headways assumed in 2040.
Overall, the Express Bus / BRT Alternative is rated as low-medium for core system improvements.
The Express Bus / BRT Alternative is rated medium for yard and support because it provides
additional BART tail track capacity to support the increased load on the BART system generated by
the Express Bus / BRT Alternative, but not additional BART yard or shop capacity to support the
entire Blue Line. Its redundancy and recovery capabilities are low, as no new facilities that benefit
the system as whole are constructed. The impact on station and line haul capacity is rated as
medium, since the impact on any individual station or car crowding is minimized by providing
additional Blue Line peak period BART service included as part of the Express Bus / BRT Alternative.
Overall, the Enhanced Bus Alternative is rated as low-medium for core system improvements. The
Enhanced Bus Alternative is rated medium for yard and support facilities because it generates
minimal added load on the BART system and thus minimal added demand on support facilities. Its
redundancy and recovery capabilities are rated low, as no new facilities that benefit the system as
whole are constructed. The impact on station and line haul capacity is rated as medium, since it
generates minimal added load on the BART system.
Capital Finance Plan
The capital finance plan assessment evaluates whether the system expansion is fully funded and
considers the stability, reliability and availability of the proposed funding sources, and whether
those sources are competing with renovation and core system capacity needs.
The Proposed Project is not fully funded; however, a significant amount, approximately $533
million in funding, has been committed to design and construction. The funding comes from
Alameda County’s sales tax funds (Measure BB), Livermore development impact fees and regional
bridge tolls. This funding is dedicated, secure, and is not easily transferable to other BART projects.
It also has the potential to be matched by state or federal sources. The Proposed Project is rated
medium for Capital Finance Plan for these reasons.
The DMU Alternative / EMU Option has the same funding identified as the Proposed Project. The
available funds do not fully cover the costs, but they are a dedicated and stable source of funding
that could be used as a local match. This Alternative is rated medium.
The Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative are fully funded with available
funding sources, and these sources are dedicated and stable. Thus, these build alternatives are
rated high for Capital Finance Plan.
12 The DMU Alternative and EMU Option do include a yard and shop.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
43
Operating Finance Plan
The operating finance plan evaluation is an assessment of the estimated farebox recovery ratios and
the stability, reliability and availability of the operating subsidy. The staff recommended BSEP metric
includes ratings for farebox recovery with a high rating for over 50% farebox recovery, medium for
30-50%, and low for <30%. For the Proposed Project, the DMU Alternative/EMU Option, and the
BRT/Express Bus Alternative, farebox recovery ratios are all higher than 50%. Therefore, they all
receive a rating of high for this assessment. The Enhanced Bus Alternative has a farebox recovery
ratio of 40%, and thus receives a medium rating.
4.8 Partnerships
The partnership assessment is based on community support and stakeholder support. These will be
assessed after BART has conducted its planned BART to Livermore outreach program in the first half
of 2018.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
44
5 Additional Evaluations
In addition to the primary two frameworks described above for evaluating the Proposed Project and
build alternatives, other assessments are also useful for evaluation. This section includes a reference
to environmental impacts declared in the DEIR, an equity assessment, the MTC project performance
assessment process and MTC Resolution 3434 TOD Policy.
5.1 Significant Environmental Impacts
This section, referencing the DEIR, was included in recognition that environmental impacts not only
need to be disclosed and mitigated per CEQA, but also may play a role in evaluating the Proposed
Project and build alternatives.
The Proposed Project and build alternatives would result in several potentially significant impacts.
Most of the impacts identified would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. However, either project or cumulative
impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the following areas:
• Transportation (permanent impacts for the Proposed Project, DMU Alternative / EMU
Option, Express Bus / BRT Alternative, and Enhanced Bus Alternative);
• Land Use and Agricultural Resources (permanent impacts for the Proposed Project and DMU
Alternative / EMU Option);
• Visual Quality (permanent impacts for the Proposed Project, DMU Alternative / EMU Option,
and Express Bus / BRT Alternative);
• Cultural Resources (permanent impact for the Proposed Project, DMU Alternative / EMU
Option, Express Bus / BRT Alternative, and Enhanced Bus Alternative);
• Biological Resources (permanent impact for the Proposed Project and DMU Alternative /
EMU Option);
• Air Quality (temporary construction and permanent impacts for the Proposed Project, DMU
Alternative / EMU Option, and Express Bus / BRT Alternative); and
• Energy (permanent impact for the Enhanced Bus Alternative only).
Appendix B provides details on individual impacts and mitigation measures. The BART to
Livermore Project Extension EIR may also be consulted for further details on environmental impacts.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
45
5.2 Equity Assessment
Although not an evaluation category in the BSEP nor mentioned in the BART to Livermore project
goals, equity is nonetheless an important consideration, and BART has a written environmental
justice policy that outlines its commitment “to taking reasonable steps in order to ensure equitable
public transportation service.” Accordingly, an assessment focused on equity was undertaken.
Equity is measured by impacts on environmental justice populations (minority, low-income, and
limited English proficiency households). Table 10 provides definitions of these populations.
Table 10 – Environmental Justice Populations
Environmental Justice Population Description
Low-income households Households with an income of less than $40,000 per year according to the
2015 Census, American Community Survey.
Minority population Minority population, or a person who is black, Hispanic or Latino, Asian
American, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian and other
Pacific Islander according to the 2015 Census, American Community Survey.
Limited English proficiency
households
Households with limited English proficiency according to the 2015 Census,
American Community Survey.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
46
5.2.1 Impacts
An evaluation of the impacts of the Proposed Project and build alternatives on environmental
justice populations is presented below. It uses a geographic information systems (GIS) platform to
analyze project area populations within a ½-mile on either side of the Proposed Project and build
alternatives, with the exception of the Enhanced Bus Alternative, which does not include major
infrastructure that would substantially change the existing condition of the surrounding
environment.
Figure 5 identifies Census block groups with a large low-income percentage and Figure 6
identifies Census block groups with a large minority percentage. Six of 17 block groups within the
½-mile buffer have minority populations greater than the BART service area average. No block
groups have low-income populations greater than the BART service area average. In addition, this
analysis identifies Census tracts 13 in the study area with percentages of people with limited English
proficiency greater than the BART Service Area average. As shown in Figure 7, one Census tract
exceeded the BART service area average and one nearly equals but is slightly lower than the
average.
The following impact categories were investigated, using the DEIR as the source:
• Transportation;
• Community;
• Visual and Aesthetic;
• Noise and Vibration;
• Relocations;
• Air Quality; and
• Construction Effects.
The Proposed Project and build alternatives, with the exception of the Enhanced Bus Alternative 14,
are each expected to have some community, noise, visual, relocation, and air quality impacts on
affected populations, which include minority and low-income individuals. Many of these are
addressed through mitigations included in the DEIR. Importantly, it was found that with mitigations
included, neither the Proposed Project nor the build alternatives would have environmental impacts
with a high or disproportionate 15 effect on environmental justice populations.
Based on these conclusions, there is no practical difference between the Proposed Project and build
alternatives in terms of impacts to environmental justice population
13 Unlike for racial/ethnic and household economic data, the data concerning languages is not available at the block group level.
14 The Enhanced Bus Alternative would implement only modest changes to existing conditions in the study area, such as bus bulbs and bus stop
shelters, but would not involve construction of any major transit infrastructure. For these reasons, it would not have high or disproportionate impacts
to environmental justice populations.
15 A disproportionate effect would impact environmental justice groups more than other populations.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
47
Figure 5 – Low-Income Population within ½ Mile Buffer of Proposed Project
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
48
Figure 6 – Minority Population within ½ Mile Buffer of Proposed Project
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 93
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
49
Figure 7 – Limited English Proficiency Population Within ½ Mile Buffer
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
50
5.3 MTC Performance Assessment
A full assessment per MTC’s Plan Bay Area project performance assessment process was not
conducted as part of this Evaluation Report. However, as it is a required step for accessing
discretionary regional funding, possible outcomes in this process for the Proposed Project or build
alternatives are discussed below.
Transportation projects in MTC’s Plan Bay Area 2040 with total project costs greater than $100
million and desiring discretionary regional funding were subject to MTC’s project performance
assessment process. The BART to Livermore Extension Project is included in Plan Bay Area 2040.
However, because BART has not yet adopted the Proposed Project or one of the alternatives, the
Livermore Extension Project was not included in the Plan Bay Area 2040 project performance
assessment. Should BART adopt the Proposed Project or the DMU Alternative / EMU Option and
desire discretionary regional funding to design and construct it, the adopted project would be
subject to MTC’s project performance assessment project (assuming MTC continues to use this
process to prioritize discretionary regional funding in future updates to Plan Bay Area). The Express
Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative are fully funded and would not be subject
to this project performance assessment, which is required only for projects seeking discretionary
regional funding.
The Plan Bay Area 2040 project performance assessment was conducted using qualitative and
quantitative metrics. The targets assessment (qualitative) evaluated the extent to which a project
supports the region’s ability to meet the targets in Plan Bay Area 2040. The benefit-cost assessment
(quantitative) evaluated the cost-effectiveness of each project. Benefits included travel time, travel
time reliability, travel cost, air pollution, collisions, noise and health. Relative to other projects
seeking regional discretionary funding, high-performing projects would have both a high targets
score and a high benefit-cost ratio. In addition, MTC used a qualitative approach to identify the
project’s level of support for communities of concern and confirmed that the process provides
access to residents of the affected community. Some low-performing projects were included in Plan
Bay Area 2040 under the compelling case process, which required project sponsors to document
that either: 1) the travel model used to quantify benefits did not adequately capture project
benefits; 2) the project was a cost-effective means of reducing CO2, PM, ozone precursor emission;
or 3) the project improved transportation mobility/reduces air toxics and PM emissions in
communities of concern.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 95
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
51
5.4 MTC Resolution 3434 TOD Policy
Although this policy does not apply to the BART to Livermore Extension project, it is an established
regional method of assessing whether transit investments are occurring in corridors with existing
and planned TOD. Therefore, it is instructive to assess how it would theoretically apply to a BART to
Livermore extension.
Resolution 3434, adopted in 2001, set forth MTC’s regional transit expansion program of projects.
The resolution was amended in 2005 to condition these transit expansion projects on supportive
land use policies and further amended in 2007 to reflect changes in the TOD policy.
This TOD policy includes three elements:
1. Corridor-level development thresholds around transit stations;
2. Local station area plans; and
3. Corridor working groups.
Corridor development thresholds are focused on existing and planned housing and shown in Table
11. The total number of existing and planned housing units within ½ mile of new stations and the
existing end station must meet the appropriate threshold multiplied by the number of stations. As
an example, the BART to Livermore Proposed Project would require 7,700 units, or the BART
housing threshold multiplied by two stations (Dublin/Pleasanton and Isabel). New below-market
housing counts as 1.5 units for this calculation. As indicated in Table 11, the Proposed Project and
DMU Alternative / EMU Option would meet the housing target.
Table 11 – Resolution 3434 TOD Policy Housing Thresholds
Dublin/Pleasanton Station Isabel Station Average
for both
Stations
(2040)
MTC
Target
Target
Satisfied Existing
(2015)
Future
(2040)
Existing
(2015)
Future
(2040)
Conventional
BART Project
(BART)
924 5,003 565 4,831 4,917 3,850 Yes
DMU
Alternative
(Commuter
Rail)
924 5,003 565 4,831 4,917 2,200 Yes
EMU Option
(Light Rail)
924 5,003 565 4,831 4,917 3,300 Yes
Note: MTC = Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The Express Bus/BRT Alternative and Enhanced Bus Alternative are not shown because neither
of those alternatives physically extends the transit system.
The DMU Alternative is classified as a Commuter Rail project type based on MTC’s classification of the East Contra Costa County BART extension as
Commuter Rail. The DMU Alternative is similar to the East Contra Costa County BART extension, as both entail the operation of DMU vehicles in the
median of a freeway.
Sources:
Housing units within ½ mile of the Dublin/Pleasanton Station (Existing and planned): CD+A, 2015.
Housing units within ½ mile of the proposed Isabel Station (Existing): CD+A, 2015.
Housing units within ½ mile of the proposed Isabel Station (Proposed): Szydlik, 2017.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
52
Under Resolution 3434, station area plans must be initiated by the local jurisdiction according to
guidelines established in MTC’s Station Area Planning Manual. The INP is the station area plan that
is associated with the Proposed Project; however, as stated earlier, compliance of the INP with
Resolution 3434 TOD policy or MTC guidelines is not required because BART to Livermore is not a
designated Resolution 3434 transit extension.
Similarly, a Resolution 3434 corridor working group is not required for the BART to Livermore
project, but the City of Livermore and BART have been coordinating their respective transit
expansion and TOD planning efforts.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 97
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
Appendix A – Project and Cumulative Results for the Proposed
Project and Build Alternatives
This appendix provides the results for a comprehensive set of metrics that were assessed under the
project and cumulative scenarios for the Proposed Project and build alternatives.
The project scenario assumes only background growth consistent with regional growth
projections.16 The cumulative scenario also considers effects of probable future projects. Most
significant of these are the Dublin/Pleasanton Station Parking Expansion, and the Isabel
Neighborhood Plan (INP).
The Dublin/Pleasanton Station Parking Expansion would increase the total available parking spaces
at that station from 2,890 to 3,430.17
The City of Livermore is preparing the INP to guide future development around a potential Isabel
Station. The draft plan consists of a mixed-use development with over 4,000 residential units, 1.6
million square feet of office space, and other commercial uses. The INP is being developed by the
City of Livermore only for the Proposed Project. For the purposes of evaluation only, BART is
assuming the INP would apply to the DMU Alternative / EMU Option. The City of Livermore has
indicated this would reasonably characterize the maximum amount of development around the
Isabel station under this alternative. The INP does not apply to the Express Bus / BRT Alternative
because it does not include a new station, nor for the Enhanced Bus Alternative, which consists of
minor bus infrastructure improvements.
16 From Plan Bay Area and SJCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
17 BART has expanded its consideration to include a variety of parking strategies to increase parking near the Dublin/Pleasanton and West
Dublin/Pleasanton station. The results in this report are not substantially affected by the use of alternative parking strategies.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 98
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Project Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Ridership Development Plan/Market Demand
Net New BART Systemwide Boardings
BART Average
Weekday Increase
N/A 11,900 7,000 3,500 400
Source: EIR, Project Merits page 1495, Table 5-1
Net New Transit Trips (BART and all other transit)
Transit Average
Weekday Increase
N/A 10,100 6,200 3,400 600
Source: BART to Livermore Ridership Projection, Cambridge Systematics, page 43, Table 18
Change in Systemwide Transit Boardings (other transit)
Systemwide Average
Weekday Boardings
for ACE
N/A (1,400) (900) (400) (100)
Systemwide Average
Weekday Boardings
for LAVTA
N/A (400) 200 2,200 500
Systemwide Average
Weekday Boardings
for SJRTD
N/A (290) (290) (260) -
Source: BART to Livermore Ridership Projection, Cambridge Systematics, page 43, Table 18
Ridership Threshold
Number Calculated
Using Isabel Station
Boardings and
Alightings, ranking
based on BART SE
Policy
N/A Medium-High Low-Medium N/A N/A
Source: BART to Livermore Ridership Projection, Cambridge Systematics, page 41, Figure 30, BART System Expansion Policy, page 18
Station Context (qualitative assessment)
Transit-Orientated
Development
Potential and Patron
Station Experience
N/A Low Low N/A N/A
Source: BART System Expansion Policy, page 19
Tri-Valley BART Station Daily Boarding
West Dublin
Pleasanton Station
Daily Boarding
3,400 3,600 3,500 3,400 3,500
Dublin Pleasanton
Station Daily
Boarding
10,800 9,000 9,800 12,700 10,900
Isabel Station Daily
Boarding
N/A 8,100 4,800 N/A N/A
All Stations Daily
Boarding
14,200 20,700 18,100 16,100 14,400
Source: EIR, transportation page 293, Figure 3.B-22
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 99
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Project Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Regional Network Connectivity
Regional transportation gap closure (qualitative assessment)
Alternative closes a
major regional
transportation gap
N/A Low Low Low Low
Note: Metric from BART System Expansion Policy, page 22
Cost
Total capital
Total capital (2016
dollars)
N/A $1,329,000,000 $1,300,000,000 /
$1,353,000,000
$305,000,000 $21,000,000
Source: EIR, executive summary page 16, Table S-2
Total capital (YOE
dollars)
N/A $1,635,000,000 $1,599,000,000/
$1,665,000,000
$376,000,000 $25,000,000
Source: EIR, executive summary page 16, Table S-2
Annual O&M
2016 dollars N/A $22,800,000 $16,800,000/
$16,600,000
$3,000,000 $1,700,000
Source: EIR, executive summary page 17, Table S-3
Annual O&M Net of Fares
Annual Rail O&M
Net of Rail Fares
Cost 2016$
N/A $410,000 $2,708,000 /
$2,534,000
-$4,034,000 -$474,000
Annual Rail+Bus
O&M Net of Rail +
Bus Fares 2016$
N/A $2,643,000 $4,716,000 /
$4,542,000
-$2,822,000 $1,039,000
Note: Annualization factor for revenue to daily X 290 days
Annualized Replace and Rehab Cost
2016 dollars N/A $21,062,000 $18,817,000 /
$19,395,000
$5,091,000 $330,000
Source: Arup, Cost Team
Note: This cost does not include capital cost
Annualized Lifecycle Costs
2016 dollars N/A $70,963,000 $62,117,000 /
$63,607,000
$14,318,000 $2,464,000
Source: Arup, Cost Team
Note: Lifecycle costs include capital cost + replace and rehab cost + operation and maintenance cost
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Project Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Cost-Effectiveness
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Farebox Recovery
Rail 2040 (2016
dollars)
N/A 98% 82% / 83% 379% 1857%
Farebox Recovery
Rail+Bus 2040 (2016
dollars)
N/A 88% 72% / 73% 193% 40%
Source: Arup, based on revenue and O&M costs
Lifecycle Costs per New BART Boarding in 2040
Lifecycle Cost per net
new Annual BART
Boardings 2016 $
N/A $20.56 $30.60 / $31.33 $14.11 $21.24
Note: Lifecycle cost +Replacement Cost + O&M Cost/ Annual BART Boardings
Costs Net of Fares per New BART Boarding in 2040
Cost Net of Fares per
net new Annual
BART Boardings
2016 $
N/A $14.56 $24.60 / $25.33 $8.11 $15.24
Cost per Rider: Base Case
N/A Medium Medium /
Medium
Medium High Medium
Note: Metric from BART System Expansion Policy, page 20. Number adjusted from 2002 dollars to 2016 dollars
Annual O&M cost per Net New BART Boarding in 2040
N/A $6.61 $8.28 / $8.18 $2.96 $14.66
System and Financial Capacity
Enhances or minimizes demand on core system - Qualitative assessment:
Yard/Support
Facilities
N/A High Medium Medium Medium
Redundancy/Recover
y Capabilities
N/A Medium Low Low Low
Station and Line
Haul Capacity
N/A Medium Medium Medium Medium
Combined Summary
Rating:
N/A Medium High Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 101
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Project Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Capital finance plan (qualitative)
Fully Funded Project N/A Not Fully Funded Not Fully
Funded
Fully Funded Fully Funded
Stability, Reliability
and Availability of
proposed Funding
Sources
N/A High High High High
Sources not
competing for BART
System renovation
and Core System
Capacity needs
N/A High High High High
Combined Summary
Rating:
N/A Medium Medium High High
Operating finance plan (qualitative) Special fleet/maintenance requirements
N/A High High High Medium
Transit Supportive Land Use and Access
Existing Densities
Residential N/A Low Low Low Low
Employment N/A Low Low Low Low
Source: BLVX Model, Cambridge Systematics
Existing Intermodal Connections
Pedestrian N/A Low Low Low-Medium Low-Medium
Bicycle N/A Low Low Low-Medium Low-Medium
Transit N/A Low Low Medium Medium
Land Use Plans and Policies
Low
Medium
Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low-Medium
Note: Metric from BART System Expansion Policy, page 26
Parking Supply
Net New Parking
Spaces
N/A 3,412 2,428 230 0
Source: EIR, project description page 80, Table 2-1
Tri- Valley BART Station Average Access Mode Share
Drive and Park 43% 50% 46% 38% 42%
Other 57% 50% 54% 62% 58%
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 102
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Project Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Traveller Experience
In Vehicle Crowding
Red line: 106 (116)
Yellow line: 109
(103)
Green line: 113
(112)
Blue line: 112 (115)
Orange line: 88 (96)
Tube: 108 (108)
Red line: 106 (116)
Yellow line: 109
(103)
Green line: 113 (112)
Blue line: 105 (109)
Orange line: 90 (98)
Tube: 107 (107)
Red line: 106
(116)
Yellow line: 109
(103)
Green line: 113
(112)
Blue line: 101
(104)
Orange line: 89
(97)
Tube: 106 (106)
Red line: 106 (116)
Yellow line: 109
(103)
Green line: 113
(112)
Blue line: 98 (100)
Orange line: 88 (96)
Tube: 106 (106)
Red line: 106
(116)
Yellow line: 109
(103)
Green line: 113
(112)
Blue line: 113
(115)
Orange line: 88
(96)
Tube: 108 (108)
Source: Appendix B BART BLVX Operstat - 2040 spreadsheet
Service Reliability
N/A High High Medium Low
Environmental
GHG Emission Reduction
reduction in metric
tons of CO2
equivalents/year
No Impact 11,200 3,500/ 6,000 3,700 No Benefit
Source: EIR, project merits page 1495, Table 5-1
Air Quality
Construction Impacts No No No No No
Operational Impacts Yes No No No No
Source: EIR, air quality, page 1128, Table 3.K-7 and Table 3.K-8
Energy Usage Reduction
Regional Energy
Consumption (million
British Thermal
Units/ year)
No Impact 130,800 35,000/ 66,500 56,800 No Benefit
Source: EIR, project merits page 1495, Table 5-1
Permanent Impact to Sensitive Habitat
acres No Impact approx. 400 acres
mitigation required.
approx. 250
acres mitigation
required.
Approx. 7 acres
mitigation required.
No Impact
Source: EIR, Biological resources page 881, Table 3.I-8
Permanent Impact to Waters/Wetlands
acres No Impact 0.7 acres mitigation
required
0.7 acres
mitigation
required
0.5 acres mitigation
required
No Impact
Source: EIR, Biological resources page 881, Table 3.I-8
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 103
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Project Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Construction Noise
Exceeds one or more
noise threshold
during construction
(after mitigation)
No Impact No No No No
Source: EIR, Noise and Vibrations page 987, Table J-11
Operations Noise
Exceeds one or more
noise threshold
during operations
(after mitigation)
No Impact No No No No
Source: EIR, Noise and Vibrations page 985, Table J-11
Impact to Viewsheds
No Impact Significant and
Unavoidable, Highest
Impact Among
Alternatives
Significant and
Unavoidable,
Highest Impact
Among
Alternatives
Significant and
Unavoidable, Less
of an Impact
compared to BART
and DMU
Alternative
No Impact
Source: EIR, Visual Quality page 582, Table 3.E-1
Community Impacts
ROW impacts
Acres (not including
BART property)
No Impact 147 102 10 No Impact
Source: EIR, executive summary page 7, Table S-1
Equity
Number of Low Income Households within Transit Catchment
See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map
Minority Population within Transit Catchment
See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map
Number of Limited English Proficiency Households within Transit Catchment
See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map
Impacts on Protected Populations
Potentially High and
Disproportionate
Impacts
None None None None None
Source: Environmental Justice Technical Report BART to Livermore Extension Project, Parsons, 2017
Roadway
Reduction in Regional Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
Average Weekday
VMT Reduction
N/A 244,000 140,600 92,600 6,500
Source: EIR, executive summary page 20, Table S-4
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 104
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Project Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Congestion (Change in AM peak Hour Delay in Seconds)
Traffic Delay at
Isabel Ave & Airway
Blvd (no mitigation
proposed)
N/A 24 11 0 0
Traffic Delay at
Dublin Blvd &
Tassajara Dr (no
mitigation proposed)
N/A -10 -3 0 0
Traffic Delay at
Dougherty Rd &
Amador Valley Rd
(Incl. mitigation)
N/A See Note See Note See Note See Note
Traffic Delay at
Hopyard Rd &
Owens Rd (no AM
mitigation proposed)
N/A 3 1 0 0
Source: EIR, Transportation page 433, table 3.B-69, Arup Synchro Results Master Spreadsheet
Note: Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Road Delay not calculated with mitigation, Mitigation = EBR overlap phase in AM; mitigated calculated
for worst case only (Conventional BART alternative, cumulative scenario). Other alternatives will have no significant impact after mitigation.
Traffic Volume (Change in AM peak Hour Volume)
Dublin Blvd east of
Fallon Rd
N/A EB: - 10
WB: - 460
EB: - 10
WB: - 150
EB: - 10
WB: 50
EB: 0
WB: -20
Airway Blvd west of
Isabel Ave
N/A EB: 300
WB: 10
EB: 160
WB: 30
EB: 20
WB: 0
EB: -20
WB: 10
Airway Blvd east of
Isabel Ave
N/A EB: 980
WB: 140
EB: 760
WB: 140
EB: 0
WB: 0
EB: 0
WB: 0
Dougherty north of
Dublin Blvd
N/A NB: 70
SB: 280
NB: 40
SB: 200
NB: 10
SB: 20
NB: 0
SB: 10
Source: EIR Synchro Model
Highway Volume (Change in AM Westbound peak hour volumes)
I-580 East of
Greenville Road at
Livermore Border
N/A 173 122 36 32
I-580 at the Dublin-
Livermore Border
(between Fallon and
Airway)
N/A -254 -196 1 19
Source: EIR, Appendix F2 pages 1890 - 1905
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 105
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Project Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Screenline Volumes
Screenline 1
(Livermore West
Boarder)
N/A -1017 -529 -47 -12
Screenline 2
(Livermore East
Border)
N/A 311 234 -11 -5
Note: Screenline 1: Change in peak hour WB volumes at Livermore West Border (I-580, Dublin Blvd, Stanley, Jack London, Vineyard Ave, Route
84); Screenline 2: Change in peak hour WB volumes on Livermore East Border (I-580, Altamont Pass, Patterson Pass Rd, Tesla Rd) Source: BLVX
Model, Cambridge Systematics
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 106
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Cumulative Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Ridership Development Plan/ Market Demand
Net New BART Systemwide Boardings
BART Average
Weekday Increase
N/A 13,400 8,300 4,800 1,800
Source: EIR, Project Merits page 1495, Table 5-1
Net New Transit Trips
Transit Average
Weekday Increase
N/A 12,400 8,100 4,500 1,500
Source: BART to Livermore Ridership Projection, Cambridge Systematics, page 43, Table 18
Change in Systemwide Transit Boardings – other transit
Systemwide
Average Weekday
Systemwide
Boardings for
ACE
N/A (1,400) (1,000) (500) (200)
Systemwide
Average Weekday
Systemwide
Boardings for
LAVTA
N/A 700 1,000 2,000 (100)
Systemwide
Average Weekday
Systemwide
Boardings for
SJRTD
N/A (290) (290) (270) -
Source: BART to Livermore Ridership Projection, Cambridge Systematics, page 43, Table 18
Ridership threshold
Isabel Station
Boardings and
Alightings
Threshold
N/A Medium-High Low-Medium N/A N/A
Note: Ranking based on BART SE Policy
Source: BART to Livermore Ridership Projection, Cambridge Systematics, page 41, Figure 30, BART System Expansion Policy, page 18
Station Context (qualitative assessment)
Transit-
Orientated
Development
Potential and
Patron Station
Experience
N/A Low Low N/A N/A
Source: BART System Expansion Policy, page 19
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 107
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Cumulative Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Tri-Valley BART Station Daily Boarding:
West Dublin
Pleasanton
Station Daily
Boarding
3,400 3,600 3,500 3,500 3,500
Dublin
Pleasanton
Station Daily
Boarding
10,800 10,000 10,500 13,300 11,600
Isabel Station
Daily Boarding
N/A 7,900 4,700 N/A N/A
All Stations Daily
Boarding
14,200 21,500 18,700 16,800 15,100
Source: EIR, transportation page 293, Figure 3.B-22
Regional Network Connectivity
Regional transportation gap closure (qualitative assessment)
Alternative closes
a major regional
transportation
gap
N/A Low Low Low Low
Source: BART System Expansion Policy, page 22
Cost
Total capital
Total capital
(2016 dollars)
N/A $1,329,000,000 $1,300,000,000 /
$1,353,000,000
$305,000,000 $21,000,000
Total capital
(YOE dollars)
N/A $1,635,000,000 $1,599,000,000 /
$1,665,000,000
$376,000,000 $25,000,000
Source: EIR, executive summary page 16, Table S-2
Annual O&M
2016 dollars N/A $22,800,000 $16,800,000 /
$16,600,000
$3,000,000 $1,700,000
Source: EIR, executive summary page 17, Table S-3
Annual O&M Net of Fares
Annual Rail O&M
Net of Rail Fares
Cost
N/A -$2,151,000 $650,000 /
$476,000
-$6,183,000 -$2,689,000
Annual Rail+Bus
O&M Net of Rail
+ Bus Fares
N/A -$329,000 $2,360,000 /
$2,186,000
-$4,880,000 -$952,000
Note: Annualization factor for revenue to daily X 290 days
Annualized Replacement and Rehabilitation Cost
2016 dollars N/A $21,062,000 $18,817,000 /
$19,395,000
$5,091,000 $330,000
Note: cost does not include capital cost
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 108
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Cumulative Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Annualized Lifecycle Costs
2016 dollars N/A $70,963,000 $62,117,000 /
$63,607,000
$14,318,000 $2,464,000
Note: Lifecycle costs include capital cost + replace and rehab cost + operation and maintenance cost
Cost-Effectiveness
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Farebox Recovery
Rail 2040 (2016
dollars)
N/A 110% 96% / 97% 528% 10060%
Farebox Recovery
Rail+Bus 2040
(2016 dollars)
N/A 101% 86% / 87% 260% 155%
Source: Arup calculation based on revenue and O&M costs
Lifecycle Costs per New BART Boarding in 2040
Lifecycle Cost per
net new Annual
BART Boardings
2016 $
N/A $18.26 $25.81 / $26.43 $10.29 $4.72
Note: Lifecycle cost +Replacement Cost + O&M Cost/ Annual BART Boardings
Costs Net of Fares per New BART Boarding in 2040
Cost Net of Fares
per net new
Annual BART
Boardings 2016 $
N/A $12.26 $19.81 / $20.43 $4.29 -$1.28
Cost per Rider: with TOD
N/A Medium-High Medium/
Medium
N/A N/A
Note: BART System Expansion Policy, page 20. Number adjusted from 2002 dollars to 2016 dollars
Annual O&M cost per Net New BART Boarding in 2040
N/A $5.87 $6.98 / $6.90 $2.16 $3.26
System and Financial Capacity
Enhances or minimizes demand on core system - Qualitative assessment:
Yard/Support
Facilities
N/A High Medium Medium Medium
Redundancy/Reco
very Capabilities
N/A Medium Low Low Low
Station and Line
Haul Capacity
N/A Medium Medium Medium Medium
Combined
Summary Rating:
N/A Medium High Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 109
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Cumulative Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Capital finance plan (qualitative)
Fully Funded
Project
N/A Not Fully Funded Not Fully
Funded
Fully Funded Fully Funded
Stability,
Reliability and
Availability of
proposed Funding
Sources
N/A High High High High
Sources not
competing for
BART System
renovation and
Core System
Capacity needs
N/A High High High High
Combined
Summary Rating:
N/A Medium Medium High High
Operating finance plan (qualitative) Special fleet/maintenance requirements
N/A High High High Medium
Transit Supportive Land Use and Access
Existing Densities
Residential N/A Low Low Low Low
Employment N/A Low Low Low Low
Source: BLVX Model, Cambridge Systematics
Existing Intermodal Connections
Pedestrian N/A Low Low Low-Medium Low-Medium
Bicycle N/A Low Low Low-Medium Low-Medium
Transit N/A Low Low Medium Medium
Land Use Plans and Policies
Low Medium Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low-Medium
Note: Metric from BART System Expansion Policy, page 26
Parking Supply
Net New Parking
Spaces
N/A 3,952 2,968 770 540
Source: EIR, project Description page 80, Table 2-1
Tri- Valley BART Station Average Access Mode Share
Drive and Park 43% 49% 46% 41% 46%
Other 57% 51% 54% 59% 54%
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 110
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Cumulative Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Traveller Experience
In Vehicle Crowding
Peak Hour
Load/car at max
load point AM
(PM)
Red line: 106
(116)
Yellow line: 109
(103)
Green line: 113
(112)
Blue line: 112
(115)
Orange line: 88
(96)
Tube: 108 (108)
Red line: 106 (116)
Yellow line: 109
(103)
Green line: 113 (112)
Blue line: 108 (112)
Orange line: 90 (98)
Tube: 108 (108)
NA NA NA
Source: "Appendix B BART BLVX Operstat - 2040" spreadsheet
Service Reliability
N/A High High Medium Low
Environmental
GHG Emission Reduction
reduction in
metric tons of
CO2
equivalents/year
No Impact 11,200 3,500/ 6,000 3,700 No Benefit
Source: EIR, project merits page 1495, Table 5-1
Air Quality
Construction
Impacts
No Yes Yes No No
Operational
Impacts
Yes Yes Yes No No
Source: EIR, air quality, page 1128, Table 3.K-7 and 3.K-8
Energy Usage Reduction
Regional Energy
Consumption
(million British
Thermal Units/
year)
No Impact 155,900 55,900 / 87,500 74,600 9,600
Source: EIR, project merits page 1495, Table 5-1
Permanent Impact to Sensitive Habitat
acres No Impact approx. 400 acres
mitigation required.
approx. 250
acres mitigation
required.
Approx. 7 acres
mitigation
required.
No Impact
Source: EIR, Biological resources page 881, Table 3.1-8
Permanent Impact to Waters/Wetlands
acres No Impact 0.7 acres mitigation
required
0.7 acres
mitigation
required
0.5 acres mitigation
required
No Impact
Source: EIR, Biological resources page 881, Table 3.I-8
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 111
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Cumulative Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Construction Noise
Exceeds one or
more noise
threshold during
construction
(after mitigation)
No Impact No No No No
Source: EIR, Noise and Vibrations page 987, Table J-11
Operations Noise
Exceeds one or
more noise
threshold during
operations (after
mitigation)
No Impact No No No No
Source: EIR, Noise and Vibrations page 985, Table J-11
Impact to Viewsheds
No Impact Significant and
Unavoidable, Highest
Impact Among
Alternatives
Significant and
Unavoidable,
Highest Impact
Among
Alternatives
Significant and
Unavoidable, Less
of an Impact
compared to BART
and DMU
Alternative
No Impact
Source: EIR, Visual Quality page 582, Table 3.E-1
Community Impacts
ROW Impacts
acres (not
including BART
property)
No Impact 147 102 10 No Impact
Source: EIR, executive summary page 7, Table S-1
Equity
Number of Low Income Households within Transit Catchment
See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map
Minority Population with Transit Catchment
See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map
Number of Limited English Proficiency Households within Transit Catchment
See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map
Impacts on Protected Populations
Potentially High
and
Disproportionate
Impacts
None None None None None
Source: Source: Environmental Justice Technical Report BART to Livermore Extension Project, Parsons, 2017
Roadway
Reduction in Regional Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
Average Weekday
VMT Reduction
N/A 272,700 164,500 112,900 26,800
Source: EIR, executive summary page 20, Table S-4
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 112
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Cumulative Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Congestion (Change in AM peak Hour Delay in Seconds)
Traffic Delay at
Isabel Ave &
Airway Blvd (no
mitigation
proposed)
N/A 43 29 0 0
Traffic Delay at
Dublin Blvd &
Tassajara Dr (no
mitigation
proposed)
N/A -5 -4 0 0
Traffic Delay at
Dougherty Rd &
Amador Valley Rd
(Incl. mitigation)
N/A -7 see note see note see note
Traffic Delay at
Hopyard Rd &
Owens Rd (no
AM mitigation
proposed)
N/A -4 -4 -6 -7
Source: EIR, Transportation page 433, table 3.B-69, Arup Synchro Results Master Spreadsheet
Note: Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Road Delay not calculated with mitigation, Mitigation = EBR overlap phase in AM; mitigated
calculated for worst case only (Conventional BART alternative, cumulative scenario). Other alternatives will have no significant impact after
mitigation.
Traffic Volume (Change in AM peak Hour Volume)
Dublin Blvd east
of Fallon Rd
N/A EB: 10
WB: -300
EB: 10
WB: -240
EB: 0
WB: -10
EB: 10
WB: -10
Airway Blvd west
of Isabel Ave
N/A EB: 380
WB: 70
EB: 280
WB: 70
EB: -10
WB: 10
EB: -20
WB: 10
Airway Blvd east
of Isabel Ave
N/A EB: 670
WB: 250
EB: 670
WB: 180
EB: 0
WB: 0
EB: 0
WB: 20
Dougherty north
of Dublin Blvd
N/A NB: 60
SB: 310
NB: 40
SB: 250
NB: 10
SB: 30
NB: 10
SB: 40
Source: EIR Synchro Model, Arup
Highway Volume (Change in AM Westbound peak hour volumes)
I-580 East of
Greenville Road
at Livermore
Border
N/A 264 172 35 32
I-580 at the
Dublin-Livermore
Border (between
Fallon and
Airway)
N/A -253 -139 24 19
Source: EIR, Appendix F2 pages 1890 - 1905
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Cumulative Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Screenline Volumes
Screenline 1
(Livermore West
Boarder)
N/A -556 -505 26 30
Screenline 2
(Livermore East
Border)
N/A 474 405 19 16
Note: Screenline 1: Change in peak hour WB volumes at Livermore West Border (I-580, Dublin Blvd, Stanley, Jack London, Vineyard Ave,
Route 84); Screenline 2: Change in peak hour WB volumes on Livermore East Border (I-580, Altamont Pass, Patterson Pass Rd, Tesla Rd)
Source: BLVX Model, Cambridge Systematics
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 114
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
Appendix B – Summary of Significant Impacts – BART to Livermore
Extension Draft Project EIR
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 115
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
SUMMARY
27
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
3.B TRANSPORTATION
Impact TRAN-1: Result in a
significant delay, safety hazard,
or diminished access during
construction
Mitigation Measure TRAN-1: Develop and
Implement a Construction Phasing and
Traffic Management Plan
LSM
Impact TRAN-3: General-purpose
lane freeway segments operating
at unacceptable LOS, under 2025
Project Conditions
No feasible mitigation measures SU
Impact TRAN-4: General-purpose
lane freeway segments operating
at unacceptable LOS, under 2040
Project Conditions
No feasible mitigation measures SU
Impact TRAN-5: HOV/express
lane freeway segments operating
at unacceptable LOS, under 2025
Project Conditions
No feasible mitigation measures SU
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 116
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017
SUMMARY
28
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact TRAN-7: Intersections
operating at unacceptable LOS,
under 2025 Project Conditions
Mitigation Measure TRAN-7a:
Improvements for Intersections #2, #5, #39,
and #48 under 2025 Project Conditions
(Conventional BART Project )
Mitigation Measure TRAN-7b:
Improvements for Intersections #2, #5, and
#48 under 2025 Project Conditions
(DMU Alternative/EMU Option)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-7c:
Improvements for Intersection #48 under
2025 Project Conditions
(Express Bus/BRT Alternative)
LSM
(Express Bus/BRT
Alternative)
SU
(Conventional BART
and DMU
Alternative/EMU
Option)
Impact TRAN-8: Intersections
operating at unacceptable LOS,
under 2040 Project Conditions
Mitigation Measure TRAN-8a:
Improvements for Intersections #1, #2, #5,
#35, #39, #45, #48, and #50 under 2040
Project Conditions
(Conventional BART Project)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-8b:
Improvements for Intersections #1, #2, #5,
and #48 under 2040 Project Conditions
(DMU Alternative/EMU Option)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-8c:
Improvements for Intersection #5 under
2040 Project Conditions
(Express Bus/BRT Alternative)
SU
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 117
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
SUMMARY
29
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact TRAN-16(CU): General-
purpose lane freeway segments
operating at unacceptable LOS,
under 2040 Cumulative
Conditions
No feasible mitigation measures SU
Impact TRAN-19(CU):
Intersections operating at
unacceptable LOS, under 2025
Cumulative Conditions
Mitigation Measure TRAN-19a:
Improvements for Intersections #5, #38,
#39, and #48 under 2025 Cumulative
Conditions
(Conventional BART Project)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-19b:
Improvements for Intersections #2, #5, #48,
and #50 under 2025 Cumulative Conditions
(DMU Alternative/EMU Option)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-19c:
Improvements for Intersection #2 under
2025 Cumulative Conditions
(Express Bus/BRT Alternative)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-19d:
Improvements for Intersection #48 and #50
under 2025 Cumulative Conditions
(Enhanced Bus Alternative)
LSM
(Express Bus/BRT
Alternative and
Enhanced Bus
Alternative)
SU
(Conventional BART
and DMU
Alternative/EMU
Option)
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 118
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017
SUMMARY
30
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact TRAN-20(CU):
Intersections operating at
unacceptable LOS, under 2040
Cumulative Conditions
Mitigation Measure TRAN-20a:
Improvements for Intersections #1, #2, #17,
#35, #38, #39, #45, #48, and #50 under
2040 Cumulative Conditions
(Conventional BART Project)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-20b:
Improvements for Intersections #1, #2, #5,
#17, #35, #39, #48, and #50 under 2040
Cumulative Conditions
(DMU Alternative/EMU Option)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-20c:
Improvements for Intersections #1, #2, #5,
and #50 under 2040 Cumulative Conditions
(Express Bus/BRT Alternative)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-20d:
Improvements for Intersections #1, #2, #5,
#17, and #50 under 2040 Cumulative
Conditions
(Enhanced Bus Alternative)
SU
3.C LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact AG-1: Directly convert
Farmland Mitigation Measure AG-1: Provide
Compensatory Farmland under Permanent
Protection
SU
Impact AG-3: Conflict with
zoning for agricultural use See Mitigation Measure AG-1 (above) SU
Impact AG-5(CU): Convert or
result in conversion of Farmland No feasible mitigation measures SU
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 119
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
SUMMARY
31
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
3.D POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact PH-2: Displace
substantial numbers of existing
housing or people necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere
Mitigation Measure PH-2: Acquisition of
Property and Relocation Assistance
LSM
Impact PH-3: Displace
substantial numbers of existing
businesses
See Mitigation Measure PH-2 (above) LSM
3.E VISUAL QUALITY
Impact VQ-1: Substantially
degrade the existing visual
quality or create a new source of
substantial light or glare during
construction
Mitigation Measure VQ-1.A: Visually Screen
Staging Areas
Mitigation Measure VQ-1.B: Minimize Light
Spillover During Construction
LSM
Impact VQ-3: Substantially
degrade the existing visual
quality
Mitigation Measure VQ-3.A: Design Sound
Wall with Architectural Treatments
Mitigation Measure VQ-3.B: Design Parking
Garage with Architectural Treatments
Mitigation Measure VQ-3.C: Screen Storage
and Maintenance Facility
SU
Impact VQ-4: Have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista No feasible mitigation measures SU
Impact VQ-5: Substantially
damage scenic resources within
State scenic highway
Mitigation Measure VQ-5: Revegetate Areas
of Removed Landscaping
SU
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 120
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017
SUMMARY
32
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact VQ-6: Create a new
source of substantial light or
glare
Mitigation Measure VQ-6: Design and
Install Lighting Fixtures to Reduce Spillover
LSM
(Express Bus/BRT
Alternative)
SU
(Conventional BART
and DMU
Alternative/EMU
Option)
Impact VQ-7(CU): Have a
substantial visual impact under
Cumulative Conditions
No feasible mitigation measures SU
3.F CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-2: Cause a
substantial adverse change in
the significance of an
archaeological resource
Mitigation Measure CUL-2.A: Archaeological
Resources Investigation for the Cayetano
Creek Area
(Conventional BART Project and DMU
Alternative/EMU Option)
Mitigation Measure CUL-2.B: Discovery of
Previously Unknown Archaeological
Resources
(Conventional BART Project, DMU
Alternative/EMU Option, Express Bus/BRT
Alternative, and Enhanced Bus Alternative)
LSM
Impact CUL-3: Disturb any
human remains Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Discovery of
Previously Unknown Human Remains
LSM
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 121
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
SUMMARY
33
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact CUL-4(CU): Cause a
substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource, archaeological
resources, or disturb human
remains under Cumulative
Conditions
See Mitigation Measure CUL-2.A, CUL-2.B ,
and CUL-3 (above)
SU
3.G GEOLOGY, SOILS, SEISMICITY, MINERAL, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact PALEO-1: Loss of
paleontological resources Mitigation Measure PALEO-1A: Surface
Paleontological Survey of the Cayetano Creek
Area
(Conventional BART Project and DMU
Alternative/EMU Option)
Mitigation Measure PALEO-1B:
Paleontological Monitoring
(Conventional BART Project, DMU
Alternative/EMU Option, and Express
Bus/BRT Alternative)
Mitigation Measure PALEO-1C: Discovery of
Previously Unknown Paleontological
Resources
(Conventional BART Project, DMU
Alternative/EMU Option, and Express
Bus/BRT Alternative)
LSM
Impact GEO-5: Fault rupture Mitigation Measure GEO-5: Geotechnical
Investigation of the Cayetano Creek Area
and Development of Project Design Features
LSM
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 122
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017
SUMMARY
34
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
3.H HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact HYD-5: Substantially alter
drainage patterns – erosion,
sedimentation, flooding
Mitigation Measure HYD-5: Hydraulic
Capacity for Non-Flood Hazard Area
Crossings
LSM
Impact HYD-9: Impede or
redirect flood flows within a
100-year flood hazard area
Mitigation Measure HYD-9: Floodway
Hydraulic Analysis
LSM
3.I BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1: Adversely affect
special-status plants, either
directly or through habitat
modifications
Mitigation Measure BIO-1.A: Botanical
Surveys for Areas Not Previously Surveyed
and Refinement of Project Design
Mitigation Measure BIO-1.B: Salvage and
Relocation of Rare Plants that Cannot be
Avoided
LSM
Impact BIO-2: Adversely affect
vernal pool fairy shrimp and
longhorn fairy shrimp
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Consult with
USFWS and Reduce Impacts on Vernal Pool
Invertebrates and Their Habitat in the I-580
Corridor Area (north of Croak Road) and
Cayetano Creek Area
LSM
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 123
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
SUMMARY
35
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact BIO-3: Adversely affect
California tiger salamander and
California red-legged frog
Mitigation Measure BIO-3.A: Consult with
USFWS, Survey Potential Habitat, and Reduce
Impacts on Special-status Amphibians during
Construction
Mitigation Measure BIO-3.B: Provide
Compensatory Habitat to Mitigate for the
Loss and Disturbance of CTS and CRLF
Habitat
Mitigation Measure BIO-3.C: General
Measures for Biological Resources Protection
during Construction
LSM
Impact BIO-4: Adversely affect
western spadefoot
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Preconstruction
Survey and Avoidance Measures for the
Western Spadefoot
LSM
Impact BIO-5: Adversely affect
western pond turtle Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Preconstruction
Surveys and Relocation of Western Pond
Turtle
LSM
Impact BIO-6: Adversely affect
western burrowing owl Mitigation Measure BIO-6.A:
Preconstruction Surveys for Burrowing Owl
(Conventional BART Project, DMU
Alternative/EMU Option, and Express
Bus/BRT Alternative)
Mitigation Measure BIO-6.B: Off-site
Compensatory Habitat for Burrowing Owl
(Conventional BART Project and DMU
Alternative/EMU Option)
LSM
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 124
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017
SUMMARY
36
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact BIO-7: Adversely affect
nesting raptors and other
nesting birds
Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Identify and
Avoid Active Nesting Birds during Nesting
Season
LSM
Impact BIO-8: Adversely affect
special-status bats Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Preconstruction
Surveys and Avoidance Measures for Pallid
Bat
LSM
Impact BIO-9: Adversely affect
American badger Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Preconstruction
Surveys and Avoidance Measures for
American Badger
LSM
Impact BIO-10: Adversely affect
San Joaquin kit fox Mitigation Measure BIO-10.A:
Preconstruction Surveys and Avoidance
Measures for the San Joaquin Kit Fox
(Conventional BART Project and DMU
Alternative/EMU Option)
Mitigation Measure BIO-10.B: Provide
Compensatory Habitat to Mitigate for the
Loss and Disturbance of San Joaquin Kit Fox
Habitat
(Conventional BART Project and DMU
Alternative/EMU Option)
See Mitigation Measure BIO-3.C above
(Express Bus/BRT Alternative)
LSM
Impact BIO-11: Have a
substantial adverse effect on
State or federally protected
wetlands or waters
Mitigation Measure BIO-11.A: Avoid and
Minimize Impacts to Wetlands, Waters of the
U.S. and/or Waters of the State
Mitigation Measure BIO-11.B:
Compensatory Mitigation for Wetlands,
Waters of the U.S. and/or Waters of the State
LSM
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 125
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
SUMMARY
37
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact BIO-12: Have a
substantial adverse effect on
riparian habitat or sensitive
natural communities
Mitigation Measure BIO-12.A: Identify and
Avoid Sensitive Natural Communities
Mitigation Measure BIO-12.B: Compensate
for Impacts to CDFW-regulated Sensitive
Upland Plant Communities
LSM
Impact BIO-15: Result in loss of
protected tees identified in local
policies or ordinances
Mitigation Measure BIO-15: Conduct an
Inventory of Protected Trees, Protect Trees
that Remain, and Plant Replacement Trees
LSM
Impact BIO-16(CU): Adversely
affect species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special-status under Cumulative
Conditions
No additional mitigation measures beyond
those identified for project impacts
SU
3.J NOISE AND VIBRATION
Impact NOI-1: Expose persons to
or generate noise or vibration
levels in excess of standards
during construction
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Limit
Construction Hours and Methods for Pile
Driving and Other Construction Activities
LSM
Impact NOI-5: Result in a
substantial permanent increase
in ambient noise levels from
roadway realignment and traffic
distribution in the project
vicinity under 2025 Project
Conditions
Mitigation Measure NOI-5: Construct Noise
Barrier along Airway Boulevard
LSM
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 126
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017
SUMMARY
38
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact NOI-6: Result in a
substantial permanent increase
in ambient noise levels from
roadway realignment and traffic
distribution in the project
vicinity under 2040 Project
Conditions
See Mitigation Measure NOI-5 (above) LSM
Impact NOI-7: Expose persons to
or generate excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels under
2025 and 2040 Project
Conditions
Mitigation Measure NOI-7:
Vibration-Reducing Design Elements
LSM
3.K AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-1: Result in
potentially significant, localized
dust-related air quality impacts
during construction
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: BAAQMD
Construction Best Management Practices
LSM
Impact AQ-2: Generate emissions
of NOx, PM, and ROGs exceeding
BAAQMD significance thresholds
during construction
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Construction
Emissions Reduction Plan – for Mitigating
Mass Emissions for NOx
LSM
Impact AQ-3: Generate TAC and
PM 2.5 emissions that result in
health risks above the BAAQMD
significance thresholds during
construction
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Construction
Emissions Reduction Plan – for Mitigating
Cancer Risk
LSM
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 127
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
SUMMARY
39
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact AQ-7(CU): Generate TAC
and PM 2.5 emissions that result in
health risks above the BAAQMD
significance thresholds during
construction under Cumulative
Conditions
See Mitigation Measure AQ-3 (above) SU
Impact AQ-12: Result in
increased emissions of TACs and
PM 2.5 , resulting in increased
health risk above BAAQMD
significance thresholds under
2040 Project Conditions
Not applicable S
Impact AQ-18(CU): Result in
increased emissions of TACs and
PM 2.5 , resulting in increased
health risk above BAAQMD
significance thresholds under
2025 Cumulative Conditions
No feasible mitigation measures SU
Impact AQ-19(CU): Result in
increased emissions of TACs and
PM 2.5 , resulting in increased
health risk above BAAQMD
significance thresholds under
2040 Cumulative Conditions
No feasible mitigation measures S (No Project
Alternative)
SU (Conventional
BART and DMU
Alternative /EMU
Option)
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 128
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017
SUMMARY
40
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
3.L GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-3: Generate GHG
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, above BAAQMD
significance thresholds, or
conflict with plans, policies, or
regulations that reduce GHG
emissions, under 2025 Project
Conditions
Mitigation Measure GHG-3: Obtain Carbon
Offsets For Bus Emissions
LSM
Impact GHG-4: Generate GHG
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, above BAAQMD
significance thresholds, or
conflict with plans, policies, or
regulations that reduce GHG
emissions, under 2040 Project
Conditions
Not applicable S
Impact GHG-6(CU): Generate
GHG emissions, either directly or
indirectly, above BAAQMD
significance thresholds, or
conflict with plans, policies, or
regulations that reduce GHG
emissions under 2040
Cumulative Conditions
Not applicable S
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 129
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
SUMMARY
41
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
3.M ENERGY
Impact EN-3: Result in wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy, under
2025 Project Conditions
Mitigation Measure EN-3: Incorporate
Renewable Energy Features
SU
Impact EN-4: Result in wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy, under
2040 Project Conditions
See Mitigation Measure EN-3 (above) S (No Project
Alternative)
SU (Enhanced Bus
Alternative)
Impact EN-6(CU): Result in
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy, under 2040 Cumulative
Conditions
Not applicable S
3.N PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
Impact PHS-1: Create a potential
public or environmental health
hazard; undue potential risk for
health -related accidents; or
result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in
the project area during
construction
Mitigation Measure PHS-1.A: Prepare
Phase I ESA and Phase II ESA, as Necessary
Mitigation Measure PHS-1.B: Soil
Management Plan
Mitigation Measure PHS-1.C: Hazardous
Materials and Hazardous Waste Management
Plan
Mitigation Measure PHS-1.D: Fueling
Procedures during Construction
Mitigation Measure PHS-1.E: Emergency
Response Plan during Construction
LSM
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 130
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017
SUMMARY
42
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact PHS-2: Physically interfere
with an adopted emergency
response or evacuation plan
during construction
See Mitigation Measure TRAN-1 (above) LSM
3.O COMMUNITY SERVICES
Impact CS-1: Need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for
police, fire, and emergency
response during construction
See Mitigation Measure TRAN-1 (above) LSM
3.P UTILITIES
Impact UTIL-1: Substantially
disrupt utility services, including
power, natural gas,
communications, drinking water
supplies, wastewater transport,
or stormwater transport, during
construction activities
UTIL-1.A: Restrict Service Interruptions to
Off-Peak Periods
UTIL-1.B: Arrange Temporary Backup Service
UTIL-1.C: Notify Customers of Service
Interruptions
LSM
Notes: LSM=Less-than-Significant impact with mitigation; S=Significant impact of No Project Alternative (mitigation is inapplicable); SU=Significant and unavoidable, even with
mitigation or no feasible mitigation available.
DMU = diesel multiple unit; EMU = electrical multiple unit; BRT = bus rapid transit; LOS = level of service; USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service; CTS = California tiger
salamander; CRLF = California red-legged frog; BUOW = burrowing owl; SJKF = San Joaquin kit fox; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM = particulate matter; ROG = reactive organic gas;
BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District; TAC = toxic air contaminant; PM 25 = fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; GHG = greenhouse gas.
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 131
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
Appendix C – Air Quality Emissions
The operational emissions for the Proposed Project and build alternatives are shown in Table C-1
(average net daily emissions) and Table C-2 (net annual emissions). The Proposed Project and
alternatives would not result in significant impacts related to emissions of Reactive Organic Gases
(ROGs), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM) in 2040, and no mitigation measures are
required.
In 2040, the Proposed Project would result in a net reduction in VMT for passenger vehicles
compared to the 2040 No Project Conditions. The passenger vehicles would also have fewer
emissions due to the California Air Resource Board’s (CARB’s) requirements for cleaner vehicles in
2040. Thus, there would be a net reduction in emissions for PM10 and PM2.5 for passenger vehicles.
Buses also would have lower emissions in 2040, consistent with regulatory requirements.
The DMU Alternative would also have reductions in PM10 and PM2.5 compared to the No Project
Alternative, but these reductions would not be as great as the Proposed Project. The emissions for
the EMU Option would be slightly lower than the DMU Alternative, as EMU vehicles have no direct
emissions. The Express Bus / BRT Alternative would have lower ROG emissions compared to the
Proposed Project, but higher NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Similarly, the Enhanced Bus Alternative
would have lower ROG emissions compared to the Proposed Project, but higher NOx and PM2.5
emissions.
Table C-1 – Average Net New Daily Operational Emissions in 2040*
Notes: lbs/day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; PM25 = fine particulate
matter
*Compared with 2040 No Project Conditions
Average Net New Daily Operational Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Conventional BART Project
Total Emissions
Above Threshold?
0.37
No
11
No
-20
No
-7.9
No
DMU Alternative
Total Emissions
Above Threshold? 6.5
No
25
No
-11
No
-3.9
No
EMU Option
Total Emissions
Above Threshold? 1.8
No
15
No
-11
No
-4.4
No
Express Bus/BRT Alternative
Total Emissions
Above Threshold? -0.68
No
18
No
-7.7
No
-3.0
No
Enhanced Bus Alternative
Total Emissions
Above Threshold? -3.0
No
19
No
-0.59
No
-0.15
No
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 132
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
Table C-2– Net New Annual Operational Emissions in 2040*
Notes: tons/yr = tons per year; ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; PM25 = fine particulate matter
A short ton is a unit of weight that is equivalent to 2,000 pounds. While typically referred to simply as a ton, it is distinguished here to clarify that it is
not a metric ton, which is equivalent to 1,000 kilograms.
*Compared with 2040 No Project Conditions
Maximum Net New Annual Operational Emissions (short tons/yr)
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Significance Thresholds 10 10 15 10
Conventional BART Project
Total Emissions
Above Threshold?
0.068
No
2.0
No
-3.6
No
-1.4
No
DMU Alternative
Total Emissions
Above Threshold? 1.2
No
4.5
No
-2.0
No
-0.72
No
EMU Option
Total Emissions
Above Threshold? 0.32
No
2.8
No
-2.1
No
-0.81
No
Express Bus/BRT Alternative
Total Emissions
Above Threshold? -0.12
No
3.3
No
-1.4
No
-0.55
No
Enhanced Bus Alternative
Total Emissions
Above Threshold? -0.54
No
3.5
No
-0.11
No
-0.027
No
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 133
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
f
f
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Approval of the March 20, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
Prepared by: Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk/Records Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the March 20, 2018 Regular
City Council meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the minutes of the March 20, 2018 Regular City Council meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
DESCRIPTION:
The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the March 20, 2018 Regular
City Council meeting.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Minutes of the March 20, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting
4.1
Packet Pg. 134
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
REGULAR MEETING – MARCH 20, 2018
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 20, 2018
1. Call to Order – The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haubert.
Attendee Name Title Status
David Haubert Mayor Present
Arun Goel Councilmember Present
Abe Gupta Councilmember Present
Melissa Hernandez Councilmember Present
2. Pledge of Allegiance – The pledge of allegiance was led by Aryaa Bhatia and recited
by the City Council, Staff, and those present at the meeting.
3. Oral Communications
3.1. Recognition of Aryaa Bhatia
The City Council recognized Aryaa Bhatia for his accomplishment.
3.2. Recognition of Eden Housing's 50th Anniversary
The City Council recognized Eden Housing on their 50th anniversary.
3.3. Public Comment
Victoria Fierce provided public comment.
John Sensiba provided public comment.
David Burrows provided public comment.
Jeff Gebel, Dublin resident, provided public comment.
Shawn Costello, Dublin resident, provided public comment.
Ramya Ramakrishnan, Dublin resident, provided public comment.
Ann Crawford, Dublin resident, provided public comment.
Brad Johnson, Chamber President, provided written comment.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 135
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 20, 2018
4. Consent Calendar
Cm. Goel recused himself from voting on Item 4.2.
4.1. Approved the minutes of the March 6, 2018 Regular City Council meeting.
4.2. Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 24 – 18
APPROVING MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENTS FOR SMALL CELL POLE
ATTACHMENT INSTALLATION WITH NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS COMPANY
PCS, LLC AND EXTENET SYSTEMS (CALIFORNIA) LLC
4.3. Received the Payment Issuance Report.
4.4. Received the Notice of City Engineer’s Receipt of Final Maps for review for Tracts
8360, 8362, and 8413 in the Boulevard development.
4.5. Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 25 – 18
SUMMARILY VACATING A TEMPORARY ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT
LOCATED AT 5891 CADENCE AVENUE
RESOLUTION NO. 26 – 18
SUMMARILY VACATING A TEMPORARY STORM DRAIN EASEMENT LOCATED
AT 5891 AND 5892 CADENCE AVENUE
RESOLUTION NO. 27 – 18
SUMMARILY VACATING AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT
LOCATED AT 5891 CADENCE AVENUE
RESOLUTION NO. 28 – 18
SUMMARILY VACATING A LANDSCAPE EASEMENT LOCATED AT 5892
CADENCE AVENUE
4.6. Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 29 – 18
AMENDING THE DUBLIN TRAFFIC CODE APPROVING PARKING REGULATIONS
ON ANTONE WAY NEAR THE WEST DRIVEWAY OF
JOHN GREEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 136
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
ee
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 20, 2018
4.7. Received the notification of the City Engineer’s pending approval of the Final Map
for Tract 8136, Schaefer Ranch, Unit 3, located on Schaefer Way.
4.8. Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 30 – 18
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH
ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC; CAL ENGINEERING &
GEOLOGY; CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING LABORATORIES; COTTON, SHIRES &
ASSOCIATES; CSG CONSULTANTS, INC; CALTROP; ENGEO; GEOSPHERE; HILL
INTERNATIONAL; OMNI-MEANS; AND SWINERTON MANAGEMENT & CONSULTING
4.9. Waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 01 – 18
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ZONING DISTRICT WITH A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE ZEISS INNOVATION CENTER PROJECT PLPA 2017-00025
(APN 986-0014-010-00)
4.10. Confirmed the Mayor’s recommendation of appointment of Sammy Jo Rudy to the
Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission to be effective April 12, 2018.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: David Haubert, Mayor
SECOND: Abe Gupta, Councilmember
AYES: David Haubert, Arun Goel, Abe Gupta, Melissa Hernandez
5. Written Communication – None.
6. Public Hearing – None.
7. Unfinished Business – None.
8. New Business
8.1. Preliminary Fiscal Year 2018-19 and Fiscal Year 2019-20 Budget
By consensus, the City Council received the Preliminary Fiscal Year 2018-19 and
Fiscal Year 2019-20 Budget Report and directed Staff to bring back a report on
the possibility of installing fitness equipment for a City park.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 137
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
ee
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 20, 2018
8.2. Veterans Art Selection
The City Council approved the selection of artist Steven Whyte's design of a
public art monument honoring veterans and military personnel, to be placed in
the future Dublin Crossing Community Park.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Abe Gupta, Councilmember
SECOND: Melissa Hernandez, Councilmember
AYES: David Haubert, Arun Goel, Abe Gupta, Melissa Hernandez
8.3. Actions to Fill City Council Vacancy
Jeff Gebel, Dublin resident, provided public comment.
Shawn Costello, Dublin resident, provided public comment.
By consensus, the City Council agreed to the following:
1. Hold a special meeting on April 2, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in order to select a
person to fill the vacancy.
2. Accept applications from Wednesday, March 21 through Wednesday, March
28, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.
3. Ask the following questions on the application:
a. What is your involvement in the community (i.e., task forces,
committees, commissions, etc.)?
b. Why do you want to serve on the City Council?
c. Are you willing to commit to not running for City Council in November
2018?
4. City Councilmembers can meet with applicants individually.
5. There will be no formal interviews with the applicants.
6. City Councilmembers will make a list of each of their top two (unranked)
selections and discuss their selections at the Special Meeting.
7. The entire City Council must be present in order to select a candidate for
the City Council vacancy.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 138
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
ee
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 20, 2018
8.4. Selection of Vice Mayor
The City Council selected Councilmember Hernandez as Vice Mayor for the
period ending December 2018.
RESULT: AGREE BY CONSENSUS - VOTE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: David Haubert, Mayor
SECOND: Abe Gupta, Councilmember
AYES: David Haubert, Arun Goel, Abe Gupta, Melissa Hernandez
8.5. Appointments of City Councilmembers to Committee/Commission/Board
Vacancies
The City Council approved the following appointments:
1. Cm. Goel (alternate) to the Alameda County Transportation Commission.
2. Vm. Hernandez to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority JPA.
3. Vm. Hernandez to the East Bay Community Energy Authority.
4. Vm. Hernandez to the East Bay Division/League of CA Cities and Cm. Goel
as the alternate.
5. Vm. Hernandez as the League of CA Cities Voting Delegate.
6. Vm. Hernandez to the Energy Council/Waste Management Authority.
7. Remove Mayor Haubert from the East Bay Community Energy Authority.
8. Cm. Goel to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council.
The City Council agreed to bring back the balance of the vacancies for
discussion at the April 3, 2018 Regular City Council meeting.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Abe Gupta, Councilmember
SECOND: Arun Goel, Councilmember
AYES: David Haubert, Arun Goel, Abe Gupta, Melissa Hernandez
8.6. Honoring the Late Vice Mayor Don Biddle
By consensus, the City Council agreed to move this item after item 8.2.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 139
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
ee
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 20, 2018
The City Council agreed to name the park in Dublin Crossing as the Don Biddle
Community Park.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Abe Gupta, Councilmember
SECOND: Melissa Hernandez, Councilmember
AYES: David Haubert, Arun Goel, Abe Gupta, Melissa Hernandez
9. Other Business – Brief information only reports from City Council and/or Staff,
including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at
City expense (AB1234).
By consensus, the City Council directed Staff to agendize a staff report regarding a
town hall meeting.
By consensus, the City Council directed Staff to seek information on autonomous
vehicles.
By consensus, the City Council directed Staff to make a presentation on the BART
garage facility.
10. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________ City Clerk
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 140
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
ee
t
i
n
g
)
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Bike to Work Day and Bike Month Proclamation
Prepared by: Rebecca Parnes, Environmental Technicia n
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
During National Bike Month, a series of regional events such as Bike to Work Day are
organized by Bike East Bay and numerous other agencies, including the City of Dublin,
to promote bicycling as an alternative mode of transportation .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Proclaim the month of May as “Bike Month” and May 10, 2018 as “Bike to Work Day” in
the City of Dublin.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Fiscal Year 2017-18 budget includes $4,800 to cover the costs related to National
Bike Month activities including Bike to Work Day events and advertising. The total
National Bike Month budget is funded by Measure B Bicycle/Pedestrian Funds.
DESCRIPTION:
Bike to Work Day (BtWD) is a one-day annual regional event held to encourage the use
of alternative modes of transportation during the commute to work by the Bay Area
workforce. Entering its 24th year in Alameda County, BtWD will be held on Thursday,
May 10, 2018 and is organized by Bike East Bay. “Energizer Stations” will be set up in
strategic locations throughout the region to provide bike commuters with refreshments
and giveaways.
The City provides a financial contribution of $2,500 to Bike East Bay for events and
activities related to Bike to Work Day. As a result of the sponsorship, the City of Dub lin’s
logo will appear on regional promotional posters and T -shirts to be given away at
“Energizer Stations.” Additionally, the City’s funding contributes towards Bike East Bay’s
promotions for cycling in daily life with a regional ad campaign which appear s on buses,
billboards, bus shelters, and on the Internet. The City’s sponsorship also contributes
4.2
Packet Pg. 141
Page 2 of 2
funding for Bike to School Day activities in Dublin.
On BtWD, the City of Dublin will help host an “Energizer Station” from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00
a.m. at the East and West Dublin/Pleasanton BART stations. Refreshments, giveaways,
and informational brochures will be given to commuters who commute via bicycle on
that day. A limited number of BtWD T -shirts will be given out at the “Energizer Stations”
on a first-come, first-serve basis.
In addition to BtWD, Dublin also hosts several other bike related events before and
during National Bike Month. All events taking place in Dublin are free to both Dublin
residents and non-residents.
Bike Month activities will include the following:
· Bike to Work Month Challenge - Dublin businesses will be encouraged to register
their business in a month-long bike to work challenge to encourage bicycle
commuting the entire month of May, not just on Bike to Work Day. Participants
will track their commutes and compete against companies throughout the Bay
Area.
· Family Cycling Workshop - A certified instructor from Bike East Bay will lead
workshop participants in games, safety drills, and skills building. It is ideal for
students in grade 2nd-6th and their parents. It will be held on May 5th from
1:30 p.m. -4:00 p.m. at Kolb Elementary School.
· Bike to School Day - It is anticipated that all Dublin Unified School District
(DUSD) will be participating in Bike to School Day. Students will receive
giveaways and refreshments on these days.
· Community Bike Ride - The 11-mile ride is co-sponsored by the cities of Dublin
and Pleasanton and will lead participants along local trails through both cities on
May 19th starting at 10:00 a.m.
· Dublin’s Bike to the Market Day will take place at the Dublin Farmers' Market at
Emerald Glen Park. Cyclists who visit the City-sponsored booth on that day will
receive $5 in “Carrot Cash” for shopping at the market. The event will start at
4:00 p.m. on May 24th.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
City staff will work with Bike East Bay to prepare and distribute press releases regarding
National Bike Month, Bike to Work Day, and related events to local media. Information
on these events will also be posted on the City’s website. Posters promoting Bike to
Work Day will also be displayed at partnering businesses throughout the Tri-Valley.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2018 Bike to Work Day and Bike Month Proclamation
4.2
Packet Pg. 142
A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF DUBLIN
CALIFORNIA
“Bike Month and Bike to Work Day”
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin acknowledges that cycling is a successful rideshare mode to alleviate traffic congestion, reduce
air pollution, and decrease fuel consumption, and that bike-to-work days are effective in converting drivers into bicyclists,
educating citizens about the environmental value of biking to work regularly, and promoting the health benefits of cycling; and
WHEREAS, the League of American Bicyclists has declared the Month of May as National Bike Month; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Public Works Department has scheduled events to promote bicycling throughout May, including a
Bike to Work Month Challenge, a Family Cycling Workshop, a Bike to School Day/Week, a Bike to the Market Day, a Community
Bike Ride and other activities; and
WHEREAS, Bike East Bay along with other regional and local sponsors are promoting Thursday, May 10th as Bike to Work Day
in the San Francisco Bay Area;
WHEREAS, on May 10th, the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, Alameda County Public Works Agency, Dublin Cyclery,
Hacienda, REI Dublin, and Veeva Systems are hosting Energizer Stations at both the East and West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
stations, to greet and reward bicyclists with refreshments and sponsored giveaways.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, David Haubert, Mayor of Dublin, on behalf of the entire City Council, do
hereby proclaim the Month of May as “Bike Month” and May10th as “Bike to Work Day” in the City of Dublin, and I call upon
all citizens and civic organizations to consider bicycling throughout the month, participating in bike events, and visiting the
Dublin Energizer Stations on Bike to Work Day.
DATED: April 3, 2018 ______
Mayor Haubert Vice Mayor Hernandez
_______________
Councilmember Goel Councilmember Gupta
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 143
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
2
0
1
8
B
i
k
e
t
o
W
o
r
k
D
a
y
a
n
d
B
i
k
e
M
o
n
t
h
P
r
o
c
l
a
m
a
t
i
o
n
(
B
i
k
e
t
o
W
o
r
k
M
o
n
t
h
P
r
o
c
l
a
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
Page 1 of 4
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, Senate Bill (SB) 1 -
Fiscal Year 2018-19 Project List
Prepared by: Janet Coles, Parks and Facilities Development Coordinator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider approving a list of projects funded in Fiscal Year 2018 -19
by Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving a List of Projects Funded in Fiscal Year 2018 -19 by
Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The proposed Fiscal Year 2018-19 Budget accounts for revenue the City will receive
due to the passage of Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of
2017. This law provides funding through increased gasoline excise taxes, diesel fuel
sales taxes, and vehicle registration fees via the Road Maintenance an d Rehabilitation
Account (RMRA). It is projected that the City will receive approximately $972,000 of
RMRA funds annually, beginning in Fiscal Year 2018-19. This funding is in addition to
the annual Highway Users Tax Account (or Gas Tax) funds the City re ceives (currently
about $1.2 million annually).
DESCRIPTION:
In April 2017, the State Legislature passed and Governor Brown approved Senate Bill 1,
the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statues of 2017). SB
1 provides a significant, stable and ongoing increase in state transportation funding. SB
1 created the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program to address deferred
maintenance on the state highway system and on the local street and road system.
Funds for the program are deposited into the State Transportation Fund, Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA).
4.3
Packet Pg. 144
Page 2 of 4
SB 1 is projected to generate over $5 billion annually for state and local transportation
improvements. Cities and counties are slated to receive $1.5 bi llion at full
implementation of SB 1. According to analysis by the League of California Cities, SB 1
will double the amount of revenues cities receive from the state for local street
maintenance and rehabilitation needs, with allocations to cities based u pon population.
The RMRA receives funds from the following taxes imposed under SB 1:
• A 12 cent per gallon increase to the gasoline excise tax.
• A 20 cent per gallon increase to the diesel fuel excise tax, half of which will be
allocated to Trade Corridors Enhancement Account (TCEA) with the remaining
half to the RMRA.
• A new vehicle registration tax called the “transportation improvement fee,” based
on the market value of the vehicle.
• An additional new $100 vehicle registration tax on zero emission vehicles model
year 2020 and later effective July 1, 2020.
• Annual rate increases to these taxes beginning July 1, 2020 (July 1, 2021 for the
ZEV fee), and every July 1 thereafter for the change in the California Consumer
Price Index. The first adjustment to be mad e on July 1, 2020 will cover CPI
change for two years: November 1, 2017 through November 12, 2019.
RMRA funds are in addition to the existing/traditional state gas tax funds which have
been in place for decades and are allocated by the state through the H ighway User Tax
Account (HUTA).
The Fiscal Year 2018-19 revenues, and future years’ revenues, provide the City an
opportunity to expand and enhance street maintenance activities and to fund existing
and new street projects. Funding in Fiscal Year 2018 -19 and future years will be
included in the City’s Budget and Capital Improvement Program adoption process.
The rules associated to use of RMRA funds are similar, but not identical to the rules
associated with HUTA funds. RMRA local streets and roads f unds must be used for
projects that include, but are not limited to the following:
• Road maintenance and rehabilitation
• Safety projects
• Railroad grade separations
• Traffic control devices
• Complete streets components, which include active transportation proj ects,
pedestrian and bicycle safety projects, transit facilities, and drainage and storm -
water capture projects in conjunction with other allowable projects.
Additionally, if a city or county has an average Pavement Condition Index of 80 or more
(very good to excellent), then the city or county may spend its RMRA funds on
transportation priorities other than those listed above. The City of Dublin currently has a
Pavement Condition Index of 85.
4.3
Packet Pg. 145
Page 3 of 4
Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
SB 1 requires that RMRA funds not supplant existing general revenue funds that the
City of Dublin is using on streets and roads. This is referred to as the maintenance of
effort (MOE) requirement. The MOE is calculated by the State Controller based upon
the City’s average spending for street and road purposes for Fiscal Years 2009 -10,
2010-11, and 2011-12. The City of Dublin’s MOE was calculated at $1,229,320. For
Fiscal Year 2017-18, the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program, Annual Street
Resurfacing Project has a total budget of over $3.3M, however this reflects budget
carried over from prior fiscal years. For Fiscal Year’s 2018-19 through 2022-23, the
proposed five-year Capital Improvement Program includes annual budgets of $1.7M to
$2.2M per year, which include a minimum of $1.23M of funds other than RMRA funds.
Reporting Requirements
For the City to receive RMRA funds from the state, SB 1 requires the City to annually
submit a project list by May 1st to the California Transportation Commission. For Fiscal
Year 2018-19, Staff is recommending that City Council approve the project list to
include Annual Street Resurfacing, Dublin Boulevard Extension, Dublin Boulevard
Improvements - Sierra Court to Dublin Court, Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin
Boulevard, and Tassajara Road Realignment and Widening. The proposed projects
with RMRA funds budgeted in Fiscal Year 2018-19 are summarized below.
• Annual Street Resurfacing (CIP No. ST0117)
The project provides for a variety of pavement surface treatments and repairs to
existing City streets. The project is budgeted annually to help maintain the
significant investment the City has in the street system. Project location is
citywide, with annual project locations varying from year to year based upon the
City’s Pavement Management Program.
RMRA Funding: $130,716
• Dublin Boulevard Extension (CIP Project ST0216)
The project provides for the design and construction of the 1.5 -mile extension of
Dublin Boulevard from Fallon Road to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore.
RMRA Funding: $300,000
• Dublin Boulevard Improvements - Sierra Court to Dublin Court (CIP No. ST1012)
This project provides for the design and construction to widen Dublin Boulevard
from Sierra Court to Dublin Court.
RMRA Funding: $500,000
• Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard (CIP No. ST0118)
This project provides for the design and environmental review of an Iron Horse
Trail bridge for bicycles and pedestrians over Dublin Boulevard.
RMRA Funding: $200,000
4.3
Packet Pg. 146
Page 4 of 4
• Tassajara Road Realignment and Widening (CIP No. ST0116)
This project provides for the planning and preliminary engineering to define a
new roadway alignment, design cross-section, right-of-way, and environmental
clearance for Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and the City
and Contra Costa County limit. The project also provides for the design and
construction of a realigned Tassajara Road from Fallon Drive to the northern City
limit.
RMRA Funding: $100,000
In addition to the annual submittal of a project list, SB 1 also requires the City to subm it
to the California Transportation Commission an annual report updating the status of
projects for which RMRA funds were expended. The Fiscal Year expenditure report is
due on October 1, 2018.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving List of Projects Funded in Fiscal Year 2018-19 by Senate Bill 1
4.3
Packet Pg. 147
RESOLUTION NO. XX- 18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
APPROVING A LIST OF PROJECTS FUNDED IN FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 BY
SENATE BILL 1, THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
(Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the
Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi-modal transportation
funding shortfalls statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will
ensure the residents of our City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our
community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City must approve a list of all projects proposed to receive
funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB
1 by resolution, which must include a description and the location of each proposed
project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life
of the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City will receive and estimated $972,000 in RMRA funding in
Fiscal Year 2018-19 from SB 1; and
WHEREAS, this is the second year in which the City is receiving SB 1 funding
and the funding will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and
rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, and increasing access and mobility options
for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and
WHEREAS, the City has undergone a robust public process to ensure public
input into our community’s transportation priorities; and
WHEREAS, the City used the Capital Improvement Program and a Pavement
Management System to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used
on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the community’s
priorities for transportation investment; and
WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate
streets, bridges, sidewalks, traffic control devices, and help add active transportation
infrastructure throughout the City this year and into the future; and
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 148
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
L
i
s
t
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
F
u
n
d
e
d
i
n
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
b
y
S
e
n
a
t
e
B
i
l
l
1
(
T
h
e
R
o
a
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
A
c
t
WHEREAS, the 2016 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs
Assessment found that the City’s streets and roads are in an “very good” condition and
this revenue will help us maintain the overall quality of our road system; and
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and
roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete
streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will
have significant positive co-benefits statewide.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Dublin does hereby approve a list of projects funded in Fiscal Year 2018-19 to be
funded with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following is the approved list of projects
planned to be funded with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues in
Fiscal Year 2018-19:
1. Annual Street Resurfacing (CIP No. ST0117)
The project provides for a variety of pavement surface treatments and repairs to
existing City streets. The project is budgeted annually to help maintain the
significant investment the City has in the street system. Project location is citywide,
with annual project locations varying from year to year based upon the City’s
Pavement Management Program. The annual project is completed in fall of each
year. Surface treatments and repairs have a useful life of between 7 and 20 years.
2. Dublin Boulevard Extension (CIP Project ST0216)
The project provides for the design and construction of the 1.5-mile extension of
Dublin Boulevard from Fallon Road to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore.
Preliminary engineering and the environmental document are anticipated to be
complete in spring 2019. When constructed, the roadway extension will have a
useful life in excess of 50 years.
3. Dublin Boulevard Improvements – Sierra Court to Dublin Court (CIP No. ST1012)
This project provides for the design and construction to widen Dublin Boulevard
from Sierra Court to Dublin Court. The project is anticipated to be complete by
spring 2020. When finished, the roadway improvements will have a useful life in
excess of 50 years.
4. Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard (CIP No. ST0118)
This project provides for the design and environmental review of an Iron Horse
Trail bridge for bicycles and pedestrians over Dublin Boulevard. Design is
anticipated to be complete by fall 2019. When built, the bridge will have a useful
life in excess of 50 years.
5. Tassajara Road Realignment and Widening (CIP No. ST0116)
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 149
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
L
i
s
t
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
F
u
n
d
e
d
i
n
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
b
y
S
e
n
a
t
e
B
i
l
l
1
(
T
h
e
R
o
a
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
A
c
t
This project provides for the planning and preliminary engineering to define a new
roadway alignment, design cross-section, right-of-way, and environmental
clearance for Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and the City and
Contra Costa County limit. The project also provides for the design and
construction of a realigned Tassajara Road from Fallon Drive to the northern City
limit. Preliminary engineering and the environmental document are ant icipated to
be complete in summer 2018. When constructed, the roadway will have a useful
life in excess of 50 years.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of April, 2018, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
City Clerk
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 150
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
L
i
s
t
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
F
u
n
d
e
d
i
n
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
b
y
S
e
n
a
t
e
B
i
l
l
1
(
T
h
e
R
o
a
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
A
c
t
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Notice of City Engineer’s Receipt of Final Map for Review for Tract 8325
Prepared by: Laurie Sucgang, Senior Civil Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a notification of the City Engineer’s receipt of a Final Map
for review for Tract 8325 Tassajara Hills, Phase 3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the notification.
FINANCIAL IMP ACT:
There is no impact on the General Fund.
DESCRIPTION:
The Tassajara Hills development (formerly Moller Ranch) is located on Tassajara Road
at the northern City limit. Tassajara Hills is being developed in three subdivision
phases. The developer has prepared the final map for the third phase and has
submitted it for review by Staff.
In accordance with Chapter 9.24.080 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, this is notice
of the following:
☒ City Engineer’s receipt of the following Final Map(s) for review:
☐ City Engineer’s pending decision on the following Final Map(s):
Tract Location Developer Number of
Units/Lots
Type
8325 Tassajara Hills,
Phase 3
Toll CA VIII,
L.P.
151 Lots, 5
Common
Area Parcels
Single Family
Residential
4.4
Packet Pg. 151
Page 2 of 2
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
4.4
Packet Pg. 152
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Tract 8361 - Final Map Notice
Prepared by: Laurie Sucgang, Senior Civil Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a notification of the City Engineer’s pending approval of the
Final Map for Tract 8361, Boulevard development, located just north of Dublin
Boulevard between Scarlett Drive and Arnold Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the notification.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no impact on the General Fund.
DESCRIPTION:
In accordance with Chapter 9.24.080 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, this is a
notice of the following:
☐ City Engineer’s receipt of the following Final Map(s) for review:
☒ City Engineer’s pending decision on the following Final Map(s):
Tract Location Developer Number of
Units/Lots
Type Proposed
Decision
8361 Neighborhood 9 Lennar 48 Units/6
Lots, 4
Parcels
Condominium Approve
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
4.5
Packet Pg. 153
Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Tract 8361 Final Map
4.5
Packet Pg. 154
4.5.a
Packet Pg. 155
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
T
r
a
c
t
8
3
6
1
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
(
T
r
a
c
t
8
3
6
1
-
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
N
o
t
i
c
e
)
4.5.a
Packet Pg. 156
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
T
r
a
c
t
8
3
6
1
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
(
T
r
a
c
t
8
3
6
1
-
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
N
o
t
i
c
e
)
4.5.a
Packet Pg. 157
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
T
r
a
c
t
8
3
6
1
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
(
T
r
a
c
t
8
3
6
1
-
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
N
o
t
i
c
e
)
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Amendment No. 1 to Consulting Services Agreement with S&C Engineers,
Inc. for the Dougherty Road Improvements, Project No. ST0911
Prepared by: Michael Boitnott, Capital Improvement Program Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider amending the consulting services agreement with S&C
Engineers, Inc. for construction management, material testing, and inspection services
for the Dougherty Road Improvements project (CIP No. ST0911).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement
with S&C Engineers, Inc. for the Dougherty Road Improvements, Project No. ST0911.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The proposed amendment includes an additional $600,000, bringing the total amount of
compensation to $2,150,000. Sufficient funds are available in the project budget. The
additional costs are reimbursable from project grant funding from Measure B
($6,267,000) and Measure BB ($11,200,000) from the Alameda County Transportation
Commission.
DESCRIPTION:
On May 17, 2016, the City of Dublin entered into an Agreement with S&C Engineers,
Inc. to perform construction management, material testing, and inspection services for
Dougherty Road Improvements, CIP No. ST0911. Due to an extension in the duration of
the project construction, Staff is recommending an amendment to the agreement with
S&C Engineers, Inc. to extend the term to June 30, 2019. The proposed amendment
provides for additional hours for construction management, material testing, and
inspection services necessary to complete the project.
Project Background and Status: The Dougherty Road Improvements pr oject is currently
under construction. The project improvements will address traffic congestion and multi -
modal circulation issues for commuters traveling Dougherty Road, including improved
access to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The improvements h ave been long-
4.6
Packet Pg. 158
Page 2 of 2
planned. The Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan (adopted 1985) called for
the expansion of Dougherty Road to a six-lane arterial. Subsequent updates to the
Circulation Element called for the addition of on -street (“Class II”) bicycle lanes to the
entire length of Dougherty Road.
The project provides for the widening of Dougherty Road from 4 lanes to 6 lanes
between Sierra Lane and the Northern City limits. The work includes the installation of
a new class II bike lanes; 1.4 m iles of Bike/Pedestrian pathway; landscaped median
islands; storm drainage improvements; new curb, gutter, sidewalk, bus stops,
bioretention areas and landscaping along the easterly side of the existing roadway. A
rubberized asphalt overlay and new paveme nt markings the entire width of the roadway
from Dublin Blvd. to the Northern City Limits, curb ramp replacements to comply with
the new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and traffic signal modifications to 5
intersections.
The contractor has completed the installation of a majority of the underground utilities
along the project, installation of the new roadway section and Bike/Pedestrian pathway
for the lane expansion along the easterly curb line and relocated traffic signal to
accommodate the widening. At this point, the contractor is approximately 75% complete
with the project. The project has experienced some significant scheduling impacts due
to adverse weather and unforeseen conditions related to utilities and varying site
conditions unknown at the time of project design. The balance of the improvements will
be constructed by this summer and include median islands, planting, repair of failed
roadway sections, traffic signal upgrades, the final lift of rubberized asphalt and
pavement delineation. The City is working with the contractor to substantially complete
the project in summer.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Copy of Staff Report was sent to S&C Engineers, Inc.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Amendment No. 1 to the Consulting Services Agreement with
S&C Engineers, Inc.
2. Exhibit A to the Resolution - Amendment No. 1 to Agreement
4.6
Packet Pg. 159
RESOLUTION NO. - 18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * *
APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
S&C ENGINEERS, INC. FOR THE DOUGHERTY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO.
ST0911
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2016, the City of Dublin entered into an Agreement with S&C
Engineers, Inc. (“Consultant”) to perform construction management, material testing, and
inspection services for the Dougherty Road Improvement project under CIP No. ST0911; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Consultant mutually desire to amend the Agreement to
extend the term of the contract to June 30, 2019 and increase total compensation by $600,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin
hereby approves the Amendment to the Agreement with S&C Engineers, Inc, attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute
Amendment to the Agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of April, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
City Clerk
4.6.a
Packet Pg. 160
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
1
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
S
&
C
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
,
I
n
c
.
(
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
S
&
C
Amendment No. 1 To Consultant Services Agreement between April 3, 2018
City of Dublin and S&C Engineers, Inc.
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND S&C ENGINEERS, INC. FOR THE DOUGHERTY ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS – CIP NO. ST0911
THIS AMENDMENT shall modify the Agreement dated May 17, 2016 for consulting services by
and between the City of Dublin (“City”) and S&C Engineers, Inc. (“Consultant”). The date of
Amendment No. 1 shall be April 3, 2018.
In order to accommodate additional services to be provided during construction of the
Dougherty Road Improvements the Agreement shall be modified as follows:
A) The second paragraph of Section 1 shall be rescinded in its entirety and replaced with
the following:
1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the date first noted above
and shall end on June 30, 2019, the date of completion specified in Exhibit A, and
Consultant shall complete the work described in Exhibit A prior to that date, unless the
term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8.
The time provided to Consultant to complete the services required by this Agreement
shall not affect the City’s right to terminate the Agreement, as provided for in Section 8.
B) The first paragraph of Section 2 shall be rescinded in its entirety and replaced with the
following:
Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to
exceed $2,150,000.00, notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained
in Consultant’s proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred
under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and
Consultant’s proposal, attached as Exhibit A, regarding the amount of compensation, the
Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this
Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified
below shall be the only payments from City to Consultant for services rendered pursuant
to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified
herein. Except as specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for
duplicate services performed by more than one person.
CITY OF DUBLIN CONSULTANT
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager James E. Scott, President
4.6.b
Packet Pg. 161
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
1
t
o
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
(
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
S
&
C
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
)
Page 1 of 4
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Report on 2018 Dublin Pride Week Activities
Prepared by: Rebecca Parnes, Environmental Technician
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a report on the planned activities for the 2018 Dublin Pride
Week, scheduled for April 28 - May 5, 2018.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the 2018 Dublin Pride Week activities report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Sufficient funds are included in the Fiscal Year 2017 -2018 Budget for Dublin Pride
Week.
DESCRIPTION:
Dublin Pride Week is an annual event that seeks to promote a positive image for the
City of Dublin. The primary objective for Dublin Pride Week is to se ek ways to engage
individuals and/or groups in action based activities to help improve the community and
our environment. This year Dublin Pride Week will start on Saturday, April 28 and will
conclude on Saturday, May 5, 2018. The 2018 Dublin Pride Committee is seeking to
build on the success of previous Dublin Pride Week events by engaging diverse
community groups and individuals in the planning process. The Committee is made up
of members representing the following groups:
City Council
City Staff
Amador Valley Industries
Children’s Emergency Food Bank
CityServe of the Tri-Valley
Dublin Unified School District
Dublin Lions Club
Dublin/San Ramon Women’s Club
4.7
Packet Pg. 162
Page 2 of 4
Dublin Senior Foundation
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area
Senior Support Program of the Tri-Valley
This year’s tag line is “Every Action Counts.” The attached flyer (Attachment 1) includes
information on events happening during Dublin Pride Week.
The proposed 2018 Dublin Pride activities are as follows:
Poster and Essay Contest
The poster and essay contests are a Dublin Pride Week tradition. The poster theme for
this year is “Every Action Counts” and the essay question is: “Please explain how every
action you take to help in your community or to reduce your impact on the environ ment
matters.”
The Dublin San Ramon Women’s Club oversees organizing and managing the poster
and essay contest. The Poster and Essay Contest are open to all Dublin students in
grades K through 12. Winning artwork and essays will be displayed at the Civic Center
in the month of May. Essay and poster contest awards will be handed out at a future
City Council meeting.
Volunteer Day
Volunteer Day is scheduled for Saturday, April 28, 2018 beginning at 8:00 am at the
Emerald Glen Park basketball courts. Coffee and a light breakfast will be provided to
volunteers. The event will conclude with a free barbecue starting at 11:30 am at
Emerald Glen Park hosted by the Dublin Lion’s Club and the City. The Senior
Foundation will assist in serving breakfast and lunch. The Emerald Glen parking lot off
of Gleason Drive will be available for volunteer parking. In addition, “No Parking” signs
along the south side of Gleason Drive will be covered to provide additional parking
spaces for the event, and Staff plans to reserve the Alameda County maintenance yard
parking lot which is just west of Emerald Glen Park on Gleason Drive.
Volunteer Day projects and activities include the following:
Senior Assistance Projects
Volunteers will help elderly citizens take care of home maintenance projects such
as cleaning and yard work.
School Improvement Projects
Volunteers will weed and prune at Dublin Elementary School and Kolb
Elementary School.
Non-Profit Assistance Projects
Volunteers will support Valor Crossing by painting and cleaning around the
property. Other volunteers will assist the School of Imagination with cleaning
support.
City Parks and Facility Projects
Volunteers will have the opportunity to help with various maintenance projects
such as weeding, plantings, mulching, path restoration, and refilling sand in
4.7
Packet Pg. 163
Page 3 of 4
playgrounds. The following parks are included for maintenance projects: Dolan
Park, Emerald Glen Park, Mape Memorial Park, Piazza Sorrento Park, and
Shannon Park.
City Creek Cleanup Projects
Volunteers will have the opportunity to help clean at five of the City’s creeks and
waterways. Creek clean-up projects will occur at Alamo Canal, Alamo Creek,
South San Ramon Creek, the canal near Dublin Sport’s Park, and the canal
between Amador Valley Blvd and Dublin Blvd. Zone 7 will assist in leading one
of the cleanups.
Volunteer Day Fair
Everyone is invited to learn about year-round volunteer opportunities in the Tri-
Valley. Non-profits will be hosting a site from 11:30 am - 1:00 pm on the
basketball courts at Emerald Glen Park. This is a great opportunity for Volunteer
Day participants and others to learn how they can give back to the community all
year long.
Food Drive
The Food Drive will take place on Saturday, April 28, as part of Volunteer Day.
Collection bins will be set up at both Safeway stores in Dublin from 9:00 am -
12:00 noon. Collection bins will also be set up at Emerald Glen Park for
Volunteer Day with a request for volunteers to bring a canned food item to
donate. All food collected will be donated to the Dub lin Children’s Emergency
Food Bank, which serves the Tri-Valley area.
Drug Take Back, E-Waste Recycling, and Document Shredding Event
In partnership with Dublin Police Services, residents will be invited to drop off unwanted
or expired medications for safe disposal. Residents can also bring documents with
sensitive information for shredding. Residents will also be able to recycle electronic
waste including but not limited to computers, printers, smart phones, TVs, DVD players,
VCRs, batteries, and old gaming systems. The event will be held at the Civic Center
parking lot on Saturday April 28 from 10:00 am - 2:00 pm. Items for recycling will be
unloaded by volunteers from residents’ cars. Dublin Police Services will be promoting
this event to their email subscribers and through neighborhood meetings. Additionally,
the Dublin Pride Week flyer, poster and City website include information about the
event.
Fix-It Clinic
The fix-it clinic will be held on Sunday, April 29, 1:00 pm - 4:00 pm in the Dublin Library
Community Room. Residents are encouraged to bring broken household items to the
clinic. Volunteer fix-it coaches will be on hand to coach resident through disassembly,
trouble- shooting, and repair of their broken items. Resident will learn new skills and fix-
it knowledge and hopefully go home with repaired items.
Home Energy Workshop
The workshop, hosted by StopWaste, will be held on Wednesday, May 2, 10:15 am -
11:15 am at the Dublin Senior Center in Room A. Residents will learn about the Home
Energy Score, a rating system which grades a home’s energy efficiency. Next, they will
4.7
Packet Pg. 164
Page 4 of 4
learn about the Home Upgrade Program which provides rebates for energy efficient
upgrades. Participants can reserve their spot at dublinhomeenergy.eventbrite.com
Emergency Preparedness Workshop
The workshop, hosted in partnership with Alameda County Fire, will be held on
Thursday, May 3, 7:00 pm - 8:30 pm in the Dublin Library Program Room. Residents
will learn best practices for disaster preparedness.
Household Hazardous Waste Collection & Compost Give-Away Day
Dublin residents will be encouraged to drop off household hazardous waste (HHW) free
of charge and also pick up free compost for their personal use. Residents must make a
reservation to drop off HHW and/or pick up free compost. The event will be held at
Micro Dental Laboratories, Inc., located at 5601 Arnold Road (corner of Arnold Road
and Central Parkway) on Saturday, May 5, 2018. An announcement with reservation
information will be mailed to all Dublin residents informing them of the event place and
time. The Dublin Pride Week Flyer (Attachment 2) and City website are also promoting
the HHW event.
Public Outreach
The success of Dublin Pride Week is largely dependent on the public outreach
campaign developed to increase the community’s awareness and participation in the
activities and volunteer opportunities.
This year’s public outreach efforts include the website dublinprideweek.com that
provides up-to-date information on the various activities and volunteer opportunities
surrounding Dublin Pride Week; press releases to local media outlets; a public service
announcement on TV30; information posted to NextDoor and PeachJar; and Flyer and
promotional Poster that are distributed to community and faith-based organizations.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Dublin Pride Week 2018 Flyer
2. Dublin Pride Week 2018 Poster
4.7
Packet Pg. 165
4.7.a
Packet Pg. 166
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
u
b
l
i
n
P
r
i
d
e
W
e
e
k
2
0
1
8
F
l
y
e
r
(
2
0
1
8
D
u
b
l
i
n
P
r
i
d
e
W
e
e
k
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
)
4.7.a
Packet Pg. 167
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
u
b
l
i
n
P
r
i
d
e
W
e
e
k
2
0
1
8
F
l
y
e
r
(
2
0
1
8
D
u
b
l
i
n
P
r
i
d
e
W
e
e
k
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
)
DUBLIN PRIDE WEEK
WWW.DUBLINPRIDEWEEK.COM
OF THE TRI-VALLEY
Volunteer for Schools, Seniors & Parks Creek Cleanups Volunteer Fair Food
Drive Fix-it Clinic Emergency Preparedness Workshop Poster & Essay Contest
Home Energy Workshop E-Waste Recycling Drug Take Back Document
Shredding Household Hazardous Waste Drop-Off Compost Give-Away
Fix-it Clinic | Stopwaste | UNICOR | Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Dublin San Ramon Services District | Dublin United Soccer League | Frito-Lay | Peet’s Coffee & Tea | Robot Garden
APRIL 28 THROUGH MAY 5, 2018
EVERY ACTION COUNTS. SIGN UP NOW!
4.7.b
Packet Pg. 168
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
D
u
b
l
i
n
P
r
i
d
e
W
e
e
k
2
0
1
8
P
o
s
t
e
r
(
2
0
1
8
D
u
b
l
i
n
P
r
i
d
e
W
e
e
k
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
)
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Weed and Combustible Refuse Abatement Order
Prepared by: Bonnie Terra, Division Chief/Fire Marsha l
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In accordance with Resolution 08-18 (adopted February 6, 2018), the City Council
declared that there is a public nuisance created by weeds and combustible debris
growing and accumulating upon the streets, sidewalks and property with in the City.
Notice of this declaration was posted and letters sent to those property owners with
violations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and by motion, direct Staff to continue the weed
abatement process.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Initial cost of abatement and administration fee will be billed to the property owners if
they fail to abate the problem. There will be no net cost to the City.
DESCRIPTION:
In accordance with Resolution No. 08-18 (Attachment 1), the City Council declared that
there is a public nuisance created by weeds and combustible debris growing,
accumulating upon the streets, sidewalks and property within the City of Dublin. With
this declaration, the Fire Chief or his designee shall notify property owners of violations
and order abatement without delay. If the abatement is not completed, the City of
Dublin shall, at the expense of the owners, have the weeds or refuse removed.
The declaration of a hazard was approved by the City Council on February 6, 201 8.
Following that approval, notice to destroy was posted (Attachment 2) as well as an
abatement Notice to Destroy or Remove Weeds and Refuse. This year, 274
inspections were conducted during the week of March 12, 2018 and 119 the initial
letters (Attachment 3) were sent to property owners during the week of March 19, 2018
6.1
Packet Pg. 169
Page 2 of 2
advising them to abate the hazard.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a public notice was published in the Valley Times and
posted at several locations throughout the City. The staff report and attachments were
made available for public review 10 days prior to the public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Reso 08-18 Declaring Weeds and Combustible Refuse a Public Nuisance and
Ordering the Abatement Thereof Approved Resolution
2. Notice to Destroy 2018
3. Initial Letter
6.1
Packet Pg. 170
RESOLUTION NO. 08 — 18
ARESOLUTION OF THECITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DECLARINGWEEDS AND COMBUSTIBLE REFUSE A PUBLIC NUISANCE
AND ORDERING THE ABATEMENT THEREOF
WHEREAS, Government CodeSection 39502 et. seq. authorizes the legislative body of a city
to adopt an Ordinance to provide for the abatementofweeds and combustible refuse; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Fire Department is undercontract to provide services and
exercise thepowers common to the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin did adopt Ordinance No. 13-97, adding Chapter 5.70 of the
Dublin Municipal Code [Weeds and Refuse] providing forthe abatementofweeds and refuse.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVEDthat:
1. Pursuant to section 5.70.030 of theDublin Municipal Code, the Alameda County Fire
Department and the City of Dublin herebydeclare as public nuisances all weeds and refuse growing
or accumulating upon the streets, sidewalks, and property as defined in section 5.70.030, in the City
of Dublin.
2. The Fire Chief, or his designee, shall cause notice to be given to thepublic in the form and
manner provided in sections 5.70.030 and 5.70.040 of the Dublin Municipal Code, notifying said
public of the passage of this Resolution and further that on April 3, 2018 at 7:00 p.m., the City Council
of the City of Dublin will conduct a public hearing to hear and consider objections to this abatement
order.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Goel, Gupta and Hernandez, and MayorHaubert
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
I
Mayor
ATTEST:
at,t,o F
CityClerk
Reso No. 08-18, Adopted 2/6/2018, Item No. 4.2 Page 1 of 1
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 171
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
0
8
-
1
8
D
e
c
l
a
r
i
n
g
W
e
e
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
b
u
s
t
i
b
l
e
R
e
f
u
s
e
a
P
u
b
l
i
c
N
u
i
s
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
O
r
d
e
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
b
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
T
h
e
r
e
o
f
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
CITY OF DUBLIN
and
ALAMEDA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
NOTICE TO DESTROY OR REMOVE WEEDS AND REFUSE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on February 6, 2018, pursuant to the provisions
of Section 5.70.030 of Chapter 5.70 of the Municipal Code of the City of Dublin,
the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted a resolution declaring that all weeds
and/or refuse growing or accumulating upon any private property or in a public
street or alley, constitutes a public nuisance, and such nuisance must be abated by
the destruction or removal thereof.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the property owners shall, without delay,
remove or cause to be removed all such weeds and refuse from their property and
from the abutting half of the street in front of alleys, if any, behind such property,
and between the lot lines thereof extended, or such weeds will be destroyed and
removed and such refuse will be removed and such nuisance or nuisances created
thereby abated by the City of Dublin, in which case the costs will constitute a lien
upon such lots or lands until paid and will be collected upon the next tax roll upon
which general municipal taxes are collected. All property owners having any
objections to the proposed destruction or removal of such weeds and/or refuse are
hereby notified to attend a meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin to be
held at the Dublin Civic Center on April 3, 2018 at 7:00 p.m., when their
objections will be heard and given due consideration.
Dated: This 6th day of February, 2018
Caroline Soto, City Clerk
City of Dublin
PUBLICATION INSTRUCTIONS:
1) Saturday – March 17, 2018
(Must appear at least 10 days before the hearing. [sec. 6062(a) CGC].)
ATTACHMENT 2
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 172
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
N
o
t
i
c
e
t
o
D
e
s
t
r
o
y
2
0
1
8
(
W
e
e
d
a
n
d
C
o
m
b
u
s
t
i
b
l
e
R
e
f
u
s
e
A
b
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
O
r
d
e
r
)
DAVID A. ROCHA
Fire Chief
March 19, 2018
«Mail_to_COMPANY»
«Property_Owner»
«Mail_to_ADDRESS»
«Mail_to_CITY_STATE_ZIP»
SUBJECT PROPERTY
«Parcel_No»
«Street_» «Street_Name»
The above subject property was inspected the week of March 12, 2018, and determined
to be in violation of Section 5.70.020 of the Municipal Code of the City of Dublin. The
Weed, Rubbish and Litter Ordinance 13-97 designed to minimize or eliminate weeds, or
other nuisances, before they become a hazard. The Ordinance applies to violations
anywhere on the property, whether in an open field, front yard, enclosed side yard, or
rear yard. A copy of the removal requirements is enclosed for your reference.
By checking your property now and eliminating any hazards, you can avoid possible
enforcement action and any related fees. Abatement shall be in accordance with the
enclosed removal requirements.
The City Council of the City of Dublin will conduct a Public Hearing on Tuesday, April 3,
2018 to hear and consider objections to this abatement order.
The Fire Prevention division will re-inspect your property on or after April 9, 2018, to
verify compliance. If there are no violations noted, there will be no further notices or
inspections required.
Failure to abate your property may ultimately result in a City of Dublin contractor abating
your property and an additional administrative fee being added to the contractor’s cost.
If it becomes necessary to place a levy on your property to recover unpaid fees, there
may also be an additional charge.
Remember, to avoid any charges or a citation, all weeds and debris must be removed by
the above listed date and maintained throughout the year.
Your cooperation is appreciated, and we thank you for your efforts in maintaining a fire
safe community.
If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact the Alameda County Fire
Department, Dublin Fire Prevention Division at (925) 833-6606.
Enclosure
Attachment 3
6.1.c
Packet Pg. 173
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
L
e
t
t
e
r
(
W
e
e
d
a
n
d
C
o
m
b
u
s
t
i
b
l
e
R
e
f
u
s
e
A
b
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
O
r
d
e
r
)
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Town Hall Meeting
Prepared by: Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk/Records Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will discuss potential topics for a future Town Hall meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss and provide direction on topics for future Town Hall meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
At the March 20, 2018 City Council meeting, Staff was directed to place an item on an
upcoming agenda to provide the City Council with an opportunity to discuss a future
Town Hall meeting and the potential topic(s) to be discussed at that meeting.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Not required.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
8.1
Packet Pg. 174
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Discussion Regarding City Council Salary
Prepared by: Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk/Records Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will discuss options regarding adjustments to Councilmember salaries.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss and provide direction to Staff regarding adjustment to City Council salaries.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Should the City Council adopt an increase at the maximum allowed by law, the financial
impact of a partial year increase (December 2018 - June 2019), including salary-based
taxes and contributions, would be an increase of approximately $4,227, The full year
(12 month) additional cost would be approximately $7,246.
DESCRIPTION:
Government Code Section 36516(a) allows a general law city to provide a salary to City
Councilmembers. An increase in compensation is allowed by ordinance, and “may not
exceed an amount equal to 5% for each calendar year from the operative date of the
last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted”
(Government Code Section 36516(4).)
The Dublin City Council last adjusted salaries for the City Council in Decem ber 2016
(Attachment 1), which became effective after the November 2016 election. City
Councilmembers salary is currently set at $1,098.71 per month. Dublin Municipal Code
section 2.08.040 (Attachment 2) provides an additional $100 per month to the Mayor in
addition to the salary he/she receives as a Councilmember. The Mayor’s current salary
is $1,198.71 per month.
The allowable increase for calendar years 2016 through 2018 was calculated as follows:
Current compensation (established 2016): $1,098.71
8.2
Packet Pg. 175
Page 2 of 2
5% increase, 2016 to 2017: 1,153.65
5% increase, 2017 to 2018: 1,211.33
If the maximum increase is adopted, the financial impact for a partial year increase
(December 2018 - June 2019) including salary-based taxes and contributions would be
approximately $4,227. The full year (12 month) additional cost would be approximately
$7,246.
If the City Council wishes to take such action, the City Council can direct Staff to
prepare an ordinance for consideration. In accordance with Dublin Municipal C ode
Section 2.08.020B and State Law, the increase would not become effective until newly
elected Councilmembers are sworn into office following certification of the November
2018 election.
The City Council could also consider:
Increasing the salaries by an amount less than the maximum permitted by law
Not increasing the current salary (take no action)
Reducing current salaries
Eliminating salaries altogether
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance No. 10-16 Amending Dublin Municipal Code Section 2.08.020 and
Providing for an Increase in the Salary for Members of the City Council
2. Dublin Municipal Code Section 2.08.020
8.2
Packet Pg. 176
ORDINANCE NO. 10 — 16
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.08.020
AND PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE SALARY
FOR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. PURPOSE
Ordinance No. 6-82 establishedsalaries for members of the City Council, as amended by
Ordinances No. 22-85, 8-87, 4-88, 3-89, 1-90, 6-91, 23-99, 7-02, 7-04, 3-06, 5-08 and 2-12.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to modify salaries for members of the City Council in
accordance with Government CodeSection 36516. The salary increase shall become effective
whennew Councilmembers are sworn into office following the certification of the November 2016
General Municipal Election.
Section 2: AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPALCODE
Section 2.08.020, Subsection A of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read
as follows: Pursuant to Section 36516 of the Government Code which provides that a City
Councilmay enact an ordinance providing that each member of the City Council shallreceive
a salary which shall be determined by a scheduleof population for cities, the members of the
CityCouncil shall receive a salary of one thousand ninety-eight dollars and seventy-one cents
1,098.71) per month.
Section 3: EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE
ThisOrdinance shall take effect and be in forcethirty (30) days from and afterthe date of
the passage. The City Clerk of theCity of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at
least three (3) publicplaces in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code of the State ofCalifornia.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of November 2016 by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Gupta and Wehrenberg
NOES:
ABSENT: Mayor Haubert
ABSTAIN:i./ II
yor Pro Tempore
ATTEST:
tm? t-f- Qf
City Clerk
Ord No. 10-16, Adopted 11/15/2016, Item No. 4.2 Page 1 of 1
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 177
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
N
o
.
1
0
-
1
6
A
m
e
n
d
i
n
g
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
C
o
d
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
.
0
8
.
0
2
0
a
n
d
P
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
n
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
t
h
e
S
a
l
a
r
y
f
o
r
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
Dublin Municipal Code
Chapter 2.08 CITY COUNCIL
Page 1/1
The Dublin Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 9-17, passed September 19, 2017.
Chapter 2.08
CITY COUNCIL
Sections:
2.08.010 Meeting place designated.
2.08.020 Salary for members established.
2.08.030 Election of Mayor and Councilmembers—Term of office.
2.08.040 Mayor’s salary.
2.08.050 Term limits.
2.08.010Meeting place designated.
A. The City Council will hold all regular meetings in the Council Chambers at the Dublin Civic Center, located at
100 Civic Plaza, in the city.
B. If the regular meeting place is unable to accommodate the number of persons in attendance, the City Council
may recess the meeting to another place. If the City Council anticipates that the regular meeting place will be
inadequate, the City Council, or Mayor in the event of an emergency, may order that the meeting be held in another
place. (Ord. 17-09 § 1 (part): Ord. 14-89 §§ 1, 2)
2.08.020Salary for members established.
A. Pursuant to Section 36516 of the Government Code, which provides that a City Council may enact an
ordinance providing that each member of the City Council shall receive a salary which shall be determined by a
schedule of population for cities, the members of the City Council shall receive a salary of one thousand ninety-eight
dollars and seventy-one cents ($1,098.71) per month.
B. No Councilmember shall be eligible to receive the increase provided herein until one (1) or more
Councilmembers begin a new term of office. (Ord. 10-16 § 2; Ord. 2-12 § 2; Ord. 17-09 § 1 (part): Ord. 5-08 § 2;
Ord. 3-06 § 2; Ord. 7-04 § 2; Ord. 7-02 § 2; Ord. 23-99 § 2; Ord. 6-91 § 2; Ord. 1-90 § 2; Ord. 3-89 §§ 2, 3: Ord. 4-
88 §§ 2, 3: Ord. 8-87 §§ 3, 4: Ord. 22-85 § 3: Ord. 6, 1982)
2.08.030Election of Mayor and Councilmembers—Term of office.
A. The electors shall hereafter elect a Mayor and four (4) City Councilmembers.
B. The term of office of the Mayor shall be two (2) years. (Ord. 17-09 § 1 (part): Ord. 11-92 §§ 1, 2)
2.08.040Mayor’s salary.
The Mayor shall receive a monthly salary of one hundred dollars ($100), in addition to that which he/she receives as
a Councilmember. (Ord. 17-09 § 1 (part): Ord. 13-92 § 2)
2.08.050Term limits.
No person shall serve as Councilmember for more than two (2) consecutive terms, nor shall any person serve as
Mayor for more than four (4) consecutive terms. In addition: (A) no person who has served as a Councilmember for
one (1) term shall serve more than two (2) terms as Mayor if the terms as Councilmember and Mayor are
consecutive; (B) no person who has served as Councilmember for two (2) consecutive terms shall serve a
consecutive term as Mayor; (C) no person who has served as Mayor for three (3) or four (4) consecutive terms shall
serve a consecutive term as a Councilmember; (D) no person who has served as Mayor for two (2) consecutive
terms shall serve more than one (1) succeeding consecutive term as Councilmember; (E) no person who has served
consecutive terms as Mayor and Councilmember shall serve more than one (1) more consecutive term as Mayor; and
(F) no person who has served consecutive terms as Mayor and Councilmember shall serve another consecutive term
as Councilmember. As used herein, a person shall be considered to have served a term of office as a Councilmember
if such person has served as a Councilmember for two (2) years plus one (1) day and a person shall be considered to
have served a term of office as Mayor if such person has served as Mayor for one (1) year plus one (1) day. (Ord.
17-09 § 1 (part): Ord. 18-96 § 1)
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 178
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
C
o
d
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
.
0
8
.
0
2
0
(
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
a
l
a
r
i
e
s
)
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Appointments of City Councilmembers to Committee/Commission/Board
Vacancies
Prepared by: Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk/Records Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will discuss filling the Committee/Commission/Board vacancies left
following the recent passing of Vice Mayor Don Biddle.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss and approve the appointments to fill the Committee/Commission/Board
vacancies.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
On December 20, 2016, the City Council approved the appointments of City
Councilmembers to various organizations/committees (Attachment 1).
With the recent passing of Vice Mayor Don Biddle, those assignments previously held
by Vice Mayor Biddle must be filled by the City Council. At the March 20, 2018 Regular
City Council meeting, the City Council filled some of the vacancies (shown in italics).
The following committees/commissions/boards vacancies still need to be filled:
External Agencies
Member Alternate
Alameda County Housing Authority Biddle N/A
Alameda County Transportation Commission Haubert Goel
Alameda County Waste Management
Authority JPA
Hernandez Vacant
Association of Bay Area Governments General Biddle Gupta
8.3
Packet Pg. 179
Page 2 of 2
External Agencies
Member Alternate
Assembly
East Bay Community Energy Authority Hernandez Vacant
East Bay Division/League of CA Cities Hernandez Vacant
East Bay Regional Park District Liaison
Committee
Biddle
Goel
N/A
Energy Council/Waste Management Authority Hernandez Vacant
League of CA Cities Voting Delegate Hernandez Vacant
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority
JPA
Haubert
Biddle
Gupta
Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee Biddle Hernandez
Tri-Valley/San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail
Authority
Biddle N/A
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Goel Haubert
Zone 7 Liaison Committee Haubert
Biddle
City Committees
DSRSD Liaison Committee Haubert
Biddle
DUSD Liaison Committee Haubert
Biddle
Federal and Military Communities Committee Biddle
Hernandez
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. December 20, 2016 Staff Report
8.3
Packet Pg. 180
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: December 20, 2016
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
City Council Organization/Committee Appointments/Assignments
Prepared by: Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk/Records Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Each member of the City Council represents the City of Dublin on various local and
regional Boards/Committees/Commissions. The City Council will consider confirming
the Mayor’s proposed appointments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Confirm the Mayor’s Appointment/Assignment List and direct Staff to notify affected
agencies, as appropriate.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
Individual members of the City Council represent the City of Dublin on various local and
regional boards, committees and commissions. A fully updated appointment list was
last considered and approved in December 2014, following the November election, with
subsequent minor adjustments when necessitated by conflicts in City Councilmember
calendars.
This year, two committees have been included on the list: the Economic Development
Committee, and the Federal and Military Communities Committee, which meet on a
regular schedule. In past years, the City Council handled these appointments separately
from this list. Not all organizations or committees meet on a regular basis.
The following meet on an as needed basis: Dublin San Ramon Services District Liaison
Committee, Dublin Unified School District Liaison Committee, East Bay Regional Park
District Liaison Committee, Livermore City Liaison Committee, Pleasanton City Liaison
4.12
Packet Pg. 219
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 181
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
,
2
0
1
6
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
/
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
V
a
c
a
n
c
i
e
s
)
Page 2 of 2
Committee, San Ramon City Liaison Committee, Tri-Valley Affordable Housing
Committee, and the Zone 7 Liaison Committee.
It should be noted that Ad Hoc Committees, those committees with limited time frames,
are not included on this list. Appointments to those committees will be made through
separate agenda items at the appropriate time.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Noticing not required.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed City Council Appointment/Assignment List 2016
4.12
Packet Pg. 220
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 182
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
,
2
0
1
6
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
/
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
V
a
c
a
n
c
i
e
s
)
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 183
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
,
2
0
1
6
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
/
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
V
a
c
a
n
c
i
e
s
)
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
City Council Representative to Serve on Public Safety Complex Art
Selection Committee
Prepared by: Tegan McLane, Cultural Arts and Heritage Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider selection of a City Council member to serve on the Public
Art Selection Committee for monumental artwork to be installed at new the Public
Safety Complex.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Select a City Council member and alternate to serve on the Public Art Selection
Committee for a public art monument to be installed at the new Public Safety Complex.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funding for this public art project was included in the Adopted Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program, as Public Art -- Public Safety Complex (PK0417). The funding
source is the Public Art Fund.
DESCRIPTION:
As allowed by City of Dublin’s Public Art Master Plan, the City will use a combination of
artist selection methods (Invitational and Pre-Qualified), inviting site-specific design
proposals from a select group of artists. Artists will be chosen for invitation by an ad hoc
Public Art Selection Committee. This committee will reconvene at a later date to
evaluate proposals and recommend a design to the Heritage and Cultural Arts
Commission.
In addition to the City Council representative selected during this meeting, Staff
recommends that the Public Art Selection Committee include:
One representative from the Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission, to be
selected at the April 12 meeting;
8.4
Packet Pg. 184
Page 2 of 2
One representative from the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, to be selected by
Sheriff Gregory Ahern;
One representative from the Alameda County Fire Department, to be selected by
Chief David Rocha; and
One Dublin resident who has volunteered to serve on public art selection
committees, to be selected by Staff with an eye toward diversity.
Alternates will be identified for each individual.
Staff anticipates the time commitment for the members of this committee to be limited to
two meetings - one in May and one in late summer. Each meeting is expected to last
approximately three hours.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
8.4
Packet Pg. 185
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Designation of Two City Councilmembers as City Representatives to
Discuss Compensation with City Attorney
Prepared by: Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk/Records Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will discuss the appointment of two City Councilmembers to serve as
the City’s representatives to discuss terms of the City Attorney’s contract, inclu ding
compensation, with the City Attorney.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Designate two City Councilmembers to discuss compensation with the City Attorney.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.6, this item provides fo r the designation of
two members of the City Council as the City’s representatives to discuss terms of the
City Attorney’s contract, including compensation, with the City Attorney. They will report
their recommendation to the City Council in an open session following meetings with the
City Attorney. The last time such a committee was convened was in 2017, and the two
representatives were Vice Mayor Biddle and Councilmember Goel.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
8.5
Packet Pg. 186
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Designation of Agency Labor Negotiators, Unrepresented Employee: City
Manager
Prepared by: Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk/Records Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider the appointment of two Councilmembers as
representatives to discuss conditions of employment for the City Manager.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Appoint two Councilmembers as representatives to discuss conditions of employment
for the City Manager.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
The City Council will consider and discuss the appointment of two Councilmembers to
serve as the City’s representatives to negotiate with the City Manager. The negotiators
last year were then Councilmembers Gupta and Hernandez.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
8.6
Packet Pg. 187
3123
None.
Page 1
8.6.a
Packet Pg. 188
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
N
o
n
e
.
(
C
M
E
v
a
l
)