HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1 Tassajara Road Alignment Project5.1
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: February 11, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Tassajara Road Alignment Project
Prepared by:Erwin Ching, Associate Civil Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff proposes to revise the alignment of the northerly portion of Tassajara Road from
Palisades Drive to the Alameda -Contra Costa County limit line to: 1) reduce the number
of through lanes from six to four lanes between North Dublin Ranch Drive to the
Alameda -Contra Costa County limit line; and 2) widen two segments of Tassajara Road
from a two-lane to a four -lane roadway between Palisades Drive and the Alameda -
Contra Costa County limit line and between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Quarry Lane
School Road. The Planning Commission will review and consider making a
recommendation to the City Council regarding General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments related to the proposed reduction in the number of lanes;
related IS/CEQA Addendum, and conformance to the General Plan of the proposed
revised alignment of Tassajara Road.
Nx0101LhIJil=110117_111leP►A
Conduct the public hearing, deliberate and take the following actions: adopt a
Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for the Tassajara Road Alignment
Project; and adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a
Resolution of Intention to Establish the Precise Alignment for future Right -of -Way Lines
for Tassajara Road.
DESCRIPTION:
Background
The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan identify Tassajara Road as a six- to
eight -lane arterial roadway linking several developments in Eastern Dublin with Contra
Costa County (County) to the north, where the roadway name changes to Camino
Tassajara, and the 1-580 freeway and City of Pleasanton to the south. In 1999 and
2004, the City adopted right-of-way lines for Tassajara Road, between 1-580 and the
northern boundary of Dublin Ranch Phase 1 as Ordinance No. 20-99 and between
North Dublin Ranch Drive to Alameda - Contra Costa County limit line as Ordinance No.
21-04.
In coordination with the Contra Costa County, a revised alignment of Tassajara
Page 1 of 7
Packet Pg. 8
Road/Camino Tassajara was proposed between Palisades Drive in the City and 5'1
Windemere Parkway in the County, to improve the existing horizontal alignment and to
improve traffic safety. A conceptual alignment was included as an alternative within the
Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the Moller Ranch (now Tassajara Hills) development
project, which was approved by the Planning Commission on November 27, 2012, as
Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-45.
On February 16, 2016, the City Council approved the addition of the Tassajara Road
Realignment and Widening Project into the Five -Year Capital Improvement Program
and directed staff to proceed with the preliminary design of a revised alignment of
Tassajara Road, which includes four lanes, instead of six lanes, north of North Dublin
Ranch Drive. The reduction from six lanes to four lanes was supported by a study
initiated by the City and Contra Costa County, "Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara
Capacity Analysis" ("Traffic Analysis"), which was based on up-to-date land -use
estimates along with refined street network data anticipated in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (EDSP) and in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Traffic Analysis concluded
that reducing Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara from six to four lanes (two in each
direction) between North Dublin Ranch Drive in the City and Windemere Parkway in the
County (Figure 1) would result in similar levels -of -service at intersections, minimal traffic
diversion to other roads, and minimal increase in travel times compared to a six -lane
configuration.
Page 2 of 7
Packet Pg. 9
FIGURE 1
r
5.1
4 LANES
LEGEND, •
SEGMENT OF
TASSAJARA RD. THAT
WILL BE REDUCED
FROM 6 LANES TO 4
LAN ES
GLEASON DR
P
N
4 LANES
1
-- PALISADES DR.
"4l
lO
4'Rp
N. DUBLIN
RANCH DR.
■ S. DUBLIN
■
■ RANCH DR.
Establishment of Right -of -Way Lines
Chapter 7.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code (the "Code") allows for establishment of
right-of-way lines for purposes of future roadway extension, widening, or creation of
space for future utilities, pedestrian pathways, fire and police emergency access to
property, and all public right-of-way. The Code dictates that the Planning Commission
hold at least one (1) public hearing on any proposed right-of-way. Upon review of the
report and completion of the hearing, the Planning Commission shall submit its report
and recommendation to the City Council.
Upon receiving a report and recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City
Council can then adopt a Resolution of Intention designating the establishment of right-
of-way lines. A public hearing can then be conducted so the City Council can hear the
Page 3 of 7
Packet Pg. 10
testimony related to the proposed right-of-way lines. Finally, the City Council can adopt 5.1
an Ordinance establishing the right-of-way lines described in the Resolution of Intention,
if appropriate, and have the Ordinance recorded with the County Recorder.
In accordance with State Planning and Zoning Law, a local agency must report on the
conformity to the General Plan as to the location, purpose and intent of the future right-
of-way prior to the establishment of said right -of way lines. Additionally, prior to creation
of the right-of-way lines an environmental analysis per the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) must also be completed for the proposed right-of-way alignment.
Current Request
The City of Dublin proposes to revise the alignment of the northerly portion of Tassajara
Road from Palisades Drive to the Alameda - Contra Costa County limit line, widen
segments of Tassajara Road from two to four lanes, and amend the General Plan and
EDSP for the reduction of the number of through lanes from six -lanes to four -lanes
between North Dublin Ranch Drive and the Alameda -Contra Costa County limit line.
Requested approvals include a General Plan Amendment, EDSP Amendment, and
other related actions. Currently, the Planning Commission is requested to review the
proposed General Plan and EDSP Amendments and related IS/CEQA Addendum,
determine conformity of the right-of-way alignment to the General Plan, and make a
recommendation to the City Council.
ANALYSIS:
The establishment of right-of-way lines is intended to reserve sufficient right-of-way for
future road construction. Adoption of the right-of-way lines will not result in the
immediate acquisition of any property but will preclude property owners from
constructing structures within the right-of-way area. The process of acquiring right-of-
way will not begin until after the project's final design has been completed to ensure that
the required right-of-way has been accurately determined. Land use designations and
density of development surrounding the proposed revised alignment are not modified
through the proposed right-of-way lines and the existing land uses in the General Plan
and EDSP will not change. Only one parcel will be affected by the proposed revised
alignment and the impact on this parcel is approximated in Table 1 below. The legal
description and plat map of the required right-of-way acquisition on this parcel is
attached as Attachment 9.
TABLE 1
Assessor's Parcel
Number
Property Owner
Right -of -Way Acquisition
in Square Feet SF
986-0004-001-00
Singh Family Properties LP
28,696 SF
The proposed reduction in travel lanes as determined by the Traffic Analysis will fall
within the already established right-of-way lines on Tassajara Road except for the
northerly portion of Tassajara Road where a revised alignment is being proposed.
A reduction of the roadway from six- to four -lanes would also result in benefits that
includes the lowered cost to acquire land to construct the roadway, lesser impacts to
private properties from a narrower right-of-way, and fewer potential impacts to the
natural environment.
Page 4 of 7
Packet Pg. 11
Two segments of Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara included in the Traffic Analysis 5.1
have been identified as future road widening projects (Figure 2). The southern segment
of the road (Segment 1) stretches from a point located north of North Dublin Ranch
Drive to a point just south of the southern boundary of Quarry Lane School/Rutherford
Drive. The northern segment (Segment 2) extends from north of Palisades Drive
intersection on the south to the northern city limit. Both of these segments currently
consist of a two-lane undivided roadway and will be widened into a four -lane divided
roadway. The future roads will include sidewalks, bicycle lanes, traffic signals, and
raised medians. The right-of-way width will vary between 108 feet and 110 feet.
FIGURE 2
N
The design and construction of the ultimate street improvements for both Segment 1
and Segment 2 have been incorporated into the City's five-year Capital Improvement
Program. Final design of Segment 1 is anticipated to begin in spring 2020. Final design
of Segment 2 is planned as a joint project between the City and Contra Costa County,
as the realigned roadway continues into Contra Costa County.
GENERAL PLAN/EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
The project is proposing no changes to the land use designations in the General Plan
and EDSP. The only proposed change to the General Plan and EDSP is to modify the
planned number of lanes on Tassajara Road. Currently, the General Plan and EDSP
anticipate a six -lane roadway on Tassajara Road from North Dublin Ranch Drive to the
Alameda -Contra Costa County Limit Line.
Based on the Traffic Analysis and the IS/CEQA Addendum, staff recommends changing
the planned number of lanes to a four -lane roadway (two lanes in each direction), from
North Dublin Ranch Drive to the Alameda -Contra Costa County Limit Line (Figure 2). In
addition to this change staff has recommended some minor amendments to address
text in the EDSP Chapters 5 and 7, as indicated in the City Council Resolution to amend
Page 5 of 7
Packet Pg. 12
the General Plan and EDSP (Attachment 4)
5.1
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLANS, AND ZONING
ORDINANCE:
The procedure for adopting a new roadway alignment is governed by Chapter 7.68 of
the Dublin Municipal Code. In addition, Government Code § 65402 states, in part, that if
a General Plan has been adopted, no real property shall be acquired by dedication or
otherwise for street purposes until the location, purpose, and extent of such acquisition
have been submitted to and reported upon by the Planning Agency (Planning
Commission) as to the conformity with the adopted General Plan.
The roadway alignments in the General Plan and EDSP are approximate rather than
exact. The proposed right-of-way lines would create precise alignment for Tassajara
Road which is currently depicted in the General Plan and EDSP, and no change to the
land use designations would occur. Therefore, the proposed right-of-way lines for
Tassajara Road from Palisades Drive to northern City limit would be consistent with the
General Plan and EDSP.
The preliminary design of the project would also be consistent with the General Plan
and EDSP in terms of project design features such as sidewalks, vehicle travel lanes,
and medians. The project is also consistent with the City of Dublin Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan in that it would help implement the planned bicycle and
pedestrian facility improvements envisioned within the Master Plan and help to facilitate
future bicycle and pedestrian travel.
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES:
The Community Development Department, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works
Department, and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the project and provided
comments where appropriate to ensure that the project is established in compliance
with all local Ordinances and Regulations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Potential environmental impacts of the project were previously assessed in the EDSP
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #91103064), which analyzed the future
development of all of Eastern Dublin, including the future widening of Tassajara Road
from two to six lanes. In 2004, the City prepared an IS/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) (SCH #2004042008) for a precise alignment of Tassajara Road for the ultimate
widening to six lanes from North Dublin Ranch Drive to the Alameda -Contra Costa
County border.
The current project would reduce the number of travel lanes within the same area as
previously studied. To ensure that no new special -status or endangered plant species
would be affected by construction, a rare plant survey was recently conducted and
found none were present on or adjacent to the roadway. The IS has fully analyzed the
proposed project including its footprint and the proposed permanent right-of-way lines
for Tassajara Road. No additional analysis is required for the proposed revision to the
existing right-of-way lines. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of an Addendum
to both the EDSP EIR and the 2004 Tassajara Road IS/MND based on Section 15164
of the CEQA Guidelines. The Addendum states that there would be no new or more
Page 6 of 7
Packet Pg. 13
severe significant environmental impacts than have been previously studied. The 5.1
IS/CEQA Addendum is attached as Attachment 2. The current project would be subject
to applicable Mitigation Measures from earlier CEQA documents.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A public notice was mailed to adjacent property owners of the project area in Dublin.
Public agencies and interested parties were also notified. The public notice was
published in Valley Times Newspaper and posted at several locations throughout the
City.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Project Location
2. IS/CEQA Addendum with Attachments
3. Resolution Recommending that the City Council Adopt a Resolution Amending the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Resolution Amending the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
5. Exhibit 1 to Attachments 3 and 4
6. Resolution Recommending that the City Council Consider an Initial Study/CEQA
Addendum and Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Establish Precise Alignment for
Tassajara Road
7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - City Council Resolution to Consider an Initial
Study/CEQA Addendum and Resolution of Intention to Establish Precise Alignment for
Tassajara Road
8. Exhibit 1 to Attachment 7
9. Exhibit A to Attachment 7 - Legal Description and Plat Map
Page 7 of 7
Packet Pg. 14
PROJECT LOCATION
I 5.1.a I
Segment 2
�nt+tr�..� '•µeati�9b � y
o �U
Ssalat
P', �antlrp
Location of Segment 1 Improvements
(N. Dublin Ranch Dr. to Rutherford Rd.1
Quarry Lane School)
■ Location of Segment 2 Improvements
(Palisades Dr. to County Line)
■
Proposed Realignment of Tassajara Rd. j
3 ,s
oh
'3
_`
Rutherford Rd
Quarry Lane School
L.
Segment 1
6
`Q
Bd
�
i,
N Dublin Ranch Dr
- O`
S DublinR3n(Vo'
>
a Q
Valley
�e
m� Kobnen Way
rt
-
M r
S<
"j
4a
,q:
c
FTneraldGlen
�
"�
t��
Park
�
-
CentralPKvl
C
--Cent/
a\ pR
Rost on,mon Way'
�
v
» •',
m
.Y
� tal{e'NaY
f
.Y.
o
Dublin Blvd
ou61;
01a
t
N
1-580
v
O •>,�
Pimlico br.
u
a
Packet Pg. 15
5.1.b
Tassajara Road Ultimate
Right -of -Way Alignment Project
INITIAL STUDY/
CEQA ADDENDUM
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
January 2020
7
a�
E
a
Packet Pg. 16
5.1.b
CEQA ADDENDUM FOR TASSAJARA ROAD ULTIMATE
RIGHT-OF-WAY ALIGNMENT
JANUARY 2020
On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying
an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan ("Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, SCH #91103064).
The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound
volumes, as well as an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR dated May 4, 1993,
assessing a reduced development project alternative. The City Council adopted
Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for
the reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council
adopted a second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern
Dublin. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of
urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the EIR,
many implementing projects have been proposed, relying to various degrees on the
certified EIR.
In 2004, the Dublin City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for a precise alignment of a future six -lane major roadway within the
Eastern Dublin Planning Area (Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Ultimate Road Right -
of -Way Alignment Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, SCH
#2004042008).
The City is now considering a slightly revised width of the future of Tassajara
Road, as described below and has prepared this Addendum to the previously
approved CEQA documents for Tassajara Road pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15164 for the Project.
N
Project Description
The project involves a redesign of portions of the future widening of Tassajara Road
within the proposed project limits. Much of the roadway has already been developed as a
part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan even before the Plan was adopted. The current
project proposes a reduction of the road right-of-way for portions of Tassajara Road on
a long-term programmatic level, including short-term road reductions on two segments
of Tassajara Road, identified as Phase 1 improvements.
City of Dublin -Initial Study i
CEQA Addendum for Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 17
5.1.b
The northern segment of the Phase 1 improvement extends from north of Palisades
Drive-Kylemore Entry intersection on the south to the northern city limit. The southern
segment of the Phase I improvement stretches from a point located north of North
Dublin Ranch Drive to a point just south of the southern boundary of Quarry Lane
School.
Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations
As summarized above and discussed in more detail in the attached Initial Study,
Tassajara Road has existed as a major collector road in Eastern Dublin for many
years, before incorporation by the City. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan required
future build -out of Tassajara Road to support future land uses envisioned in the
Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan. In 2004, the City established a
precise alignment of Tassajara Road with six travel lanes. More recent
transportation analysis of the community indicates that traffic volumes are not as
great as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR and a reduction of the
number of travel lanes was justified.
No additional mitigation measures were included in this Addendum. All
previously adopted mitigation measures for development of Eastern Dublin
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND that are applicable to the
Project and Project site continue to apply to the currently proposed Project as
further discussed in the attached Initial Study.
Current CEQA Analysis and Determination is that an Addendum is
Appropriate for this Project.
Updated Initial Study. The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the 0
appropriate CEQA review for the Project, which proposes minor changes to the CO
ultimate width of Tassajara Road for portions of the right-of-way.
c
a�
The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated January 2020, incorporated
herein by reference, to assess whether any further environmental review is .2
required for this Project. Through this Initial Study, the City has determined that
no subsequent EIR, or Negative Declaration is required.
City of Dublin -Initial Study ii
CEQA Addendum for Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 18
5.1.b
No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent
environmental review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determined
that no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required for this Project. This is
based on the following analysis:
a) Are there substantial changes to the Project involving new or more severe
significant impacts? There are no substantial changes to the Project analyzed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR, as supplemented by the 2004 IS/MND. The
Project is similar to the location and design of Tassajara Road as previously
approved by the City of Dublin. As demonstrated in the Initial Study, the
proposed roadway change is not a substantial change to either the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan EIR or the 2004 IS/MND Addendum and will not
result in additional significant impacts and no additional or different
mitigation measures are required.
b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken
involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes
in the conditions assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2004 IS/MND. This
is documented in the attached Initial Study prepared for this Project dated
January 2020.
c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not a
have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the Project will have a
3
significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; E
or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined
CD
to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous
EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt Q
them? As documented in the attached Initial Study, there is no new information c�
w
showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the N
prior CEQA documents. Similarly, the Initial Study documents that no new or —
different mitigation measures are required for the Project. All previously
adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously approved
E
CEQA documents adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated
with the proposed revisions to the design of Tassajara Road. a
d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration
be prepared? No subsequent negative declaration or mitigated negative
declaration is required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of
City of Dublin -Initial Study iii
CEQA Addendum for Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 19
5.1.b
the Project beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and previous
CEQA documents for the site, as documented in the attached Initial Study.
Conclusion. This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15164 based on the attached Initial Study dated January 2020. The Addendum and
Initial Study review the proposed Project as discussed above. Through the
adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City determines that the
above minor changes in the location and width of Tassajara Road do not require a
subsequent EIR or negative declaration under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. The City further determines that the Eastern
Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND adequately address the potential environmental
impacts of the future construction and operation of this roadway as documented in
the attached Initial Study.
As provided in Section 15164 of the Guidelines, the Addendum need not be
circulated for public review, but shall be considered with the prior environmental
documents before making a decision on this project.
The Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND and all resolutions
cited above are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public
review during normal business hours in the Public Works Department, Dublin City
Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA.
City of Dublin -Initial Study iv
CEQA Addendum for Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
7
a
Packet Pg. 20
5.1.b
Initial Study
Table of Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................2
a�
City of Dublin Contact Person....................................................................................2
Project Location and Context......................................................................................2
a
Prior Environmental Review Documents..................................................................4
E
E
Project Description........................................................................................................5
c
a
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .............................................................
16
Determination .............
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts.......................................................................18
L
EarlierAnalysis..............................................................................................................19
Discussionof Checklist................................................................................................31
N
1. Aesthetics
`
2. Agricultural & Forestry Resources.....................................................36
r
c
0
3. Air Quality.............................................................................................37 ;v_,
4. Biological Resources
5. Cultural Resources................................................................................50 r
6. Geology and Soils 52
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................56 U
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
57
Q
9. Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................59
r
10. Land Use and Planning........................................................................62
3
11. Mineral Resources.................................................................................63
E
12. Noise
13. Population and Housing
66
14. Public Services.......................................................................................67
a
a
15. Recreation...............................................................................................68
w
U
16. Transportation/Traffic
69 co
17. Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................71
N
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
73
Initial Study Preparers
E
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
g
V
74 `°
a
References......... ...........................................................................................................74
Attachment 1-Special-Status Plant Survey
Attachment 2-Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis -Final
Report
Packet Pg. 21
5.1.b
Environmental Checklist/Initial Study
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment
City of Dublin
Introduction
This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts
of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a
completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the _environmental topics
addressed in the checklist. The Initial Study evaluates whether any supplemental
environmental review is required to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse #91103064) and the Tassajara
Road/Fallon Road Ultimate Road Right -of -Way Alignment Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (SCH #2004042008) adopted in 2004.
City of Dublin Contact Person
Erwin Ching, P.E.
Public Works Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
(925) 833 6630
Project Location and Context E5
CO
The City of Dublin consists of approximately 14.9 square miles of land area lying in N
eastern Alameda County, also known as the Livermore-Amador Valley, or the Tri-
Valley area. Surrounding jurisdictions include San Ramon and unincorporated Contra E
Costa County to the north, unincorporated Alameda County to the east and west and
the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to the south. a
The proposed project involves Tassajara Road in the Eastern Dublin area, extending
from a point just north of North Dublin Ranch Drive on the south and to the northern
City limits (also the Alameda -Contra Costa County limit line) on the north.
City of Dublin -Initial Study 2
CEQA Addendum for Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 22
5.1.b
Exhibit 1 shows the location of Dublin in relation to surrounding communities and
other major features. Exhibit 2 shows the location of segments of Tassajara Road subject
of this analysis.
As outlined below in the Project Background section of this document, Tassajara Road
is an existing major arterial roadway in Eastern Dublin that provides access to and from
southern Contra Costa County to the north. Within Contra Costa County, the roadway
is named Camino Tassajara. To the south of Quarry Lane School Road and Rutherford
Drive, Tassajara Road exists as a four- to eight -lane arterial roadway that extends and
provides vehicular access to the I-580 freeway and continues south to the City of
Pleasanton where it is named Santa Rita Road.
The Tassajara Road corridor within the city limit consists of a mix of developed and
undeveloped properties. Generally, properties on the west side of Tassajara Road
between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Fallon Road are both undeveloped and
developed with residential development at varying densities. North of Fallon Road
there is one recent development, Tassajara Highlands Planned Development, including
associated road improvements, and one single-family residential property, just south of
the northern city limit.
The eastern side of Tassajara Road just south of the city limit to approximately Fallon
Road is being developed as part of the Tassajara Hills Planned Development project.
Farther south of this development to just north of Fallon Road is a single-family
residential development (Chateau — Fallon Crossing). South of Fallon Road on the east
side of Tassajara Road are residential developments of varying densities. On the east
side of Tassajara Road in the southern portion of the project area is Quarry Lane School.
Project Background a
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan identifies Tassajara Road as a six- to eight -lane arterial
roadway linking several developments in Eastern Dublin with Contra Costa County to co
the north and the I-580 freeway and City of Pleasanton to the south. It was planned to N
contain 6 to 8 travel lanes excluding turn lanes.
E
In 2004, the City undertook a preliminary alignment for the ultimate improvement of 2
Tassajara Road to six travel lanes. This was approved by the Dublin City Council in a
2004.
In approximately 2014, a major component of the improvement and widening of the
northern portion of the road alignment took place with the construction of a
City of Dublin -Initial Study
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project
Page 3
January 2020
Packet Pg. 23
5.1.b
replacement culvert and a section of the roadway over Moller Creek. This component
was completed in 2016 providing a six -lane segment of Tassajara Road just south of
Palisades Drive including turn lanes.
Subsequently, the City performed a new analysis for the design of Tassajara Road based
on fewer vehicular trips than were anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
Eastern Dublin EIR. Accordingly, the width of some portions of Tassajara Road are
proposed to be reduced to four travel lanes.
This IS/MND analyzes the potential environmental impacts from reducing the future
width of Tassajara Road within the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. Two future
conditions are analyzed. First, on a program level, several portions of Tassajara Road
are proposed to be reduced from six to four lanes along the length of the right-of-way
and the realignment of the northern portion of the Tassajara Road south of the city
limit. Secondly, on a project level, the City of Dublin proposes to start road
improvements with four travel lanes along portions of Tassajara Road.
Prior Environmental Review Documents
The project has been included two previous CEQA documents, as noted below.
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (State
Clearinghouse #91103064). A Program Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment (Eastern Extended Planning Area) and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) were certified by the City Council in 1993 by Resolution
No. 51-93. This document and its related Addenda collectively are referred to as the
"Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR." It evaluated the following impacts related to the
urbanization of the Eastern Dublin area:
Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing; Traffic and Circulation. -
Community Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage; Soils,
Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources; Visual Resources; Cultural
Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93)
for the following impacts:
Cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic,
extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone
service), consumption of non-renewable natural resources, increases in
energy uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through
operation of the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 4
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
7
a
Packet Pg. 24
5.1.b
and concentration of population, earthquake ground shaking, loss or
degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise and
alteration of visual character.
The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally
adequate.
The Eastern Dublin project approved Tassajara Road as a major north -south road
through the Tassajara Village Center, Foothill Residential, Tassajara Gateway and
Town Center portions of Eastern Dublin carrying substantial traffic from both the
planning area and beyond. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan concentrates residential
and employment uses along Tassajara Road to encourage transit use for local and
regional travel. The minimum right-of-way for Tassajara Road north of Central
Parkway was determined to be 128 feet.
Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Ultimate Road Right-of-Wqy Alignment Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #200404208). An Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (2004 IS/MND) was adopted by the Dublin City Council on
January 20, 2004 by City Council Resolution No. 145-04. The 2004 IS/MND found
potentially significant impacts with respect to aesthetics, biological resources,
cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise,
transportation and traffic. Mitigation measures were included in the 2004 IS/MND to
ensure that all impacts were reduced to a less -than -significant level.
Project Description
Overview. The project involves a redesign of portions of the future widening of
Tassajara Road within the proposed project limits. Much of the roadway has already
been developed as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan even before the Plan was
adopted.
On a policy programmatic level, the current project proposes a reduction in the number N
of travel lanes for currently unimproved and improved portions of Tassajara Road from E
six to four lanes. Roadway reductions would be implemented as part of road
improvement projects undertaken by the City as part of the Capital Improvement
Project (CIP). It is unknown at this time when all the roadway improvements would be a
completed. Exhibit 3 shows the programmatic plan for future lane reductions. Exhibit 4
depicts existing and proposed rights -of -way.
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 5
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 25
5.1.b
Two segments of existing Tassajara Road are proposed for improvements to four travel
lanes. The City proposes to undertake the initial phase of the road widening
improvements, identified as Segment 1 below, in the immediate future (See Exhibits 5
and 6).
The northern segment (Segment 2) extends from north of Palisades Drive-Kylemore
Entry intersection on the south to the northern city limit. The southern segment of the
road (Segment 1) stretches from a point located north of North Dublin Ranch Drive to a
point just south of the southern boundary of Quarry Lane School.
Other portions of Tassajara Road, specifically the portion south of Segment 1 would not
be affected by this study.
Northern Roadway Segment. The northern segment extends from Palisades Drive-
Kylemore Entry intersection north to the city limit. The existing road is currently a
two-lane roadway and is proposed to be shifted to the east and widened to four
travel lanes. Improvements would include new paving, two bike lanes, landscaped
median, parkway strip, irrigation, streetlights, curb, gutter and a Class I bikeway
along the western side of the new road. The planned right-of-way width would be
110 feet. Proposed street cross-section and improvements are shown on Exhibit 6.
The property owner to the east of Tassajara Road has dedicated a portion of their
property where the new road would be located. Existing pavement that are not
within the limits of the new alignment will be abandoned and removed. The
proposed improvements will conform with the existing road alignment.
Construction of proposed improvements would require grading of the existing
hillside on the eastern side of the proposed road. The slope would be graded at
approximately 3:1 ratio.
An existing (DSRSD) water line between Palisades Drive and Windemere Parkway co
would need to be relocated to accommodate a widened road. A number of existing N
power poles and overhead wires along the existing right-of-way would be removed
and relocated as part of the project.
Southern Roadway Segment. The southern roadway segment extends from just north a
of Somerset Lane/North Dublin Ranch Drive to Quarry Lane School Road. This
portion of the road is currently a two-lane roadway and would be widened to a
four -lane roadway. Improvements would include two bike lanes, landscaped
median, parkway strip, irrigation, curb, gutter and a detached sidewalk on both
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 6
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 26
5.1.b
sides of the road. The ultimate right-of-way would be approximately 108 feet but
would vary depending on the width of the future parkway. Proposed street cross-
section and improvements are shown on Exhibit 5.
Changes from Existing and Approved Alignment. The primary change from the
previous, 2004 preliminary alignment approved by the City, and the current alignment
is that portions of Tassajara Road would be reduced from six to four lanes and the S-
curve at the northern portion of Segment 2 would be removed. The current approved
ultimate right-of-way width of Tassajara Road ranges from 122 to 128 feet which will be
adjusted down to an ultimate right-of-way width of 108 to 110 feet,
Some portions of the 2004 preliminary alignment that included the most
environmentally sensitive portion of the project have already been constructed. These
include, but not limited to, the replacement culvert for Moller Creek, the relocated
Tassajara Road/Fallon Road intersection and the section of road east of the Wallis Ranch
project that required retaining walls adjacent to Tassajara Creek.
Construction of project improvements would likely require the City to acquire, short-
term easements from adjacent private property owners adjacent to Tassaja Road to
allow placement of the improvements described in this Initial Study. The location,
extent and length of time required for these easements would be determined in the
design phase. Similarly, it is anticipated that the City of Dublin would need to acquire
one or more temporary easements to place construction equipment and materials
during the construction process. The location and size of these easements would be
determined in the design phase.
Phasing of Improvements. On a project level and in the short-term, road improvements
within Segment 1 is anticipated to start in Fiscal Year 2020-2021. However, it would be
dependent upon utility relocation, right-of-way acquisition, and permitting by
regulatory agencies.
Improvements to the northern segments of Tassajara Road within Segment 2 are being N
planned in the future as a joint project with the County of Contra Costa with the
County taking the lead in the design and construction of the roadway. E
�a
Funding of Improvements. Improvements to the Phase 1 segment would be funded by a
City of Dublin Transportation Improvement Fees (TIF), State Gas Tax, and Tri-Valley
Transportation Development (TVTD) Funds. TIF fees consist of traffic impact fees paid
to the City by various developers in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. The City may
also use other funding techniques, including but not limited to benefit districts,
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 7
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 27
5.1.b
assessment districts, reimbursement agreements. Property owners adjacent to Tassajara
Road where improvements are planned may also be required to construct necessary
improvements in lieu of paying TIF fees.
City of Dublin approvals. The following approvals are required from the City of Dublin
to construct the project. These are described in more detail below.
• General Plan Amendment
• Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
• Approval of Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment for portions of
Tassajara Road.
• Approval of Road Improvement Plans for portions of Tassajara
Road.
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 8
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
7
a
Packet Pg. 28
5.1.b
Two segments of existing Tassajara Road are proposed for improvements to four travel
lanes. The City proposes to undertake the initial phase of the road widening
improvements, identified as Segment 1 below, in the immediate future (See Exhibits 5
and 6).
The northern segment (Segment 2) extends from north of Palisades Drive-Kylemore
Entry intersection on the south to the northern city limit. The southern segment of the
road (Segment 1) stretches from a point located north of North Dublin Ranch Drive to a
point just south of the southern boundary of Quarry Lane School.
Other portions of Tassajara Road, specifically the portion south of Segment 1 would not
be affected by this study.
Northern Roadway Segment. The northern segment extends from Palisades Drive-
Kylemore Entry intersection north to the city limit. The existing road is currently a
two-lane roadway and is proposed to be shifted to the east and widened to four
travel lanes. Improvements would include new paving, two bike lanes, landscaped
median, parkway strip, irrigation, streetlights, curb, gutter and a Class I bikeway
along the western side of the new road. The planned right-of-way width would be
110 feet. Proposed street cross-section and improvements are shown on Exhibit 6.
The property owner to the east of Tassajara Road has dedicated a portion of their
property where the new road would be located. Existing pavement that are not
within the limits of the new alignment will be abandoned and removed. The
proposed improvements will conform with the existing road alignment.
Construction of proposed improvements would require grading of the existing
hillside on the eastern side of the proposed road. The slope would be graded at
approximately 3:1 ratio.
An existing (DSRSD) water line between Palisades Drive and Windemere Parkway co
would need to be relocated to accommodate a widened road. A number of existing N
power poles and overhead wires along the existing right-of-way would be removed
and relocated as part of the project.
Southern Roadway Segment. The southern roadway segment extends from just north a
of Somerset Lane/North Dublin Ranch Drive to Quarry Lane School Road. This
portion of the road is currently a two-lane roadway and would be widened to a
four -lane roadway. Improvements would include two bike lanes, landscaped
median, parkway strip, irrigation, curb, gutter and a detached sidewalk on both
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 6
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 29
5.1.b
sides of the road. The ultimate right-of-way would be approximately 108 feet but
would vary depending on the width of the future parkway. Proposed street cross-
section and improvements are shown on Exhibit 5.
Changes from Existing and Approved Alignment. The primary change from the
previous, 2004 preliminary alignment approved by the City, and the current alignment
is that portions of Tassajara Road would be reduced from six to four lanes and the S-
curve at the northern portion of Segment 2 would be removed. The current approved
ultimate right-of-way width of Tassajara Road ranges from 122 to 128 feet which will be
adjusted down to an ultimate right-of-way width of 108 to 110 feet,
Some portions of the 2004 preliminary alignment that included the most
environmentally sensitive portion of the project have already been constructed. These
include, but not limited to, the replacement culvert for Moller Creek, the relocated
Tassajara Road/Fallon Road intersection and the section of road east of the Wallis Ranch
project that required retaining walls adjacent to Tassajara Creek.
Construction of project improvements would likely require the City to acquire, short-
term easements from adjacent private property owners adjacent to Tassaja Road to
allow placement of the improvements described in this Initial Study. The location,
extent and length of time required for these easements would be determined in the
design phase. Similarly, it is anticipated that the City of Dublin would need to acquire
one or more temporary easements to place construction equipment and materials
during the construction process. The location and size of these easements would be
determined in the design phase.
Phasing of Improvements. On a project level and in the short-term, road improvements
within Segment 1 is anticipated to start in Fiscal Year 2020-2021. However, it would be
dependent upon utility relocation, right-of-way acquisition, and permitting by
regulatory agencies.
Improvements to the northern segments of Tassajara Road within Segment 2 are being N
planned in the future as a joint project with the County of Contra Costa with the
County taking the lead in the design and construction of the roadway. E
�a
Funding of Improvements. Improvements to the Phase 1 segment would be funded by a
City of Dublin Transportation Improvement Fees (TIF), State Gas Tax, and Tri-Valley
Transportation Development (TVTD) Funds. TIF fees consist of traffic impact fees paid
to the City by various developers in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. The City may
also use other funding techniques, including but not limited to benefit districts,
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 7
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 30
5.1.b
Exhibit 1. Regional Context
q \.[ r
don _ r G: Ppy� t54► l.�.a - ° `" !
A^ I
...�- s>•1,Hy `",.;ncct t r� ; �..c+Au,,a*rt
1 S
i 4 r. yr 4 MOVATT ..iL °q lau,� ,� 4, Jj4 e•i ; e l„Ja�I e+-�...
Sim PaDJo - _.� t / A `"� I"rP • w'1�}� ae a+ F
� .. T'A 1 lryr•"'.,
J7 r 1 nn .v., tow ARTINEI
er
� �. n ru wm Yiiiapa 4PIn04>v '', a ''b I r A sw ms •D I:EY�
zw �j�Ar
0 RA
"AV '" I ' • � � �� i.__�'AIDtn �' " REEK �' - � lehee `�`� . � i.-�'
r.•
r=iiW� Im ''CI,*, eBEAKE
&dtll tw: 'Af.N FJQO r ' Alan
ws,'a.. vy �.0 17 ; PMD Ll ) ' r4
SAN
-FFiaNCI5C0� Sarr > ND - L DU"LIN
�►1►DAL''�C o. °1 Bay,,a�+�i' fa r���p :F � a.• �" s .. nt� M
2 n, r., BlkbMt�,Id,ad . ;iAPi.a �i HAYW U C � _ r
' S_6 SAN FRANCISCO
.ACM � � ' � PLEAS
PACrFIC
�r 3' �-
$A BRUt& ]ar UNON
A1iBbYaeIt
.w�..:., CilYag 8 N ar
d�+ m
�Py�. �•a. w -
_ t I BURUN k3 oe Wi` n Gar, ss
F�_DMa
�'A. .A
rm'ump[�rr '� n 0 N,. ARK b
RED alG : r 4 `l
But
I K
a, l
Os
U YV_ a:
E Altos n p S . l4 too
""leer Al a i a �sd
CUPiTI
-..f, ,r� I
' �. � � AM. u+~ ,
m
P.alra d.i n r .� u ; S ANT AR .
AM
,.
a. lal t+E
,>. wLL
RUZ
ti, -
City of Dublin -Initial Study
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project
Page 9
January 2020
Packet Pg. 31
Exhibit 2. Local Setting
Segment 2
%
Z
Location of Segment I Improvements
(N. Dublin Ranch Dr. to Rutherford Rd. I
Quarry Lane School)
Location of Segment 2 Improvements
• (Palisades Dr. to County Line)
Proposed Realignment of Tassajara Rd.
Rutherford'Ad
Quarry Lane Scho6l
Segment 1
N Dublin Ranch Dr
s Ewbfin V011,
Kohnon Way
Way
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 10
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
I Packet Pg. 32 1
5.1.b
Exhibit 3. Final Programmatic Improvements to Tassajara Road
r'
r PALISADES DR.
4 LAN ES
I�
LEGEND:
® �■ SEGMENT OF O�Rp
TASSAJARA RD. THAT
WILL BE REDUCED
FROM 6 LANES TO 4
LANES
a LANES
TASSAJARAX
ROAD N. DUBLIN
RANCH DR.
r
■
■
`mow S. DUBLIN
RANCH DR.
r
■
■ , 6 LANES
GLEASON DR. ■ r""`"
■
■ 3
■
■
CENTRAL PKWY.
■ ,F`
■
■
■
■
DUBLIN BLVD.
BlANES IN
Source: Citv of Dublin
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 11
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
7
a
Packet Pg. 33
5.1.b
Exhibit 4. Existing and Proposed Alignments
i
I`
Srlr�/+f� I V ILL,
I y j1��� � • `��, p�wM�Y
��� OXi�w%jf
AI i- �iam
arf�!
till
'
I� id
Mo-
t ifl�tl'
}jII ■ I&"R�ri
law*
i
�Ritdrr
�tlid+I • -
11 AWWO�n
1% ' ie�ara�ul
li��Iql f,w�pAfr "'
��� lY�I��F�I ■
;;rt�;
f�MOrR/I
I I' Ilf•� yl1 ►� •
!� ffrll m
I ywzfi
1/ eN
";;rl
•
I��tll/14,
City of Dublin -Initial Study
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project
Page 12
January 2020
Packet Pg. 34
5.1.b
Exhibit 5. Phase 1-Southern Roadway Segment Cross -Section
108' RM MIN. AND VARIES
MT
EAST
VARIES
32' 1B' 32'
VARIES
6' PARK 8'
12' 12' 16' 12' 12' 8'
PARK 6'
8 W WAY' BIKE
TRAVEL TRAVEL CENTER TRAVEL TRAVEL BIKE
WAY" S/W
MEDIAN
AC AC
AH AB
CURB & GUTTER
ULTIMATE TASSAJARA ROAD
CURB & GUTTER
*WIDTH VARIES
TYPICAL SECTION
•WIDTH VARIES
* 8' TYPICAL AND VARIES
`8'
BETWEEN NORTH DUBLIN RANCH ROAD
TYPICAL AND VARIES
AND QUARRY LANE SCHDOL
NITS
Source: City of Dublin (Revisions by City of Dublin to `rassi ara Road Segment 1 Cross Section"sketch by MacKay & Somps, 8112/2016)
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 13
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
7
Q
Packet Pg. 35
5.1.b
Exhibit 6. Phase 1-Northern Section Segment Cross -Section
ST
110, Riw
0 ST
18'
32' 18'
32,
10' 8'
8' 12' 12' 18' 12'
12' 8'
0' PAR
3' CLASS I. PARK
BIKE TRAVEL TRAVEL MEDIAN 1 TRAVEL
TRAVEL BIKE
WAY 2'
OVERBUILD GIKEWAY1WAY
OVERBUILD
AC AC
24
/ l /
!AB AB
`-CM & OMER
CURB AND WYTER
ULTIMATE TI'ASSMARA ROAD
TYPICAL SECTION
SOUTH OF COUNTY LINE
rrts
Source: City of Dublin (Revisions by City of Dublin to'Tass4ara Road Segment 2 Cross Section'sketch by MacKay & Somps,1011012016)
City of Dublin -Initial Study
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project
7
Q
Page 14
January 2020
Packet Pg. 36
5.1.b
1. Project description: Realignment of Tassajara Road in the Eastern
Dublin Planning Area and the reduction of
the ultimate right-of-way for portions of the
road from six to four travel lanes, relocation
and potential undergrounding of adjacent
overhead power lines, acquisition of right-of-
way, temporary construction easements and
materials storage sites and relocation of an
existing waterline.
2. Lead agency: City of Dublin
3. Contact person: Erwin Ching, PE, Associate Civil Engineer
4. Project location: Tassajara Road from a point just north of
North Dublin Ranch Drive to the
northern City limits.
5. Project sponsor: City of Dublin
6. General Plan designation: Public Right -of -Way
7. Zoning: Public Right -of -Way
8. Public agency required approvals:
• Approval of General Plan Amendment
• Approval of Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
• Approval of Revised Ultimate Precise Right -of -Way for portions of
Tassajara Road.
• Approval of Road Improvement Plans for portions of Tassajara Road.
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 15
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
7
a
Packet Pg. 37
5.1.b
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by
this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant
impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
-
Aesthetics
-
Agricultural
-
Air Quality/Green
Resources
house Gas Emission
-
Biological
-
Cultural Resources
-
Geology/Soils
Resources
-
Hazards and
-
Hydrology/Water
-
Land Use/ Planning
Hazardous
Quality
Materials
-
Mineral Resources
-
Noise
-
Population/
Housing
-
Public Services
-
Recreation
-
Transportation/
Circulation
-
Utilities/Service
-
Mandatory
Systems
Findings of
Significance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on
the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant —
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case `'
because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been E
added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.
a
I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect
on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed
in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 16
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 38
5.1.b
described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental
Impact Report is required but must only analyze the effects that remain to
be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect
on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because at least one or more potentially significant effects 1) have been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including mitigation measures as described in the attached sheets. A
supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration is required but must only
analyze the effects that remain to be addressed as identified in this Initial
Study.
X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be any new or substantially more severe
significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable, standards;
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed Project,
except for those impacts which were identified as significant and unavoidable
and for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was previously
adopted by the City. An Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental
Impact Report and the 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration will be
prepared.
Signature: Date:
Printed Name: Z�JA_05Va 4" _ /6/or:
7
a
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 17
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 39
5.1.b
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that
are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a
fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening
analysis).
2) In some instances, an "LS, Less -than -Significant Impact" response may reflect
that a specific environmental topic has been analyzed in a previous CEQA
document and appropriate mitigation measures have been included in a
previous CEQA document to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level.
In a few instances, some previously analyzed topics were determined to be
significant and unavoidable and mitigation of such impact to a less -than -
significant level is not feasible. In approving the Eastern Dublin project, the City
of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant
unavoidable impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations would also be required for the project if it could
result in the identified significant unavoidable impacts.
3) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off -site as well as
on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
4) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence LU
0
that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant co
impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. N
c
a�
5) "Negative Declaration: Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"
implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect
from "potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead a
agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce
the effect to a less than significant level.
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 18
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 40
5.1.b
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See
listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Earlier Analyses
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other
CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
Negative Declaration. Reference: CEQA Guideline Section 15063.
Portions of the environmental analysis for this Initial Study refer to information
contained in the following EIR listed below.
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (SCH #
91103064, certified by City Council Resolution No. 51-93 on May 10, 1993.
This document is also known as the Eastern Dublin EIR in this Initial
Study. Multiple subsequent documents to this EIR have been certified by
the City.
Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Ultimate Road Right -of -Way Alignment
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. An Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (2004 IS/MND) was adopted by the Dublin City.
Council on January 20, 2004 by City Council Resolution No. 145-04. The
2004 IS/MND found potentially significant impacts with respect to
aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water
quality, land use and planning, noise, transportation and traffic.
Mitigation measures were included in the 2004 IS/MND to ensure that all
impacts were reduced to a less -than -significant level.
The related impacts and mitigations for each resource area are briefly summarized in w
the initial study discussion sections below. The certified EIR should be consulted for full 0
discussion of the referenced impacts and mitigation measures. These documents are CO
incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review at the Dublin
Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, during normal business hours. E
�a
a
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 19
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 41
5.1.b
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing
of sources at end of checklist used to determine each potential impact).
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist.
1. Aesthetics. Would the project. -
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic
vista? (Source: 1, 6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Source: 1, 3, 6)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: 1, 6)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day o nighttime
views in the area? (Source: 6)
2. Agricultural Resources. Would the project. -
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as show on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 1, 6)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use
or a Williamson Act contract? (1, 6)
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of forestland (as defined by PRC Sec.
12220(g), timberland (as defined in PRC Sec.
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined in PRC Sec. 51104 (g)?
(Source: 1, 2)
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non -forest use? (1, 2)
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
that, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural
use or conversion of forestland to a non -forest
use? (Source: 1, 2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin -Initial Study
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project
Page 20
January 2020
a
Packet Pg. 42
5.1.b
3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air
quality management district may be relied
on to make the following determinations).
Would the project. -
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 1, 2)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source: 1, 2, 8)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non -attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors? (1,2,9)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? (7, 9)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? (9)
4. Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (1, 2. 3, 8)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (1, 2, 3)
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption or
other means? (1, 2, 3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 21
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
a
Packet Pg. 43
5.1.b
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? (1, 2, 3)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan or other
approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan? (Source: 1, 2, 9)
5. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1, 2)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1, 2)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 1, 2)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery? (1,2)
6. Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist or based on other known evidence
of a known fault? (Source: 1)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (1)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Source: 1)
iv) Landslides? (Source: 1)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss. of
topsoil? (Source: 1))
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 22
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
c
a�
E
a
Packet Pg. 44
5.1.b
result of the project and potentially result in
on- and off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (1)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (Source: 1)
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for wastewater disposal?
(7)
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment? (9)
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials? (2,
5)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous into the environment?
(6)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Source: 1, 2, 6)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 23
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
a
Packet Pg. 45
5.1.b
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites complied
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment? (8)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or.
public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (Source: 8)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 9)
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with the adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Source: 1, 2. 6, 9)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(9)
9. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 1, 2, 4)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g. the
production rate of existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)?
(Source: 1, 2, 7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 24
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
c
a�
E
ca
a
Packet Pg. 46
5.1.b
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site? (Source: 1, 2, 6)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or areas, including through
the alteration of a course or stream or river,
or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off -site? (Source: 1,
2,6)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? (Source: 1, 2, 6)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? (Source: 1, 2, 6)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Source: 1, 7)
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which impede or redirect flood
flows? (Source: 1, 7)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, and death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 1, 7)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
10. Land Use and Planning. Would the project. -
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1,2, 6)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 25
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
c
m
E
ca
a
Packet Pg. 47
5.1.b
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect? (Source: 1, 2, 7)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Source: 1, 2, 9)
11. Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state? (2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan? (Source: 2)
12. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in
the general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (4)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (Source: 4)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
existing levels without the project? (4)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? (4)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working n the
project area to excessive noise levels? (9)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 26
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
c
a�
E
ca
a
Packet Pg. 48
5.1.b
13. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (1, 2)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (1, 2)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the replacement of housing
elsewhere? (Source: 1, 2)
14. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services? (Source: 1, 2, 7)
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities
15. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated? (Source: 1, 2, 5)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 1, 2; 5)
16. Transportation and Traffic. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 27
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
a
Packet Pg. 49
5.1.b
modes of transportation, including mass
transit and all non -motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and
mass transit? (Source: 1, 2, 7)
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including but not
limited to, level of service and travel
demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management. agency for designated roads or
highways?_(Source: 1, 2, 7)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (Source: 1, 2)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as
farm equipment? (Source: 7)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (4)
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle or
pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the
performance of safety of such facilities? (7)
17. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the
project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? (Source: 2, 7)
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (7)
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 28
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
a
Packet Pg. 50
5.1.b
effects? (7)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing water
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (7)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the providers existing
commitments? (Source: 7)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? (7)
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number of or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 29
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
a
Packet Pg. 51
5.1.b
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1) Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR
2) Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin (Amended as of October 6, 2015)
3) Biological Resource Analysis, WRA, September 2017
4) Traffic Technical Analysis, DKS Associates, April 2014
5) Site Visit
6) Discussion with City staff or service provider
City of Dublin -Initial Study
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project
Page 30
January 2020
7
a
Packet Pg. 52
5.1.b
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
Legend
PS:
LS/M:
LS:
N/NNI:
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Setting
Potentially Significant
Less Than Significant After Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact/No New Impact
The project is set'in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area that is transitioning to urban uses
under the auspices of the City of Dublin Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment, adopted in 1994 and subsequently amended.
The northerly portion of the project area consists of one single family residence just
south of the city limit to the west, large residential master planned communities on both
the west and east side of the road (Tassajara Highlands Planned Development project)
and single family residential development to the east just south of the City limit
(Tassajara Hills). Other residential communities that were built on the eastern side of
Tassajara Road have already been constructed when the 2004 road alignment was
approved by the City on the former Mission Peak and Silvera properties as identified in
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
The southerly portion of the project area represents a transition to more urban uses,
including the Quarry Lane School, located on the east side of Tassajara Road north of
the intersection of Shadow Hill Drive and residential uses contained in Wallis Ranch
community. A few smaller properties located on the west side of Tassajara Road remain
undeveloped.
The existing alignment of Tassajara Road traverses a combination of flatter lands
located on the westerly side of the road with rolling hills to the east. A number of
mature oak trees and other tree species are growing at selected locations adjacent to
both sides of the roadway, which are outside the current project boundary. Passersby
can get glimpses of Tassajara Creek and its associated riparian area immediately west of
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 31
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
c
a�
E
a
Packet Pg. 53
5.1.b
the road. Beyond Tassajara Creek to the west, mid -range to distant views of rolling hills
can be perceived.
Overhead utility lines on poles have been installed along the easterly edge of the
existing road right-of-way and crosses over to the west side at one of the curving
sections of the road.
Major sources of light along the roadway for the first phase of improvement include
street lights along portions of the right-of-way, Quarry Lane School, and house and
yard lights from adjacent developments along portions of the roadway.
Regulatory framework
Alameda County Scenic Route Element
In May, 1966, Alameda County adopted a Scenic Route Element of the County General
Plan. The Element identifies Tassajara Road as a Major Rural Road. The General Plan
Element has been incorporated by reference into the City of Dublin General Plan.
The Element contains the following principles that apply to scenic route rights -of -way
• Design scenic routes to minimize grading in rights -of -way;
• Design scenic routes for leisure rather than high speed travel;
• Enhance scenic route rights -of -way through outstanding design of highway
structures;
• Landscape rights -of -way of existing and proposed routes;
• Utilize scenic route identification signs.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment `�
The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan
(EDSP) in 1994 to guide the future development of approximately 7,200 acres of land in
the eastern Dublin area. The Specific Plan Amendment/General Plan includes a number a
of policies and programs dealing with visual resources, including but not limited to
protection of ridgelines and ridgelands, scenic corridors, and hillside development. Key
policies dealing with the aesthetic treatment of Tassajara Creek and other stream
corridors is as follows:
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 32
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 54
5.1.b
Policy 6-39: Tassajara Creek and other stream corridors, shown on Figure 4.1 of the
EDSP, are visual features that have special scenic value for the planning area. The
visual character of these corridors should be protected from unnecessary alteration
or disturbance, and adjoining development should be sited to maintain visual access
to the stream corridors.
Program 60: The City should officially adopt Tassajara Road, I-580 and Fallon Road
as designated scenic corridors, adopt a set of scenic corridor policies and establish
review procedures and standards for projects within the scenic corridor viewshed.
The City of Dublin did adopt the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards
document in 1996 to fulfill this measure.
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR
In 1994, in conjunction with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan (EDSP), the City of Dublin adopted an Environmental Impact Report (herein
referred to as the "Eastern Dublin EIR") that, among other CEQA-mandated topics,
addressed Visual. Resources (Section 3.8).
Eastern Dublin EIR Impact IM3.8/f, Scenic Routes, identifies a potentially significant
impact of altering the visual experience of travelers on scenic routes in Eastern Dublin.
Formerly quiet rural roads will be transformed into major suburban thoroughfares
carrying significant traffic loads. Foreground views of the site as well as distant views
of the surrounding Tri-Valley may be partially or completely obstructed.
Adherence to the following recommended mitigation measures are recommended in
the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance:
Mitigation Measure 3.8/8.0: Adherence to Action Program 6Q discussed above. This
has already been satisfied by the City of Dublin as noted above.
Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.8/D identifies potentially significant impacts related to w
grading and excavation of building sites in hillside areas that would severely N
compromise the visual quality of the project site. The following measures are included
in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce potential aesthetic impacts to a level of
insignificance: f°
a
Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.0: Visual impacts of extensive grading shall be reduced by
sensitive engineering design, by using gradual transitions from graded areas to
natural slopes and by revegetation.
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 33
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 55
5.1.b
Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.1: Alterations of existing natural contours shall be
minimized. Grading shall maintain the natural topography as much as possible,
Grading beyond actual development areas shall be for remedial purposes only.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.4: Graded slopes shall be re —contoured to resemble
existing landforms in the immediate area. Cut and graded slopes shall be
revegetated with native vegetation suitable to hillside environments.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.5: The height of cut and fill slopes shall be minimized to
the greatest degree possible. Grades for cut and fill slopes should be 3:1 or less
wherever feasible.
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards
In 1996, the City of Dublin adopted scenic policies and standards for the Eastern Dublin
area, known as the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. The purpose of
this document is to implement EDSP polices as related to individual development
projects. The document identifies the Tassajara Creek Valley as a scenic corridor.
Applicable policies and standards from this document include:
Policy 6. Emphasize valley character by creating viewpoints and view corridors to
knolls, foreground hills and to Tassajara Creek.
Standard 6.1: Allow intermittent views from Tassajara Road to the hills, knolls
and creek.
Standard 6.2: Where Tassajara Creek's intermittent branch crossed Tassajara
Road, maintain views to the creek and riparian vegetation and to the open space
to the east.
Policy 7: Emphasize the semi -rural character of the area.
Standard 7.1: Streetscape should reinforce semi -rural ambience. N
c
a�
Project Impacts
a-c) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista, damage scenic resources (including a
scenic highzvay) or substantially degrade the visual character of a site? NNI. The 2004 a
IS/MND found potential impacts related to substantial impacts to a scenic
resource, damage to scenic resources within a scenic highway corridor or a
substantial degradation to the visual character of the site. The earlier project
includes a segment of the proposed road to be located near Tassajara Road as
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 34
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 56
5.1.b
well as reconstruction of a culvert over Moller Creek, near its merger with
Tassajara Creek. These portions of the earlier project have been constructed and
are not included in the current project.
The proposed road right-of-way project would not result in the construction of
substantial new above ground structures that could block scenic vistas of nearby
hills or Tassajara Creek from the existing road. Similarly, no existing designated
scenic overlooks would be removed to allow for roadway widening nor would
significant amounts of permanent open space identified in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan be removed or impacted. Existing overhead wires adjacent to the
roadway would be undergrounded to improve the aesthetic quality of the road
corridor.
The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable Mitigation
Measures contained in the Easter Dublin EIR, summarized below, especially as
related to the proposed re -grading of the existing slope on the Tassajara Hills
development project.
• Visual impacts of extensive grading shall be reduced by sensitive
engineering design, by using gradual transitions from graded areas to
natural slopes and by revegetation. (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation
Measure 3.8/4.0)
• Alterations of existing natural contours shall be minimized. Grading shall
maintain the natural topography as much as possible, Grading beyond
actual development areas shall be for remedial purposes only. (Eastern
Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.1)
• Graded slopes shall be re —contoured to resemble existing landforms in the
immediate area. Cut and graded slopes shall be revegetated with native LU
vegetation suitable to hillside environments. (Eastern Dublin EIR CO
Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.4) N
c
a�
• The height of cut and fill slopes shall be minimized to the greatest degree E
possible. Grades for cut and fill slopes should be 3:1 or less wherever a
feasible. (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.5) a
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory
requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to scenic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 35
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 57
5.1.b
EIR and 2004 IS/MND and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are
met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
d) Create light or glare? NNI. A number of light sources presently exist within the
project area and construction of the proposed project would add additional light
sources in the form of streetlights along new sections of the road. New light
sources associated with the project was identified as a potentially significant
impact in the 2004 IS/MND. The 2004 IS/MND document include Mitigation
Measure 5 to reduce light and glare impacts to a less -than -significant level.
Mitigation Measure 5 shall also apply to the current project as well. This measure
is included below.
Mitigation Measure 5. Streetlights installed as part of the road widening plan
shall be equipped with cut-off lenses to prevent spill over of light beyond the
roadway. Lighting levels shall be limited to the minimum level of
illumination needs for safety purposes.
With adherence to the above mitigation measure, there would be no new or more
severe significant impacts than previously analyzed.
2. Agricultural & Forestry Resources
Environmental Setting
The Eastern Dublin General Plan EIR identifies lands immediately east of Tassajara Road
as "lands of locally important farmlands." Many of the properties fronting along
Tassajara Road have either been developed since the 2004 IS/MND document was
adopted or are in the process of developing consistent with City of Dublin approvals.
Project Impacts 0
a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act CO
Conservation Agreement or convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use? NNI.
Impacts with respect to conversion of prime farmland to urban uses, discontinuation E
of agricultural land uses and indirect impacts of non -renewal of Williamson Act
land conservation contracts were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the entire a
Eastern Extended Planning Area and the 2004 IS/MND. These impacts were deemed
insignificant except for the cumulative loss of agricultural lands, which was
significant and unavoidable (Impact 3.1/F).
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 36
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 58
5.1.b
The proposed project would affect properties either currently used as a public road,
or a small amount of property adjacent to Tassajara Road. Approval of the project
would result in no new or more severe significant impacts related to agricultural
lands than identified in the prior two CEQA documents and no additional analysis
is required.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non forest lase? NI. No
forest land exists within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; therefore, no impact
would result with respect to this topic. No additional analysis is required.
e) Involve other changes which, due to their location or nature, could result of forest land to a
non forest case? NI. See item "d," above.
3. Air Quality
Environmental Setting
The project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub -regional air basin
distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub -air basin is
surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills
surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends
northward into Contra Costa County.
The terrain of the Amador Valley influences both the climate and air pollution potential
of the sub -regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area has generally lighter
winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared to the greater Bay
Area.
The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion conditions,
severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically. Inversions
can be found during all seasons in the Bay Area but are particularly prevalent in the
summer months when they are present about 90% of the time in both morning and
afternoon.
According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, air pollution potential is
high in the Livermore-Amador Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall. High
temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally
generated pollutants but can be the receptor of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 37
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
7
a
Packet Pg. 59
5.1.b
portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also occurs between the
Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east.
During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in
frequent surface -based inversions. Under these conditions pollutants such as carbon
monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and
agricultural burning can become concentrated.
Sensitive Receptors
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District defines sensitive receptors as facilities
where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the
chronically ill) are likely to located. These land uses include residences, schools
playgrounds, child-care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and
medical clinics. One such sensitive receptor in the project vicinity is the Quarry Lane
School, a private K-12 school, located on the east side of Tassajara Road. The school is in
the process of expanding its campus.
Project Impacts v,
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? NNI.
Ultimate widening of Tassajara Road in its current general alignment is
anticipated in the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and
the related EDEIR. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan has assumed the ultimate
configuration of Tassajara Road as a six- to eight- lane arterial roadway. If
approved, existing six -lane segments of the road would remain, but portions of
the road would be reduced in width to a four -lane road. No changes to current 3
land use projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG), which are used for air quality emissions included in the Bay Area Air a
Quality Management District's Clean Air Plan. With adherence to required Q
mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no
new or substantially more severe significant impacts to consistency with the
regional air quality plan beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin N
EIR and 2004 IS/MND and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are N
met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
E
b,c) Would the project violate any air quality standards or result in cumulatively considerable
air pollutants? NNI. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed impacts related to both a
project -level air quality impacts as well as cumulative impacts to regional air
quality. Identified impacts in this EIR included Impact 3.11/A (dust deposition
from construction activity), Impact 3.11/B (construction equipment and vehicle
emissions), Impact 3.11/C (mobile sources of Reactive Organic Gases and
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 38
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 60
5.1.b
Nitrogen Oxide) and Impact 3.11/E (stationary source emissions). All of these air
quality impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable and in approving
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted for the project and cumulative air quality
emissions (City Council Resolution No. 53-93). The proposed project is consistent
with the infrastructure assumptions in the EDEIR. With adherence to required
mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no
new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to violation of
air quality standards beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR
and 2004 IS/MND and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are
met. No further environmental review is required.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations? NNI. No sensitive
receptors, including but not limited to schools, day care centers, hospitals or
similar land uses exist along the project site. A private school, Quarry Lane
School, is located immediately north of the project site. However, the estimated
number of vehicle trips along the roadway segments that are part of the Project
(estimated to be 175 daily trips, as documented in section 16, Traffic and
Transportation of this Initial Study) would not significantly increase from those
projected for the wider roadway configuration and therefore would not generate
a significant amount of pollutants as noted in subsections "b" and "c," above so
no significant impacts would result with respect to this topic. Similarly, the site is
not located adjacent to any freeways or major highway corridors that would
release significant air emissions. The proposed project is consistent with the use
and density assumptions in the EDEIR and no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts would result.beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and 2004 IS/MND and no other CEQA standards for supplemental
e) Create objectionable odors? NI. The project would not result in new land uses that
would emit objectionable odors. No new or more significant severe impacts are
anticipated than analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
c
a�
4. Biological Resources E
Portions of the following analysis is based on a report entitled "Tassajara Road a
Widening Project Special -Status Plant Surveys" dated August 16, 2017 prepared by
WRA biological consultants. This report is hereby included by reference into this Initial
Study and is included as Attachment 1 to this document.
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 39
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 61
5.1.b
Environmental Setting
Portions of the Tassajara Road widening project site were graded over 40 years ago for
the existing Tassajara Road roadway. Grading included removing material from high
ground areas to lower them and the placement of fill in low areas forming a relatively
level strip of roadway that was paved to a width of approximately 25 feet.
The portions of the right-of-way that are graded, but not paved, as well as the adjacent
ungraded portions of the site, have been disturbed by road construction and
maintenance, livestock grazing, and the placement of spoils material. These
undeveloped areas support, for the most part, ruderal and non-native grassland plant
species
Vegetation in the portions of the road widening area that have not previously been
disturbed is a mix of ruderal and non-native grassland. Two tributaries to Tassajara
Creek cross the road widening project area and contain riparian vegetation.
The project site passes through several privately held parcels of land, each showing
varying degrees of disturbance. Most of the lands on these parcels have been fenced to
contain livestock. The fencing is in various stages of decay, removal, or replacement.
Grazing intensity varies from heavy to light. The historic grazing on these lands has
fostered the removal of native grasses and forbs that have been replaced by introduced
annual grasses and introduced annual forbs. The majority of the undeveloped portions
of the project area are dominated by introduced annual grass species including wild
oats (Avena sp), ripgut brome (Bromits diandrus), and foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum).
A number of ruderal introduced weed species, such as yellow -star thistle (Centaurea
solstitialis), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) and bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), are also
present in this vegetation type.
Protected wildlife and vegetation. Both the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2004 IS/MND `�
identify several species of rare, threatened and/or protected wildlife and plant species
in the area.
a
Most recently, the firm of WRA biological consultants completed a rare plant survey of a
the project area to determine if any new rare or endangered plants are located on or
adjacent to future road right-of-way. WRA biologists reviewed the following: United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2016) Species List for Contra Costa County
(USFWS), California Consortium of Herbaria (CCH), California Department of Fish
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 40
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 62
5.1.b
and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural Diversity Database (CDFW) records, and the California
Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory (CNPS) for the
USGS Tassajara, Diablo, Dublin, and Livermore 7.5-minute quadrangles. All special -
status plant species documented within the greater vicinity of the Project Site were
then assessed based on associated vegetation communities, soil affinity, associated
species, topographic position, shade tolerance, disturbance tolerance, elevation, and
population distribution to determine the potential for these species to occur in the
Project site.
Ten (10) special -status plants Were found to have potential for occurrence in the Project
area. Two floristic surveys were conducted on April 20, and August 9, 2017. The
surveys corresponded to periods sufficient to observe and identify these ten plant
species in Contra Costa County. The field surveys were conducted by WRA botanists
familiar with the flora of Contra Costa County. No special -status plant species were
observed on the Project Site.
The WRA report ("Tassajara Road Widening Project Special -status Plant Surveys"
dated August 16, 2017) is attached as Attachment 1 to this Initial Study.
Based on this review, no special -status plant species were observed within the Project
Site.
Riparian habitats. Two tributaries to Tassajara Creek cross the project site: Bridges and
culverts have previously constructed over these water courses and no additional work
is anticipated as part of this project.
Regulatory framework
Federal Endangered Species Act. The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects 9
listed species from harm or a "take" which is broadly defined as to harass, harm, 0
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any N
such conduct. Take can also include habitat modification or degradation that results in N
death or injury to a listed species. An activity can be defined as take even if it is
unintentional or accidental. Listed plant species are provided less protection than listed
wildlife species. Listed plant species are legally protected from take under FESA if they
occur on federal lands or if the project requires a federal action, such as a wetland fill a
permit.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally -listed
threatened and endangered species under the FESA. The USFWS also maintains lists of
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 41
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 63
5.1.b
proposed and candidate species that are not legally protected under the FESA, but
which may become listed in the near future and are often included in their review of a
project.
California Endangered Species Act. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
prohibits the take of any plant or animal listed or proposed for listing as rare (plants
only), threatened, or endangered. In accordance with the CESA, California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has jurisdiction over state -listed species (California Fish
and Game Code 2070). Additionally, the CDFW maintains lists of "species of special
concern" that are defined as species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because
of declining populations, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats.
California Environmental Quality Act. Section 15380(b) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provides that a species not listed on the
federal or state lists of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the
species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been
modeled after the definitions in FESA and CESA and the section of the California Fish
and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants or animals. This section was
included in the guidelines primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is
reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on a species that has not yet been
listed by either the USFWS or CDFW.
Clean Water Act. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) is responsible for regulating the discharge of fill material into waters
of the United States. Waters of the U.S. and their lateral limits are defined in 33 CFR
Part 328.3 (a) and include streams that are tributary to navigable waters and their
adjacent wetlands. Wetlands that are not adjacent to waters of the U.S. are termed
"isolated wetlands" and, depending on the circumstances, may also be subject to Corps
jurisdiction.
In general, a Corps permit must be obtained before placing fill in wetlands or other `=2
waters of the U.S. The type of permit depends on the acreage involved and the purpose `�
of the proposed fill. Minor amounts of fill can. be covered by a Nationwide Permit. An E
Individual Permit is required for projects that result in more than a "minimal" impact
on jurisdictional areas. Individual Permits require evidence that jurisdictional fill has a
been avoided to the extent possible and a review of the project by the public.
California Water Quality and Waterbody Regulatory Programs. Pursuant to Section
401 of the federal Clean Water Act, projects that are regulated by the Corps must
obtain water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 42
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 64
5.1.b
(RWQCB). This certification ensures that the project will uphold state water quality
standards. The RWQCB may impose mitigation requirements even if the Corps does
not.
The CDFW exerts jurisdiction over the bed and banks of watercourses and water
bodies according to provisions of Section 1601 to 1603 of the Fish and Game Code. The
Fish and Game Code requires a Streambed Alteration Permit for the fill or removal of
material within the bed and banks of a watercourse or waterbody.
Other Statutes, Codes, and Policies. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C.,
Sec. 703, Supp. I,1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds
except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This
act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Most native bird
species on the project site are covered by this Act.
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR includes the following measures intended
to reduce impacts on biological resources.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat
loss (IM 3.7/A) to a less -than -significant level. These mitigations require
minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of
vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a
grazing management plan by the City of Dublin.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of
vegetation removal (IM 3.7/B) to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation
Measure 3.7/5.0 requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as
quickly as possible.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or LU
0
degradation of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) but not to a less- CO
than -significant level. These measures require a wide range of steps to be N
taken by future developers to minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas,
including preserving natural stream corridors, incorporating natural
greenbelts and open space into development projects, preparation of
individual wetland delineations, preparation of individual erosion and a
sedimentation plans and similar actions.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San
Joaquin kit fox (IM 3.7/D) to a less -than -significant level. These measures
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 43
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 65
5.1.b
require consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the
possibility of kit fox on project sites and restrictions on use of pesticides
and herbicides.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0-22.0 reduced impacts related to the tri-
colored blackbird (IM 3.7/I) to a less -than -significant level. These measures
require preconstruction surveys for this species and protection of
impacted habitat areas. These measures also apply to burrowing owl and
badger species.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/23.0-24.0 reduced impacts related to destruction
of Golden Eagle nesting sites (IM 3.7/j) to a less -than -significant level.
These measures require preconstruction surveys for this species and
protection of impacted habitat areas.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0 reduced impacts related to loss of Golden
Eagle foraging habitat (IM 3.7/K) to a less -than -significant level. This
measure requires the identification of a Golden Eagle protection zone
within the Eastern Dublin planning area.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/26.0 reduced impacts related to Golden Eagle and
other raptor electrocution (IM 3.7/L) to a less -than -significant level. This
measure requires undergrounding of electrical transmission facilities.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/20.0, 27.0 reduced impacts related to American
badger (IM 3.7/M, N) to a less -than -significant level. This measure
mandates a minimum buffer of 300 feet around burrowing owl nesting
sites and American badger breeding sites during the breeding season.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status
invertebrates (IM 3.7/S) to a less -than -significant level. This measure CO
requires follow-on special surveys for these species during appropriate `�
times of the year.
2004 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. This document contains the .2
following Mitigation Measures pertaining to biological resources.
• Mitigation Measure 8. Pre -construction surveys to determine if
western burrowing owl, are present within the area of
disturbance of the road widening should be conducted by a
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 44
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 66
5.1.b
qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of
any construction related activities.
If burrowing owls are observed on or near the project site during these
surveys, the project will implement an exclusion zone around the nest
location. Exclusion zones should be 160 feet during the non -breeding
season of. September 1-January 31. Passive relocation of owls that
includes the placement of one-way doors over burrow entrances,
allowing owls to exit but not return, may be used at that time. During the
breeding season of February 1-August 31, exclusion zones should be at
least 250 feet from occupied burrows. All project related activity will
occur outside of the exclusion area until the young have fledged
(California Department of Fish and Game,1995). If owls are detected
breeding within the construction zone, 6.5 acres of burrowing owl habitat
shall be preserved for each active nest detected. The location of the
preserved habitat shall be determined in consultation with the CDFG.
Mitigation Measure 9. Surveys to determine if California tiger
salamanders are present within the area of disturbance of the road
widening should be conducted by a qualified biologist. These surveys
should be, conducted in accordance with the protocols outlined by the
CDFG.
If California tiger salamanders are determined to be present, the project
will implement a salvage program. The salvage program will include 3
placement of fencing to prevent movement of salamanders into the
project site and trapping in the project area to capture salamanders for
relocation to off -site locations. The project shall preserve California tiger Q
salamander habitat at a 1:1 (mitigation area: impact area) replacement
ratio. All preserved acreage must be protected in perpetuity by
designation as permanent open space with a conservation easement N
placed over it. The location of the preserved habitat will require the N
approval of the CDFG. CDFG approved mitigation habitat must be
secured prior to construction of the bridge. To the fullest extent possible,
mitigation areas shall be located on the adjoining property where tiger
salamander habitat is identified. a
Curb cuts (using the same design as wheelchair ramps) shall be installed
on both sides of the storm drain inlets to allow small vertebrates which
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 45
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 67
5.1.b
become trapped on the road to move off the road surface prior to being
washed or falling into storm drain inlets.
Mitigation Measure 10. Preconstruction surveys for the presence of San
Joaquin kit fox shall be completed as required by the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan EIR. If San Joaquin kit fox are observed on or near the
project site during these surveys, consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service will be initiated and the project will incorporate the
Terms and Conditions contained in the Biological Opinion. Mitigation
Measures 3.7/18.0 through 19.0 as set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR
shall also be implemented.
Mitigation Measure 11. Measures shall be implemented to ensure
California red -legged frogs and western pond turtle are not present within
the disturbance area during development. Any project related work in or
along the tributaries shall be restricted to the period when these features
are dry (usually from mid -summer through October). A USFWS and
CDFG approved biologist shall conduct pre -construction surveys to
determine if California red -legged frog or western pond turtle are present
within this area within three days prior to any construction activities. If
any red -legged frogs are found, the biologist shall contact the USFWS to
determine if moving them is appropriate. Immediately following the
preconstruction survey, all portions of the project site proposed for
grading shall be separated from open space areas by fencing appropriate
to prevent California red -legged frogs and western pond turtle from
entering the development area.
A second survey shall be conducted within the fenced area no earlier than Q
24 hours before the onset of activities to ensure no California red -legged a
frogs or pond turtles are entrapped in the construction area by the fence. LU
Any western pond turtles found within this area will be captured and co
relocated downstream. If relocation of red -legged frogs is allowed by the N
USFWS, any California red -legged frogs captured will be relocated
downstream.
Mitigation Measure 12. All trees within the construction zone, which will a
need to be removed for road widening, should be cut during the non -
nesting season (August 1 to January 30) in the year prior to when road
widening is expected to occur. If tree removal cannot occur as outlined
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 46
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 68
5.1.b
above and must take place when road widening occurs then pre -
construction surveys for active nests will be required.
Surveys to determine the presence of raptor nests should be conducted by
a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of any
construction related activities. If raptors are observed nesting on or near
the project site during these surveys, exclusion zones will be established
around all active nests. The project will consult with CDFG to determine
the size of the exclusion zone, usually 100-300 feet, around the nest
location. All project related activity will occur outside of the exclusion
area until the young
Mitigation Measure 13. Surveys of the existing southern tributary culvert
should be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine the presence of
roosting bats no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of any
construction, related activities. If a bat roost is observed in the culvert
during these surveys, the biologist will determine the type of roost,
(daytime, nighttime, or maternity), and construction on and in the
immediate vicinity of the culvert will stop until the bats have been
excluded from the roost site. If a nighttime roost is present, any
demolition work on the culvert will be limited to daytime hours when
bats are not present. If a daytime roost is present, the roost site will be
outfitted with bat exclusion devices that allow bats to exit the roost site,
but not return. Demolition of the culvert will begin only after the biologist
has determined that the roost has been successfully abandoned. If a
maternity roost is present, the exclusion zone will remain in place until
the young have fledged. After fledging, bats will be excluded and the
culvert demolished as specified for a daytime roost. Both new bridges
should be designed to permit bats to establish roost, after construction
• Mitigation Measure 14. The project will determine the size of the two in
populations and preserve habitat that supports a known population of N
Congdon's tarplant at an acreage ratio of 1:1 (preserved: impacted)
E
• Mitigation Measure 15.
. a
a) Prior to initiation of work in the northern tributary a Creek
Restoration Plan will be prepared which specifies how the
disturbed reach of the stream will be placed in a stable condition
and its banks revegetated with riparian species native to this
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 47
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 69
5.1.b
tributary or Tassajara Creek. This plan will require the review and
approval of the Corps, DFG and RWQCB. The City will seek to
utilize the Interagency Meetings held by the Corps to present the
proposed Creek Restoration Plan to the resource agencies.
b) Individual grade control structures will have vertical drops of no
more than two feet or cascade drops of no more than three feet at
any specific location to allow for unimpeded movement of aquatic
species.Exclusion fencing (construction or silt fencing) will be
installed at the boundary between these features and the active
project area to protect them and to delimit the boundary of
construction and heavy equipment activity. A biological monitor
shall oversee the installation of the fencing and periodically
monitor the development sites to document avoidance of the off -
site areas. The monitor will provide a report to the City and other
c) All potentially jurisdictional areas located adjacent to the project
area will be avoided during construction and no fill will be allowed
to enter these areas. Exclusion fencing (construction or silt fencing)
will be installed at the boundary between these features and the
active project area to protect them and to delimit the boundary of
construction and heavy equipment activity. A biological monitor
shall oversee the installation of the fencing and periodically
monitor the development sites to document avoidance of the off -
site areas. The monitor will provide a report to the City and other
agencies documenting the avoidance during construction.
d) During project construction, no material shall be allowed to enter,
or be stored in, any off -site potentially jurisdictional areas. Project
related dirt and other material shall be kept at least 50 feet far away
from off -site drainage features. All equipment washing will occur
down slope from off -site drainage features.
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, special -statics species riparian
habitat or wetlands? NNI. This section is based on a biological analysis of the site
prepared by WRA ("Tassajara Road Widening Project Special -status Plant
Surveys" dated August 16, 2017".) This report is incorporated by reference into
this Initial Study and is included as Attachment 1 to this Initial Study. The WRA
report notes that no special -status plant species were identified on the site.
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 48
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
7
a
Packet Pg. 70
5.1.b
The 2004 IS/MND contains a number of site -specific measures to reduce potential
impacts to rare, threatened or endangered species to a less -than -significant level.
These mitigation measures are inclluded above. -
A protocol -level special -status plant survey was conducted at the Phase 1 project
site during the summer of 2017. WRA botanists traversed the site on foot and
recorded each plant species. No special -status plant species were observed within
the site. As required by the Eastern Dublin EIR, future phases of project
construction would be required to conduct similar rare plant surveys, once a
precise right-of-way is identified. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts
to special -status plant species.
With adherence to the Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures and the measures
ncluded in the 2004 IS/MND, no new or more severe signifiant impacts would
occue to the topic of rare, threatened or endangered biological species.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands?
NNI. The project site consists of upland, non -wetland terrain as documented in
the 2004 MND. Wetland and riparian areas exist west and east of the site, as
documented in the 2004 IS/MND. The 2004 IS/MND also contains a number of
site -specific measures to ensure that no significant impacts would occur with
approval and construction of the proposed project. These are identified above.
No new impacts would result from approval and construction of the proposed
project to wetlands or riparian habitat because redevelopment of the project site
would be limited to the existing disturbed footprint of the project; no
improvements or encroachments are proposed in the wetland or riparian areas
offsite.
Pursuant to Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0, the City would
prepare a Storm Drainage Master Plan to minimize flows of stormwater off of the CO
project site. The City's project contractor will also be required to prepare and N
implement Best Management Practices during construction and during the
operation phase of the project to minimize flow of polluted runoff into the E
adjacent creek area. Such BMPs will be as contained in the ABAG Erosion
Control Sediment Handbook and the State of California Best Management a
Practices Handbook. These regulations require filtration and treatment of
stormwater by flowing runoff through vegetated filters and similar methods as
approved by the City of Dublin.
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 49
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 71
5.1.b
With adherence to the above items and applicable regulatory requirements, no
new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur with respect to
riparian habitat or federally or state protected wetlands than previously
analyzed in the 2004 IS/MND. No additional analysis is required.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? NNI. Future construction of
Tassajara Road would occur in approximately the same location as previously
approved by the City and adjacent to the current roadway. All of the Site is located
on upland property so that no creeks, streams, rivers or wetland corridors would
be affected by the new roadway. No fencing would be constructed by the City as
part of the future project. There would therefore be no interference with fish or
wildlife movement within the tributary and no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts related to movement of fish or wildlife species than previously
analyzed in the 2004 IS/MND and no additional analysis is required.
e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NNI. The
project lie within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS)
planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance
for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects
are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The Conservation Strategy
embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat
impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and other activities. The
Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural
Community Conservation Plan, but is a document intended to provide guidance
during the project planning and permitting process to ensure that impacts are
offset in a biologically effective manner. Applicable requirements and provisions
included in the EACCS will be addressed in the proposed project. Therefore, there
would be no impact with respect to this topic.
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Setting
A cultural records search of the project area was completed by the Northwest
Information Center at Sonoma State University as part of the 2004 IS/MND. The search
included consultation of California Office of Historic Preservation records, base maps,
historic maps and literature for Alameda County on file at the Northwest Information.
No recorded Native American or historic period archeological resources are identified
on the project site. However, a historic period dairy farm is identified on the west side
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 50
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
7
a
Packet Pg. 72
5.1.b
of Tassajara Road dating to the mid 1920's (6582 Tassajara Road). This resource no
longer exists.
Native American archeological sites in this portion of Alameda County tend to be
located on alluvial flats at the base of hills near sources of water, such as springs. Since
the project area is located along alluvial benches associated with the confluence of
seasonal drainages and Tassajara Creek, it is therefore considered an archeologically
sensitive area. In addition, several Native American archeological sites have been
recorded downstream along Tassajara Creek south of the project area. Given the
environmental setting of the project and the archeological sensitive nature of the
general area, the project site has a moderate potential for Native American sites.
Historic archeological sites associated with early ranching and agricultural uses in the
area may also be present in the area, so that there is a moderate potential of
encountering historic -period archeological deposits in the project area.
Project Impacts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NNI. Based on
information contained in the 2004 IS/MND, no historic resources no significant
cultural resources are located within or adjacent to the roadway site. The closest
resource is identified as a diary farm complex at 6582 Tassajara Road, dating from
the 1920's. This resource was removed as part of the Wallis Ranch development
under the auspices of a Supplemental EIR, so no new or more severe significant
impacts related to historical resources than identified in the prior EIR and MND.
No additional analysis is required with respect to this topic.
b-d) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological a
resources, tribal resources, or human remains that may be interred outside of a formal Q
cemetery? NNI. The 2004 IS/MND found that there is a remote but potentially
significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading, w
trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or Cn
paleontological resources on the site. The Eastern Dublin EIR categorized these N
resources as pre -historic cultural resources. Three potential pre -historic sites were
identified by the EIR within the proposed Specific Plan project area. The Eastern E
Dublin EIR assumed that all pre -historic sites would be disturbed or altered in
some manner. This potential impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern a
Dublin EIR (Impact 3.9/A) and implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0
through 3.9/4.0 reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. These
mitigation measures include:
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 51
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 73
5.1.b
Mitigation Measure 3.9/1.0. Final roadway construction plan(s) and
specifications shall require mechanical or hand subsurface testing on all
locations of prehistoric resources to determine the presence or absence of
midden deposits.
Mitigation Measure 3.9/1.0. Final roadway construction plan(s) and
specifications shall require all locations containing either midden components
or concentrations of cultural materials on the surface to be recorded on State of
California survey forms.
Mitigation Measure 3.9/3.0. Final roadway construction plan(s) and
specifications shall require evaluative testing if proposed development would
directly or indirectly impact recorded and mapped location of resources.
Mitigation Measure 19. Final roadway construction plan(s) and specifications
shall require a qualified archeologist to develop protection programs for
significant resources whose conditions would be altered by proposed
development. (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.9/4.0)
Mitigation Measure 3.9/5.0 Final roadway construction plan(s) and
specifications shall require grading and construction to cease in the event that
historic or prehistoric resources are discovered during such activities. (Eastern
Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.9/5.0)
Adherence to the above EDSP EIR Mitigation Measures would reduce potential
impacts to archeological or paleontological resources to a less -than -significant
level.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies (Policies 6-24 and 6-25) a
requiring research of archaeological resources prior to construction and w
determination of the significance and extent of any resources uncovered during CO
grading and construction. With adherence to the above cultural resource N
mitigation measures, no new or more severe significant impacts related to
historical resources than identified in the prior EIR and MND. No additional E
analysis is required with respect to this topic. a
a
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 52
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 74
5.1.b
6. Geology and Soils
Environmental Setting
Geology and soils
The project area is located in the central portion of the Coast Ranges geomorphic
province. The Coast Ranges are characterized by a series of parallel, northwesterly
trending, folded and faulted mountain chains. A dominant structural feature is Mt.
Diablo, located approximately nine miles north of the project area.
The project area does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone). Major active faults in the region that influence earthquake
susceptibility include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville Faults.
Topographically, the project area is relatively flat, with moderate to steep slopes located
immediately adjacent to portions of the roadway to the east. Tassajara Creek lies
directly west of the project area with incised banks located approximately 30 to 50 feet
below the existing roadbed elevation.
Regulatory ftamezvork
The Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Streambed Restoration Program, adopted in 1998 to
fulfill a Mitigation Measure of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires a 100-foot wide
setback from tops of bank of major creeks (which includes Tassajara Creek) to ensure
both structural safety to buildings and related improvements adjacent to creeks and to
provide a buffer of sensitive habitat within creeks.
The City of Dublin has also adopted Ordinance No. 52-87, which requires
improvements be setback a minimum of 20 feet from tops of banks of creeks, or from a
2:1 projected slope from the toe of slope if the bank is irregular, to ensure structural
safety and minimize the effects of bank erosion.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the primary and secondary effects of ground- `�
shaking (Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/C) could be potentially significant impacts. E
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number impacts and related Mitigation Measures to
reduce anticipated geology and soils impacts for site -specific development projects. a
These include:
Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 reduced the primary effects of ground shaking
(Impact 3.6/B) by requiring conformity with seismic safety requirements
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 53
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 75
5.1.b
of applicable building codes. Even with adherence to this mitigation, this
impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0-7.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary
effects of seismic ground shaking to a less -than -significant level (Impact
3.6/C). These measures require placement of structures set back from
unstable landforms; stabilization of unsuitable land forms; use of
engineered retention structures and installation of suitable subdrains and
appropriate design of fill material; and, preparation of design level
geotechnical studies.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0 and 10.0 reduced impacts related to
substantial alteration of landforms in the Eastern Dublin area to a less -
than -significant level by limiting grading on steeply sloping areas and by
appropriate siting of roads and structures to minimize grading (Impact
3.6/D).
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/11.0-13.0 reduced impacts related to shallow
groundwater to a less -than -significant level (Impacts 3.6/F and G). These
measures require submittal of detailed geotechnical investigations to
investigate possible risks of groundwater conditions to proposed
improvements, control of high groundwater through installation of
subdrains and removal of stock ponds then in the Eastern Dublin area.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to shrink -swell
soil hazards to a less -than -significant level (Impact 3.6/H). These measures
require controlling moisture in the soil surrounding individual
development projects and appropriately designed foundations.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to natural slope LU
stability to a less -than -significant level (Impact 3.6/I). These measures CO
require appropriate siting of improvements to avoid unstable soils, N
remedial grading where needed to remove unstable soils and installation a
of subdrains and other improvements to minimize soil stability impacts. E
�a
Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0-26.0 reduced impacts related to stability of a
cut -and -fill slope to a less -than -significant level (Impact 3.6/J). These
measures require minimizing the use of grading when siting proposed
improvements, conformance to local grading requirements, minimizing
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 54
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 76
5.1.b
the angle of cut -and -fill slopes to 3:1 and use of engineering techniques to
stabilize manufactured slopes.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 reduced impacts related to erosion
and sedimentation to a less -than -significant level (Impacts 3.6/K and L).
These measures require general limitations on grading to avoid the rainy
season of each year and require installation of erosion control
improvements.
Project Impacts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, inchiding loss, injicry
or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides?
NNI. Similar to many areas of Northern California, the project area is likely subject
to ground shaking caused by seismic activity on the regional faults identified
above. Under moderate to severe seismic events, which are probable in the Bay
Area over the next 30 years,. utilities and other improvements constructed in the
project area would be subject to damage caused by ground shaking. However,
since the project area is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly
Alquist-Priolo Zone), the potential for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal.
Adherence to the EDSP EIR Mitigation Measures and applicable regulatory
requirements would ensure that impacts related to ground rupture and ground
shaking as related to future road improvements would be less -than -significant and
no new or more severe significant impacts would occur than disclosed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND. No new analysis is required with
respect to this topic.
b) Is the site sicbject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? NNI The 2004 IS/MND
notes that construction of the proposed road widening would modify the existing a
ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could w
result in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading CO
activities. Long-term impacts could result from modification of the ground -surface N
and removal of existing vegetation (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/L). With
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 contained in the Eastern E
Dublin EIR and referenced above, both of these impacts would be less -than -
significant. a
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains a policy (Policy 6-43), which
requires that new development be designed to provide effective control of soil
erosion as a result of construction activities.
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 55
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 77
5.1.b
The current project would include reducing the number of travel lanes for a
portion of Tassajara Road in Eastern Dublin than was analyzed in the 2004
IS/MND and would consequently reduce the amount of ground disturbance. With
adherence to the Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures, as listed above, there
would be no new or more severe significant impacts that would occur than
disclosed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND. No new analysis is
required with respect to this topic.
c-d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive and that could result in potential
lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? NNI. Potential geologic impacts on
future development in the Eastern Dublin area were analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR. Mitigation Measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, including
but not limited to Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-26.0 (identified earlier in this Initial
Study), will ensure that impacts related to unstable soils, liquefaction, lateral
spreading, landslide and other soil hazards will be less -than -significant.
Development of the proposed project would result in no new or more severe
significant impacts related to soil instability than previously analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2004 IS/MND. No additional analysis is required with
respect to this topic.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on -site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. The
project includes a revision to an approved road alignment for Tassajara Road.
There would be no use of septic systems or connections to the regional wastewater
system. No impacts would therefore result with regard to septic systems.
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Setting LU
0
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 and the approval of the 2004 co
IS/MND, the issue of contribution of greenhouse gases to climate change has become a `�
more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. On March
18, 2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth
requirements for the analysis of greenhouse gases. The topic of the project's .2
contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR or 2004 IS/MND. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2004 IS/MND
have already been approved, the determination of whether greenhouse gases and
climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed project is governed by the law on
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 56
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 78
5.1.b
supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and Guidelines,
Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be
analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial
importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the
Eastern Dublin EIR and 2004 IS/MND were approved. (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a)
(3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not
known or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2004
IS/MND were approved. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gases were
widely known prior to these CEQA reviews. The United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse
gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed
throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the
adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and climate
change were extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771
established the California Climate Action Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas
emissions to provide information about potential environmental impacts. In 2005, the
Governor issued Executive Order # 5-03-05 establishing greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets in California. AB 32 was adopted in 2006. Therefore, the impact of
greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the
Eastern Dublin EIR in May 1993 and the previous 2004 IS/MND. Under CEQA
standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or
negative declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts
on.this issue is required under CEQA.
Project Impacts
ab Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As
discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA
Section 21166.
N
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Setting
The Tassajara Road corridor has been developed with primarily residential uses a
pursuant to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. No industrial or large-scale agricultural
uses exist along the corridor that would use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous
or potentially hazardous materials.
City of Dublin -Initial Study
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project
Page 57
January 2020
Packet Pg. 79
5.1.b
The Cortese List does not include any properties deemed by the State of California as
containing significant amounts of hazardous materials as of June 13, 2017.
Project Impacts
a) Create significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal hazardous materials? NNI. The 2004 IS/MND found that there would
be no impacts with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials,
since the proposed project involved establishing ultimate precise roadway
alignments for a major thoroughfare in the Eastern Dublin area. The project would
not involve any type of industrial or mineral extraction processes. The current
project would involve revising the approved alignment of Tassajara Road would
also not involve any industrial or extraction uses. With adherence to applicable
regulatory requirements, there would be no new or more severe significant
impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials than previously analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2004 IS/MND. No additional analysis is required with
respect to this topic.
b, c) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment or emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances or wastes within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
NNI. As noted in he above section, the project includes revising the approved
ultimate alignment of a portion of Tassajara Road in the Eastern Dublin Planning
Area. Although trucks carrying potentially hazardous materials may traverse the
road, as they may do currently, trucking operation are managed by the California
Department of Transportation and California Highway Patrol to ensure no
significant impacts would occur in terms of accidental release of hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials. This was the same finding included in the 2004
IS/MND.
One private school, Quarry Lane School, is located on the east side of Tassajara N
Road north of Shadow Hill Drive. However, no new or more significant impacts
from the proposed would occur with respect to this school since the project would
not generate or handle significant quantities of hazardous materials.
a
There would be no new or more severe significant impacts related to hazardous
materials than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2004 IS/MND.
No additional analysis is required with respect to this topic.
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 58
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 80
5.1.b
d) Be listed on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied on the
Cortese List and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or
environment? NNI. Properties comprising the project site or adjacent properties are
not included on the Cortese List as of June 13, 2019
(http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese List.cfm). This was the same as
identified in the 2004 IS/MND. The Cortese List identifies one potentially
contaminated site in Dublin, which is the Parks RFTA (also known as Camp
Parks). Parks RFTA is not located near the project area. There would be no new or
more severe significant impacts related to soil instability than previously analyzed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2004 IS/MND. No additional analysis is required
with respect to this topic.
e,f) Is the site located within an airport land itse plan of a public airport or private airstrip? NI.
The project site lies outside of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of Livermore
Municipal Airport (see Figure 3-1, Livermore Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan, County of Alameda, 2012). This was the same conclusion as found in the
2004 IS/MND document. There would be no new or more severe significant
impacts related to airport safety than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR or the 2004 IS/MND. No additional analysis is required with respect to this
topic.
g) Interference with an emergency evacitation plan? NNI. As identified in the 2004
IS/MND, the proposed project includes establishment of an ultimate right-of-way
for the future of Tassajara Road and would not interfere with any emergency
evacuation plans adopted by the City of Dublin. There would be no new or more
severe significant impacts related to emergency evacuation plans than previously
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2004 IS/MND. No additional analysis is
required with respect to this topic.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death LU
involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? CO
NNI. As identified in the 2004 IS/MND, the proposed project does not N
include construction of flammable improvements. There would be no new
or more severe significant impacts related to emergency evacuation plans
than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2004 IS/MND.
a
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 59
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 81
5.1.b
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Setting
The project area is located within the Alameda Creek watershed which drains to the San
Francisco Bay via the Arroyo Del Valle and Arroyo de la Laguna. The closest main
surface body of water to the project area is Tassajara Creek, which flows in a north -
south direction immediately west of existing Tassajara Road. Two unnamed tributaries
to Tassajara Creek currently flow under Tassajara Road, one immediately south of the
Quarry Lane School site and the second in the northerly portion of the project area.
The project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance
of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains the following measures to reduce hydrology and
water quality impacts to a less -than -significant level
Mitigation Measure 3.5/53.0. The proposed project shall incorporate Best
Management Practices to minimize stormwater pollution.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/54.0. The proposed project shall meet all water quality
standards set forth in the City's NPDES Permit.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/55.0. The proposed project shall meet water quality
standards imposed under the Alameda County Clean Water Program (Eastern
Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6/55.0)
Project Impacts
a
a, c) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or substantially alter w
drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion 0
wotild occur? NNI. The 2004 IS/MND found that construction of the proposed N
expansion of Tassajara Road to six lanes in Eastern Dublin could result in a
violation of water quality standards by allowing polluted runoff from project E
construction and operation of the roadway, once completed, into local creeks,
streams and other local and regional bodies of water. This would be a potentially a
significant impact, but this impact would be reduced to a less -than -significant level
by adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 60
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 82
5.1.b
Pursuant to these three adopted mitigation measures, it is therefore
recommended that final project improvement plan(s) and specifications
incorporate requirements that future roadway and related improvements
to include C.3 Treatment Facilities, Hydromodification Management, Best
Management Practices as included in the Alameda County Clean Water
Program to minimize surface water quality impacts and not cause an
increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing
condition. Proposed stormwater treatment facilities and
hydromodification and storage/ detention facilities would include the
design and construction of bio-retention areas and landscaping adjacent
to the widened roadway.
Therefore, no new or more severe significant impact would result than previously
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND and no additional
analysis is required..
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NNI. The
source of water in the City of Dublin is imported water supplied by DSRSD and
Zone 7 Flood Control and Water Conservation District that relies primarily on
imported water from other sources. Although Zone 7 does use local groundwater
to augment the local water supply, the District notes that groundwater resources
are managed to ensure that no impact would occur (source: letter from Elke Rank,
Zone 7,10/15/14). The treatment facilities would allow for infiltration and
replenishment of the groundwater basin.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 50.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR,
minimized the impact of reduced groundwater recharge areas to an insignificant
level (Impact 3.5/Z). The two Mitigation Measures require that facilities be planned
and management practices selected that protect and enhance water quality and
that Zone 7 programs for groundwater recharge be supported.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or N
more severe significant impact with lowering of the water table or reducing the E
amount of groundwater recharge areas than previously analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND and no additional analysis is required.
a
d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site?
NNI. No new or more significant severe impacts are anticipated to occur to local
drainage patterns since minor additions to existing impervious surfaces are
proposed in the project. No impacts to this topic were identified in the 2004
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 61
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 83
5.1.b
IS/MND and the proposed design of Tassajara Road would reduce the number of
travel lanes for portions of the roadway and the amount of impervious surfaces.
There would be no new or more severe significant impact with respect to
alteration of drainage patterns than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR
and the 2004 IS/MND and no additional analysis is required.
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add
substantial amounts of polluted runoff? NNI. Minor increases in the quantity of
existing stormwater runoff would result as part of the construction of Tassajara
Road. The amount of water runoff would be less than analyzed in the 2004
IS/MND since the number of travel lanes and associated impervious pavement
would be reduced from the current, approved design. There would be no new or
more severe significant impact with respect to stormwater runoff and system
capacity than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND
and no additional analysis is required.
f) Substantially degrade water quality? NNI. Adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR
Mitigation Measures 30 through 32, as described above, will ensure that water
quality issues will be less -than -significant with development of the project. With
adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and Mitigation Measures from
previous CEQA documents, there would be no new or more severe significant
impact with respect to degradation of water quality than previously analyzed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND and no additional analysis is
required.
g-i) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate
Map, or impede or redirect flood flow, including dam failure? NNI. The proposed
project does not include a housing component, so there would be no impact with
regarding to placement of housing within a 100-year flood plain. This finding is
consistent with the 2004 IS/MND.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NNI. The project site is located
inland from major bodies of water so there is no potential for inundation by seiche E
or tsunami. As to mudflows, Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0 through 19.0 contained
in the Eastern Dublin EIR provide protection from slope failures of natural slopes a
(Impact 3.6/I) by limiting new development on unstable soils, removal and
replacement of unstable soils and similar actions. No new or more significant
severe impacts would occur with respect to this topic than previously analyzed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND and no additional analysis is
required.
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 62
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 84
5.1.b
10. Land Use and Planning
Project Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community? NNI. Tassajara Road currently exists as a
combination four to eight lane road in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. The
proposed project would reduce the ultimate number of travel lanes required in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan from six to four lanes for
selected portions of the roadway. No existing or planned land uses adjacent to
Tassajara Road would be changed as a result on this project. No new or more
significant severe impacts would occur with respect to this topic than previously
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND and no additional
analysis is required.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NNI. Although
amendments are required to the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan to allow a reduction in the number of ultimate travel lanes for
portions of Tassajara Road, no changes are proposed to and land use policies or
regulations affecting environmental protection.
The Project does involve amendments to both the Dublin General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan to reflect the proposed reduction of travel lanes to portions of
Tassajara Road, as described in this Initial Study. However, no changes to land
uses in the community is proposed as part of the proposed Amendments.
No new or more significant severe impacts would occur with respect to this topic
than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND and no
additional analysis is required.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NNI. w
No such plan has been adopted within the City of Dublin. There would therefore 0
be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
N
plan.
0
11. Mineral Resources
a
Project Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NNI.
The Eastern Dublin EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 63
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 85
5.1.b
in the project area, so no new or more severe significant impacts would occur than
previously analyzed.
12. Noise
Environmental Setting
The City defines "noise" as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating,
objectionable and/or disruptive to daily life. Noise is primarily a concern with regard to
noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches and hospitals. Although
noise is controlled around commercial, industrial and recreation uses, community noise
levels rarely exceed maximum recommended levels for these uses.
The Noise Element of the General Plan EIR identifies the following primary sources of
noise in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the community
and noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I-580 freeway. Southern portions
of the Eastern Dublin Planning Area are subject to aircraft overflights from Livermore
Municipal Airport to the south.
Near the project area, the Eastern Dublin EIR notes that major noise sources include
traffic noise and helicopter overflights from nearby Camp Parks RFTA, west of
Tassajara Road. Figure 3.10A contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a corridor
of properties adjacent to Tassajara Road as being subject to noise levels above 60
decibels.
The following mitigation measures have been included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to
reduce construction noise to a less -than -significant level.
Mitigation Measure 3.10/4.0. Construction Management Plan(s) shall d
UJ
be filed with the City of Dublin Public Works Department prior to 0
commencement of any construction. The Plan(s) shall identify specific Cn
measures to be taken to minimize short-term noise on local residents, cNii
including but not limited to limitations on hours of operation for
E
construction, including unloading of material, equipment warm up
and tune-up times and a requirement that all gasoline -powered a
equipment be equipped with mufflers.
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 64
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 86
5.1.b
Mitigation Measure 3.10/5.0. Requires compliance with local noise
standards relating to construction activities, including limitation on
hours of construction operation.
Project Impacts
a, c) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard or result in a substantial
increases in permanent in ambient noise levels?? NNI. Adoption of the revised ultimate
alignment for the roadway would likely not significantly increase the number of
vehicle trips using the road, since the project includes a decrease in the number of
travel lanes for portions of Tassajara Road. Adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR
Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0 would reduce noise impacts to future residents along
the road to a less -than -significant level. This Mitigation Measure requires future
residential subdividers to prepare acoustic reports for future residential
development adjacent to Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and to implement site -
specific noise reduction methods contained in these reports.
Noise impacts from the proposed widening of Tassajara Road on existing residents
near the road was also identified as a potentially significant noise source in the
Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.10.2.0). Even with adherence to Mitigation Measure
3.10/2.0, that requires future subdividers to provide noise barriers for existing
residences, including construction of solid fences around existing structures, this
impact was determined to be significant and unmitigatable and was included in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations when the Eastern Dublin EIR was
certified by the City of Dublin. This impact was analyzed in the 2004 IS/MND and
no change to the previous analysis is needed. No new or more severe significant
impacts would occur than previously analyzed with respect to significant noise
levels.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NNI. LU
0
Implementation of the proposed roadway improvements would use standard N
construction techniques. Adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures N
3.10/4.0 and 3.10/5.0 (discussed under item "d," below) will ensure that
groundborne impacts would be limited to normal construction hours and would
result in less -than -significant impacts. The 2004 initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration also found this impact to be less -than -significant. This analysis has not a
changed from the 2004 IS/MND and there would be no new or severe significant
impacts beyond those previously analyzed.
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 65
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 87
5.1.b
d) Substantial permanent or temporary increases in permanent in ambient noise levels?
NNI. Construction of the project would result in short-term noise and vibration
due to trenching, grading and similar activities. There would also be increased
noise levels from trucks and other construction vehicles needed for the project.
These noise sources could affect nearby residents in the project vicinity. This
impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR as Impact 3.10/E, Exposure of
Existing and Proposed Residents to Construction Noise.
Construction of improvements to Tassajara Road must adhere to the Eastern
Dublin Mitigation Measures cited above and there will be no new or more severe
significant temporary noise impacts from construction activities than previously
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND and no additional
analysis is required.
e,f) Be located within an airport land use plan area, within two miles of a pacblic or private
airport or airstrip? NNI. The project site lies outside of the Airport Influence Area
(AIA) of Livermore Municipal Airport (see Figure 3-1, Livermore Municipal
Airport. Land Use Compatibility Plan, County of Alameda, August 2012). As
noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 60 CNEL noise contour from the Livermore
Municipal Airport does not extend into the Eastern Extended Planning area. No
new or more significant severe impacts would occur with respect to this topic than
previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND and no
additional analysis is required with respect to this topic.
13. Population and Housing
Environmental Setting
The portion of Eastern Dublin Planning Area traversed by Tassajara Road consists of
residential development and undeveloped properties. The primary non-residential use
along the corridor is Quarry Lane Private School.
Project Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? NNI. The
widening of Tassajara Road has been planned by the City of Dublin as part of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan. No changes to land uses,
increased population or other actions would result from adopting the revised
ultimate alignment of Tassajara Road. Although Amendments to the General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are included in this Project, no increases to
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 66
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
7
a
Packet Pg. 88
5.1.b
population would occur if the Amendments are approved, since the Amendments
would only relate to the future width of Tassajara Road.
There would be no new or more severe significant impacts than identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2004 IS/MND and no additional analysis is required.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people
requiring replacement housing? NNI. No existing dwellings would be removed to
accommodate the proposed roadway and the proposed project would not displace
a substantial number of dwellings or population. This is the conclusion for this
topic contained in the 2004 IS/MND and there would be no new or more severe
significant impacts would result as included in the previous CEQA documents.
14. Public Services
Environmental Setting
Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County
Fire Department, which is the contract fire agency for the City of Dublin. The
Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical response, fire
prevention, education, building inspection services and hazardous material
control. The closest stations to the Tassajara Road project site include Station
17 at 6200 Madigan and Station 18 at 4800 Fallon Road.
Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Alameda
County Sheriff, on a contract basis to the City of Dublin, which maintains a
24-hour security patrol throughout the community. Other services provided
include crime prevention, investigation services, youth services and traffic
control.
Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational N
services to the community.
cc
Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities a
are the responsibility of the City of Dublin.
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 67
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 89
5.1.b
• Solid Waste: Solid waste service is provided by the Amador Valley Industries
which provides residential and commercial solid waste and recycling pick-
up.
Environmental Impacts
a) Fire protection? NNI. Since no habitable structures, commercial buildings or other
facilities would be constructed that would require additional fire services, there
would be no impacts with regard to police protection. This was the conclusion
reached in the 2004 IS/MND and no new or more severe significant impacts would
result with respect to this topic.
b) Police protection? NNI. Since no habitable structures, commercial buildings or other
facilities would be constructed that would require additional police services, there
would be no impacts with regard to police protection. This was the conclusion
reached in the 2004 IS/MND and no new or more severe significant impacts would
result with respect to this topic.
c) Schools? NNI. There would be no impact to school service should the proposed
project be approved since no new residential development would occur. No new
or more severe significant impacts would occur with respect this topic than
previously analyzed in the two previous CEQA documents.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? NNI. There would be no impact to
maintenance, since proposed road improvements would be constructed to City of
Dublin standards that would minimize the need for maintenance for a number of
years. There would be no new or more severe significant impact to maintenance
than was analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
e) Solid waste generation? NNI. Less -than -significant impacts regarding generation of a
LU
solid waste is anticipated since construction of the project would generate 0
additional quantities of construction debris. The City of Dublin requires all CO
construction and demolition projects to recycle a minimum of 75% of the waste for N.
new construction with the exception of asphalt and concrete debris, of which 100% E
must be recycled. In the long-term, no additional solid waste would be generated,
since no occupied facilities would be built. There would be no new or more severe a
significant impact to maintenance than was analyzed in previous CEQA
documents.
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 68
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 90
5.1.b
15. Recreation
Environmental Setting
Project Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? NNI.
Approval and construction of the proposed roadway project would not directly
increase the use of nearby City or regional recreational facilities, since it would not
include increasing the local population. There would be no new or more severe
significant impacts than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dulin EIR or the 2004
IS/MND and no additional analysis is required.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? NNI. Although the provision of additional park land is not required, since
the project would not include habitable structures that would increase the local
population, the proposed ultimate rights -of -way do include a combination
sidewalk/pathway along the sides of the roadways that would expedite pedestrian
access to recreational facilities. No new or more severe significant impacts would
result with respect to this topic that has not been analyzed in the two previous
CEQA documents.
16. Transportation/Traffic
Environmental Setting E
Tassajara Road is an arterial roadway in this portion of Alameda and Contra CostaCD
=
County. It extends north from Pleasanton (where it is called Santa Rita Road), past the I-
580 freeway, through the project site and then north into Contra Costa County, where it Q
becomes Camino Tassajara. The road has been improved to a combination of four and
six lanes. Generally, six -lane sections occur adjacent to new development projects and N
the older four -lane sections are adjacent to undeveloped properties. Tassajara Road has
N
east- and west -bound on- and off -ramps at the 580 freeway.
a�
E
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities have been constructed along portions of Tassajara Road
as it has been improved over the years. a
Public transit in Eastern Dublin is provided by the Livermore Amador Valley
Transportation Agency which operates the WHEELS system. Currently, WHEELS
Route 2 provides access along Tassajara Road, linking the East Dublin/BART station,
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 69
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 91
5.1.b
with the Hacienda Crossings retail complex, Dublin Ranch, Silvera Ranch and the
Positano planned community. WHEELS School Route 501 provides access along
Tassajara Road, linking to Dublin High School, for both morning and afternoon
transport of high school students.
Project Impacts
a, b) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial relative to existing traffic load and street;
or exceed LOS standards established by the County CMA for designated roads? NNI. The
proposed project involves redesigning the ultimate alignment of portions of
Tassajara Road in Eastern Dublin from six to four travel lanes. The current design
for a continuous six -lane roadway through Eastern Dublin to serve future local
and regional traffic.
The City of Dublin commission a traffic analysis of the existing and future
operation of Tassajara Road ("Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis
— Final Report," prepared by DKS Associates dated March 19, 2015. This report is
attached to this document as Attachment 2
Based on traffic counts and future build -out traffic conditions, the DKS
memorandum found that operations of Tassajara Road and Camino Tassajara
Road in Contra Costa County with a combination of four and six lanes would be
adequate to accommodate future local and regional traffic. Therefore, the City of
Dublin is proposing to reduce a portion of the future width of Tassajara Road in
Eastern Dublin. The memorandum found that all signalized intersections along
this route would operate at acceptable levels of service during peak hour periods.
As reported in the 2004 IS/MND, there would be no impacts with respect to
increases in local traffic that would exceed City of Dublin or Alameda County
Congestion Management Agency LOS standards.
c) Result in a change of air traffic patterns? NNI. The proposed project would have no T
impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves changes to the ultimate configuration "!
of Tassajara road in Eastern Dublin. There would be no new or more severe
significant impacts that analyzed in the two previous CEQA documents that
addressed this topic. a
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? NNI. Proposed
roadway improvements have been reviewed by the City of Dublin Public Works
staff to ensure that City engineering standards are met and no traffic or
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 70
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 92
5.1.b
transportation design hazards would be created. There would be no new or more
severe significant impacts than analyzed in the two previous CEQA documents.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NNI. No impacts would occur with regard to
emergency access. Property included in the road would be on lands planned for
roadways and subject to City design standards for streets, fire and emergency
access and other improvements. There would be no new or more severe significant
impacts than previously identified in the two CEQA documents.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
modes? NNI. Preliminary project plans indicate that a Class I bike and pedestrian
pathway would be constructed on the west side of the Tassajara Road to allow for
access by bicycles and pedestrians. Additionally, the roadway would be striped for
a bicycle lane with buffers and bus stops could be installed by the Livermore
Amador Valley Transit Authority. There would be no new or more severe
significant impacts than previously identified in the two CEQA documents.
17. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Setting
The project area is served by the following service providers:
• Water supply: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and Zone 7
• Sewage collection and treatment: Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD)
• Storm drainage: City of Dublin (local facilities), Zone 7 (regional
facilities)
• Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
Project Impacts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? NNI. As documented in the
2004 IS/MND, the proposed project would include revising the current approved
alignment of Tassajara Road and would not generate any quantity of wastewater.
In terms of surface water quality impacts, refer to Section 8 of this Initial Study,
Hydrology and Water Quality. No new or more severe significant impacts than
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 71
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
7
a
Packet Pg. 93
5.1.b
previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND with respect
to water quality standards.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities?
NNI. Since the proposed project does not include habitable building space, no new
water or wastewater treatment facilities would be needed to serve the ultimate
alignment of Tassajara Road. No new or more severe significant impacts than
previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND with respect
to water and wastewater facilities.
c) Require new storm drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities? NNI See
Hydrology section, 9(c, d, and e).
d) Are sufficient water supplies available? NNI. Minor additional water supplies are
necessary to construct the proposed roadway widening. Water supplies would be
required for roadway cleaning purposes and for general construction. The source
of this water would be recycled water, if available, as provided by the Dublin San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD). However, if recycled water supplies are
insufficient during peak season, potable water shall be used for construction. No
new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND with respect to water supply.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? NNI. See item "a," above.
f,g) Solid waste disposal? NNI. Small quantities of solid waste would be generated by
the implementation of the proposed project, which would be construction debris.
This amount of solid waste is anticipated to be less -than -significant. The City of
Dublin requires all construction and demolition (C&D) projects recycle at least 65%
of the waste for remodels or tenant improvements, and 75% of the waste for new
construction generated on a job site, excluding asphalt and concrete debris of
which 100% must be recycled to minimize the amount of material deposited in the CO
local landfill. N
There would be no new or more severe significant impacts related to solid waste
disposal than identified in the prior EIR and no additional analysis is required
a
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 72
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 94
5.1.b
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the qualihj of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? No. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project would
not have a significant adverse impact on biological or cultural resources or have
the potential to restrict the range of rare or endangered species, beyond impacts
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2004 IS/MND.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future
projects). No, cumulative impacts of the proposed project have been analyzed in
the Easter Dublin EIR as well as the 2004 IS/MND. As noted in this Initial Study, a
number of cumulative impacts which do not directly relate to this roadway
project were identified but the Dublin City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations when approving the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. Based on the preceding Initial Study,
no substantial effects to human beings, either directly or indirectly have been
identified beyond those in the prior EIR and 2004 IS/MND.
7
a
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 73
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 95
5.1.b
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager and principal author
Rob Tuma, report graphics
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of
this Initial Study:
Cihj of Dublin
Jeff Baker, Community Development Director
Andrew Russell, Public Works Director
Erwin Ching, Associate Civil Engineer
Obaid Khan, Transportation and Operations Manager
Shannan Young, Solid Waste Coordinator
Tim Cremin, Assistant City Attorney
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Website
References
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 91103064, May 10,
1993).
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. June 1996
Municipal Code, City of Dublin N
c
Dublin General Plan, updated through November 2017 E
a
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, updated through September 2016 a
Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Clean Air Plan.
September 15, 2010
City of Dublin -Initial Study Page 74
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 96
5.1.b
Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS), October
2010
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, website, July
2014
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2012 update
Urban Wildfire Management Plan, City of Dublin, November 2010
City of Dublin -Initial Study
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project
7
a
Page 75
January 2020
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment 1
City of Dublin -Initial Study
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project
January 2020
T
E
a
Packet Pg. 98
5.1.b
wra
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
August 16, 2017,
Jerry Haag
2029 University Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94704
RE: Tassajara Ultimate Preliminary Design Road Widening Project Special -status
Plant Surveys
Dear Jerry,
The purpose of this letter report is to provide you with the methods and results of
a protocol -level special -status plant survey conducted at the Tassajara
Ultimate Preliminary Design Conceptual Plan. and Profile site (Project Site,
Attachment A). Two surveys were conducted on April 20 and August 9, 2017 in
periods sufficient to identify the special -status plant species with a potential to occur
within the Project Site. The total size of the Project Site is approximately 27.2 acres,
consisting of areas on either of Tassajara Road / Camino Tassajara.
This letter briefly describes the methods and results of the surveys conducted in spring
and summer, and directly addresses the presence or absence of special -status
plant species within the Project Site.
Project Site Description
The Project Site is located along the side of Tassajara Road/Fallon Road in
two segments, within the City of Dublin, Contra Costa County, California. The north
segment (approximately 17.2 acres) lies between Windemere Parkway and the
Moller Creek crossing and the south segment (approximately 10 acres) lies
between the southern extent of Quarry Lane School and North Dublin Ranch Drive
as shown in the Project Plans (McKay and Somps, November 2016).
Historically, the Project Site was undeveloped grassland or utilized as agricultural lands
and associate roads and roadsides. Currently, the Project Site consists of developed,
semi -developed, and undeveloped roadside parcels. The Project Site's vegetation
communities include herbaceous ruderal or weed patches and grazed
grassland landscape.
The Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California, Western Part (USDA
1981) indicates that the Project Site has two native soil types: Clearlake Clay,
Pescadero Clay Loam, Diablo Clay and Riverwash. The majority of the Project Site
soils have received
Tt
Packet Pg. 99
5.1.b
several iterations of grading and filling since the initial road construction and adjacent
development.
Methods
Special -status plants are defined here to include: (1) all plants that are federal- or state -
listed as rare, threatened or endangered, (2) all federal and state candidates for listing,
(3) all plants included as Rank 1 through 4 of the CNPS Inventory (CNPS 2016), and (4)
plants that qualify under the definition of "rare" in the California Environmental Quality
a
Act, section 15380.
c
aD
A background information search was performed to identify additional special -status c
species with the potential to occur within the Project Site. Sources for this search .2
included the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2016) Species List for a
Contra Costa County (USFWS 2016), California Consortium of Herbaria (CGH 2O16), o
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural Diversity Database (CDFW W
2016) records, and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare and Endangered
Plant Inventory (CNPS 2016) for the USGS Tassajara, Diablo, Dublin, and Livermore N
7.5-minute quadrangles. All special -status plant species documented within the greater
vicinity of the Project Site were then assessed based on associated vegetation
communities, soil affinity, associated, species, topographic position, shade tolerance,
disturbance tolerance, elevation, and population distribution to determine the potential c
for these species to occur in the Project Site.
WRA found that updated database searches indicate that ten special -status plants have
potential for occurrence in the Project Site as listed in Appendix A. Two floristic surveys r
were conducted on April 20, and August 9, 2017. The surveys corresponded to periods
sufficient to observe and identify these ten plant species in Contra Costa County. The E
field surveys were conducted by botanists familiar with the flora of Contra Costa County.
w
r
Q
The surveys followed the protocol for plant surveys described by Nelson (1987), which r
complies with recommended resource agency guidelines (CNPS 2001, CDFG 2000, 3
CDFG 2009, USFWS 1996). Particular focus was given to areas where previously
observed special -status pants were located. All plants were identified using The Jepson
Manual, 2"d Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012) to the taxonomic level necessary to determine
whether or not they were rare. Names given follow Baldwin et al. (2012). The plant Q
surveys were floristic in nature with all observed species recorded and included as a Q
species list provided in Appendix B. w
U_
Results N
N
No special -status plant species were observed within the Project Site. One hundred and r
six plant species were observed within the Project Site, 82 of which are considered not
native to California (see Attachment B).
Summary Q
A protocol -level special -status plant survey was conducted at the Project Site. WRA
botanists traversed the entire Project Site on foot and recorded each plant species. No
special -status plant species were observed within the Project Site. Therefore, the
project will not result in impacts to special -status plant species.
Packet Pg. 100
5.1.b
If you have questions or require additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Sean Avent
Associate Biologist
avent@wra-ca.com
WRA, Inc.
2169-G East Francisco Blvd.
San Rafael, California 94901
415,524.7205
Attachment A: 2017 Survey Results for Special -status Plant Species with Potential to
Occur at the Project Site
Attachment B: Plant Species Observed within the Project Area
Tt
Packet Pg. 101
5.1.b
References
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken
(eds.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2"d Edition.
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000. Guidelines for Assessing the
Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and
Natural Communities. State of California, The Resources Agency, California
Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009. Protocols for Surveying and
Evaluating Impacts to Special -status Native Plant Populations and Natural
Communities. California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of
Fish and Game. November 24, 2009.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2016. California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB), Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento, CA.
Accessed: November 2016.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines.
California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
California Native Plant. Society (CNPS). 2016. Online Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and
Endangered Plants of California. Available at: http://www.rarepIants.cnps.org/.
Accessed: November 2016.
Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH). 2016. Data provided by the participants of the
Consortium of California . Herbaria. Available at:
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium. Accessed: November 2014.
McKay and Somps. 2016. Tassajara Ultimate Preliminary Design Conceptual Plan and
Profile Plans. November.
Nelson, JR. 1987. Rare plant surveys: techniques for impact assessment. Pages 159-
166 in Conservation and management of rare and endangered plants: proceedings
of a California conference on the conservation and management of rare and
endangered plants (T.S. Elias, editor). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento,
630 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1981. Soil N
Survey of Alameda County, California, Western Part. In cooperation with the U.C.
Agricultural Experiment Station.
r
c
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting
Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants.
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA. September. Q
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. List of Federal Endangered and
Threatened Species that Occur in Contra Costa County, California. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_8pecies_lists-form.cfm.
Accessed: November 2016.
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment A
Project Area Location Figure
d
0
L
a
C
a)
E
C
aM
.Q
M
0
w
0
M
M
M
C
0
.N
d
c
m
E
z
ca
Q
3
E
C
m
a
a
cY
W
U
N
N
C
N
E
t
V
R
Q
Packet Pg. 103
5.1.b
Appendix A. 2017 Survev Results for Special -status Plant Species with Potential to Occur at the Project Site
2C14dSUI?ABCs,
, 2U17 POTENTIAL �.
.,2017_ FOGUSEb.�
SP�ClE5;
STATUS`
CiABITAT PRESENT
=.-FpR OCCURENCS :
' F{ABITAT
LEilEL:SUR1lEY
QN $17E � : .)
," : s .. >, . =
...., RESULT
Plants
lesser saltscale
Rank 1 B.1
Not Included in 2004
Yes
Chenopod scrub, playas,
This species was
Atriplex minuscula
Initial Study.
valley and foothill
not observed
grassland/alkaline,
during the August
sandy. Elevation ranges
9 protocol -level
from 50 to 660 feet.(15
special -status
to 200 meters). Blooms
plant species
May -Oct.
survey.
Big tarplant
Rank 1 B.1
Yes
Yes
Thin soils in grasslands;
This species was
Blepharizonia plumose
blooms July -October
not observed during
the August 9
protocol -level
special -status plant
species survey.
Congdon's tarplant
Rank 1 B.1
Yes
Yes
Valley and foothill
This species was
Centromadia parryi
grassland (alkaline),
not observed during
ssp. Congdonii
Elevation ranges from 0
the August 9
protocol -level
(formerly Hemizonia
to 750 feet (0 to 230
special -status plant
parryi ssp. Congdonii)
meters). Blooms May-
species survey.
Oct (Nov).
palmate-bracted bird's-
FE, SE,
Not Included in 2004
Yes
Chenopod scrub, valley
This species was
beak
Rank 1 B.1
Initial Study.
and foothill
not observed during
Chloro py ron almatum
p
grassland/alkaline.
Elevation ranges from
the August 9
protocol -level
20 to 510 feet (5 to 155
special -status plant
meters). Blooms May -
species survey.
Oct.
Tassajara Road Widening Project Special -status Plant Surveys Page 1 of 3 August 17, 2017
a�
'o
L
1L
c
a�
E
c
Q
M
O
IX
O
M
to
to
M
H
C
.N
d
m
c
d
E
z
v
M
Q
t
3
7
C
d
Q
a
a
W
Cn
N
C
N
E
s
M
Q
Packet Pg. 104
f Mt. Diablo buckwheat I
Rank 1B.1 I No
Eriogonum truncatum
Yes
Chaparral, coastal
This species was
scrub, valley and foothill
not observed during
grassland/sandy.
the April 20, nor
Elevation ranges from
August 9 protocol-
level special -status
10 to 1150 feet (3 to 350
plant species
meters). Blooms Apr-
survey.
Sep (Nov), (Dec).
Jepson's coyote thistle
Eryngium jepsonii
Rank 1 B.2
Not Included in 2004
Initial Study.
Yes
Valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools.
Elevation ranges from
10-1000 feet (3-300
meters). Blooms Apr-
Aug.
This species was
not observed during
the April 20, nor
August 9 protocol -
level special -status
plant species
survey.
fragrant fritillary
Rank 1 B.2
Not Included in 2004
Yes
Cismontane woodland,
This species was
Fritillaria liliecea
Initial Study.
coastal prairie, coastal
not observed
scrub, valley and foothill
during the April 20
grassland/often
protocol -level
serpentine. Elevation
special -status
ranges from 10 to 1350
plant species
feet (3 to 410 meters).
survey.
Blooms Feb -Apr.
woodland woolythreads
Rank 1 B.2
Not Included in 2004
Yes
Broadleafed upland
This species was
Monolopia gracilens
Initial Study.
forest (openings),
not observed
chaparral (openings),
during the April 20
cismontane woodland,
protocol -level
north coast coniferous
special -status
forest (openings), valley
plant species
and foothill
survey.
grassland/serpentine.
Elevation ranges from
330 to 3940 feet (100 to
1200 meters). Blooms
Tassajara Road Widening Project Special -status Plant Surveys Page 2 of 3
August 17, 2017
T
Q
Packet Pg. 105
5.1.b
2a(I4 "&UNABLE';
201 T POTENTIAL
2017 F,OCUSi=Lt i
spcMr=s'
sr�7tis
HI31rxY pl?Es�ir ;
. FOR gCCl1E2EN
° tal3rrar
LEltl sur7rrr
. ,
shining navarretia
Rank 1 B,2
Not Included in 2004
Yes
Cismontane woodland,
This species was
Navarretia
Initial Study.
valley and foothill
not observed
nigelliformis ssp.
grassland, vernal
during the April 20
radians
pools/sometimes clay.
protocol -level
Elevation ranges from
special -status
250 to 3280 feet (76 to
plant species
1000 meters). Blooms
survey.
Apr -Jul.
Caper -fruited
Rank 1 B.1
Yes
Yes
Alkaline -clay soils in
This species was
tropidocarpum
grassland, oak woodland
not observed
Tropidocarpum
on hillsides; blooms
during the April 20
capparideum
March -April
protocol -level
special -status
plant species
survey.
T
Tassajara Road Widening Project Special -status Plant Surveys Page 3 of 3 August 17, 2017 41
C
Q
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment B
Plant Species Observed within the Project Area
T
a
Packet Pg. 107
5.1.b
Appendix B. Plant species observed within the Project Site on April 20 and August 9, 2017.
Rarity +_
CAC41PC
Family
Scientific Name
common Name
Origin
Form '
Staius
StatusZ
Amaranthaceae
Amoronthus albus
Tumbleweed
non-native
annual herb
-
-
non-native
�Anacarcliaceae _,
Schinus molle
Peruvian pepper tree
(invasive)
itree
-
Limited
Anacardiaceae
Toxicodendron diversilobum
Poison oak
native
vine, shrub
non-native
piaceae
Conium maculatum
Poison hemlock
(invasive)
perennial herb
-
Moderate
Liaceae
non-native
Foeniculum vulgare
Fennel
(invasive)
perennial herb
-
High
non-native
Apiaceae
Torilis arvensis
Field hedge parsley
(invasive)
annual herb
-
Moderate
�Arecaceae
non-native
Phoenix canariensis
Canary island date palm
(invasive)
tree
-
Limited
Arecaceae
Syagrus romanzoffiana
Queen palm
non-native
tree
-
-
Asteraceae
Achyrachaena mollis
Blow wives
native
annual herb
-
-
non-native
Asteraceae
Anthemis cotula
Dog fennel
(invasive)
annual herb
-
-
Baccharis pilularis ssp.
Asteraceae
consanguinea
Coyote brush
native
shrub
-
Carduus pycnocephalus ssp,
non-native
Asteraceae
pycnocephalus
Italian thistle
(invasive)
annual herb
-
Moderate
Tassajara Road Widening Project Special -status Plant Surveys 1 of 8 August 17, 2017
Packet Pg. 108
5.1.b
Appendix A. Plant species observed within the Project Site on April 20 and August 9, 2017.
Family
Scientific Name
Common Name
Origin
Form
Rarity
Statusl
CAL-IPC
Status2
Asteraceae
Centaurea colcitrapa
Purple star thistle
non-native
(invasive)
annual,
perennial herb
Moderate
Asteraceae
Centaureosolstitialis
Yellow starthistle
non-native
(invasive)
annualherb
High
Asteraceae
Cichorium intybus
Chicory
non-native 1perennial
herb
-
-
Asteraceae
Cirsium vulgare
Bullthistle
non-native
(invasive)
perennial herb
-
Moderate
Asteraceae
Cynara cardunculus ssp. flovescens
Cardoon
non-native
perennial herb
-
-
Asteraceae
Dittrichia graveolens
Stinkwort
non-native
(invasive)
annual herb
-
Moderate
steraceae
Erigeron canadensis
Canada horseweed
native
annual herb
-
Asteraceae
Helminthotheca echioides
Bristly ox-tongue
non-native
(invasive)
annual,
perennial herb
-
Limited
Asteraceae
Hypochaeris rodicato
Hairy cats ear
non-native
(invasive)
perennial herb
-
Moderate
Asteraceae
Loctuca serriolo
Prickly lettuce
non-native
(invasive)
�annualherb
-
-
Asteraceae
Matricaria discoidea
Pineapple weed
native
annual herb
-
steraceae
Senecio vulgaris
Common groundsel
non-native
annual herb
-
Asteraceae
Silybum marionum
Milkthistle
non-native
(invasive)
annual,
perennial herb
-
Limited
Tassajara Road Widening Project Special -status Plant Surveys 2 of 8 August 17, 2017
a�
0
L
IL
c
aD
E
c
a
R
O
R
L
W
to
t—
r
c
O
2
O
d'
r
c
d
E
t
r
Q
t
r
�3
E
c
O
Q
Q
C'J
W
U
N
N
r
c
O
E
t
R
Q
Packet Pg. 109
5.1.b
Appendix A. Plant species observed within the Project Site on April 20 and August 9, 2017.
Family
Scientific Nm ae
Common Name
Origin
Form
Rarity !
Statusl .
CAI,-IPC
Statue2
Asteraceae
Sonchus asper ssp. aspen
Sow thistle
non-native
(invasive)
annual herb
-
IAsteraceae
Tragopogon porrifolius
Salsify
non-native
perennial herb
-
Brassicaceae
Brassica nigra
Black mustard
non-native
(invasive)
annual herb
Moderate
Brassicaceae
Hirschfeldia incana
Mustard
non-native
(invasive)
perennial herb
-
Moderate
Brassicaceae
Raphanus raphanistrum
Jointed charlock
non-native
annual,
perennial herb
-
-
Caprifoliaceae
Symphoricarpos albus var.
laevigatus
Snowberry
native
shrub
-
Lryophyllaceae
Polycarpon tetraphyllum var.
tetraphyllum
Four leaved allseed
non-native
annual herb
-
-
Caryophyllaceae
Spergularia rubra
Purple sand spurry
non-native
annual,
perennial herb
-
-
Casuarinaceae
Casuarina sp.
horsetail tree
non-native
tree
-
-
Chenopodiaceae
Chenopodium cf. album
Lambs quarters
non-native
annual herb
-
-
Chenopodiaceae
Salsola sp.
-
-
-
-
Convolvulaceae
Convolvulus arvensis
Field bindweed
non-native
(invasive)
perennial herb,
vine
-
-
Cupressaceae
Cupressus sempervirens
I Italian cypress
non-native
itree
-
Tassajara Road Widening Project Special -status Plant Surveys 3 of 8 August 17, 2017
a�
0
L
IL
c
aD
E
c
a
R
O
R
L
W
to
H
r
c
O
O
c
d
t
r
Q
t
r
�3
E
c
O
Q
Q
C'J
W
U
N
N
r
C
O
E
t
R
Q
Packet Pg. 110
Appendix A. Plant species observed within the Project Site on April 20 and August 9, 2017.
Family
Scientific Name
Common Name
Origin
Form
Rarity
Statusl
CALAPC
Status2
Cupressaceae
Sequoia sempervirens
Coast redwood
native
tree
-
Cyperaceae
Carex divulsa ssp. divulsa
Gray sedge
non-native
perennial
grasslike herb
-
-
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbia Serpens
Matted sandmat
native
annual herb
-
-
Fabaceae
Acmispon americanus var.
americanus
Spanish lotus
native
annual herb
-
-
Fabaceae
Lupinus microcarpus
Chick lupine
native
annual herb
-
-
Fabaceae
Medicago polymorpho
California burclover
non-native
(invasive)
annual herb
-
Limited
Fabaceae
Melilotus albus
White sweetclover
non-native
(invasive)
annual, biennial
herb
.
-
-
Fabaceae
Melilotus officinalis
Yellow sweetclover
non-native
(invasive)
annual, biennial
herb
-
-
Fabaceae
Trifolium hirtum
Rose clover
non-native
(invasive)
annual herb
Limited
Fabaceae
Trifolium incornatum
Crimson clover
non-native
annual herb
Fabaceae
Vicia sativa ssp. sativo
Common vetch
non-native
annual herb,
vine
-
Fabaceae
Vicia villosa ssp. villosa
Hairy vetch
non-native
(invasive)
annual herb,
vine
-
Fagaceae
Quercus agrifolia var. agrifolia
Coast live oak
native
tree
-
-
Fagaceae
Quercus lobato
Valley oak
native
tree
-
-
Geraniaceae
Erodium botrys
JBig heron bill
non-native
(invasive)
lannualherb
-
-
Tassajara Road Widening Project Special -status Plant Surveys 4 of 8 August 17, 2017
d
'o
L
IL
c
a�
E
c
Q
M
O
w
L
M
M
N
N
M
H
C
O
.N
d
uJ
c
m
E
z
v
M
Q
'3
E
c
m
a
a
CY
W
U
N
N
c
a�
E
t
ca
Q
Packet Pg. 111
5.1.b
Appendix A. Plant species observed within the Project Site on April 20 and August 9, 2017.
Family
Scientific Name
Common Name
Origin
Form
Rarity
Statusl
CAL-IPC
Status2
Geraniaceae
Erodium cicutorium
Coastal heron's bill
non-native
(invasive)
annual herb
-
Limited
Geraniaceae
Geranium dissectum
Wild geranium
non-native
(invasive)
annual herb
-
Limited
uglandaceae
Juglans hindsii
Northern california black
walnut
native
tree
Rank 1B.1
-
uncaceae
Juncus mexicanus
Mexican rush
native
perennial
grasslike herb
-
-
Lythraceae
Lythrum hyssopifolia
Hyssop loosestrife
non-native
annual,
perennial herb
Magnoliaceae
Magnolia grandiflora
Southern magnolia
non-native
tree
-
Malvaceae
Malva nicaeensis
Bull mallow
non-native
annual herb
-
-
Malvaceae
Malvella leproso
Alkali mallow
native
perennial herb
-
-
Myrsinaceae
Lysimachia arvensis
Scarlet pimpernel
non-native
annual herb
-
-
Myrtaceae
Eucalyptus globulus
Blue gum
non-native
(invasive)
tree
-
Limited
Myrtaceae
Eucalyptus sideroxylon
Red iron bark
non-native
tree
-
-
Onagraceae
Epilobium brachycarpum
Willow herb
native
annual herb
-
-
Onagraceae
nothera sp.non-native
Orobanchaceae
111ordiatrixago
Mediterranean.lineseed
(invasive)
annual herb
-
Limited
Tassajara Road Widening Project Special -status Plant Surveys 5 of 8 August 17, 2017
a�
0
L
IL
c
aD
E
c
a
R
O
R
L
R
F—
r
c
O
2
O
d'
r
c
d
E
t
Q
r
�3
E
c
O
Q
Q
C'J
W
U
N
N
r
C
O
E
t
R
Q
Packet Pg. 112
5.1.b
Appendix A. Plant species observed within the Project Site on April 20 and August 9, 2017.
Family
Scientific Name
Common Name
Origin
Form
Rarity
Statusl
CAWPC
Status2
Plantaginaceae
Kickxio spuria
Fluellin
non-native
perennial herb
-
-
Plantaginaceae
Plantago lanceolate
Ribwort
non-native
(invasive)
perennial herb
-
Limited
Plantaginaceae
Plantago major
Common plantain
non-native
perennial herb
-
-
Poaceae
Avena barbata
Slim oat
non-native
(invasive)
annual,
perennial grass
-
Moderate
Poaceae
Bromus catharticus
Rescue grass
non-native
annual,
perennial grass
-
-
Poaceae
Bromus diondrus
Ripgut brome
non-native
(invasive)
annual grass
-
Moderate
Poaceae
Bromus hordeaceus
Soft chess
non-native
(invasive)
annual grass
-
Limited
Poaceae
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens
Foxtail brome
non-native
(invasive)
annual grass
-
High
Poaceae
Cynodon dactylon
Bermuda grass
non-native
(invasive)
perennial grass
-
Moderate
Poaceae
Echinochloo crus-golli
Barnyard grass
non-native
annual grass
-
Poaceae
Elymus triticoides
Beardless wild rye
native
perennial grass
-
-
Poaceae
Erogrostis pilosa var. pilosa
Indian lovegrass
native
annual grass
-
-
Tassajara Road Widening Project Special -status Plant Surveys 6 of 8 August 17, 2017
a�
'o
L
IL
c
a�
E
C
Q
M
O
W
L
M
N
N
M
H
c
O
.N
d
N
C
d
E
z
v
M
Q
t
'3
E
c
N
a
Q
CY
W
U
N
N
C
N
E
t
U
ca
Q
Packet Pg. 113
5.1.b
Appendix A. Plant species observed within the Project Site on April 20 and August 9, 2017.
Rarity ;
CAWPC
Family
Scientific Name
common Name
Origin
Form
Stetusl.
Status2
non-native
Poaceae
Festuca arundinacea
Reed fescue
(invasive)
perennial grass
-
Moderate
annual,
Poaceae
Festuca perennis
Italian rye grass
non-native
perennial grass
-
-
Poaceae
Hordeum marinum ssp,
gussoneanum
Barley
non-native
(invasive)
annual grass
-
Moderate
non-native
Poaceae
Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum
Farmer's foxtail
(invasive)
annual grass
-
Moderate
non-native
Poaceae
Pennisetum clandestinum
Kikuyu grass
(invasive)
perennial grass
-
Limited
non-native
Poaceae
Phaloris aquatica
Harding grass
(invasive)
perennial grass
-
Moderate
non-native
Poaceae
Polypogon monspeliensis
Annual beard grass
(invasive)
annual grass
Limited
non-native
Poaceae
Sorghum halepense
lohnsongrass
(invasive)
perennial grass
-
-
Poaceae
Stipa miliacea var. miliacea
Smilo grass
non-native
perennial grass
-
-
Poaceae
Triticum aestivum
Common wheat
non-native
annual grass
-
annual,
Polygonaceae
Polygonum aviculare
Prostrate knotweed
non-native
perennial herb
-
-
Tassajara Road Widening Project Special -status Plant Surveys 7 of 8 August 17, 201
Tt
r
C
E
t
R
Q
Packet Pg. 114
Appendix A. Plant species observed within the Project Site on April 20 and August 9, 2017.
Family
Scientific Name
Common Name
Origin
Form
Rarity
Statusl
CAL-IPC
StatuS2
Polygonaceae
Rumex crispus
Curly dock
non-native
(invasive)
perennial herb
-
Limited
Polygonaceae
Rumex pulcher
Fiddleleaf dock
non-native
perennial herb
-
Portulacaceae
Portulaca oleracea
Common purslane
non-native
annual herb
-
-
Rosaceae
Prunus cerasifero
Cherry plum
non-native
(invasive)
Itree
-
Limited
Rosaceae
Prunus dulcis
Almond
non-native
tree
-
-
Rosaceae
Raphiolepis indica
India hawthorn
non-native
shrub
-
-
Rosaceae
Rosa californica
California wild rose
native
shrub
-
-
Rosaceae
Rubus ursinus
California blackberry
native
vine, shrub
-
-
Salicaceae
Salixexigua
Narrowleaf willow
native
tree, shrub
-
-
Salicaceae
Salixlaevigoto
Polished willow
native
tree
-
-
Sapindaceae
Acer negundo
Boxelder
native
tree
-
-
Solanaceae
Nicotiana glauca
Tree tobacco
non-native
(invasive)
tree, shrub
-
Moderate
yphaceae
Typhasp.
-
-
Ulmaceae
Ulmussp.
-
-
-
-
Vitaceae
Vitis californica
California wild grape
native
vine, shrub
-
Zygophyllaceae
Tribulus terrestris
Puncture vine
non-native
(invasive)
lannualherb
-
-
Tassajara Road Widening Project Special -status Plant Surveys 8 of 8 August 17, 2017
d
'o
a`
c
d
E
C
Q
M
O
IX
L
M
M
N
N
M
H
C
O
.N
d
uJ
c
m
E
z
v
M
Q
t
3
E
c
m
a
C'1
W
U
N
N
C
N
E
t
ca
Q
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment 2
a
City of Dublin -Initial Study
Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -of -Way Alignment Project January 2020
Packet Pg. 116
5.1.b
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara
Capacity Analysis
Final Report
:r
1970 Broadway, Suite 740
Oakland, CA 94612
(S10) 763-2061
March 19, 201S
Tt
Packet Pg. 117
5.1.b
1
Document Description
Client
City of Dublin
DKS Project Number
14112-001
Project Name
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis
Related Task / WBS Number
N/A
Document Name
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis Draft Report
File Path
p:\p\14\14112-001 city of dublin on -call tassajara rd\07 deliverables\camino
tassajara capacity analysis draft technical report.docx
Date Document Issued
March 19, 2015
Version Control
Version
Number
Date
Description of Change
Author
0-1
11/18/2014
Initial Document
JMP
0-2
11/19/2014
Reviewed and updated
JMP
0-3
11/21/2014
Draft Report
JMP
0-4
2/18/2015
Updated with comments from City of Dublin
JMP/DCM
1-0
3/19/2015
Final Report
JMP/DCM
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Q
March 19, 2015
Packet Pg. 118
5.1.b
I
Table of Contents
TABLEOF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................................
APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................................11
LISTOF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................. III
a�
0
LISTOF TABLES................................................................................................................................... III L
a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................... 1 .. aD
STUDY APPROACH.....................................................................................................................................1
c
a�
SUMMARYOF RESULTS.............................................................................................................................2
Q
0
CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................................................5
L
EXISTING ROADWAY SETTING
STUDY INTERSECTIONS..............................................................................................................................6
STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENTS...................................................................................................................6 r
c
0
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY................................................................8 T
STUDYSCENARIOS.....................................................................................................................................8
aD
Scenario #1— Four -lane Capacity on Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara..............................................8
r
E
Scenario #2 — Six -lane Capacity on Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara.................................................8
t
w
r
Q
ModelAdjustments...............................................................................................................................8
r
�3
LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES AND PARAMETERS.........................................................................9
E
Signalized Intersections
Q
RoadwaySegments..............................................................................................................................10
Q
C�
CCTATRAVEL DEMAND MODEL..............................................................................................................11
w
U
ROADWAY SEGMENT VOLUME FORECAST METHODOLOGY..................................................................11 Ci
r
c
INTERSECTION VOLUME FORECAST METHODOLOGY.............................................................................12
t
CCTA TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL REVIEW................................................................................................12
Q
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA...............................................................................................................13
Contra Costa County and Tri-Valley Transportation Council...............................................................13
Cityof Dublin.......................................................................................................................................13
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara i March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 119
Townof Danville..................................................................................................................................14
CaItra ns................................................................................................................................................14
EXISTINGCONDITIONS....................................................................................................................... 14
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS..................................................................14
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)...............................18
ROADWAY PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (EXISTING CONDITIONS).....................................19
FUTURE CUMULATIVE (2040) CONDITIONS........................................................................................ 20
2040 LAND USE DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................20
2040 SELECT -LINK ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................20
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (CUMULATIVE 2040 CONDITIONS)...............24
ROADWAY PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (CUMULATIVE 2040 CONDITIONS) .....................29
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................ 31
STUDYPARTICIPANTS........................................................................................................................ 32
Appendices
APPENDIX A INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
APPENDIX C MODEL LINK VOLUMES
APPENDIX D LANE ASSUMPTIONS
APPENDIX E SELECT -LINK ANALYSIS
Tt
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara ii March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 120
5.1.b
1
List of Figures
Figure1 - Study Area...........................................................................................................
Figure 2 - Lane Configurations............................................................................................
Figure 3 - Existing Condition Traffic Volumes.....................................................................
Figure 4 - Existing Condition Link Volumes.........................................................................
Figure 5 - 4-Lane Cumulative 2040 Condition Link Volumes ..............................................
Figure 6 - 6-Lane Cumulative 2040 Condition Link Volumes ..............................................
Figure 7 - 4-Lane Cumulative 2040 Condition Traffic Volumes ..........................................
Figure 8 - 6-Lane Cumulative 2040 Condition Traffic Volumes ..........................................
List of Tables
Table 1— Study Intersections and Jurisdiction....................................................................
Table 2 — List of Deficient Intersections under Future 2040 Traffic Conditions .................
Table 3 — Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds and Definitions .....................................
Table 4 — Roadway Segment LOS Thresholds and Definitions ............................................
Table 5 — Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service ................................................
Table 6 — Existing Condition Roadway Segment Level of Service .......................................
Table 7 — 2040 Select -Link Analysis Volumes......................................................................
Table 8 — Cumulative 2040 Conditions Intersection Level of Service — AM Peak Hour......
Table 9 — Cumulative 2040 Conditions Intersection Level of Service — PM Peak Hour......
Table 10 — Cumulative 2040 Conditions Roadway Segment Level of Service ....................
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara iii
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
...... 7
.... 23
.... 27
.... 28
............... 3
............... 4
............... 9
............. 10
............. 18
............. 19
............. 21
............. 24
............. 25
............. 30
Q
March 19, 2015
Packet Pg. 121
5.1.b
1
Executive Summary
The City of Dublin and Contra Costa County are planning to improve transportation facilities along the
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara Road corridor to meet future multi -modal transportation needs. It is a
Route of Regional Significance in the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan and it is expected that
future growth in traffic along the study roadway will result primarily from planned residential
developments in the proximate region. The purpose of this study was to determine the number of travel
lanes and intersection configuration needed to operate Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara to meet the
standards of Contra Costa County, the City of Dublin, the City of Danville, the City of San Ramon and the
Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan'. The study roadway segment of Tassajara Road/ Camino
Tassajara is from Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin in Alameda County to Sycamore Valley Road in the
Town of Danville in Contra Costa County. This study was conducted in collaboration with City of Dublin
staff, Alameda County staff, San Ramon and Danville staff, and Contra Costa County and Contra Costa
County Transportation Authority staff.
Study Approach
Key intersections and roadway segments in the study area were selected in consultation with Cities of
Dublin, Danville and San Ramon, and Contra Costa County staff. The objective of the study was to
determine if two or three travel lanes per direction are needed on Tasssajara Road/Camino Tassajara to
operate the roadway acceptably under future (2040) traffic conditions. Two traffic scenarios were studied
to evaluate the number of lanes needed to meet the relevant standards and to determine the potential
traffic impact on local roadways in the Tri-Valley area from possible traffic diversions described as follows:
Scenario #1— Four -lane Capacity on Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara
With an assumed capacity of four lanes on Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara from Gleason Drive in the
City of Dublin in Alameda County to Sycamore Valley Road in the Town of Danville in Contra Costa County,
the study assessed whether relevant standards would be met and whether traffic to/from 1-580 would be
expected to divert to use local roadways such as El Charro Road/Fallon Road, Isabel Avenue, Portola
Avenue, Collier Canyon Road, and North Livermore Road to access Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara Road
via Highland Road. While the majority of Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara was modeled with four lanes,
six lanes were assumed south of Dublin Boulevard along Tassajara Road consistent with the number of
existing travel lanes along the roadway segment.
Scenario #2 — Six -lane Capacity on Tassajara Road/Camino Tassaiara N
.r
c
With an assumed capacity of six lanes on Tassajara Road and Camino Tassajara, the study assessed
t
whether relevant standards would be met and whether some traffic would use this roadway as a link
c�
between 1-580 and 1-680 to avoid congestion on 1-580 and 1-680. It was determined from the travel Q
demand forecast and LOS analysis that widening Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara from four to six lanes is
expected to attract additional traffic of approximately 100 vehicles per hour each during both the AM and
1 Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement (1994)
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
March 19, 2015
Packet Pg. 122
5.1.b
1
PM. This is the traffic that would have otherwise used other arterials such as Dougherty Road, Fallon
Road, Windemere Parkway and Bollinger Canyon Road, Airway Parkway and 1-680 to and from job rich
areas south of Contra Costa County. The shift in traffic from the various listed arterials is relatively
insignificant (less than 1 percent) and does not affect the overall travel distribution pattern in the study
area. It is also not expected to significantly impact other intersections and roadway segments along
arterials in Contra Costa County and Alameda County. However, a slight shift in traffic from Dougherty
Road is expected to relieve traffic congestion along Dougherty Road and particularly at the critical
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection.
The study roadway segments and intersections were analyzed under existing and cumulative (future 2040)
traffic conditions. The existing conditions were analyzed using recent traffic data from multiple sources,
including the Mollar Ranch Traffic Impact Study and the 2014 Tri-Valley Transportation/Action Plan.
The CCTA countywide travel demand model was used to forecast the cumulative 2040 traffic volumes
because it produced a more conservative traffic forecast than the Dublin travel demand model and the
Alameda countywide travel demand model. The detailed discussion on the reason for selecting the CCTA
travel demand model is included in the Analysis Methodology section of this report. Furthermore, a select -
link analysis was conducted to determine travel patterns and the extent of traffic diversion in the study
area that may result from widening Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara from four travel lanes to six travel
lanes. The intersection and roadway segment level of service analysis were conducted using the Highway
Capacity Manual analysis methodology.
Summary of Results
This is an investigative study to determine the number of travel lanes needed to operate Tassajara
Road/Camino Tassajara acceptably according to established and applicable significance criteria. The
analysis included level of service analysis for 12 intersections and six (6) roadway segments within the
study area as listed in Table 1.
a
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 2 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 123
5.1.b
-00
Table 1— Studv Intersections and Jurisdiction
No
Intersection Name
Ownership
Signal Operator
Applicable
LOS
Standard
1
Santa Rita Rd/1-580 EB off -ramp
Caltrans
City of Pleasanton
D
2
Santa Rita Rd/Tassajara Rd/1-580 WB off -ramp
Caltrans
City of Pleasanton
D
3
Tassajara Rd/Dublin Blvd
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
D
4
Tassajara Rd/Gleason Dr
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
D
5
Fallon Rd/Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Rd
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
D
6
Camino Tassajara/Highland Rd
Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County
C
7
El Charro Rd/1-580 EB off -ramp
Caltrans
Caltrans
D
8
El Charro Rd/Fallon Rd/1-580 WB ramps
Caltrans
Caltrans
D
9
Fallon Rd/Dublin Blvd
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
D
10
Fallon Rd/Silvera Ranch Dr
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
D
11
Camino Tassajara/Windemere Pkwy
Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County
C
12
Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon Rd
Town of Danville
Town of Danville
D
Study Roadway Segments
The applicable level of services standard for Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara, a regional route of
significance is LOS E.
1. Tassajara Road between Gleason Drive and North Dublin Ranch Drive
2. Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive to Fallon Road
3. Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara from Fallon Road to Windemere Parkway
4. Camino Tassajara from Windemere Parkway to Lusitano Street
5. Camino Tassajara from Lusitano Street to Crow Canyon Road; and
6. Camino Tassajara from Crow Canyon Road to Sycamore Valley Road
Assumption
For the purpose of the analysis, it was assumed that the signalized study intersections will be proactively
optimized by the various agencies under cumulative (future 2040) traffic conditions. This provides a
consistent basis to assess the impact of the two study scenarios.
Level of Service Analvsis (Existing Traffic Conditions
N
Intersections LOS Results — Based on the LOS results under Existing Conditions, nine of the 12 study
c
intersections currently operate acceptably according to applicable LOS standards during AM and PM peak W
E
hours. The Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection operates acceptably at LOS C during the AM peak
c�
hour but operates unacceptably at LOS E under the City of Dublin standard during the PM peak hour. The a
Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road intersection operates acceptably at LOS D during the PM
peak hour but operates unacceptably at LOS F under the City of Dublin standard during the AM peak hour.
The Camino Tassajara/Highland Road intersection operates unacceptably at LOS E under the Contra Costa
County General Plan standard during the AM peak hour and operates acceptably at LOS C during the PM
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 3 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 124
5.1.b
1
peak hour. Only the intersection of Fallon Rd/Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Rd during the AM peak hour
operates worse than the 2014 Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan LOS E standard.
Roadway LOS Results — Under Existing Conditions, all study roadway segments operate at LOS C or better
during AM and PM peak hours in both the northbound and southbound directions. Generally, speeds are
faster during the AM peak hour.
Level of Service Analysis (Cumulative/Future 2040 Traffic Conditions)
Intersections LOS Results — Under Cumulative 2040 Conditions, three (3) of the 12 study intersections
located under the City of Dublin jurisdiction are expected to operate unacceptably under either the AM
peak hour or PM peak hour or both according to the City of Dublin significant impact criteria. The three
intersections expected to operate unacceptably are listed in Table 2.
Table 2 — List of Deficient Intersections under Future 2040 Traffic Conditions
Deficient Intersection
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Applicable
LOS
Standard
(#1) 4-Lane
(#2) 6-Lane
(#1) 4-Lane
(#2) 6-Lane
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Tassajara Rd and Dublin Blvd
39.9
D
40.2
D
96.9
F
136.5
F
D
Tassajara Rd and Gleason Dr
97.8
F
90.4
F
73.9
E
101.5
F
D
Fallon Rd and Dublin Blvd
59.5
E
1 52.1
D
168.1
F
188
F
D
Source: DKS Associates, 2014
Notes:
a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle and is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
c. Analysis performed using Synchro 8.0 HCM 2000 based on limitations in HCM 2010
analysis
BOLD indicates unacceptable LOS
During the AM peak hour, the Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive intersection is expected to operate worse
than the 2014 Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan LOS E standard under both scenarios while the
Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection is expected to operate worse than LOS D under the four -lane
scenario. —
N
During the PM peak hour, the Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive and Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard
intersections are expected to operate worse than the 2014 Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan LOS E
E standard under both scenarios. Also, the Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection is expected to
operate worse than LOS E under the six -lane scenario. a
Roadway LOS Results — Under Cumulative 2040 Conditions, all roadway segments north of Dublin Ranch
Drive operate at LOS C or better during AM and PM peak hours in both directions. Under both 4-lane and
6-lane scenarios the segment of Tassajara Road between Gleason Drive and Dublin Ranch Drive is
expected to operate at LOS C or LOS D during the AM peak hour in both directions. During the PM peak
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 4 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 125
5.1.b
1
hour it operates at LOS F in the northbound direction. The travel time is consistently longer under the 4-
lane Scenario than the six lane scenario; however there is very little difference in LOS between the two
scenarios.
Select -link Analysis — The results of the select link analysis for roadways in the study area indicate that
there is no significant difference in the traffic distribution pattern in the study area when the number of
travel lanes on Tassajara Road/Camino Tasssajara is increased from four to six lanes. However, widening
the study roadway from four lanes to six lanes is expected to slightly increase traffic on Tassajara
Road/Camino Tasssajara by less than 100 vehicles per hour in both northbound and southbound directions
during the AM and PM peak hours.
Conclusions
The select -link analysis results indicate that there are no significant differences in travel patterns under
both four lane and six lane scenario. The shift in traffic is relatively insignificant and does not affect the
overall travel distribution pattern in the study area. It is also not expected to significantly impact other
intersections and roadway segments along arterials in Contra Costa County and Alameda County.
The results of the Cumulative Conditions analyses for the four -lane and six -lane scenarios generally show
similar level of service with slight improvements at some intersections under the six -lane scenario.
However, for intersections that are expected to experience intolerable delays at LOS F, the six -lane
scenario provides less than 10 seconds of savings per vehicle during the AM peak hour, and an increase in
delay per vehicle during the PM peak hour. Additionally, while the six -lane scenario shows lower travel
time, the travel time savings is generally under 5% of the segment travel time with the exception of the
southbound segment along Tassajara Road between Gleason Drive and North Ranch Drive which shows
10% to 15% travel time savings during the PM peak hour.
It can therefore be concluded from the similarity in results of the analysis for the four -lane and six -lane
scenarios that widening Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara from four to six lanes is not expected to result in
any significant benefit to motorists.
a
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 5 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 126
5.1.b
1
Existing Roadway Setting
Study Intersections
Figure 1 shows the study area and locations of the 12 study intersections.
All of the study intersections are signalized and operating "free". In other words the traffic signals are not
synchronized. The Camino Tassajara/Highland Road and Camino Tassajara/Windemere Road intersections
are operated by Contra Costa County. The El Charro Road/1-580 EB off -ramp and Fallon Road/1-580 WB
ramp intersections are operated by Caltrans. The Santa Rita Road/1-580 EB off -ramp and the Tassajara
Rd/1-580 WB off -ramp intersections are owned by Caltrans but operated by the City of Pleasanton. The
Camino Tassajara/Crow Canyon Road intersection is operated by the Town of Danville. The remaining five
intersections are all operated by the City of Dublin.
Study Roadway Segments
Tassalara Road between Gleason Drive and North Dublin Ranch Drive is a four -lane roadway with a raised
concrete median and curbs on either side of the roadway. It has a posted speed limit of 45 mph with
access limited to only signalized intersections along the roadway. There are Class II bike lanes for both
directions of travel.
Tassalara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Fallon Road is a two-lane roadway with low density
of unsignalized access points. The segment has striped left -turn lanes at major access points as well as a
center -turn lane that continues north until Shadow Hill Derive and has a curb on the east side of the
roadway for the majority of the segment. It has a posted speed limit of 45 mph. There is a northbound
bike lane between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Shadow Hill Drive.
Tassalara Road/Camino Tassalara between Fallon Road and Windemere Parkway is a two-lane roadway a
with a low density of unsignalized access points. The roadway segment has no median or curb on either 3
side of the roadway. It has a posted speed limit of 45 mph. E
Camino Tassalara between Windemere Parkway and Lusitano Street is a two-lane roadway with low
density of unsignalized access points. The roadway segment has no median or curb on either side of the
roadway. The roadway segment has striped left turn lanes at Highland Road and Finley Road. It has a Q
Q
posted speed limit of 45 mph. w
U_
Camino Tassaiara between Lusitano Street and Crow Canyon Road is a four -lane roadway with a raised N
concrete median between signalized intersections and curbs on both sides of the roadway. It has a posted N
speed limit of 45 mph with access limited to only signalized intersections along the roadway. _
a�
E
Camino Tassaiara from Crown Canyon Road and Sycamore Valley Road is a four -lane roadway with a
raised concrete median between signalized intersections and curbs on either side. It has a posted speed
a
limit of 45 mph with access limited to only signalized intersections along the roadway.
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 6
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
March 19, 2015
Packet Pg. 127
0
0
9
O
c
O
0
`o
U
LEGEND Figure
o - Danville/Dublin City MM
� � - Signalized Study Intersection & Number Boundary
- Signalized Intersection --• - Contra Costa County
AM (PM) - Segment Peak Hour Volumes Boundary Packet Pg. 128
T
Q
Analysis Methodology
Study Scenarios
In order to determine the potential of traffic impact on local roadways in the Tri-Valley area from possible
traffic diversions, the following two scenarios are analyzed:
Scenario #1— Four -lane Capacity on Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara
With an assumed capacity of four lanes on Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara from Gleason Drive in the
City of Dublin in Alameda County to Sycamore Valley Road in the Town of Danville in Contra Costa County,
the study assesses whether traffic to/from 1-580 is expected to divert to use local roadways such as El
Charro Road/Fallon Road, Isabel Avenue, Portola Avenue, Collier Canyon Road, and North Livermore Road
to access Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara Road via Highland Road. While the majority of Tassajara
Road/Camino Tassajara is modeled with four lanes, the updated CCTA Model has six lanes south of Dublin
Boulevard along Tassajara Road consistent with the number of existing travel lanes along the roadway
segment.
Scenario #2 — Six -lane Capacity on Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara
With assumed capacity of six lanes on Tassajara Road, there is the possibility that some traffic will use this
roadway to access Camino Tassajara in Danville to avoid congestion on 1-580 and 1-680. The updated CCTA
model assumes six lanes from the Tassajara Road/1-580 interchange to Windemere Parkway and four
lanes from Windemere Parkway to Tassajara Ranch Drive according to the Contra Costa County General
Plan.
Model Adjustments
During the model scenario development process the CCTA travel demand model was adjusted to reflect
more accurately the existing and future roadway network configuration in the project area. The following
adjustments were made to the network:
• Revised the number of lanes along Tassajara Road, Santa Rita Road and El Charro Road to reflect
planned roadway improvements, w
U
• Added a centroid connector from Silvera Ranch Drive to Tassajara Rd, N
• Coded Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara as a 4-lane facility from Gleason Drive to Sycamore C�
Valley Road for Scenario #1, and
• Coded Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara as a 6-lane facility from Gleason Drive to Windemere E
t
Parkway for Scenario #2.
a
Appendix C contains a table and maps showing the number of travel lanes assumed for the existing and
future scenarios.
In addition, key roadway improvements were identified and the future model networks for the study
scenarios were reviewed to ensure that the models accurately reflect the planned roadway
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 8 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 129
improvements. Some of the key projects that are included in the model networks according to the Contra
Costa County's Comprehensive Transportation Project List are:
• Construction of HOV lanes on 1-580 from Tassajara Road to Vasco Road and further to San
Joaquin County
• Extension of Dublin Boulevard from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard
• Hacienda Drive widening
• Extension of Dougherty Road
• Fallon Rd/El Charro Road interchange improvements
• Santa Rita Road interchange improvements
Level of Service Methodologies and Parameters
Signalized Intersections
A Level of Service (LOS) evaluation is a qualitative description of an intersection's performance based on
the average delay per vehicle experienced during peak travel periods. LOS can range from "A"
representing free -flow conditions to "F" representing congested conditions with long delays. Generally,
LOS A is considered excellent, while LOS E is considered satisfactory operating conditions under the Tri-
Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan; and LOS F represents unacceptable conditions, at or above
capacity. LOS definitions, considering vehicle delay for signalized intersections, are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 — Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds and Definitions
Level of Average Control Delay
Service (seconds/vehicle) Description
A <_ 10
B >10and 520
C >20and <_35
D >35and <_55
E >55and <_80
F > 80
Free flow/
Insignificant Delay
Stable Operation/
Minimal Delay
Stable Operation/
Acceptable Delay
Approaching Unstable/
Tolerable Delay
Unstable Operation/
Significant Delay
Forced Flow/
Excessive Delay
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research
Board, 2000.
According to the City of Dublin, Moller Ranch Traffic Impact Study intersection vehicle counts used for the
capacity analysis were conducted on April 19, 2012. Intersections were evaluated for traffic conditions
during the weekday AM peak hour (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and PM peak hour (4:00 to 6:00 PM) using the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operations methodology and Synchro 8.0 software.
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 9 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
T
Q
Packet Pg. 130
5.1.b
1
For signalized intersections, this methodology determines the capacity of each lane group approaching the
intersection. The LOS is then based on average delay (in seconds per vehicle) for the movements within
the intersection. A combined average delay, weighted by approach volume, and LOS is presented for the
intersection.
Roadway Segments
Measures of effectiveness (MOE) for roadway segments reported in this analysis include such corridor
performance measures as signal delay, travel time, and average speeds. Through vehicle travel speed is
used to characterize vehicular LOS for a given direction of travel along a roadway segment. This speed
reflects the factors that influence running time along each link and the delay incurred by through vehicles,
including control delay. LOS can range from "A" representing free -flow conditions to "F" representing
congested conditions with long delays and extensive queuing. Generally, LOS A is considered excellent,
while LOS E is considered satisfactory operating conditions under the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action
Plan; and LOS F represents unacceptable conditions, at or above capacity. LOS definitions, considering
vehicle travel speeds as a percentage of free flow speed, are shown in Table 4 and meet CCTA standards.
As there is no coordination between signals along the study roadway segments, travel time will be
calculated as the sum of free flow travel time along each study segment and the average through -vehicle
delay for study intersections within each study segment.
Table 4 — Roadway Segment LOS Thresholds and Definitions
Travel Speed as a
Level of
Percentage of Free Flow
Description E
Service
Speed
R
A >85
Primarily Free flow operation Q
B > 67 and <_ 85
Reasonably unimpeded
operation 3
E
C > 50 and <_ 67
Stable Operation
m
D >40and 550
Less stable operation Q
E > 30 and <_ 40
Unstable Operation/ Q
Significant Delay
id
Extremely low speed/ V
F > 30
Extensive queuing N
Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual
N
;.o
c
The above MOEs for existing conditions provide a basis for evaluating the proposed scenarios. This will be W
E
done by comparing the results of the each proposed scenario.
z According to the 2013 CCTA Technical Procedures (p.26) and specified in the 2014 Tri-Valley
Transportation/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, "analysts are encouraged to use the 2010 Highway
Capacity Manual for analyses of impacts of development or benefits from transportation improvements".
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 10 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 131
CCTA Travel Demand Model
To estimate the future year traffic demand inputs for the traffic operational analysis, the latest approved
version of the CCTA travel demand model was used. This model set is calibrated to 2000 traffic counts and
also makes use of 2010 count data. The land use and socio-demographics information is based on ABAG's
interim draft land use Projections 2011 (Current Regional Pllans) which cover years 2010 through 2040 in
5-year increments. It should be noted that the Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan
environmental review is currently underway and will be based on ABAG's Projections 2013, but because
that set has not been reviewed and approved by the local jurisdictions, it includes an approximation of the
land use distributions and therefore not appropriate for the Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara capacity
analysis. In general, the land use estimates in Projections 2011 are higher than Projections 2013, making
the results of this analysis more conservative compared to results based on Projections 2013.
Different highway networks are available in the model to represent network improvements at different
horizon years. The current version of the travel demand model can generate scenario networks for all
years between 2000 and 2040. For scenario years that are not directly included in the ABAG land use
Projection, the model interpolates the land use between the nearest two years in order to develop the
land use set for the scenario year.
The current countywide travel demand model includes the following analysis periods:
• AM Peak hour,
• AM Peak period (6-10 AM),
• PM peak hour,
• PM Peak period (3-7 PM), and
• Off -Peak period, covering all remaining hours.
For this effort, the following model datasets were used:
• 2013 (representing the "existing year" model scenario),
• 2040 (representing Scenarios 1 and 2 in horizon year 2040).
For each scenario, the AM peak hour and PM peak hour assignments were utilized. The specific
procedures are further described in the following sections.
Roadway Segment Volume Forecast Methodology
N
The volume forecasts for the study segments were developed using the CCTA travel demand model. In
general, outputs from the travel demand model were not used directly in the operational analysis. E
Instead, changes in forecast demand volumes between the existing year and each future scenario year, as
produced by the travel demand model, were added to observed traffic volumes. This approach is a
illustrated in the following equation:
Horizon Year Volumes = Existing (Observed) Volumes + (Horizon Year Model Forecast — "Existing Year"
Model Forecast)
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 11 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 132
For new facilities and movements that do not exist today, the horizon -year model forecast outputs were
used directly for input to the operational analysis, subject to the reasonableness and balancing
adjustments described below.
The 2013 model dataset was used for the "existing year" model forecast. The 2040 model dataset was
used to forecast growth for the future traffic conditions. For AM and PM analysis periods, the forecast
growth will be determined using the respective peak hour models. This growth volume was added to the
existing peak hour volume for each link. Appendix D contains maps of the study area showing model link
volumes for both existing and future year scenarios.
The approach described above was used to develop forecasts for the arterial segments, as well as the
approach and departure links for the study intersections.
Intersection Volume Forecast Methodology
For the intersection analysis, an expanded approach was used. This approach involved applying the
procedures described above to determine approach -link and departure -link growth for each intersection,
then applying the Furness methodology to determine individual turning movements at each intersection.
Following this procedure, manual adjustments were made to balance demands between adjacent
intersections.
This process may be summarized as follows:
• Generate 2013 and 2040 model forecasts for each intersection approach and departure link;
• Compute the model growth for each link (2040 model output minus 2010 model output);
• Apply Furness methodology to compute individual turning movement demand forecasts using
existing turn movement demands and forecast approach and departure link growth; and
• Apply manual adjustments to balance demands between adjacent intersections.
CCTA Travel Demand Model Review
As the largest part of the study corridor is in Contra Costa County, it was decided to use the CCTA travel
demand model for the roadway capacity analysis. However, DKS took a first step in assessing the CCTA
model by comparing it with a) the City of Dublin travel demand model and b) the Alameda countywide
travel demand model. The comparison mostly focused in the estimated peak hour volumes in the study
area, including but not limited to the following facilities: Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara, Windemere
Parkway, Fallon Road, Gleason Drive, Central Parkway, Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, Santa Rita
Road, El Charro Road and Stoneridge Drive.
The CCTA travel demand model volumes were compared with the Alameda countywide travel demand
model volumes, as the City of Dublin and the Tri-Valley are incorporated in Alameda County. The
comparison showed that the two models (both based on land use forecasts of Projections 2011) produced
similar results with respect to the trip allocation in the study area, with the volumes in the CCTA model
being slightly more conservative. There were certain significant volume differences between the two
models along Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, but that did not raise concerns as it was due to those
facilities being coded differently in the two models; the two models have different assumptions about the
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 12
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
March 19, 2015
T
a
Packet Pg. 133
number of lanes of the two facilities, and that resulted in these facilities attracting trips differently in each
case.
Having compared the CCTA travel demand model volumes with those from the City of Dublin model and
the Alameda countywide model, as well as taking into account the fact that the majority of the study
segment is located in Contra Costa County, it was decided to use the CCTA travel demand model for this
analysis. The model scenarios were developed using the "unconstrained" version of the model as that
produced more conservative traffic volumes in the study area compared to the version that incorporated
"gateway capacity constraints".
Significant Impact Criteria
Contra Costa County and Tri-Valley Transportation Council
The Tri-Valley Transportation Council set maximum levels of congestion for routes of regional significance
such as intersections along Camino Tassajara. According to the CCTA requirements, level of service E (LOS)
is an acceptable level of traffic operation at intersections on the routes of regional significance in the study
area regardless of how the intersections are currently operating. Furthermore, intersections to be
evaluated under CCTA requirements include signalized intersections that are expected to be affected by
50 or more project trips in a peak period when used to assess the potential impact of new development.
The standard set forth for Routes of Regional Significance in the 2014 Tri-Valley Transportation
Plan/Action Plan is LOS E. All study intersections are on Routes of Regional Significance.
At the intersections of Camino Tassajara/Highland Road and Camino Tassajara/Windemere Parkway, the
LOS standard is LOS C based on the standard set forth in in the Contra Costa County General Plan. These
intersections are regarded as a semi -rural intersection and therefore have a more stringent performance
threshold as outlined in the County's comments in the Addendum to the Proposed Creekside Cemetery
Project.
City of Dublin
An impact would be significant if an intersection operating at an acceptable level of service without the
project would exceed acceptable levels with the addition of project traffic. In addition, an impact would be
significant if a new intersection is identified as exceeding acceptable levels and if such intersection was not Q
Q
previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as a study intersection. The General Plan standard requires id
that the City strive for LOS D at intersections. An impact would also be significant if an intersection is v
already operating below an acceptable threshold and the project worsens the condition. The City of Dublin —
uses HCM 2000 method for intersection LOS calculations. The remaining intersections were also analyzed N
with the HCM 2000 method
E
c�
Q
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 13 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 134
Town of DanvilW
The Tri-Valley Council has established LOS standards for "Routes of Regional Significance." Routes of
Regional Significance include two corridors within Danville and one corridor on the edge of Danville. These
are:
• Danville Boulevard/San Ramon Valley Boulevard south of Sycamore Valley (a single corridor with a
missing segment through Downtown Danville in the center)
• Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Tassajara (a single corridor comprised of two roads)
• Crow Canyon Road (south of Camino Tassajara)
Intersections on the first two of these corridors are subject to an LOS E standard using the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) Operational Method. The Town of Danville has a standard of LOS D for the
intersection of Crow Canyon Road and Camino Tassajara.
Caltrans
Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D" on State
highway facilities, however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends
that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. If an existing State
highway facility is operating at less (worse) than the appropriate target LOS, the existing MOE should be
maintained.
Existing Conditions
Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
The lane configurations for each of the study intersections are presented in Figure 2 and the Existing
Conditions traffic volumes are presented in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows link volumes under existing traffic
conditions.
T
c
W
E
c�
a
3 Town of Danville General Plan, Chapter 4, 2013
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 14 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 135
5.1.b
1. Santa Rita Rd & 1-580
EB ramps
t
�114
r
s
s
iiir
s
2. Santa Rita Rd & 1-580 WB cramps
t
4141H
s
iir
3. Tassajara Rd & Dublin
Blvd
r
-Willi 4 4
i
Y
s
tititifir
s
4. Tassajara Rd & Gleason Dr
4fiu 4
s
s
iir
s
s
S. Tassajara Rd & Fallon
Rd
4+1 LI
L
z4 qi it
Is
9. Fallon Rd & Dublin Blvd
illL, 'L
Camino Tassajara & Highland Rd 17. El Charro Rd & 1-580 EB ramps
1411. 1 -il
Fallon Rd & Sivera Ranch Dr 111. Camino Tassajara & Windemere Pkwy
41 41
s s
d -it J
El Charro Rd & 1-580 WB ramps
rr
12. Camino Tassajara & Crow Canyon Rd
r
�+114 4 r
s 1 '1'+ 1 rr
s
EM LEGEND
0 Traffic Signal Figure 2
. Stop Sign Existing Lane Configuration
i.1
N
O
L
IIL
c
d
E
a
aM
Q
M
0
W
M
L
M
M
rn
M
T
a+
i
N
E
M
U
2
a
P:\P\14\14112-001 City of Dublin On -Call Tassajara Rd\06 Graphics\Camino Tassajara Volume Figures v2 Packet Pg. 136
1. Santa Rita Rd & 1-580
EB ramps
o
M374(479)
MMM
M 163 (179)
538 (434)
147 (226)
izz,
665 (338) M
2. Santa Rita Rd & 1-580
WB ramps
M 315 (298)
................
. . . .......
MM
M 544(509)
3. Tassajara Rd & Dublin
Blvd
M 15 (34)
191 (147)
MMM
M 384(233)
59 63 (306
"J)
181(477)
... . . . .........
31
er
--------- —
4. Tassajara Rd & Gleason
Dr
on Dr
E
i
M51(22)
I P
i
m
M'"m
M 155 (67)
D�
1131IMM
M 252 (151)
48
114 (14
".Rm
33(66)
sly
S. Tassajara Rd & Fallon
Rd
6. Camino Tassajara & Highland
Rd
7. El Charro Rd & 1-580
EB ramps
8. El Charro
Rd & 1-580
WB ramps
Mo (1)
m
M 264 (43)
M 198 (314)
M3 (3)
'r I
M2 (6)
MMM
M2 (3)
MM
M97 (5)
MM
MM
M 58 (22)
192 (514) M
• MEM
EM
182 (182) M •
EM
EM
5(1)0
fz. :
21 (18)
71(19)
9. Fallon Rd & Dublin Blvd
10. Fallon Rd & Sivera Ranch
Dr
11. Camino
Tassajara &
Winclemere Pkwy
12. Camino Tassajara &
Crow Canyon Rd
MO(0)
m
i:z
M 28 (13)
00(0)
E434(438)
MM
Mo (1)
MM
M
18 (88�m
mom
I (5)m
20(30)
71 (128) M
0 (10
87
F fz. a
29
F a
287
282 (1017)
99(184)
S
(329) M
(10) M
(124) M
LEGEND
M Traffic Signal
Figure 3
AM(PM) Volume
Turning
Existing Condition Turn
Movement Volumes
Movements
T
E
U
2
P:\P\14\14112-001 City of Dublin On -Call Tassajara Rd\06 Graphics\Camino Tassajara Volume Figures Q Packet Pg. 137
5.1.b
f
0
.y
.NN;
r
I0
r
N
r
E
V
r
a
3
E
c
m
a
a
CY
W
U
N
N
C
N
E
t
V
R
rr
Q
U
LEGEND Figure '
•••••• - Danville City Boundary
Q Signalized Study Intersection & Number ......, - Dublin City Boundary
Signalized Intersection --• - Contra Costa County Existing Condition
AM (PM) - Segment Peak Hour Voumes Boundary Packet Pg. 138
Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service Analysis (Existing Conditions)
Table 5 summarizes the results of the intersection LOS analysis conducted for the Existing Conditions AM
and PM peak hours.
Table 5 — Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service
AM peak hour
PM peak hour
No
Intersection Name
Control
Average
Average
Delays
LOS
Delays
LOS
1
Santa Rita Rd/
Signalized
55.9
E
38.1
D
1-580 EB off -ramp
2
Santa Rita Rd/Tassajara
Signalized
10.3
B
12.1
B
Rd/1-580 WB off -ramp
3
Tassajara Rd/Dublin Blvd
Signalized
35.8
D
57.8
E
4
Tassajara Rd/Gleason Dr
Signalized
27.8
C
36.5
D
5
Fallon Rd/Camino
Signalized
16.0
D
46.4
D
Tassajara/Tassajara Rd
6
Camino Tassajara/
Signalized
65.8
E
24.1
C
Highland Rd
7
El Charro Rd/
Signalized
4.0
A
7.5
A
1-580 EB off -ramp
8
El Charro Rd/Fallon Rd/1-
Signalized
6.0
A
8.4
A
580 WB ramps
9
Fallon Rd/Dublin Blvd
Signalized
11.2
B
18.3
B
10
Fallon Rd/
Signalized
5.6
A
4.9
A
Silvera Ranch Dr
11
Camino Tassajara/
Signalized
21.6
C
23.5
C
Windemere Pkwy
12
Camino Tassajara and
Signalized
24.3
C
39.3
D
Crow Canyon Rd
Source: DKS Associates, 2014
Notes:
a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle and is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
BOLD indicates unacceptable LOS
Appendix A contains the LOS analysis and calculation worksheets. Based on the LOS results under Existing in
Conditions, nine of the 12 study intersections currently operate acceptably according to applicable LOS N
standards during AM and PM peak hours. The Santa Rita Road/1-580 EB off -ramp intersection operates
a�
acceptably at LOS D during the PM peak hour but operates unacceptably at LOS E under the City of Dublin E
standard during the AM peak hour. The Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection operates acceptably
at LOS C during the AM peak hour but operates unacceptably at LOS E under the City of Dublin standard a
during the PM peak hour. The Camino Tassajara/Highland Road intersection operates unacceptably at LOS
E under the Contra Costa County General Plan standard during the AM peak hour and operates acceptably
at LOS C during the PM peak hour. Only the intersection of Fallon Rd/Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Rd
during the AM peak hour operates worse than the 2014 Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan LOS E
standard.
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 18 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 139
Roadway Peak Hour Level of Service Analysis (Existing Conditions)
Table 6 summarizes the average travel time and roadway segment level of service under existing
conditions. Average travel time was calculated as the sum of free -flow travel time and average signal delay
for through traffic at study intersections within each roadway segment. Free flow travel time was
determined using free -flow speeds calculated from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. The
factors used to calculate free flow speed include posted speed limit, existence and type of curb and
median, access point density and number of lanes. Roadway Segment LOS is determined by vehicle travel
speeds as a percentage of free flow speed as defined in Table 4. Appendix B provides roadway segment
LOS analysis and calculation worksheets.
As shown in Table 6, all roadway segments operate at LOS C or better during AM and PM peak hours in
both directions. Generally, speeds are faster during the AM peak hour.
Table 6 — Existing Condition Roadway Segment Level of Service
Roadway Segment
Approach
Peak Hour
Average Travel Time (sec)
Segment LOS
Tassajara Rd between Gleason Dr and
North Dublin Ranch Dr
Southbound
AM
69.6
C
PM
82.6
C
Northbound
AM
63.2
B
PM
79.7
C
Tassajara Rd between North Dublin
Ranch Dr and Fallon Road
Southbound
AM
86.2
A
PM
86.2
A
Northbound
AM
95.2
A
PM
111.0
B
Tassajara Rd/Camino Tassajara
between Fallon Rd and Windemere
Parkway
Southbound
AM
98.5
A
PM
109.8
B
Northbound
AM
87.8
A
PM
88.6
A
Camino Tassajara between Windemere
parkway and Lusitano Street
Southbound
AM
329.2
A
PM
325.4
A
Northbound
AM
325.4
A
PM
325.8
A
Camino Tassajara between Lusitano
Street and Crow Canyon Rd
Southbound
AM
213.9
A
PM
213.9
A
Northbound
AM
237.6
A
PM
244.4
A
Camino Tassajara between Crow
Canyon Road and Sycamore Valley
Road
Southbound
AM
278.8
A
PM
301.E
B
Northbound
AM
250.8
A
PM
250.8
A
Notes: Free flow Speed is defined by HCM 2010 methodoloev
Travel Time (sec) = The average time taken for a vehicle to travel the segment.
T
Q
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 19 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 140
O
Future Cumulative (2040) Conditions
2040 Land Use Description
According to the volume forecasts for year 2040, as 1-580 gets more congested in the future due to
significant new development and growth in all of the Bay Area, traffic diverts to local streets in Dublin,
Livermore and Pleasanton. Growth in trip generation was based on land use projections included in the
CCTA Countywide Model, which is described more in detail under the Analysis Methodology section.
2040 Select -Link Analysis
Select -link analyses were conducted for both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 under the AM peak hour and PM
peak -hour traffic conditions to determine the travel patterns of vehicles using various segments of Camino
Tassajara/Tassajara Road. The links selected for the analysis are Camino Tassajara north of Highland Road,
Tassajara Road between Fallon Road and Windemere Parkway, and Fallon Road between Antone Way and
Turnberry Drive. Table 7 shows average flows along several segments along Camino Tassajara/Tassajara
Road for both scenarios and peak hours.
Appendix E contains plots of the select -link analysis with traffic volumes along various roadways including
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara in the study area. The thickness of the various links graphically indicates
the level of traffic distribution along the various routes in the study area. As shown in the figures and
summarized in Table 6, there is no significant difference in the traffic distribution pattern in the study area
when the number of travel lanes on Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara is increased from four to six lanes.
However, widening the study roadway from four lanes to six lanes is expected to slightly increase traffic
on Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara by less than 100 vehicles per hour in both northbound and
southbound directions during the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore it can be concluded that there are no
significant differences in travel patterns under both four lanes and six lanes scenario.
Figure 5 and Figure 6 show link volumes for the 4-lane and 6-lane scenarios respectively under cumulative
traffic conditions.
a
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 20 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 141
Table 7 — 2040 Select -Link Analysis Volumes
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Roadway Segment
Approach
Peak Hour
Average
Average
Volume
Volume
AM
422
490
Southbound
Tassajara Rd between Gleason Dr
PM
75
75
AM
75
72
and North Dublin Ranch Dr
Northbound
PM
272
332
AM
500
550
Southbound
Tassajara Rd between North Dublin
PM
150
150
AM
175
150
Ranch Dr and Fallon Road
Northbound
PM
300
390
AM
670
750
Tassajara Rd/Camino Tassajara
Southbound
PM
320
315
between Fallon Rd and Windemere
Northbound
AM
603
660
Parkway
PM
495
550
AM
670
735
Camino Tassajara between
Southbound
PM
200
200
Windemere parkway and Lusitano
Street
Northbound
AM
400
400
PM
475
530
AM
300
400
Southbound
Camino Tassajara between Lusitano
PM
150
150
AM
600
600
Street and Crow Canyon Rd
Northbound
PM
200
200
AM
20
30
Camino Tassajara between Crow
Southbound
PM
30
30
Canyon Road and Sycamore Valley
Road
Northbound
AM
350
350
PM
40
50
T
Q
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 21 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 142
5.1.b
f
0
.y
N0
I.L
E
V
r
a
3
E
c
m
a
a
CY
W
U
N
N
C
N
E
t
V
R
Q
U
LEGEND Figure
•••••• - Danville City Boundary
Q Signalized Study Intersection & Number ......, - Dublin City Boundary
Signalized Intersection --• - Contra Costa County 4-Lane Cumulative
a
AM (PM) - Segment Peak Hour Volumes Boundary Packet Pg. 143
5.1.b
f
0
.y
N0
I.L
� N
r
E
V
r
a
3
E
c
m
a
a
CY
W
U
N
N
C
N
E
t
V
R
Q
U
LEGEND Figure •
•••••• - Danville City Boundary
G Signalized Study Intersection & Number ......, - Dublin City Boundary
Signalized Intersection -- - Contra Costa County 6-Lane Cumulative
a
AM (PM) - Segment Peak Hour Volumes Boundary Packet Pg. 144
Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service Analysis (Cumulative 2040
Conditions)
Table 8 compares the results of the intersection LOS analysis conducted for the Cumulative Conditions
during the AM peak hour between the 4-lane and 6-lane scenarios.
Table 8 — Cumulative 2040 Conditions Intersection Level of Service — AM Peak Hour
With Optimization
Applicable
No
Intersection Name
Control
4-Lane Scenario
6-Lane Scenario
LOS
Average
LOS
Average
LOS
Standard
Delays
Delays
1
Santa Rita Rd and 1-580
Signalized
94.5
F
95.8
F
D
EB off -ramp
Santa Rita Rd/Tassajara
2
Rd and 1-580 WB off-
Signalized
29.4
C
29.2
C
D
ramp
3
Tassajara Rd and Dublin
Signalized
40.4
D
39.5
D
D
Blvd
4
Tassajara Rd and
Signalized
87.8
F
80.1
F
D
Gleason Dr
Fallon Rd/Camino
5
Tassajara and Tassajara
Signalized
18.6
B
16.9
B
D
Rd
Camino Tassajara and
6
Highland Rd
Signalized
11.5
B
9.0
A
C
7
El Charro Rd and 1-580
Signalized
6.3
A
6.3
A
D
EB off -ramp
El Charro Rd/Fallon Rd
8
Signalized
6.1
A
9.7
A
D
and 1-580 WB ramps
9
Fallon Rd/Dublin Blvd
Signalized
33.4
C
33.4
C
D
Fallon Rd/Silvera Ranch
10
Signalized
6.0
A
5.9
A
D
Dr
Camino Tassajara and
11
Windemere Pkwy
Signalized
28.2
C
27.4
C
C
Camino Tassajara and
12
Crow Canyon Rd
Signalized
25.7
C
26.0
C
D
Source: DKS Associates, 2014
N
Notes:
a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle and is based on average stopped delay. N
b. LOS = Level of Service
BOLD indicates unacceptable LOS E
During the AM Peak hour, the intersection LOS is generally similar between the two scenarios. The
c�
following two intersections are expected to operate unacceptably under cumulative 2040 traffic a
conditions:
• Santa Rita Rd and 1-580 EB off -ramp (under both 4-lane and 6-lane scenarios)
• Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive (under both 4-lane and 6-lane scenarios)
The intersections of Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive and Santa Rita Rd and 1-580 EB off -ramp operates
worse than the 2014 Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan LOS E standard under both scenarios.
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 24 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 145
Table 9 compares the results of the intersection LOS analysis conducted for the Cumulative Conditions
during the PM peak hour between the 4-Lane and 6-Lane scenarios.
Table 9 — Cumulative 2040 Conditions Intersection Level of Service — PM Peak Hour
With Optimization
Applicable
No
Intersection Name
Control
4-Lane Scenario
6-Lane Scenario
LOS
Average
LOS
Average
LOS
Standard
Delays
Delays
1
Santa Rita Rd and 1-580
Signalized
39.2
D
47.7
C
D
EB off -ramp
Santa Rita Rd/Tassajara
2
Rd and 1-580 WB off-
Signalized
12.9
B
17.8
B
D
ramp
3
Tassajara Rd and Dublin
Signalized
91.2
F
133.5
F
D
Blvd
4
Tassajara Rd and
Signalized
65.4
E
87.9
F
D
Gleason Dr
Fallon Rd/Camino
5
Tassajara and Tassajara
Signalized
16.8
B
17.1
B
D
Rd
Camino Tassajara and
6
Highland Rd
Signalized
11.6
B
12.3
B
C
7
El Charro Rd and 1-580
Signalized
11.4
B
11.3
B
D
EB off -ramp
El Charro Rd/Fallon Rd
8
Signalized
7.4
A
4.4
A
D
and 1-580 WB ramps
9
Fallon Rd/Dublin Blvd
Signalized
132.7
F
174.9
F
D
Fallon Rd/Silvera Ranch
10
Signalized
6.1
A
6.1
A
D
Dr
Camino Tassajara and
11
Signalized
20.9
C
20.6
C
C
Windemere Pkwy
Camino Tassajara and
12
Crow Canyon Rd
Signalized
44.2
D
42.5
D
D
Source: DKS Associates, 2014
Notes:
a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle and is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
BOLD indicates unacceptable LOS
N
C
During the PM Peak hour, the intersection LOS is generally similar between the two scenarios. The W
E
following three intersections are expected to operate unacceptably under cumulative 2040 traffic
c�
conditions:
a
• Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard (under both 4-lane and 6-lane scenarios)
• Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive (under both 4-lane and 6-lane scenarios)
• Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard (under both 4-lane and 6-lane scenarios)
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 25 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 146
5.1.b
1
The intersections of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive, and Fallon
Road and Dublin Boulevard operate worse than the 2014 Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan LOS E
standard under both scenarios.
Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the forecasted traffic volumes for the 4-lane and 6-lane scenarios respectively
under cumulative 2040 traffic conditions. Appendix A provides LOS analysis and calculation sheets. Based
on the LOS results under Cumulative Conditions, nine of the twelve study intersections currently operate
at LOS E or better during both the AM and PM peak hours for both the 4-Lane and 6-Lane scenarios.
-W
c
a�
E
c�
a
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 26 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 147
5.1.b
Santa Rita Rd & 1-580 EB ramps
Fz _
o a _
ry m ry
m M420(409)
MMM M 208(453)
705(256)m
183 (325) '
m
992 (590)� .� m
a a
0o a
Santa Rita Rd & 1-580 WB ramps
n
a_
o a M 536(373)
m ro
m� m 1318(346)
Y
n r
n r
N �
a
Tassajara Rd & Dublin Blvd
N ro n_
a m
M72 (76)
r m658(259)
MMM M844(253)
g
159(670)m m®
189(1893)0 m m m
223(509)M
o — a
a m a
a m
Tassajara Rd & Gleason
n
Dr
_ ro m_
n o
M318(89)
m652(67)
m�m
m348(150)
86 (514)
m®
110 (304)
N N
13 (39)
.... ....
a = ao
r� m
ao
Tassajara Rd & Fallon
Rd
o n
a m ry o
Mo (0)
m vu'i o
M 2 (2)
MMM
M 3 (5)
455(854)m •
MMM
97(182)M
v
a w
a
Camino Tassajara & Highland Rd
a _
m m ®80(103)
� o
mm m 266(10)
• m�
a m
El Charro Rd & 1-580 EB ramps
_ m
o n
n m
n
429(264)m • EM
� a
206(798)�
El Charro Rd & 1-580 WB ramps
ry ro
a o
m o
�o c M50(27)
ti m17(102)
mm M 292(380)
a m
9. Fallon Rd & Dublin Blvd
10. Fallon Rd & Sivera Ranch
Dr
11. Camino Tassajara &
Windemere Pkwy
12. Camino Tassajara &
Crow Canyon Rd
co
M884(0)
a
o
n n _
m
M82(28)
m o
m954 (0)
a
m599(472)
MM
M 762(1099)
MM
MM
MMM
m 298(109)
Y
Y
®
Y
y
36(94)m
M=
4(9)m
24(103)m
®
87(189)m
568 (2486)0
o o
M
353 (1264)
o ry
149 (0)�
un Z
102 (72
a a+
400 (315)m
....
o
un ry
un
49 (79)
zz t° '^
m m m
n o .i
®LEGEND
' ® Traffic Signal Figure 7
AM(PM) Volume Turning Movements 4-Lane Cumulative Condition Turn Movement Volumes
Q
P:\P\14\14112-001 City of Dublin On -Call Tassajara Rd\06 Graphics\Camino Tassajara Volume Figures v2 Packet Pg. 148
5.1.b
1. Santa Rita Rd & 1-580
EB ramps
r� ro o
ro N
m o n
M416(426)
MMM
M 192 (438)
ad+df n
727(285)m
a EM
194 (330)
izz. a
o m
cam„eras
953(611)�
'acaf
M a
'o
\\ ` c•*+rg m
2. Santa Rita Rd & 1-580
Fz
WB ramps«.«_
ti o
0 o
0
M494 (515)
....... '_
I
____....,.....____.....911Y?1 oanrih?___.........__ L........... _
m�
M 1335(337)
y
Y
ro
�5 pxwy
�P9
3. Tassajara Rd & Dublin
Blvd
wm
ry O1 w
M86(155)
_
m680(281)
MMM
M788(315)
160(992)m
®
u r�yc�V
232 (1844)M
a n a
.....-"'..
Sr°G. F
174(458)M
�
_
)
m � ry
cfiY et W �
O
A
?i�.aJlr �r
4. Tassajara Rd & Gleason
Dr
n
y
s
M 312(140)
_j<
M609(80)
Daum eua
MMM
M423(191)
_
83 (391)�
• m®
111 (232)
16 (24)
c " o
.... o
o ....
m
o
S. Tassajara Rd & Fallon
Rd
6. Camino Tassajara & Highland
Rd
7. El Charro Rd & 1-580
EB ramps
8. El
Charro Rd & 1-580
WB ramps
m °'o
a+ o
MO(0)
n
c `.
M183(103)
a o
n
M75(0)
vmi o
m2(2)
°o a
n ti
M11(95)
mIm
. M3 (5)
IIIO11
M 135 (9)
m�
m�
M 222(366)
411(940)m
• MEM
mM
427(252)m •
MM
1(1)�
a ,e1v =
N
Z m
rn m
64(163)�
ry m
-^�
208(789)�
°o
9. Fallon Rd & Dublin Blvd
10. Fallon Rd & Sivera Ranch
Dr
11. Camino Tassajara &
Windemere Pkwy
12. Camino Tassajara &
Crow Canyon Rd
o
M826(0)
a io
a a o
M126(25)
0984(0)
8vO1i
m671(477)
ME
M782(1133)
ME
ME
ME
m384(104)
Y
Y
®
Y
y
44(20)m
MM
4(9)m
16(102)m
®
73(185)M
MEM
633(2473)�
o+ o
N a
^ a
347(1271)�
m iz
199 (0)�
ti N
m
101 (73)�
'-"
401 (309)m
`^ t°
m m
35(84
m.
o m m
®LEGEND
'
® Traffic Signal
Figure 8
AM(PM) Volume
Turning
6-Lane Cumulative Condition Turn
Movement Volumes
Movements
Q
P:\P\14\14112-001 City of Dublin On -Call Tassajara Rd\06 Graphics\Camino Tassajara Volume Figures v2 Packet Pg. 149
Roadway Peak Hour Level of Service Analysis (Cumulative 2040 Conditions)
Table 10 compares the estimated average travel times and segment LOS under each of the two scenarios.
Average travel time was calculated as the sum of free flow travel time and average signal delay for
through traffic at study intersections within each roadway segment.
As shown in Table 10, all roadway segments north of North Dublin Ranch Drive operate at LOS C or better
during AM and PM peak hours in both directions. Under both scenarios, the segment of Tassajara Road
between Gleason Drive and North Dublin Ranch Drive operates at LOS C or LOS D during the AM peak hour
in both directions. During the PM peak hour it operates at LOS E in the northbound direction. The travel
time is longer in almost all cases under the 4-Lane Scenario; however there is very little difference in LOS
between the scenarios.
T
a
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 29 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 150
_MB
Table 10 - Cumulative 2040 Conditions Roadway Segment Level of Service
4-Lane Scenario
6-Lane Scenario
Difference
Roadway
Segment
Approach
Peak
Hour
Average
Travel Time
(sec:)
Segment
LOS
Average
Travel Time
(sec)
Segment
LOS
Average
Travel Time
(sec)
Segment
LOS
AM
79.7
C
78.4
C
-1.3
No change
Tassajara Rd between
SB
PM
70.0
C
61.6
B
-8.4
C413
Gleason Dr and North
Dublin Ranch Dr
NB
AM
89.1
D
86.2
C
-2.9
D4C
PM
137.3
E
135.1
E
-2.2
No change
AM
86.0
A
85.9
A
-0.1
No change
Tassajara Rd between
SB
PM
86.0
A
85.9
A
-0.1
No change
North Dublin Ranch Dr
and Fallon Road
NB
AM
93.4
A
93.2
A
-0.2
No change
PM
98.3
A
98.4
A
0.1
No change
Tassajara Rd/Camino
Tassajara between Fallon
SB
AM
103.1
B
101.9
B
-1.2
No change
PM
103.8
B
104.1
B
0.3
No change
Rd and Windemere
AM
89.2
A
88.9
A
-0.3
No change
Parkway
NB
PM
90.4
A
90.4
A
0
No change
Camino Tassajara
between Windemere
SB
AM
352.3
A
346.0
A
-6.3
No change
PM
330.5
A
329.9
A
-0.6
No change
parkway and Lusitano
AM
326.7
A
324.6
A
-2.1
No change
Street
NB
PM
327.6
A
326.9
A
-0.7
No change
AM
213.9
A
213.5
A
-0.4
No change
Camino Tassajara
SB
PM
213.9
A
213.5
A
-0.4
No change
between Lusitano Street
NB
AM
237.8
A
237.0
A
-0.8
No change
and Crow Canyon Rd
PM
240.7
A
241.5
A
0.8
No change
Camino Tassajara
between Crow Canyon
SB
AM
280.6
A
281.1
A
0.5
No change
PM
307.1
B
305.4
B
-1.7
No change
Road and Sycamore
AM
250.8
A
250.3
A
-0.5
No change
Valley Road
NB
PM
250.8
A
250.3
A
-0.5
No change
Notes: Free flow Speed is defined by HCM 2010 methodology
Travel Time (sec) = The average time taken for a vehicle to travel the segment.
d
O
L
IL
c
d
E
c
a�
M
0
W
L
N
N
M
H
T
c
a�
E
t
U
ca
Q
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 30 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis -Draft Report
Packet Pg. 151
5.1.b
1
Findings and Conclusions
The CCTA Countywide Travel Demand Model was executed for future 2040 traffic volumes to determine
the adequate number of lanes along Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara to accommodate traffic that will be
generated from proposed future developments in the vicinity of the Camino Tassajara Road in Dublin,
Livermore, San Ramon, Danville and unincorporated Contra Costa County. The results were compared
with the model output with forecasts from the Alameda CTC's Countywide Travel Demand Model and the
City of Dublin Model. While there is consistency in travel distribution pattern among the three travel
demand models, the CCTA Travel Demand Model was used for the study because majority of the study
roadway segments are in Contra Costa County and the model conservatively forecast higher traffic
volumes than the ACTC and Dublin travel demand models.
The level of service was conducted for key intersections in Dublin, Livermore, San Ramon, Danville and
unincorporated Contra Costa County to assess any possible traffic impacts due to traffic diversions.
The existing CCTA model shows variable lanes (i.e. 2-3 lanes in each direction) along Tassajara
Road/Camino Tassajara and this study determined that either two or three lanes per direction produce
similar intersection and roadway segment LOS results along Tassajara Road and Camino Tassajara Road
under future traffic conditions. The select -link analysis results indicate that there are no significant
differences in travel patterns under both four lanes and six lanes scenario.
The results of the Cumulative Conditions analyses for the four -lane and six -lane scenarios generally show
similar level of service with slight improvements at some intersections under the six -lane scenario.
However, for intersections that are expected to experience intolerable delays at LOS F, the six -lane
scenario provides less than 10 seconds of savings per vehicle during the AM peak hour, and an increase in
delay per vehicle during the PM peak hour. Additionally, while the six -lane scenario shows lower travel
time, the travel time savings is generally two seconds or less for segments with travel times between three
and five minutes.
It can therefore be concluded from the similarity in results of the analysis for the four -lane and six -lane
scenarios that widening Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara from four to six lanes is not expected to result in
any significant benefit to motorists.
a
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 31 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Packet Pg. 152
5.1.b
1
Study Participants
DKS Personnel
Bill Loudon, P.E.
David Mahama, P.E.
Joshua Pilachowski, PhD, P.E.
Adonis Garefalakis, E.I.T.
Garnet Wing, E.I.T.
Deserae Mallori
Others
Obaid Khan, P.E.
Gary Huising
Angela Villar, P.E.
Nancy Weir
John Cunningham
References
Principal -In -Charge
Project Manager
Transportation Engineer
Transportation Planner
Associate Transportation Engineer
Word Processing and Graphic Designer
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
Contra Costa County Public Works Department
Contra Costa County Public Works Department
Contra Costa County Public Works Department
1. Mollar Ranch Traffic Impact Study Final Report, Kimley-Horn & Associates, 0911012012
2. Green Traffic ADSEIR, Kittleson Associates 1012013
3. Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, DKS, 2014
4. Comprehensive Agreement to Settle Litigation, Town of Danville v. Contra Costa, et al.,
(Contra Costa County Case No. C-02-02250, San Joaquin County Case No. CV-020073)
5. Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 and 2010 Transportation Research Board
Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara 32
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Q
March 19, 2015
Packet Pg. 153
5.1.b
Appendix A
Intersection Level of Service Analysis
r
u
0
0
L
a
c
0
E
c
a�
a
c�
0
L
f
0
.y
E
a
3
E
c
m
a
a
cY
W
U
CO
N
C
N
E
t
V
R
Q
Packet Pg. 154
5.1.b
APPENDIX Al
Existing Condition
Packet Pg. 155
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & 1-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
rr
ttt
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
538
147
665
163
0
374
0
779
398
175
1013
228
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.4
4.5
4.0
5.4
5.4
4.0
5.4
5.4
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.88
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
1863
1583
3433
2787
5085
1583
1770
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
1863
1583
3433
2787
5085
1583
1770
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)
578
158
715
175
0
402
0
838
428
188
1089
245
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
84
0
0
19
0
0
316
0
0
134
Lane Group Flow (vph)
578
158
631
175
0
383
0
838
112
188
1089
111
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
custom
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
3
8
7
54
6
5
2
Permitted Phases
8
6
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
21.9
30.5
30.5
9.9
38.4
26.7
26.7
15.4
46.1
46.1
Effective Green, g (s)
21.9
30.5
30.5
9.9
33.9
26.7
26.7
15.4
46.1
46.1
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.22
0.30
0.30
0.10
0.33
0.26
0.26
0.15
0.45
0.45
Clearance Time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.4
4.5
5.4
5.4
4.0
5.4
5.4
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
739
558
474
334
928
1334
415
268
1603
717
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.17
0.08
0.05
0.14
0.16
0.11
c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.40
0.07
0.07
v/c Ratio
0.78
0.28
1.33
0.52
0.41
0.63
0.27
0.70
0.68
0.15
Uniform Delay, d1
37.7
27.3
35.6
43.7
26.3
33.2
29.8
41.0
22.0
16.4
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
5.0
0.1
163.0
0.7
0.1
0.9
0.4
6.6
1.2
0.1
Delay (s)
42.7
27.4
198.6
44.4
26.4
34.1
30.2
47.6
23.2
16.5
Level of Service
D
C
F
D
C
C
C
D
C
B
Approach Delay (s)
117.9
31.8
32.8
25.1
Approach LOS
F
C
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
55.9 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.95
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
101.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
86.2% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 156
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & 1-580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
tt
r
ttt
rr
Volume (vph)
0
0
0
544
0
315
0
1009
553
0
866
844
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.88
0.95
1.00
0.91
0.88
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
2787
3539
1583
5085
2787
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
2787
3539
1583
5085
2787
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.96
0.92
0.96
0.92
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
567
0
328
0
1051
576
0
902
917
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
0
125
0
0
256
0
0
407
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
0
0
567
0
203
0
1051
320
0
902
510
Turn Type
Prot
custom
NA
Perm
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
4
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
15.1
15.1
33.1
33.1
33.1
33.1
Effective Green, g (s)
15.1
15.1
33.1
33.1
33.1
33.1
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.25
0.25
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
Clearance Time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
871
707
1969
881
2829
1550
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.17
c0.30
0.18
v/s Ratio Perm
0.07
0.20
0.18
v/c Ratio
0.65
0.29
0.53
0.36
0.32
0.33
Uniform Delay, d1
19.8
17.9
8.3
7.3
7.1
7.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
1.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
Delay (s)
21.2
18.0
8.6
7.6
7.2
7.3
Level of Service
C
B
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
20.0
8.3
7.2
Approach LOS
A
B
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
10.3 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
59.5 Sum of lost time (s) 11.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
51.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
a
Packet Pg. 157
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
tt
rr
)))
ti�
)))
tt
r
tiff
rr
Volume (vph)
59
63
181
384
191
15
329
553
117
16
1094
170
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.95
0.88
0.94
0.95
0.94
0.95
1.00
0.97
0.86
0.88
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
3539
2787
4990
3502
4990
3539
1583
3433
6408
2787
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
3539
2787
4990
3502
4990
3539
1583
3433
6408
2787
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)
61
65
187
396
197
15
339
570
121
16
1128
175
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
31
0
3
0
0
0
35
0
0
53
Lane Group Flow (vph)
61
65
156
396
209
0
339
570
86
16
1128
122
Turn Type
Prot
NA
pm+ov
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
3
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
16.0
16.0
32.4
17.1
17.1
16.4
88.5
88.5
5.9
78.0
78.0
Effective Green, g (s)
16.0
16.0
32.4
17.1
17.1
16.4
88.5
88.5
5.9
78.0
78.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.11
0.11
0.22
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.59
0.59
0.04
0.52
0.52
Clearance Time (s)
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
367
379
604
571
401
547
2095
937
135
3343
1454
v/s Ratio Prot
0.02
0.02
0.03
c0.08
c0.06
c0.07
0.16
0.00
c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm
0.03
0.05
0.04
v/c Ratio
0.17
0.17
0.26
0.69
0.52
0.62
0.27
0.09
0.12
0.34
0.08
Uniform Delay, d1
60.7
60.7
48.6
63.7
62.4
63.6
14.8
13.2
69.3
20.8
17.9
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.1
0.2
0.1
2.9
1.2
1.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
Delay (s)
60.8
60.9
48.7
66.6
63.6
65.0
15.2
13.4
69.4
21.0
18.0
Level of Service
E
E
D
E
E
E
B
B
E
C
B
Approach Delay (s)
53.6
65.6
31.4
21.2
Approach LOS
D
E
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
35.8 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.43
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
149.5 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
68.6% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
a
Packet Pg. 158
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
tt
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
48
114
33
252
155
51
86
416
172
59
920
230
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
5.3
5.3
4.5
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
1.00
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.97
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.96
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
1863
1583
3433
1794
3433
3539
1583
1770
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
1863
1583
3433
1794
3433
3539
1583
1770
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
Adj. Flow (vph)
58
137
40
304
187
61
104
501
207
71
1108
277
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
34
0
8
0
0
0
116
0
0
115
Lane Group Flow (vph)
58
137
6
304
240
0
104
501
91
71
1108
162
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
5.5
15.2
15.2
13.6
23.3
8.0
43.6
43.6
7.7
43.3
43.3
Effective Green, g (s)
5.5
15.2
15.2
13.6
23.3
8.0
43.6
43.6
7.7
43.3
43.3
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.06
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.23
0.08
0.44
0.44
0.08
0.44
0.44
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
5.3
5.3
4.5
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
4.5
2.5
4.0
4.0
2.5
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
190
285
242
470
421
276
1552
694
137
1542
690
v/s Ratio Prot
0.02
0.07
c0.09
c0.13
0.03
0.14
c0.04
c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm
0.00
0.06
0.10
v/c Ratio
0.31
0.48
0.03
0.65
0.57
0.38
0.32
0.13
0.52
0.72
0.23
Uniform Delay, d1
45.1
38.5
35.8
40.6
33.6
43.3
18.2
16.6
44.1
23.0
17.6
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.7
2.2
0.1
2.7
2.5
0.6
0.2
0.1
2.5
1.7
0.2
Delay (s)
45.8
40.7
35.9
43.3
36.1
44.0
18.4
16.7
46.5
24.8
17.9
Level of Service
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
B
D
C
B
Approach Delay (s)
41.1
40.1
21.3
24.5
Approach LOS
D
D
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
27.8 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
99.4 Sum of lost time (s) 14.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
61.1 % ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
a
Packet Pg. 159
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
t
r
t
r
t
r
Volume (vph)
192
5
21
2
3
0
21
42
88
0
120
681
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
1863
1583
1770
1863
1770
1863
1583
1863
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
1863
1583
1770
1863
1770
1863
1583
1863
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)
206
5
23
2
3
0
23
45
95
0
129
732
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
54
0
0
486
Lane Group Flow (vph)
206
5
7
2
3
0
23
45
41
0
129
246
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
16.9
16.8
16.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
24.0
24.0
18.5
18.5
Effective Green, g (s)
16.9
16.8
16.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
24.0
24.0
18.5
18.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.44
0.44
0.34
0.34
Clearance Time (s)
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
Vehicle Extension (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
544
569
484
32
30
29
813
691
627
532
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.12
0.00
0.00
c0.00
c0.01
0.02
0.07
v/s Ratio Perm
0.00
0.03
c0.16
v/c Ratio
0.38
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.10
0.79
0.06
0.06
0.21
0.46
Uniform Delay, d1
14.9
13.3
13.3
26.5
26.7
27.0
9.0
9.0
13.0
14.3
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.1
2.0
79.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.9
Delay (s)
15.5
13.3
13.3
27.7
28.6
106.5
9.0
9.0
13.2
15.2
Level of Service
B
B
B
C
C
F
A
A
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
15.3
28.2
22.7
14.9
Approach LOS
B
C
C
B
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
16.0 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.38
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
55.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
69.8% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
a
Packet Pg. 160
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
t
Movement
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations
t
Volume (vph)
97
264
170
2
53
443
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
6.0
4.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Frt
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
Flt Protected
0.99
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1657
1860
1770
1863
Flt Permitted
0.99
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1657
1860
1770
1863
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
102
278
179
2
56
466
RTOR Reduction (vph)
65
0
0
0
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
315
0
181
0
56
466
Turn Type
NA
NA
Prot
NA
Protected Phases
4
6
5
2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
22.0
92.2
7.5
103.7
Effective Green, g (s)
22.0
92.2
7.5
103.7
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.16
0.68
0.06
0.76
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
6.0
4.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
269
1264
98
1424
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.19
0.10
c0.03
c0.25
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
1.17
0.14
0.57
0.33
Uniform Delay, d1
56.8
7.7
62.5
5.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
109.9
0.2
4.9
0.6
Delay (s)
166.7
8.0
67.5
5.6
Level of Service
F
A
E
A
Approach Delay (s)
166.7
8.0
12.3
Approach LOS
F
A
B
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
65.8 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.48
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
135.7 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
53.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 161
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & 1-580 EB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
t
r
t
r
Volume (vph)
182
0
71
0
0
0
0
75
21
0
59
270
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.88
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
0.90
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
2787
3378
1441
3037
1441
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
2787
3378
1441
3037
1441
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)
202
0
79
0
0
0
0
83
23
0
66
300
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
61
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
94
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
202
0
18
0
0
0
0
84
21
0
122
150
Turn Type
custom
custom
NA
Free
NA
Free
Protected Phases
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
Free
Free
Actuated Green, G (s)
4.4
4.4
7.4
19.8
7.4
19.8
Effective Green, g (s)
4.4
4.4
7.4
19.8
7.4
19.8
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.22
0.22
0.37
1.00
0.37
1.00
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
763
619
1262
1441
1135
1441
v/s Ratio Prot
0.02
0.04
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.06
0.01
0.01
c0.10
v/c Ratio
0.26
0.03
0.07
0.01
0.11
0.10
Uniform Delay, d1
6.4
6.0
4.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
Delay (s)
6.4
6.0
4.0
0.0
4.1
0.1
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
6.3
0.0
3.2
2.5
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
4.0 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.15
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
19.8 Sum of lost time (s) 4.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
20.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
a
Packet Pg. 162
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & 1-580 WB on-ramp/1-580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
rr
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
0
0
0
58
2
198
0
181
74
0
274
347
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.95
0.95
0.88
0.95
0.95
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
0.99
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
0.96
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1681
1690
2787
1759
1504
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
0.96
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1681
1690
2787
1759
1504
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
64
2
220
0
201
82
0
304
386
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
0
133
0
1
0
0
0
184
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
0
0
33
33
87
0
208
74
0
304
202
Turn Type
Perm
NA
custom
NA
Free
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
8
18
Free
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
10.1
10.1
18.2
11.8
37.0
19.4
19.4
Effective Green, g (s)
10.1
10.1
14.7
11.8
37.0
19.4
19.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.27
0.27
0.40
0.32
1.00
0.52
0.52
Clearance Time (s)
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
459
461
1107
561
1504
1856
830
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.12
0.09
v/s Ratio Perm
0.02
0.02
c0.03
0.05
c0.13
v/c Ratio
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.37
0.05
0.16
0.24
Uniform Delay, d1
10.0
10.0
6.9
9.7
0.0
4.6
4.8
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
Delay (s)
10.0
10.0
6.9
9.9
0.1
4.6
4.9
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
7.7
7.3
4.7
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
6.0 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.25
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
37.0 Sum of lost time (s) 11.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
36.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
a
Packet Pg. 163
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
rr
t
tt
r
Volume (vph)
18
0
87
0
0
0
56
258
0
0
512
29
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.3
4.9
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.88
1.00
0.95
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
2787
1770
3539
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
2787
1770
3539
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
19
0
92
0
0
0
59
272
0
0
539
31
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
Lane Group Flow (vph)
19
0
17
0
0
0
59
272
0
0
539
20
Turn Type
Prot
Perm
Prot
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
pm+ov
Protected Phases
3
8
7
4
1
6
5
2
3
Permitted Phases
8
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
6.7
14.4
5.7
56.8
45.8
52.5
Effective Green, g (s)
6.7
14.4
5.7
56.8
45.8
52.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.08
0.18
0.07
0.71
0.57
0.66
Clearance Time (s)
5.3
4.9
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
148
501
126
2510
2024
1142
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.01
c0.03
0.08
c0.15
0.00
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.01
0.01
v/c Ratio
0.13
0.03
0.47
0.11
0.27
0.02
Uniform Delay, d1
34.0
27.1
35.7
3.7
8.7
4.8
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.1
0.0
1.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
Delay (s)
34.1
27.1
36.7
3.8
9.0
4.8
Level of Service
C
C
D
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
28.3
0.0
9.6
8.8
Approach LOS
C
A
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
11.2 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.24
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
80.1 Sum of lost time (s) 14.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization
39.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
a
Packet Pg. 164
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
t
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
Y
t
t
r
Volume (vph)
1
29
11
65
138
3
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Frt
0.87
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1616
1770
1863
1863
1583
Flt Permitted
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1616
1770
1863
1863
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
Adj. Flow (vph)
1
39
15
88
186
4
RTOR Reduction (vph)
38
0
0
0
0
2
Lane Group Flow (vph)
2
0
15
88
186
2
Turn Type
NA
Prot
NA
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
4
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
1.0
1.1
28.3
23.2
23.2
Effective Green, g (s)
1.0
1.1
28.3
23.2
23.2
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.03
0.03
0.73
0.60
0.60
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
42
50
1366
1120
951
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.00
c0.01
0.05
c0.10
v/s Ratio Perm
0.00
v/c Ratio
0.05
0.30
0.06
0.17
0.00
Uniform Delay, d1
18.3
18.4
1.4
3.4
3.1
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.2
3.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
Delay (s)
18.5
21.7
1.5
3.6
3.1
Level of Service
B
C
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
18.5
4.4
3.5
Approach LOS
B
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
5.6 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.17
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
38.6 Sum of lost time (s) 13.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
21.1 % ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
a
Packet Pg. 165
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
t
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
t
t
Volume (vph)
20
287
82
148
501
62
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.88
0.97
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.98
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
2787
3433
1863
3481
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
2787
3433
1863
3481
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
22
312
89
161
545
67
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
270
0
0
2
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
22
42
89
161
610
0
Turn Type
NA
custom
Prot
NA
NA
Protected Phases
4
58
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
4.0
17.4
7.7
104.1
92.4
Effective Green, g (s)
4.0
17.4
7.7
104.1
92.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.03
0.14
0.06
0.81
0.72
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
55
379
207
1518
2517
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.01
c0.02
c0.03
0.09
c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
0.40
0.11
0.43
0.11
0.24
Uniform Delay, d1
60.7
48.4
57.9
2.4
5.9
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
1.7
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.2
Delay (s)
62.5
48.5
58.5
2.5
6.2
Level of Service
E
D
E
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
49.4
22.5
6.2
Approach LOS
D
C
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
21.6 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.26
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
127.8 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
34.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
a
Packet Pg. 166
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
tt
r
)))
ti�
tip
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
71
282
99
252
434
28
193
364
124
15
408
78
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
5.7
5.7
4.0
5.7
4.0
5.3
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.95
1.00
0.94
0.95
0.97
0.91
0.91
0.97
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.99
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
3539
1583
4990
3507
3433
3373
1441
3433
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
3539
1583
4990
3507
3433
3373
1441
3433
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
77
307
108
274
472
30
210
396
135
16
443
85
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
87
0
3
0
0
1
76
0
0
51
Lane Group Flow (vph)
77
307
21
274
499
0
210
409
45
16
443
34
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
4
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
5.4
14.6
14.6
12.2
21.4
10.2
28.7
28.7
1.9
20.4
20.4
Effective Green, g (s)
5.4
14.6
14.6
12.2
21.4
10.2
28.7
28.7
1.9
20.4
20.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.07
0.19
0.19
0.16
0.28
0.13
0.38
0.38
0.02
0.27
0.27
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
5.7
5.7
4.0
5.7
4.0
5.3
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
243
676
303
797
982
458
1267
541
85
945
423
v/s Ratio Prot
0.02
c0.09
0.05
c0.14
c0.06
0.12
0.00
c0.13
v/s Ratio Perm
0.01
0.03
0.02
v/c Ratio
0.32
0.45
0.07
0.34
0.51
0.46
0.32
0.08
0.19
0.47
0.08
Uniform Delay, d1
33.7
27.4
25.3
28.5
23.1
30.6
16.9
15.4
36.5
23.5
21.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.3
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
Delay (s)
34.0
28.0
25.5
28.6
23.7
30.8
17.1
15.5
36.9
24.0
21.1
Level of Service
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
D
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
28.4
25.4
20.7
23.9
Approach LOS
C
C
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
24.3 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
76.4 Sum of lost time (s) 20.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
48.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
a
Packet Pg. 167
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & 1-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
rr
ttt
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
434
226
338
179
0
479
0
1288
537
288
1021
298
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.4
4.5
4.0
5.4
5.4
4.0
5.4
5.4
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.88
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
1863
1583
3433
2787
5085
1583
1770
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
1863
1583
3433
2787
5085
1583
1770
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)
452
235
352
186
0
499
0
1342
559
300
1064
310
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
89
0
0
15
0
0
326
0
0
143
Lane Group Flow (vph)
452
235
263
186
0
484
0
1342
233
300
1064
167
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
custom
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
3
8
7
54
6
5
2
Permitted Phases
8
6
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
20.0
28.1
28.1
11.8
47.5
37.1
37.1
23.1
64.2
64.2
Effective Green, g (s)
20.0
28.1
28.1
11.8
43.0
37.1
37.1
23.1
64.2
64.2
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.17
0.24
0.24
0.10
0.36
0.31
0.31
0.19
0.54
0.54
Clearance Time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.4
4.5
5.4
5.4
4.0
5.4
5.4
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
575
438
373
339
1004
1580
492
342
1903
851
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.13
0.13
0.05
0.17
c0.26
c0.17
0.30
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.17
0.15
0.11
v/c Ratio
0.79
0.54
0.71
0.55
0.48
0.85
0.47
0.88
0.56
0.20
Uniform Delay, d1
47.6
40.0
41.9
51.3
29.6
38.5
33.3
46.8
18.2
14.3
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
7.0
1.3
6.0
1.8
0.4
5.9
3.2
21.4
1.2
0.5
Delay (s)
54.6
41.2
47.8
53.1
29.9
44.4
36.5
68.2
19.4
14.8
Level of Service
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
E
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
49.3
36.2
42.1
27.3
Approach LOS
D
D
D
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
38.1 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
119.4 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization
73.9% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
a
Packet Pg. 168
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & 1-580 WEB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
tt
r
ttt
rr
Volume (vph)
0
0
0
509
0
298
0
1433
677
0
1104
647
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.88
0.95
1.00
0.91
0.88
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
2787
3539
1583
5085
2787
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
2787
3539
1583
5085
2787
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.96
0.92
0.96
0.92
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
530
0
310
0
1493
705
0
1150
703
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
266
0
0
266
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
0
0
530
0
267
0
1493
439
0
1150
437
Turn Type
Prot
custom
NA
Perm
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
4
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
17.3
17.3
47.1
47.1
47.1
47.1
Effective Green, g (s)
17.3
17.3
47.1
47.1
47.1
47.1
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.23
0.23
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
Clearance Time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
785
637
2202
985
3164
1734
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.15
c0.42
0.23
v/s Ratio Perm
0.10
0.28
0.16
v/c Ratio
0.68
0.42
0.68
0.45
0.36
0.25
Uniform Delay, d1
26.6
24.9
9.3
7.5
7.0
6.4
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
2.3
0.4
1.7
1.5
0.3
0.3
Delay (s)
28.9
25.4
11.0
8.9
7.3
6.8
Level of Service
C
C
B
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
27.6
10.4
7.1
Approach LOS
A
C
B
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
12.1 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.68
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
75.7 Sum of lost time (s) 11.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
62.4% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 169
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
tt
rr
)))
ti�
)))
tt
r
tiff
rr
Volume (vph)
306
551
477
233
147
34
402
714
394
55
654
99
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.95
0.88
0.94
0.95
0.94
0.95
1.00
0.97
0.86
0.88
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.97
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
3539
2787
4990
3440
4990
3539
1583
3433
6408
2787
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
3539
2787
4990
3440
4990
3539
1583
3433
6408
2787
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)
319
574
497
243
153
35
419
744
410
57
681
103
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
71
0
6
0
0
0
162
0
0
80
Lane Group Flow (vph)
319
574
426
243
182
0
419
744
248
57
681
23
Turn Type
Prot
NA
pm+ov
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
3
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
22.5
81.5
102.7
16.5
75.5
21.2
47.0
47.0
15.1
40.9
40.9
Effective Green, g (s)
22.5
81.5
102.7
16.5
75.5
21.2
47.0
47.0
15.1
40.9
40.9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.12
0.45
0.56
0.09
0.41
0.12
0.26
0.26
0.08
0.22
0.22
Clearance Time (s)
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
424
1584
1572
452
1426
581
913
409
285
1439
626
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.09
c0.16
0.03
0.05
0.05
c0.08
c0.21
0.02
0.11
v/s Ratio Perm
0.12
0.16
0.01
v/c Ratio
0.75
0.36
0.27
0.54
0.13
0.72
0.81
0.61
0.20
0.47
0.04
Uniform Delay, d1
77.1
33.2
20.4
79.2
32.9
77.6
63.5
59.4
77.9
61.3
55.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
6.6
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.2
3.7
5.7
2.5
0.1
0.2
0.0
Delay (s)
83.7
33.8
20.5
79.8
33.1
81.3
69.1
61.9
78.0
61.5
55.2
Level of Service
F
C
C
E
C
F
E
E
E
E
E
Approach Delay (s)
40.5
59.4
70.5
61.9
Approach LOS
D
E
E
E
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
57.8 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
182.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
79.1 % ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 170
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
tt
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
213
192
66
151
67
22
191
703
191
23
466
71
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
5.3
5.3
4.5
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
1.00
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.97
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.96
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
1863
1583
3433
1794
3433
3539
1583
1770
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
1863
1583
3433
1794
3433
3539
1583
1770
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
Adj. Flow (vph)
234
211
73
166
74
24
210
773
210
25
512
78
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
46
0
6
0
0
0
144
0
0
59
Lane Group Flow (vph)
234
211
27
166
92
0
210
773
66
25
512
19
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
13.0
40.7
40.7
10.9
38.6
12.3
34.8
34.8
4.5
27.0
27.0
Effective Green, g (s)
13.0
40.7
40.7
10.9
38.6
12.3
34.8
34.8
4.5
27.0
27.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.12
0.37
0.37
0.10
0.35
0.11
0.32
0.32
0.04
0.25
0.25
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
5.3
5.3
4.5
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
405
688
585
340
628
383
1118
500
72
867
388
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.07
c0.11
0.05
0.05
c0.06
c0.22
0.01
0.14
v/s Ratio Perm
0.02
0.04
0.01
v/c Ratio
0.58
0.31
0.05
0.49
0.15
0.55
0.69
0.13
0.35
0.59
0.05
Uniform Delay, d1
46.0
24.7
22.3
47.0
24.5
46.3
33.0
26.9
51.4
36.7
31.8
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
2.0
1.2
0.1
1.1
0.5
1.6
1.9
0.1
2.9
1.1
0.1
Delay (s)
48.0
25.9
22.4
48.1
25.0
47.9
34.9
27.0
54.3
37.8
31.8
Level of Service
D
C
C
D
C
D
C
C
D
D
C
Approach Delay (s)
35.4
39.5
35.8
37.7
Approach LOS
D
D
D
D
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
36.5 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.50
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
110.2 Sum of lost time (s) 14.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
54.1 % ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 171
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
t
r
t
r
t
r
Volume (vph)
514
1
18
3
3
1
6
127
1
1
79
235
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.6
4.6
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
1863
1583
1770
1863
1583
1770
1863
1583
1770
1863
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
1863
1583
1770
1863
1583
1770
1863
1583
1770
1863
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
559
1
20
3
3
1
7
138
1
1
86
255
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
14
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
146
Lane Group Flow (vph)
559
1
6
3
3
0
7
138
0
1
86
109
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
47.5
44.5
44.5
15.0
12.0
12.0
1.8
59.6
59.6
1.8
59.5
59.5
Effective Green, g (s)
47.5
44.5
44.5
15.0
12.0
12.0
1.8
59.6
59.6
1.8
59.5
59.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.34
0.32
0.32
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.01
0.43
0.43
0.01
0.43
0.43
Clearance Time (s)
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.6
4.6
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
607
598
508
192
161
137
23
801
681
23
800
680
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.32
0.00
0.00
c0.00
c0.00
c0.07
0.00
0.05
v/s Ratio Perm
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
v/c Ratio
0.92
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.30
0.17
0.00
0.04
0.11
0.16
Uniform Delay, d1
43.7
32.0
32.1
55.2
57.9
57.8
67.8
24.3
22.5
67.5
23.7
24.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
21.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
2.7
0.5
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.5
Delay (s)
65.3
32.0
32.1
55.4
58.1
57.8
70.5
24.8
22.5
67.8
23.9
24.8
Level of Service
E
C
C
E
E
E
E
C
C
E
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
64.1
56.9
27.0
24.7
Approach LOS
E
E
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
46.4 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
138.6 Sum of lost time (s) 13.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
56.1 % ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 172
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
t
Movement
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations
t
Volume (vph)
5
43
415
47
215
208
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
6.0
4.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Frt
0.88
0.99
1.00
1.00
Flt Protected
0.99
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1629
1837
1770
1863
Flt Permitted
0.99
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1629
1837
1770
1863
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)
5
44
428
48
222
214
RTOR Reduction (vph)
42
0
2
0
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
7
0
474
0
222
214
Turn Type
NA
NA
Prot
NA
Protected Phases
4
6
5
2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
4.7
92.3
19.8
116.1
Effective Green, g (s)
4.7
92.3
19.8
116.1
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.04
0.71
0.15
0.89
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
6.0
4.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
59
1296
268
1654
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.00
c0.26
c0.13
0.11
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
0.11
0.37
0.83
0.13
Uniform Delay, d1
61.0
7.6
53.9
0.9
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.3
0.8
17.8
0.2
Delay (s)
61.3
8.4
71.7
1.1
Level of Service
E
A
E
A
Approach Delay (s)
61.3
8.4
37.0
Approach LOS
E
A
D
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
24.1 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.43
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
130.8 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
51.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
a
Packet Pg. 173
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & 1-580 EB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
t
r
t
r
Volume (vph)
182
0
19
0
0
0
0 33
158
0
157
425
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.88
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
Frt
1.00
0.85
0.89
0.85
0.91
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
2787
3032
1441
3098
1441
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
2787
3032
1441
3098
1441
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
198
0
21
0
0
0
0 36
172
0
171
462
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
18
0
0
0
0 21
21
0
56
56
Lane Group Flow (vph)
198
0
3
0
0
0
0 101
65
0
346
175
Turn Type
Prot
custom
NA
Perm
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
4
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
8.1
8.1
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Effective Green, g (s)
8.1
8.1
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.12
0.12
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
421
342
2293
1090
2343
1090
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.06
0.03
0.11
v/s Ratio Perm
0.00
0.05
c0.12
v/c Ratio
0.47
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.15
0.16
Uniform Delay, d1
27.0
25.5
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
Delay (s)
27.3
25.5
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.5
Level of Service
C
C
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
27.1
0.0
2.1
2.4
Approach LOS
C
A
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
7.5 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.20
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
66.1 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
20.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 174
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & 1-580 WB on-ramp/1-580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
rr
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
0
0
0
22
6
314
0
189
32
0
571
196
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.95
0.95
0.88
0.95
0.95
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1681
1718
2787
1766
1504
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1681
1718
2787
1766
1504
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
23
6
334
0
201
34
0
607
209
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
0
265
0
0
11
0
0
52
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
0
0
14
15
69
0
204
20
0
607
157
Turn Type
Perm
NA
custom
NA
Perm
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
8
18
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
10.0
10.0
18.0
45.0
45.0
52.5
52.5
Effective Green, g (s)
10.0
10.0
14.5
45.0
45.0
52.5
52.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.14
0.14
0.21
0.64
0.64
0.75
0.75
Clearance Time (s)
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
240
245
577
1135
967
2654
1187
v/s Ratio Prot
0.12
c0.17
v/s Ratio Perm
0.01
0.01
c0.02
0.01
0.10
v/c Ratio
0.06
0.06
0.12
0.18
0.02
0.23
0.13
Uniform Delay, d1
25.9
25.9
22.6
5.0
4.5
2.6
2.4
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.2
Delay (s)
26.0
26.0
22.6
5.4
4.6
2.8
2.7
Level of Service
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
22.9
5.3
2.8
Approach LOS
A
C
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
8.4 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.21
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
30.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 175
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
rr
t
tt
r
Volume (vph)
88
1
329
1
0
0
79
307
0
0
360
20
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.3
4.9
4.9
5.3
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
0.88
1.00
1.00
0.95
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
1863
2787
1770
1770
3539
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
1863
2787
1770
1770
3539
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)
91
1
339
1
0
0
81
316
0
0
371
21
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
286
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
Lane Group Flow (vph)
91
1
53
1
0
0
81
316
0
0
371
14
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
pm+ov
Protected Phases
3
8
7
4
1
6
5
2
3
Permitted Phases
8
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
10.7
12.8
12.8
0.8
6.7
54.5
42.5
53.2
Effective Green, g (s)
10.7
12.8
12.8
0.8
6.7
54.5
42.5
53.2
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.13
0.16
0.16
0.01
0.08
0.66
0.52
0.65
Clearance Time (s)
5.3
4.9
4.9
5.3
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
230
290
433
17
144
2344
1828
1125
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.05
0.00
0.00
c0.05
0.09
c0.10
0.00
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.02
0.01
v/c Ratio
0.40
0.00
0.12
0.06
0.56
0.13
0.20
0.01
Uniform Delay, d1
32.8
29.4
29.9
40.4
36.4
5.2
10.8
5.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.5
3.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
Delay (s)
33.2
29.4
30.1
40.9
39.4
5.3
11.0
5.2
Level of Service
C
C
C
D
D
A
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
30.8
40.9
12.2
10.7
Approach LOS
C
D
B
B
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
18.3 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.26
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
82.3 Sum of lost time (s) 14.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization
37.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 176
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
t
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
Y
t
t
r
Volume (vph)
5
10
9
128
78
19
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Frt
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.98
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1671
1770
1863
1863
1583
Flt Permitted
0.98
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1671
1770
1863
1863
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
Adj. Flow (vph)
6
11
10
147
90
22
RTOR Reduction (vph)
11
0
0
0
0
5
Lane Group Flow (vph)
6
0
10
147
90
17
Turn Type
NA
Prot
NA
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
4
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
1.1
1.3
64.8
59.5
59.5
Effective Green, g (s)
1.1
1.3
64.8
59.5
59.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.01
0.02
0.86
0.79
0.79
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
24
31
1605
1474
1253
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.00
c0.01
c0.08
0.05
v/s Ratio Perm
0.01
v/c Ratio
0.26
0.32
0.09
0.06
0.01
Uniform Delay, d1
36.6
36.5
0.8
1.7
1.7
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
2.1
6.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
Delay (s)
38.7
42.5
0.9
1.8
1.7
Level of Service
D
D
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
38.7
3.5
1.8
Approach LOS
D
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
4.9 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.09
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
75.2 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
20.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
a
Packet Pg. 177
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
t
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
t
t
Volume (vph)
30
124
214
428
188
35
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.88
0.97
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.98
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
2787
3433
1863
3456
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
2787
3433
1863
3456
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
Adj. Flow (vph)
32
132
228
455
200
37
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
110
0
0
4
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
32
22
228
455
233
0
Turn Type
NA
custom
Prot
NA
NA
Protected Phases
4
58
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
4.7
22.5
13.3
109.8
92.5
Effective Green, g (s)
4.7
22.5
13.3
109.8
92.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.04
0.17
0.10
0.82
0.69
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
62
469
342
1530
2391
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.02
c0.01
c0.07
c0.24
0.07
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
0.52
0.05
0.67
0.30
0.10
Uniform Delay, d1
63.4
46.6
58.1
2.8
6.8
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
3.0
0.0
3.8
0.5
0.1
Delay (s)
66.4
46.6
61.8
3.3
6.9
Level of Service
E
D
E
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
50.5
22.9
6.9
Approach LOS
D
C
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
23.5 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.33
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
133.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
34.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 178
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
tt
r
)))
ti�
tip
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
128
1017
184
172
438
13
183
516
468
46
402
72
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
5.7
5.7
4.0
5.7
4.0
5.3
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.95
1.00
0.94
0.95
0.97
0.91
0.91
0.97
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.96
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
3539
1583
4990
3524
3433
3268
1441
3433
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
3539
1583
4990
3524
3433
3268
1441
3433
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
139
1105
200
187
476
14
199
561
509
50
437
78
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
75
0
1
0
0
15
209
0
0
53
Lane Group Flow (vph)
139
1105
125
187
489
0
199
724
122
50
437
25
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
4
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
10.1
39.0
39.0
9.8
38.7
12.0
43.0
43.0
5.9
36.9
36.9
Effective Green, g (s)
10.1
39.0
39.0
9.8
38.7
12.0
43.0
43.0
5.9
36.9
36.9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.09
0.33
0.33
0.08
0.33
0.10
0.37
0.37
0.05
0.32
0.32
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
5.7
5.7
4.0
5.7
4.0
5.3
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
297
1183
529
419
1169
353
1204
531
174
1119
501
v/s Ratio Prot
0.04
c0.31
0.04
c0.14
c0.06
c0.22
0.01
0.12
v/s Ratio Perm
0.08
0.08
0.02
v/c Ratio
0.47
0.93
0.24
0.45
0.42
0.56
0.60
0.23
0.29
0.39
0.05
Uniform Delay, d1
50.7
37.6
28.1
50.9
30.3
49.9
29.9
25.4
53.4
31.1
27.7
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
1.2
13.2
0.2
0.8
0.2
2.1
2.2
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.2
Delay (s)
51.9
50.8
28.3
51.6
30.5
51.9
32.1
26.4
54.3
32.2
27.9
Level of Service
D
D
C
D
C
D
C
C
D
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
47.8
36.3
33.7
33.5
Approach LOS
D
D
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
39.3 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
116.7 Sum of lost time (s) 9.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
69.9% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 179
5.1.b
APPENDIX A2
Cumulative Conditions 4-Lane Scenario
r
U
0
0
L
a
c
m
E
c
a�
a
c�
0
L
0
.y
0
E
a
3
E
c
m
a
a
cY
W
U
N
N
C
N
E
t
V
R
Q
Packet Pg. 180
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & 1-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
rr
tt
rr
tt
r
Volume (vph)
705
183
992
208
0
420
0
854
414
163
1134
557
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.4
4.5
4.0
5.4
5.4
4.0
5.4
5.4
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.88
0.95
0.88
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
1863
1583
3433
2787
3539
2787
1770
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
1863
1583
3433
2787
3539
2787
1770
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)
758
197
1067
224
0
452
0
918
445
175
1219
599
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
7
0
0
32
0
0
318
0
0
336
Lane Group Flow (vph)
758
197
1060
224
0
420
0
918
127
175
1219
263
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
custom
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
3
8
7
54
6
5
2
Permitted Phases
8
6
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
28.4
47.6
47.6
5.5
31.0
31.3
31.3
6.3
41.6
41.6
Effective Green, g (s)
28.4
47.6
47.6
5.5
31.0
31.3
31.3
6.3
41.6
41.6
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.26
0.43
0.43
0.05
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.06
0.38
0.38
Clearance Time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.4
4.5
5.4
5.4
4.0
5.4
5.4
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
886
806
685
172
785
1007
793
101
1338
599
v/s Ratio Prot
0.22
0.11
c0.07
0.15
0.26
c0.10
c0.34
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.67
0.05
0.17
v/c Ratio
0.86
0.24
1.55
1.30
0.54
0.91
0.16
1.73
0.91
0.44
Uniform Delay, dl
38.8
19.8
31.2
52.2
33.4
38.0
29.5
51.9
32.4
25.5
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.74
0.61
0.16
Incremental Delay, d2
7.8
0.1
253.7
171.8
0.4
13.7
0.4
349.2
5.9
1.2
Delay (s)
46.7
19.9
284.9
224.0
33.8
51.7
29.9
387.7
25.7
5.3
Level of Service
D
B
F
F
C
D
C
F
C
A
Approach Delay (s)
169.8
96.8
44.6
51.4
Approach LOS
F
F
D
D
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
94.5 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
1.35
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
111.0% ICU Level of Service H
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
a
Packet Pg. 181
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & 1-580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
tt
tt
r
Volume (vph)
0
0
0
1318
0
536
0
1483
611
0
584
1950
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.9
5.9
5.9
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.88
0.91
0.86
0.86
Frt
1.00
0.85
0.96
0.90
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
2787
4863
4348
1362
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
2787
4863
4348
1362
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.96
0.92
0.96
0.92
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
1373
0
558
0
1545
636
0
608
2120
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
66
0
0
282
559
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
0
0
1373
0
546
0
2115
0
0
1386
501
Turn Type
Prot
custom
NA
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
4
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
46.7
46.7
52.0
52.0
52.0
Effective Green, g (s)
46.7
46.7
52.0
52.0
52.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.42
0.42
0.47
0.47
0.47
Clearance Time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.9
5.9
5.9
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
1457
1183
2299
2055
644
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.40
c0.43
0.32
v/s Ratio Perm
0.20
0.37
v/c Ratio
0.94
0.46
0.92
1.07dr
0.78
Uniform Delay, dl
30.4
22.7
27.1
22.4
24.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
0.73
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
12.2
0.1
5.1
1.8
9.0
Delay (s)
42.6
22.8
24.9
24.2
33.2
Level of Service
D
C
C
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
36.9
24.9
27.7
Approach LOS
A
D
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
29.4 HCM Level of Service C a
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.93 w
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 11.3 v
Intersection Capacity Utilization
88.2% ICU Level of Service E N
Analysis Period (min)
15 N
dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1
though lane as a right lane.
c Critical Lane Group
E
c�
a
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
Packet Pg. 182
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
))
tit
rr
)))
tit
r
)))
tiff
rr
tiff
rr
Volume (vph)
159
189
223
844
658
72
440
1033
244
48
1332
325
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.91
0.88
0.94
0.91
1.00
0.94
0.86
0.88
0.97
0.86
0.88
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
5085
2787
4990
5085
1583
4990
6408
2787
3433
6408
2787
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
5085
2787
4990
5085
1583
4990
6408
2787
3433
6408
2787
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)
164
195
230
870
678
74
454
1065
252
49
1373
335
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
4
0
0
59
0
0
148
0
0
201
Lane Group Flow (vph)
164
195
226
870
678
15
454
1065
104
49
1373
134
Turn Type
Prot
NA
pm+ov
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
3
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
16.0
16.0
33.0
26.8
26.8
26.8
17.0
53.7
53.7
11.8
48.5
48.5
Effective Green, g (s)
16.0
16.0
33.0
26.8
26.8
26.8
17.0
53.7
53.7
11.8
48.5
48.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.12
0.12
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.13
0.41
0.41
0.09
0.37
0.37
Clearance Time (s)
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
422
624
706
1026
1046
326
651
2641
1149
311
2385
1037
v/s Ratio Prot
0.05
0.04
0.04
c0.17
c0.13
c0.09
0.17
0.01
c0.21
v/s Ratio Perm
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.05
v/c Ratio
0.39
0.31
0.32
0.85
0.65
0.05
0.70
0.40
0.09
0.16
0.58
0.13
Uniform Delay, dl
52.6
52.1
39.5
49.8
47.4
41.5
54.2
27.0
23.4
54.7
32.7
27.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.2
0.3
0.1
6.4
1.4
0.1
2.6
0.5
0.2
0.1
1.0
0.3
Delay (s)
52.9
52.4
39.6
56.2
48.8
41.6
56.8
27.5
23.5
54.8
33.7
27.2
Level of Service
D
D
D
E
D
D
E
C
C
D
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
47.5
52.4
34.4
33.1
Approach LOS
D
D
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
40.4 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
130.3 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
80.4% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 183
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
tt
r
t
tt
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
86
110
13
348
652
318
124
892
198
171
1101
838
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
5.3
5.3
4.5
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.95
1.00
0.97
0.95
0.97
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
3539
1583
3433
3365
3433
3539
1583
1770
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
3539
1583
3433
3365
3433
3539
1583
1770
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
Adj. Flow (vph)
104
133
16
419
786
383
149
1075
239
206
1327
1010
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
12
0
41
0
0
0
130
0
0
72
Lane Group Flow (vph)
104
133
4
419
1128
0
149
1075
109
206
1327
938
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
5.0
37.0
37.0
14.5
46.5
5.5
54.6
54.6
19.6
68.7
68.7
Effective Green, g (s)
5.0
37.0
37.0
14.5
46.5
5.5
54.6
54.6
19.6
68.7
68.7
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.03
0.26
0.26
0.10
0.32
0.04
0.38
0.38
0.14
0.47
0.47
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
5.3
5.3
4.5
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
4.5
2.5
4.0
4.0
2.5
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
118
903
404
343
1079
130
1333
596
239
1677
750
v/s Ratio Prot
0.03
0.04
c0.12
c0.34
0.04
0.30
c0.12
0.37
v/s Ratio Perm
0.00
0.07
c0.59
v/c Ratio
0.88
0.15
0.01
1.22
1.05
1.15
0.81
0.18
0.86
0.79
1.25
Uniform Delay, dl
69.7
41.8
40.3
65.2
49.2
69.8
40.5
30.3
61.4
32.1
38.1
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
48.0
0.1
0.0
123.1
40.1
123.6
3.9
0.2
25.6
2.8
123.7
Delay (s)
117.7
41.9
40.3
188.4
89.4
193.3
44.3
30.5
87.0
34.9
161.8
Level of Service
F
D
D
F
F
F
D
C
F
C
F
Approach Delay (s)
73.0
115.5
57.3
89.5
Approach LOS
E
F
E
F
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
87.8 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
1.16
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
145.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
96.6% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
a
Packet Pg. 184
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
)))
tt
r
t
r
tt
r
tt
rr
Volume (vph)
455
1
97
3
2
0
144
468
92
0
552
991
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
Lane Util. Factor
0.94
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
0.88
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
4990
3539
1583
1770
1863
1770
3539
1583
3539
2787
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
4990
3539
1583
1770
1863
1770
3539
1583
3539
2787
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)
489
1
104
3
2
0
155
503
99
0
594
1066
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
82
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
659
Lane Group Flow (vph)
489
1
22
3
2
0
155
503
59
0
594
407
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
13.5
16.5
16.5
1.5
4.5
11.9
46.0
46.0
29.5
29.5
Effective Green, g (s)
13.5
16.5
16.5
1.5
4.5
11.9
46.0
46.0
29.5
29.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.17
0.21
0.21
0.02
0.06
0.15
0.60
0.60
0.38
0.38
Clearance Time (s)
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
Vehicle Extension (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
873
756
338
34
109
273
2109
943
1352
1065
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
c0.09
0.14
c0.17
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.01
0.04
0.15
v/c Ratio
0.56
0.00
0.07
0.09
0.02
0.57
0.24
0.06
0.44
0.38
Uniform Delay, dl
29.1
23.9
24.2
37.2
34.3
30.3
7.3
6.5
17.7
17.3
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
1.0
0.0
0.1
1.5
0.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
Delay (s)
30.1
23.9
24.3
38.7
34.4
31.9
7.4
6.6
18.0
17.6
Level of Service
C
C
C
D
C
C
A
A
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
29.1
37.0
12.3
17.7
Approach LOS
C
D
B
B
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
18.6 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
77.2 Sum of lost time (s) 13.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization
62.3% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
a
Packet Pg. 185
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
t
Movement
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations
Y
t
tt
Volume (vph)
266
80
232
12
50
849
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
6.0
4.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
Frt
0.97
0.99
1.00
1.00
Flt Protected
0.96
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1738
3512
1770
3539
Flt Permitted
0.96
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1738
3512
1770
3539
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
280
84
244
13
53
894
RTOR Reduction (vph)
31
0
8
0
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
333
0
249
0
53
894
Turn Type
NA
NA
Prot
NA
Protected Phases
4
6
5
2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
10.6
12.8
1.8
18.6
Effective Green, g (s)
10.6
12.8
1.8
18.6
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.27
0.33
0.05
0.47
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
6.0
4.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
470
1147
81
1679
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.19
0.07
0.03
c0.25
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
0.71
0.22
0.65
0.53
Uniform Delay, dl
12.9
9.6
18.4
7.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
4.0
0.4
13.5
1.2
Delay (s)
16.9
10.0
31.9
8.5
Level of Service
B
B
C
A
Approach Delay (s)
16.9
10.0
9.8
Approach LOS
B
B
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
11.5 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
39.2 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
51.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 186
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & 1-580 EB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
tt
r
ttt
r
Volume (vph)
429
0
206
0
0
0 0
277
636
0
1692
747
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.88
0.86
0.86
0.91
1.00
Frt
1.00
0.85
0.92
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
2787
4420
1362
5085
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
2787
4420
1362
5085
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90 0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)
477
0
229
0
0
0 0
308
707
0
1880
830
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
18
0
0
0 0
134
0
0
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
477
0
211
0
0
0 0
528
353
0
1880
830
Turn Type
custom
custom
NA
Free
NA
Free
Protected Phases
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
Free
Free
Actuated Green, G (s)
10.9
10.9
31.1
50.0
31.1
50.0
Effective Green, g (s)
10.9
10.9
31.1
50.0
31.1
50.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.22
0.22
0.62
1.00
0.62
1.00
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
748
608
2749
1362
3163
1583
v/s Ratio Prot
0.12
c0.37
v/s Ratio Perm
0.14
0.08
0.26
c0.52
v/c Ratio
0.64
0.35
0.19
0.26
0.59
0.52
Uniform Delay, dl
17.8
16.5
4.1
0.0
5.7
0.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
1.3
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.8
1.2
Delay (s)
19.1
16.7
4.2
0.5
6.0
1.2
Level of Service
B
B
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
18.3
0.0
2.9
4.5
Approach LOS
B
A
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
6.3 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 4.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
51.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 187
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & 1-580 WB on-ramp/1-580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
rr
ttt
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
0
0
0
292
17
50
0
578
74
0
640
1336
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.95
0.95
0.88
0.91
1.00
0.86
0.86
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
0.92
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
0.96
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1681
1694
2787
5085
1583
4438
1362
Flt Permitted
0.95
0.96
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1681
1694
2787
5085
1583
4438
1362
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
324
19
56
0
642
82
0
711
1484
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
0
44
0
0
0
0
233
233
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
0
0
172
171
12
0
642
82
0
1220
509
Turn Type
Perm
NA
custom
NA
Free
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
8
18
Free
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
8.2
8.2
14.2
28.8
50.0
34.3
34.3
Effective Green, g (s)
8.2
8.2
10.7
28.8
50.0
34.3
34.3
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.16
0.16
0.21
0.58
1.00
0.69
0.69
Clearance Time (s)
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
276
278
596
2929
1583
3044
934
v/s Ratio Prot
0.13
0.27
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.10
0.10
0.00
0.05
c0.37
v/c Ratio
0.62
0.62
0.02
0.22
0.05
0.40
0.54
Uniform Delay, dl
19.5
19.4
15.5
5.1
0.0
3.4
3.9
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.39
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
3.1
2.8
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.4
2.3
Delay (s)
22.6
22.3
15.5
2.2
0.1
3.8
6.2
Level of Service
C
C
B
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
21.5
1.9
4.6
Approach LOS
A
C
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
6.1 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.56
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
70.4% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 188
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
))
ttt
rr
)))
ttt
r
)))
ttt
rr
))
ttt
r
Volume (vph)
36
568
149
762
954
884
56
241
267
667
1028
73
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.3
4.9
4.9
5.3
4.9
4.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.91
0.88
0.94
0.91
1.00
0.94
0.91
0.88
0.97
0.91
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
5085
2787
4990
5085
1583
4990
5085
2787
3433
5085
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
5085
2787
4990
5085
1583
4990
5085
2787
3433
5085
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
38
598
157
802
1004
931
59
254
281
702
1082
77
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
119
0
0
505
0
0
245
0
0
38
Lane Group Flow (vph)
38
598
38
802
1004
426
59
254
36
702
1082
39
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
pm+ov
Protected Phases
3
8
7
4
1
6
5
2
3
Permitted Phases
8
4
6
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
3.1
20.9
20.9
25.6
43.4
43.4
3.0
13.2
13.2
23.7
33.9
37.0
Effective Green, g (s)
3.1
20.9
20.9
25.6
43.4
43.4
3.0
13.2
13.2
23.7
33.9
37.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.03
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.42
0.42
0.03
0.13
0.13
0.23
0.33
0.36
Clearance Time (s)
5.3
4.9
4.9
5.3
4.9
4.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
103
1033
566
1241
2145
668
145
652
358
791
1675
569
v/s Ratio Prot
0.01
c0.12
0.16
0.20
0.01
c0.05
c0.20
c0.21
0.00
v/s Ratio Perm
0.01
c0.27
0.01
0.02
v/c Ratio
0.37
0.58
0.07
0.65
0.47
0.64
0.41
0.39
0.10
0.89
0.65
0.07
Uniform Delay, dl
48.9
37.0
33.1
34.6
21.4
23.5
49.1
41.2
39.6
38.3
29.4
21.6
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.8
0.9
0.1
0.9
0.2
2.3
0.7
1.8
0.6
11.5
1.9
0.0
Delay (s)
49.8
38.0
33.2
35.5
21.7
25.8
49.8
42.9
40.2
49.8
31.3
21.6
Level of Service
D
D
C
D
C
C
D
D
D
D
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
37.6
27.1
42.3
37.9
Approach LOS
D
C
D
D
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
33.4 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
102.9 Sum of lost time (s) 15.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization
74.6% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 189
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
t
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
Y
)
ttt
ttt
r
Volume (vph)
4
102
44
595
659
7
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.91
1.00
Frt
0.87
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1617
1770
5085
5085
1583
Flt Permitted
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1617
1770
5085
5085
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
Adj. Flow (vph)
5
138
59
804
891
9
RTOR Reduction (vph)
124
0
0
0
0
4
Lane Group Flow (vph)
19
0
59
804
891
5
Turn Type
NA
Prot
NA
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
4
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
4.6
3.2
32.9
25.7
25.7
Effective Green, g (s)
4.6
3.2
32.9
25.7
25.7
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.10
0.07
0.70
0.55
0.55
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
159
121
3575
2792
869
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.01
c0.03
0.16
c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm
0.00
v/c Ratio
0.12
0.49
0.22
0.32
0.01
Uniform Delay, dl
19.2
21.0
2.5
5.8
4.8
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.1
3.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
Delay (s)
19.4
24.1
2.5
5.9
4.8
Level of Service
B
C
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
19.4
4.0
5.9
Approach LOS
B
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
6.0 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.31
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
46.8 Sum of lost time (s) 13.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
34.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 190
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
t
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
tt
t
Volume (vph)
24
400
570
221
769
390
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.88
0.97
0.95
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.95
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
2787
3433
3539
3361
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
2787
3433
3539
3361
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
26
435
620
240
836
424
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
99
0
0
45
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
26
336
620
240
1215
0
Turn Type
NA
custom
Prot
NA
NA
Protected Phases
4
58
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
1.6
36.2
21.1
67.2
42.1
Effective Green, g (s)
1.6
36.2
21.1
67.2
42.1
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.02
0.39
0.22
0.72
0.45
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
30
1074
771
2533
1507
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.01
c0.12
c0.18
0.07
c0.36
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
0.87
0.31
0.80
0.09
0.81
Uniform Delay, dl
46.0
20.2
34.4
4.1
22.4
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
105.7
0.1
5.8
0.1
4.7
Delay (s)
151.7
20.2
40.2
4.1
27.1
Level of Service
F
C
D
A
C
Approach Delay (s)
27.6
30.1
27.1
Approach LOS
C
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
28.2 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
93.9 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
65.0% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
a
Packet Pg. 191
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
tt
r
)))
ti�
tip
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
87
353
49
298
599
82
153
609
213
47
509
114
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
5.7
5.7
4.0
5.7
4.0
5.3
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.95
1.00
0.94
0.95
0.97
0.91
0.91
0.97
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.99
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
3539
1583
4990
3475
3433
3373
1441
3433
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
3539
1583
4990
3475
3433
3373
1441
3433
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
95
384
53
324
651
89
166
662
232
51
553
124
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
43
0
11
0
0
2
135
0
0
87
Lane Group Flow (vph)
95
384
10
324
729
0
166
683
74
51
553
37
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
4
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
4.5
15.6
15.6
14.9
26.0
6.3
28.1
28.1
1.6
23.4
23.4
Effective Green, g (s)
4.5
15.6
15.6
14.9
26.0
6.3
28.1
28.1
1.6
23.4
23.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.06
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.33
0.08
0.35
0.35
0.02
0.30
0.30
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
5.7
5.7
4.0
5.7
4.0
5.3
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
195
697
312
939
1141
273
1197
511
69
1046
468
v/s Ratio Prot
0.03
c0.11
0.06
c0.21
c0.05
c0.20
0.01
0.16
v/s Ratio Perm
0.01
0.05
0.02
v/c Ratio
0.49
0.55
0.03
0.35
0.64
0.61
0.57
0.15
0.74
0.53
0.08
Uniform Delay, dl
36.2
28.6
25.7
27.9
22.6
35.3
20.7
17.4
38.6
23.3
20.1
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.7
1.2
0.1
0.1
1.3
2.6
0.8
0.2
29.5
0.6
0.1
Delay (s)
36.9
29.8
25.8
28.0
23.9
37.9
21.5
17.6
68.1
23.9
20.2
Level of Service
D
C
C
C
C
D
C
B
E
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
30.7
25.2
23.3
26.4
Approach LOS
C
C
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
25.7 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
79.2 Sum of lost time (s) 15.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization
60.8% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 192
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & 1-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
rr
tt
rr
tt
r
Volume (vph)
256
325
590
453
0
409
0
946
963
22
94
1207
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.4
4.5
4.0
5.4
5.4
4.0
5.4
5.4
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.88
0.95
0.88
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
1863
1583
3433
2787
3539
2787
1770
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
1863
1583
3433
2787
3539
2787
1770
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)
275
349
634
487
0
440
0
1017
1035
24
101
1298
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
473
0
0
48
0
0
511
0
0
582
Lane Group Flow (vph)
275
349
161
487
0
392
0
1017
524
24
101
716
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
custom
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
3
8
7
54
6
5
2
Permitted Phases
8
6
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
12.2
24.7
24.7
15.9
35.9
41.9
41.9
3.0
48.9
48.9
Effective Green, g (s)
12.2
24.7
24.7
15.9
31.4
41.9
41.9
3.0
48.9
48.9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.12
0.24
0.24
0.15
0.30
0.40
0.40
0.03
0.47
0.47
Clearance Time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.4
4.5
5.4
5.4
4.0
5.4
5.4
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
400
439
373
521
835
1415
1114
51
1651
739
v/s Ratio Prot
0.08
c0.19
c0.14
c0.14
0.29
0.01
0.03
v/s Ratio Perm
0.10
0.19
c0.45
v/c Ratio
0.69
0.79
0.43
0.93
0.47
0.72
0.47
0.47
0.06
0.97
Uniform Delay, dl
44.5
37.7
34.1
43.9
29.9
26.5
23.2
50.1
15.3
27.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
3.9
9.0
0.3
23.9
0.2
1.8
0.3
2.5
0.0
25.3
Delay (s)
48.4
46.7
34.4
67.8
30.1
28.3
23.6
52.6
15.4
52.5
Level of Service
D
D
C
E
C
C
C
D
B
D
Approach Delay (s)
40.8
49.9
25.9
49.9
Approach LOS
D
D
C
D
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
39.2 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.95
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
104.8 Sum of lost time (s) 19.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
79.2% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
a
Packet Pg. 193
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & 1-580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
tt
tt
r
Volume (vph)
0
0
0
346
0
373
0
2237
677
0
923
1147
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.9
5.9
5.9
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.88
0.91
0.86
0.86
Frt
1.00
0.85
0.97
0.94
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
2787
4908
4522
1362
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
2787
4908
4522
1362
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.96
0.92
0.96
0.92
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
360
0
389
0
2330
705
0
961
1247
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
83
0
0
179
209
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
0
0
360
0
376
0
2952
0
0
1406
414
Turn Type
Prot
custom
NA
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
4
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
10.4
10.4
43.1
43.1
43.1
Effective Green, g (s)
10.4
10.4
43.1
43.1
43.1
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.16
0.16
0.67
0.67
0.67
Clearance Time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.9
5.9
5.9
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
551
447
3264
3008
906
v/s Ratio Prot
0.10
c0.60
0.31
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.14
0.30
v/c Ratio
0.65
0.84
0.90
0.47
0.46
Uniform Delay, dl
25.5
26.4
9.1
5.3
5.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
2.1
12.9
4.0
0.1
0.4
Delay (s)
27.6
39.3
13.1
5.4
5.6
Level of Service
C
D
B
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
33.7
13.1
5.4
Approach LOS
A
C
B
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
12.9 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.89
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
64.8 Sum of lost time (s) 11.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
80.8% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
a
Packet Pg. 194
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
))
tit
rr
)))
tit
r
)))
tiff
rr
tiff
rr
Volume (vph)
670
1893
509
253
259
76
463
1039
899
267
985
242
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.91
0.88
0.94
0.91
1.00
0.94
0.86
0.88
0.97
0.86
0.88
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
5085
2787
4990
5085
1583
4990
6408
2787
3433
6408
2787
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
5085
2787
4990
5085
1583
4990
6408
2787
3433
6408
2787
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)
691
1952
525
261
267
78
477
1071
927
275
1015
249
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
19
0
0
54
0
0
280
0
0
173
Lane Group Flow (vph)
691
1952
506
261
267
24
477
1071
647
275
1015
76
Turn Type
Prot
NA
pm+ov
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
3
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
20.0
50.0
66.0
16.0
46.0
46.0
16.0
47.0
47.0
15.0
46.0
46.0
Effective Green, g (s)
20.0
50.0
66.0
16.0
46.0
46.0
16.0
47.0
47.0
15.0
46.0
46.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.13
0.33
0.44
0.11
0.31
0.31
0.11
0.31
0.31
0.10
0.31
0.31
Clearance Time (s)
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
458
1695
1226
532
1559
485
532
2008
873
343
1965
855
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.20
c0.38
0.04
0.05
0.05
c0.10
0.17
0.08
0.16
v/s Ratio Perm
0.14
0.02
c0.23
0.03
v/c Ratio
1.51
1.15
0.41
0.49
0.17
0.05
0.90
0.53
0.74
0.80
0.52
0.09
Uniform Delay, dl
65.0
50.0
28.7
63.2
38.1
36.6
66.2
42.5
46.1
66.0
42.8
37.1
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
240.0
75.5
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.0
17.2
1.0
5.6
12.0
1.0
0.2
Delay (s)
305.0
125.5
28.8
63.4
38.1
36.6
83.4
43.5
51.7
78.0
43.8
37.3
Level of Service
F
F
C
E
D
D
F
D
D
E
D
D
Approach Delay (s)
148.7
48.8
54.2
48.9
Approach LOS
F
D
D
D
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
91.2 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
1.00
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
95.8% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
a
Packet Pg. 195
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
tt
r
t
tt
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
514
304
39
150
67
89
104
1542
275
143
1087
167
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
5.3
5.3
4.5
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.95
1.00
0.97
0.95
0.97
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
3539
1583
3433
3237
3433
3539
1583
1770
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
3539
1583
3433
3237
3433
3539
1583
1770
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
Adj. Flow (vph)
619
366
47
181
81
107
125
1858
331
172
1310
201
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
39
0
96
0
0
0
91
0
0
78
Lane Group Flow (vph)
619
366
8
181
92
0
125
1858
240
172
1310
123
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
19.5
20.9
20.9
11.1
12.5
7.9
55.8
55.8
11.5
59.4
59.4
Effective Green, g (s)
19.5
20.9
20.9
11.1
12.5
7.9
55.8
55.8
11.5
59.4
59.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.16
0.18
0.18
0.09
0.11
0.07
0.47
0.47
0.10
0.50
0.50
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
5.3
5.3
4.5
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
4.5
2.5
4.0
4.0
2.5
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
564
624
279
321
341
229
1665
745
172
1772
793
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.18
c0.10
0.05
0.03
0.04
c0.52
c0.10
c0.37
v/s Ratio Perm
0.01
0.15
0.08
v/c Ratio
1.10
0.59
0.03
0.56
0.27
0.55
1.12
0.32
1.00
0.74
0.16
Uniform Delay, dl
49.5
44.9
40.5
51.4
48.9
53.6
31.4
19.6
53.5
23.5
16.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
67.3
1.9
0.1
1.8
0.7
2.1
61.1
0.3
68.6
1.8
0.1
Delay (s)
116.9
46.8
40.5
53.3
49.6
55.7
92.5
19.9
122.2
25.2
16.1
Level of Service
F
D
D
D
D
E
F
B
F
C
B
Approach Delay (s)
88.5
51.4
80.1
34.1
Approach LOS
F
D
F
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
65.4 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
1.04
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
118.6 Sum of lost time (s) 19.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization
88.0% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
a
Packet Pg. 196
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
)))
tt
r
t
r
tt
r
tt
rr
Volume (vph)
854
1
182
5
2
0
58
553
2
0
376
405
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
Lane Util. Factor
0.94
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
0.88
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
4990
3539
1583
1770
1863
1770
3539
1583
3539
2787
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
4990
3539
1583
1770
1863
1770
3539
1583
3539
2787
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)
918
1
196
5
2
0
62
595
2
0
404
435
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
130
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
307
Lane Group Flow (vph)
918
1
66
5
2
0
62
595
1
0
404
128
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
22.1
22.0
22.0
1.3
1.2
5.0
28.8
28.8
19.2
19.2
Effective Green, g (s)
22.1
22.0
22.0
1.3
1.2
5.0
28.8
28.8
19.2
19.2
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.44
0.44
0.29
0.29
Clearance Time (s)
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
Vehicle Extension (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
1689
1192
533
35
34
136
1561
698
1041
819
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.18
0.00
c0.00
0.00
0.04
c0.17
0.11
v/s Ratio Perm
0.04
0.00
0.05
v/c Ratio
0.54
0.00
0.12
0.14
0.06
0.46
0.38
0.00
0.39
0.16
Uniform Delay, dl
17.5
14.4
15.0
31.5
31.5
28.8
12.3
10.2
18.4
17.1
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.5
0.0
0.1
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.1
Delay (s)
18.0
14.4
15.1
34.0
32.5
29.7
12.3
10.2
18.7
17.2
Level of Service
B
B
B
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
17.5
33.6
14.0
17.9
Approach LOS
B
C
B
B
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
16.8 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.41
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
65.3 Sum of lost time (s) 8.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization
57.9% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
a
Packet Pg. 197
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
t
Movement
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations
Y
t
tt
Volume (vph)
10
103
674
59
235
234
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
6.0
4.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
Frt
0.88
0.99
1.00
1.00
Flt Protected
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1627
3497
1770
3539
Flt Permitted
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1627
3497
1770
3539
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
11
108
709
62
247
246
RTOR Reduction (vph)
102
0
14
0
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
17
0
757
0
247
246
Turn Type
NA
NA
Prot
NA
Protected Phases
4
6
5
2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
2.4
16.6
8.3
28.9
Effective Green, g (s)
2.4
16.6
8.3
28.9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.06
0.40
0.20
0.70
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
6.0
4.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
95
1406
356
2476
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.01
c0.22
c0.14
0.07
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
0.18
0.54
0.69
0.10
Uniform Delay, dl
18.5
9.4
15.3
2.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.3
1.5
4.7
0.1
Delay (s)
18.9
10.9
20.0
2.1
Level of Service
B
B
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
18.9
10.9
11.1
Approach LOS
B
B
B
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
11.6 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
41.3 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
52.1 % ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 198
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & 1-580 EB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
tt
r
ttt
r
Volume (vph)
264
0
798
0
0
0 0
1663
949
0
739
602
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.88
0.86
0.86
0.91
1.00
Frt
1.00
0.85
0.97
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
2787
4677
1362
5085
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
2787
4677
1362
5085
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90 0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)
293
0
887
0
0
0 0
1848
1054
0
821
669
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
186
0
0
0 0
59
0
0
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
293
0
701
0
0
0 0
2190
653
0
821
669
Turn Type
custom
custom
NA
Free
NA
Free
Protected Phases
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
Free
Free
Actuated Green, G (s)
14.3
14.3
27.7
50.0
27.7
50.0
Effective Green, g (s)
14.3
14.3
27.7
50.0
27.7
50.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.29
0.29
0.55
1.00
0.55
1.00
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
982
797
2591
1362
2817
1583
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.47
0.16
v/s Ratio Perm
0.09
c0.25
0.48
0.42
v/c Ratio
0.30
0.88
0.85
0.48
0.29
0.42
Uniform Delay, dl
13.9
17.0
9.4
0.0
5.9
0.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.79
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.1
10.8
3.6
1.2
0.2
0.8
Delay (s)
14.0
27.8
13.0
1.2
4.9
0.8
Level of Service
B
C
B
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
24.4
0.0
10.3
3.0
Approach LOS
C
A
B
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
11.4 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
53.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
a
Packet Pg. 199
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & 1-580 WB on-ramp/1-580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
rr
ttt
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
0
0
0
380
102
27
0
1754
34
0
1008
342
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.95
0.95
0.88
0.91
1.00
0.86
0.86
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
0.99
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1681
1720
2787
5085
1583
4777
1362
Flt Permitted
0.95
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1681
1720
2787
5085
1583
4777
1362
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
422
113
30
0
1949
38
0
1120
380
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
8
127
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
0
0
266
269
27
0
1949
38
0
1158
207
Turn Type
Perm
NA
custom
NA
Free
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
8
18
Free
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
11.5
11.5
16.1
26.4
50.0
31.0
31.0
Effective Green, g (s)
11.5
11.5
16.1
26.4
50.0
31.0
31.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.23
0.23
0.32
0.53
1.00
0.62
0.62
Clearance Time (s)
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
387
396
897
2685
1583
2962
844
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.38
c0.24
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.16
0.16
0.01
0.02
0.15
v/c Ratio
0.69
0.68
0.03
0.73
0.02
0.39
0.25
Uniform Delay, dl
17.6
17.6
11.6
9.0
0.0
4.8
4.3
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.48
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
4.0
3.6
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.4
0.7
Delay (s)
21.6
21.2
11.6
5.4
0.0
5.2
4.9
Level of Service
C
C
B
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
20.9
5.3
5.1
Approach LOS
A
C
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
7.4 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
53.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 200
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
))
ttt
rr
)))
ttt
r
)))
ttt
rr
))
ttt
r
Volume (vph)
94
2486
0
1099
0
0
0
1715
0
0
198
694
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.3
4.9
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.91
0.94
0.91
0.91
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
5085
4990
5085
5085
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
5085
4990
5085
5085
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
99
2617
0
1157
0
0
0
1805
0
0
208
731
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56
Lane Group Flow (vph)
99
2617
0
1157
0
0
0
1805
0
0
208
675
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
pm+ov
Protected Phases
3
8
7
4
1
6
5
2
3
Permitted Phases
8
4
6
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
90.7
58.1
27.7
39.0
37.7
128.4
Effective Green, g (s)
90.7
58.1
27.7
39.0
37.7
128.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.65
0.42
0.20
0.28
0.27
0.92
Clearance Time (s)
5.3
4.9
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
2240
2125
994
1427
1379
1583
v/s Ratio Prot
0.03
c0.51
c0.23
c0.35
0.04
0.28
v/s Ratio Perm
0.15
v/c Ratio
0.04
1.23
1.16
1.26
0.15
0.43
Uniform Delay, dl
8.6
40.5
55.6
50.0
38.5
0.7
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.0
108.5
85.0
124.9
0.2
0.1
Delay (s)
8.6
149.0
140.6
174.9
38.7
0.7
Level of Service
A
F
F
F
D
A
Approach Delay (s)
143.8
140.6
174.9
9.1
Approach LOS
F
F
F
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
132.7 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
1.23
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
139.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
113.6% ICU Level of Service H
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 201
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
t
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
Y
)
ttt
ttt
r
Volume (vph)
9
72
61
595
481
44
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.91
1.00
Frt
0.88
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.99
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1630
1770
5085
5085
1583
Flt Permitted
0.99
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1630
1770
5085
5085
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
Adj. Flow (vph)
12
97
82
804
650
59
RTOR Reduction (vph)
87
0
0
0
0
29
Lane Group Flow (vph)
22
0
82
804
650
30
Turn Type
NA
Prot
NA
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
4
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
4.5
3.8
29.9
22.1
22.1
Effective Green, g (s)
4.5
3.8
29.9
22.1
22.1
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.10
0.09
0.68
0.51
0.51
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
168
154
3479
2572
801
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.01
c0.05
c0.16
0.13
v/s Ratio Perm
0.02
v/c Ratio
0.13
0.53
0.23
0.25
0.04
Uniform Delay, dl
17.8
19.1
2.6
6.1
5.4
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.1
3.5
0.1
0.1
0.0
Delay (s)
18.0
22.6
2.7
6.2
5.5
Level of Service
B
C
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
18.0
4.5
6.2
Approach LOS
B
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
6.1 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.23
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
43.7 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
29.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 202
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
t
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
tt
t
Volume (vph)
103
315
366
581
147
47
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.88
0.97
0.95
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.96
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
2787
3433
3539
3411
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
2787
3433
3539
3411
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
112
342
398
632
160
51
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
249
0
0
22
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
112
93
398
632
189
0
Turn Type
NA
custom
Prot
NA
NA
Protected Phases
4
58
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
6.0
21.4
12.0
53.0
37.0
Effective Green, g (s)
6.0
21.4
12.0
53.0
37.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.08
0.27
0.15
0.68
0.47
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
135
761
525
2392
1610
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.06
c0.03
c0.12
c0.18
0.06
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
0.83
0.12
0.76
0.26
0.12
Uniform Delay, dl
35.7
21.4
31.8
5.0
11.6
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
31.2
0.0
5.5
0.3
0.1
Delay (s)
66.9
21.5
37.3
5.3
11.7
Level of Service
E
C
D
A
B
Approach Delay (s)
32.7
17.7
11.7
Approach LOS
C
B
B
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
20.9 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.38
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
78.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
33.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 203
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
tt
r
)))
ti�
tip
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
189
1264
79
109
472
28
120
685
522
180
547
166
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
5.7
5.7
4.0
5.7
4.0
5.3
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.95
1.00
0.94
0.95
0.97
0.91
0.91
0.97
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.97
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
3539
1583
4990
3510
3433
3298
1441
3433
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
3539
1583
4990
3510
3433
3298
1441
3433
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
205
1374
86
118
513
30
130
745
567
196
595
180
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
44
0
4
0
0
17
26
0
0
121
Lane Group Flow (vph)
205
1374
42
118
539
0
130
892
377
196
595
59
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
4
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
7.9
39.8
39.8
3.0
34.9
7.4
34.9
34.9
6.0
33.5
33.5
Effective Green, g (s)
7.9
39.8
39.8
3.0
34.9
7.4
34.9
34.9
6.0
33.5
33.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.08
0.39
0.39
0.03
0.34
0.07
0.34
0.34
0.06
0.33
0.33
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
5.7
5.7
4.0
5.7
4.0
5.3
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
264
1371
613
146
1193
247
1121
490
201
1154
516
v/s Ratio Prot
0.06
c0.39
c0.02
0.15
0.04
c0.27
c0.06
0.17
v/s Ratio Perm
0.03
0.26
0.04
v/c Ratio
0.78
1.00
0.07
0.81
0.45
0.53
0.80
0.77
0.98
0.52
0.11
Uniform Delay, dl
46.5
31.5
19.8
49.6
26.4
46.0
30.7
30.3
48.3
28.0
24.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
12.2
24.8
0.1
25.6
0.4
0.9
4.2
7.6
55.6
0.5
0.1
Delay (s)
58.8
56.3
19.9
75.2
26.8
46.9
34.9
37.8
103.9
28.5
24.3
Level of Service
E
E
B
E
C
D
C
D
F
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
54.7
35.5
36.8
43.0
Approach LOS
D
D
D
D
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
44.2 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
102.7 Sum of lost time (s) 13.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
83.7% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
a
Packet Pg. 204
5.1.b
APPENDIX A3
Cumulative Conditions 6-Lane Scenario
r
U
0
0
L
a
c
m
E
a
a�
a
c�
0
L
0
.y
0
E
a
3
E
c
m
a
a
cY
W
U
N
N
C
N
E
t
V
R
Q
Packet Pg. 205
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & 1-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
rr
tt
rr
tt
r
Volume (vph)
727
194
953
192
0
416
0
832
415
172
1078
589
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.4
4.5
4.0
5.4
5.4
4.0
5.4
5.4
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.88
0.95
0.88
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
1863
1583
3433
2787
3539
2787
1770
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
1863
1583
3433
2787
3539
2787
1770
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)
782
209
1025
206
0
447
0
895
446
185
1159
633
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
12
0
0
42
0
0
314
0
0
382
Lane Group Flow (vph)
782
209
1013
206
0
405
0
895
132
185
1159
251
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
custom
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
3
8
7
54
6
5
2
Permitted Phases
8
6
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
33.8
40.5
40.5
4.5
17.2
29.7
29.7
6.0
39.7
39.7
Effective Green, g (s)
33.8
40.5
40.5
4.5
17.2
29.7
29.7
6.0
39.7
39.7
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.34
0.40
0.40
0.04
0.17
0.30
0.30
0.06
0.40
0.40
Clearance Time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.4
4.5
5.4
5.4
4.0
5.4
5.4
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
1160
755
641
154
479
1051
828
106
1405
628
v/s Ratio Prot
0.23
0.11
c0.06
0.15
0.25
c0.10
c0.33
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.64
0.05
0.16
v/c Ratio
0.67
0.28
1.58
1.34
0.85
0.85
0.16
1.75
0.82
0.40
Uniform Delay, dl
28.4
19.9
29.8
47.8
40.1
33.1
25.9
47.0
27.0
21.6
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.70
1.46
Incremental Delay, d2
1.2
0.1
268.2
189.1
12.4
8.7
0.4
352.7
2.7
0.9
Delay (s)
29.6
20.0
298.0
236.9
52.5
41.8
26.4
399.8
21.5
32.3
Level of Service
C
C
F
F
D
D
C
F
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
165.1
110.7
36.6
60.4
Approach LOS
F
F
D
E
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
95.8 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
1.24
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization
106.6% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 206
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & 1-580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
tt
tt
r
Volume (vph)
0
0
0
1335
0
494
0
1486
588
0
550
2008
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.9
5.9
5.9
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.88
0.91
0.86
0.86
Frt
1.00
0.85
0.96
0.90
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
2787
4869
4333
1362
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
2787
4869
4333
1362
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.96
0.92
0.96
0.92
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
1391
0
515
0
1548
612
0
573
2183
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
71
0
0
342
584
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
0
0
1391
0
504
0
2089
0
0
1323
507
Turn Type
Prot
custom
NA
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
4
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
42.2
42.2
46.5
46.5
46.5
Effective Green, g (s)
42.2
42.2
46.5
46.5
46.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.42
0.42
0.46
0.46
0.46
Clearance Time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.9
5.9
5.9
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
1449
1176
2264
2015
633
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.41
c0.43
0.31
v/s Ratio Perm
0.18
0.37
v/c Ratio
0.96
0.43
0.92
1.05dr
0.80
Uniform Delay, dl
28.1
20.4
25.1
20.6
22.8
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
0.82
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
14.9
0.1
5.3
1.7
10.3
Delay (s)
42.9
20.5
25.8
22.3
33.1
Level of Service
D
C
C
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
36.9
25.8
26.6
Approach LOS
A
D
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
29.2 HCM Level of Service C a
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.94 w
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 11.3 v
Intersection Capacity Utilization
88.2% ICU Level of Service E N
Analysis Period (min)
15 N
dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1
though lane as a right lane.
c Critical Lane Group
E
c�
a
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
Packet Pg. 207
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
))
tit
rr
)))
tit
r
)))
tiff
rr
tiff
rr
Volume (vph)
160
232
174
788
680
86
372
1011
291
82
1462
394
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.91
0.88
0.94
0.91
1.00
0.94
0.86
0.88
0.97
0.86
0.88
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
5085
2787
4990
5085
1583
4990
6408
2787
3433
6408
2787
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
5085
2787
4990
5085
1583
4990
6408
2787
3433
6408
2787
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)
165
239
179
812
701
89
384
1042
300
85
1507
406
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
4
0
0
72
0
0
185
0
0
221
Lane Group Flow (vph)
165
239
175
812
701
17
384
1042
115
85
1507
185
Turn Type
Prot
NA
pm+ov
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
3
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
16.0
16.0
32.2
24.6
24.6
24.6
16.2
48.0
48.0
15.0
46.8
46.8
Effective Green, g (s)
16.0
16.0
32.2
24.6
24.6
24.6
16.2
48.0
48.0
15.0
46.8
46.8
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.13
0.13
0.26
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.13
0.38
0.38
0.12
0.37
0.37
Clearance Time (s)
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
437
648
715
977
996
310
644
2449
1065
410
2388
1038
v/s Ratio Prot
0.05
0.05
0.03
c0.16
c0.14
c0.08
0.16
0.02
c0.24
v/s Ratio Perm
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.07
v/c Ratio
0.38
0.37
0.25
0.83
0.70
0.06
0.60
0.43
0.11
0.21
0.63
0.18
Uniform Delay, dl
50.2
50.2
37.1
48.5
47.1
41.1
51.6
28.6
25.0
49.9
32.3
26.5
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.2
0.4
0.1
5.8
2.3
0.1
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.1
1.3
0.4
Delay (s)
50.4
50.5
37.1
54.3
49.4
41.1
52.6
29.2
25.2
50.0
33.6
26.8
Level of Service
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
D
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
46.4
51.4
33.7
32.9
Approach LOS
D
D
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
39.5 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.66
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
125.6 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
81.2% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 208
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
tt
r
t
))
ttt
r
)
ttt
r
Volume (vph)
83
111
16
423
609
312
120
902
211
187
1416
827
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
5.3
5.3
4.5
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.95
1.00
0.97
0.95
0.97
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
3539
1583
3433
3359
3433
5085
1583
1770
5085
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
3539
1583
3433
3359
3433
5085
1583
1770
5085
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
Adj. Flow (vph)
100
134
19
510
734
376
145
1087
254
225
1706
996
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
14
0
45
0
0
0
169
0
0
83
Lane Group Flow (vph)
100
134
5
510
1065
0
145
1087
85
225
1706
913
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
5.3
36.6
36.6
17.5
48.8
5.5
48.5
48.5
22.7
65.7
65.7
Effective Green, g (s)
5.3
36.6
36.6
17.5
48.8
5.5
48.5
48.5
22.7
65.7
65.7
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.04
0.25
0.25
0.12
0.34
0.04
0.34
0.34
0.16
0.45
0.45
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
5.3
5.3
4.5
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
4.5
2.5
4.0
4.0
2.5
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
126
896
401
415
1134
131
1706
531
278
2310
719
v/s Ratio Prot
0.03
0.04
c0.15
c0.32
c0.04
0.21
0.13
0.34
v/s Ratio Perm
0.00
0.05
c0.58
v/c Ratio
0.79
0.15
0.01
1.23
0.94
1.11
0.64
0.16
0.81
0.74
1.27
Uniform Delay, dl
69.1
41.9
40.5
63.5
46.5
69.5
40.6
33.7
58.9
32.4
39.4
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
27.3
0.1
0.0
122.6
14.6
110.2
0.9
0.2
15.4
1.4
132.0
Delay (s)
96.4
42.1
40.5
186.1
61.1
179.7
41.5
33.9
74.2
33.7
171.4
Level of Service
F
D
D
F
E
F
D
C
E
C
F
Approach Delay (s)
63.4
100.4
53.7
83.7
Approach LOS
E
F
D
F
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
80.1 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
1.13
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
144.6 Sum of lost time (s) 14.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
94.5% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
a
Packet Pg. 209
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
)))
tt
r
t
r
tt
r
tt
rr
Volume (vph)
411
1
64
3
2
0
128
550
92
0
531
994
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
Lane Util. Factor
0.94
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
0.88
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
4990
3539
1583
1770
1863
1770
3539
1583
3539
2787
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
4990
3539
1583
1770
1863
1770
3539
1583
3539
2787
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)
442
1
69
3
2
0
138
591
99
0
571
1069
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
55
0
0
0
0
0
39
0
0
644
Lane Group Flow (vph)
442
1
14
3
2
0
138
591
60
0
571
425
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
15.9
15.7
15.7
1.5
1.3
11.2
46.3
46.3
30.5
30.5
Effective Green, g (s)
15.9
15.7
15.7
1.5
1.3
11.2
46.3
46.3
30.5
30.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.02
0.02
0.15
0.60
0.60
0.40
0.40
Clearance Time (s)
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
Vehicle Extension (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
1034
724
324
35
32
258
2136
956
1407
1108
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.09
0.00
c0.00
0.00
c0.08
0.17
c0.16
v/s Ratio Perm
0.01
0.04
0.15
v/c Ratio
0.43
0.00
0.04
0.09
0.06
0.53
0.28
0.06
0.41
0.38
Uniform Delay, dl
26.4
24.3
24.5
36.9
37.1
30.3
7.2
6.3
16.6
16.4
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.4
0.0
0.1
1.4
1.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
Delay (s)
26.8
24.3
24.6
38.4
38.2
31.4
7.3
6.3
16.9
16.7
Level of Service
C
C
C
D
D
C
A
A
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
26.5
38.3
11.2
16.8
Approach LOS
C
D
B
B
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
16.9 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.40
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
76.7 Sum of lost time (s) 13.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
62.4% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
a
Packet Pg. 210
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
t
Movement
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations
Y
t
tt
Volume (vph)
135
183
254
3
44
830
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
6.0
4.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
Frt
0.92
1.00
1.00
1.00
Flt Protected
0.98
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1682
3533
1770
3539
Flt Permitted
0.98
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1682
3533
1770
3539
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
142
193
267
3
46
874
RTOR Reduction (vph)
143
0
1
0
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
192
0
269
0
46
874
Turn Type
NA
NA
Prot
NA
Protected Phases
4
6
5
2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
8.0
13.9
1.8
19.7
Effective Green, g (s)
8.0
13.9
1.8
19.7
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.21
0.37
0.05
0.52
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
6.0
4.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
357
1303
85
1849
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.11
0.08
0.03
c0.25
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
0.54
0.21
0.54
0.47
Uniform Delay, dl
13.2
8.1
17.5
5.7
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.8
0.4
3.7
0.9
Delay (s)
14.0
8.5
21.3
6.6
Level of Service
B
A
C
A
Approach Delay (s)
14.0
8.5
7.3
Approach LOS
B
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
9.0 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
37.7 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
50.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 211
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & 1-580 EB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
tt
r
ttt
r
Volume (vph)
427
0
208
0
0
0 0
257
636
0
1720
734
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.88
0.86
0.86
0.91
1.00
Frt
1.00
0.85
0.92
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
2787
4407
1362
5085
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
2787
4407
1362
5085
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90 0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)
474
0
231
0
0
0 0
286
707
0
1911
816
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
16
0
0
0 0
133
0
0
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
474
0
215
0
0
0 0
507
353
0
1911
816
Turn Type
custom
custom
NA
Free
NA
Free
Protected Phases
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
Free
Free
Actuated Green, G (s)
10.8
10.8
31.2
50.0
31.2
50.0
Effective Green, g (s)
10.8
10.8
31.2
50.0
31.2
50.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.22
0.22
0.62
1.00
0.62
1.00
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
742
602
2750
1362
3173
1583
v/s Ratio Prot
0.12
c0.38
v/s Ratio Perm
0.14
0.08
0.26
c0.52
v/c Ratio
0.64
0.36
0.18
0.26
0.60
0.52
Uniform Delay, dl
17.8
16.6
4.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.87
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.8
1.2
Delay (s)
19.2
16.8
4.1
0.5
5.8
1.2
Level of Service
B
B
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
18.4
0.0
2.8
4.4
Approach LOS
B
A
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
6.3 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 4.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
52.1 % ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 212
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & 1-580 WB on-ramp/1-580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
rr
ttt
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
0
0
0
222
11
75
0
578
74
0
735
1292
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.95
0.95
0.88
0.91
1.00
0.86
0.86
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
0.93
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
0.96
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1681
1693
2787
5085
1583
4469
1362
Flt Permitted
0.95
0.96
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1681
1693
2787
5085
1583
4469
1362
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
247
12
83
0
642
82
0
817
1436
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
0
66
0
0
0
0
223
223
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
0
0
128
131
17
0
642
82
0
1312
495
Turn Type
Perm
NA
custom
NA
Free
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
8
18
Free
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
8.0
8.0
14.0
29.0
50.0
34.5
34.5
Effective Green, g (s)
8.0
8.0
10.5
29.0
50.0
34.5
34.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.16
0.16
0.21
0.58
1.00
0.69
0.69
Clearance Time (s)
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
269
271
585
2949
1583
3084
940
v/s Ratio Prot
0.13
0.29
v/s Ratio Perm
0.08
0.08
0.01
0.05
c0.36
v/c Ratio
0.48
0.48
0.03
0.22
0.05
0.43
0.53
Uniform Delay, dl
19.1
19.1
15.7
5.0
0.0
3.4
3.8
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.53
1.00
0.22
7.72
Incremental Delay, d2
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.4
1.7
Delay (s)
19.6
19.6
15.7
2.9
0.1
1.1
30.9
Level of Service
B
B
B
A
A
A
C
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
18.7
2.5
10.6
Approach LOS
A
B
A
B
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
9.7 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
68.3% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
a
Packet Pg. 213
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
))
ttt
rr
)))
ttt
r
)))
ttt
rr
))
ttt
r
Volume (vph)
44
633
199
782
984
826
67
259
263
544
1007
72
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.3
4.9
4.9
5.3
4.9
4.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.91
0.88
0.94
0.91
1.00
0.94
0.91
0.88
0.97
0.91
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
5085
2787
4990
5085
1583
4990
5085
2787
3433
5085
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
5085
2787
4990
5085
1583
4990
5085
2787
3433
5085
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
46
666
209
823
1036
869
71
273
277
573
1060
76
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
141
0
0
386
0
0
234
0
0
34
Lane Group Flow (vph)
46
666
68
823
1036
483
71
273
43
573
1060
42
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
pm+ov
Protected Phases
3
8
7
4
1
6
5
2
3
Permitted Phases
8
4
6
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
3.5
22.3
22.3
23.0
41.8
41.8
3.5
15.4
15.4
19.8
31.7
35.2
Effective Green, g (s)
3.5
22.3
22.3
23.0
41.8
41.8
3.5
15.4
15.4
19.8
31.7
35.2
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.04
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.42
0.42
0.04
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.32
0.35
Clearance Time (s)
5.3
4.9
4.9
5.3
4.9
4.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
120
1134
622
1148
2126
662
175
783
429
680
1612
557
v/s Ratio Prot
0.01
0.13
c0.16
0.20
0.01
0.05
c0.17
c0.21
0.00
v/s Ratio Perm
0.02
c0.30
0.02
0.02
v/c Ratio
0.38
0.59
0.11
0.72
0.49
0.73
0.41
0.35
0.10
0.84
0.66
0.08
Uniform Delay, dl
47.2
34.7
30.9
35.5
21.3
24.4
47.2
37.8
36.3
38.6
29.5
21.6
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.75
1.58
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.7
0.9
0.1
1.8
0.2
4.3
0.6
1.2
0.5
9.0
2.1
0.0
Delay (s)
47.9
35.7
31.1
37.3
21.5
28.7
43.0
29.6
57.9
47.6
31.6
21.6
Level of Service
D
D
C
D
C
C
D
C
E
D
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
35.2
28.5
43.8
36.5
Approach LOS
D
C
D
D
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
33.4 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
71.3% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
a
Packet Pg. 214
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
t
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
Y
)
ttt
ttt
r
Volume (vph)
4
101
45
651
606
6
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.91
1.00
Frt
0.87
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1617
1770
5085
5085
1583
Flt Permitted
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1617
1770
5085
5085
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
Adj. Flow (vph)
5
136
61
880
819
8
RTOR Reduction (vph)
122
0
0
0
0
4
Lane Group Flow (vph)
19
0
61
880
819
4
Turn Type
NA
Prot
NA
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
4
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
4.6
3.2
31.6
24.4
24.4
Effective Green, g (s)
4.6
3.2
31.6
24.4
24.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.10
0.07
0.69
0.54
0.54
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
163
124
3532
2727
849
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.01
c0.03
0.17
c0.16
v/s Ratio Perm
0.00
v/c Ratio
0.12
0.49
0.25
0.30
0.01
Uniform Delay, dl
18.6
20.4
2.6
5.8
4.9
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.1
3.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
Delay (s)
18.7
23.4
2.6
6.0
4.9
Level of Service
B
C
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
18.7
4.0
6.0
Approach LOS
B
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
5.9 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.29
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
45.5 Sum of lost time (s) 13.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
33.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 215
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
t
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
tt
t
Volume (vph)
16
401
591
238
765
238
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.88
0.97
0.95
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.96
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
2787
3433
3539
3413
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
2787
3433
3539
3413
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
17
436
642
259
832
259
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
92
0
0
20
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
17
344
642
259
1071
0
Turn Type
NA
custom
Prot
NA
NA
Protected Phases
4
58
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
0.7
36.6
21.7
67.3
41.6
Effective Green, g (s)
0.7
36.6
21.7
67.3
41.6
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.01
0.39
0.23
0.72
0.45
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
13
1098
802
2564
1528
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.01
c0.12
c0.19
0.07
c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
1.31
0.31
0.80
0.10
0.70
Uniform Delay, dl
46.1
19.5
33.6
3.8
20.6
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
363.0
0.1
5.4
0.1
2.7
Delay (s)
409.1
19.5
39.0
3.9
23.3
Level of Service
F
B
D
A
C
Approach Delay (s)
34.1
28.9
23.3
Approach LOS
C
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
27.4 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.68
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
92.9 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
60.6% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 216
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
tt
r
)))
ti�
tip
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
73
347
35
384
671
126
108
590
239
59
457
89
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
5.7
5.7
4.0
5.7
4.0
5.3
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.95
1.00
0.94
0.95
0.97
0.91
0.91
0.97
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.99
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
3539
1583
4990
3455
3433
3370
1441
3433
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
3539
1583
4990
3455
3433
3370
1441
3433
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
79
377
38
417
729
137
117
641
260
64
497
97
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
31
0
15
0
0
3
157
0
0
69
Lane Group Flow (vph)
79
377
7
417
851
0
117
664
77
64
497
28
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
4
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
3.7
15.7
15.7
17.5
29.5
5.3
26.9
26.9
2.2
23.8
23.8
Effective Green, g (s)
3.7
15.7
15.7
17.5
29.5
5.3
26.9
26.9
2.2
23.8
23.8
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.05
0.19
0.19
0.22
0.36
0.07
0.33
0.33
0.03
0.29
0.29
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
5.7
5.7
4.0
5.7
4.0
5.3
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
156
683
306
1074
1254
224
1115
477
93
1036
463
v/s Ratio Prot
0.02
c0.11
0.08
c0.25
c0.03
c0.20
0.02
0.14
v/s Ratio Perm
0.00
0.05
0.02
v/c Ratio
0.51
0.55
0.02
0.39
0.68
0.52
0.60
0.16
0.69
0.48
0.06
Uniform Delay, dl
37.9
29.6
26.6
27.3
21.9
36.8
22.7
19.2
39.2
23.7
20.7
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.9
1.2
0.0
0.1
1.6
1.0
1.0
0.2
15.5
0.5
0.1
Delay (s)
38.9
30.8
26.6
27.4
23.5
37.8
23.7
19.5
54.7
24.1
20.8
Level of Service
D
C
C
C
C
D
C
B
D
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
31.8
24.8
24.3
26.6
Approach LOS
C
C
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
26.0 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
81.3 Sum of lost time (s) 20.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
63.9% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 217
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & 1-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
rr
tt
rr
tt
r
Volume (vph)
285
330
611
438
0
426
0
1007
936
20
86
1213
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.4
4.5
4.0
5.4
5.4
4.0
5.4
5.4
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.88
0.95
0.88
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
1863
1583
3433
2787
3539
2787
1770
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
1863
1583
3433
2787
3539
2787
1770
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)
306
355
657
471
0
458
0
1083
1006
22
92
1304
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
452
0
0
44
0
0
590
0
0
587
Lane Group Flow (vph)
306
355
205
471
0
414
0
1083
416
22
92
717
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
custom
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
3
8
7
54
6
5
2
Permitted Phases
8
6
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
23.8
24.8
24.8
13.7
20.8
36.1
36.1
6.1
46.2
46.2
Effective Green, g (s)
23.8
24.8
24.8
13.7
20.8
36.1
36.1
6.1
46.2
46.2
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.24
0.25
0.25
0.14
0.21
0.36
0.36
0.06
0.46
0.46
Clearance Time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.4
4.5
5.4
5.4
4.0
5.4
5.4
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
817
462
393
470
580
1278
1006
108
1635
731
v/s Ratio Prot
0.09
c0.19
c0.14
0.15
0.31
0.01
0.03
v/s Ratio Perm
0.13
0.15
c0.45
v/c Ratio
0.37
0.77
0.52
1.00
0.71
0.85
0.41
0.20
0.06
0.98
Uniform Delay, dl
31.9
34.9
32.5
43.1
36.8
29.4
24.0
44.6
14.9
26.5
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.21
0.86
1.92
Incremental Delay, d2
0.1
6.8
0.6
42.0
3.5
7.1
1.3
0.3
0.1
27.3
Delay (s)
32.0
41.7
33.1
85.2
40.3
36.5
25.2
54.1
12.9
78.2
Level of Service
C
D
C
F
D
D
C
D
B
E
Approach Delay (s)
35.1
63.1
31.1
73.6
Approach LOS
D
E
C
E
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
47.7 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.87
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization
79.6% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
a
Packet Pg. 218
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & 1-580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
tt
tt
r
Volume (vph)
0
0
0
337
0
515
0
2351
677
0
930
1147
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.9
5.9
5.9
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.88
0.91
0.86
0.86
Frt
1.00
0.85
0.97
0.94
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
2787
4915
4524
1362
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
2787
4915
4524
1362
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.96
0.92
0.96
0.92
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
351
0
536
0
2449
705
0
969
1247
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
51
0
0
115
196
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
0
0
351
0
526
0
3103
0
0
1478
427
Turn Type
Prot
custom
NA
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
4
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
20.2
20.2
68.5
68.5
68.5
Effective Green, g (s)
20.2
20.2
68.5
68.5
68.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.20
0.20
0.68
0.68
0.68
Clearance Time (s)
5.4
5.4
5.9
5.9
5.9
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
693
563
3367
3099
933
v/s Ratio Prot
0.10
c0.63
0.33
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.19
0.31
v/c Ratio
0.51
0.93
0.92
0.48
0.46
Uniform Delay, dl
35.5
39.2
13.5
7.4
7.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
0.74
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.2
22.4
5.1
0.5
1.6
Delay (s)
35.7
61.7
15.0
7.9
8.8
Level of Service
D
E
B
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
51.4
15.0
8.2
Approach LOS
A
D
B
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
17.8 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 11.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
88.0% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
a
Packet Pg. 219
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
))
tit
rr
)))
tit
r
)))
tiff
rr
tiff
rr
Volume (vph)
992
1844
458
315
281
155
348
1477
841
289
988
211
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.91
0.88
0.94
0.91
1.00
0.94
0.86
0.88
0.97
0.86
0.88
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
5085
2787
4990
5085
1583
4990
6408
2787
3433
6408
2787
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
5085
2787
4990
5085
1583
4990
6408
2787
3433
6408
2787
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)
1023
1901
472
325
290
160
359
1523
867
298
1019
218
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
13
0
0
111
0
0
279
0
0
151
Lane Group Flow (vph)
1023
1901
459
325
290
49
359
1523
588
298
1019
67
Turn Type
Prot
NA
pm+ov
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
3
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
20.0
50.0
66.0
16.0
46.0
46.0
16.0
46.2
46.2
15.8
46.0
46.0
Effective Green, g (s)
20.0
50.0
66.0
16.0
46.0
46.0
16.0
46.2
46.2
15.8
46.0
46.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.13
0.33
0.44
0.11
0.31
0.31
0.11
0.31
0.31
0.11
0.31
0.31
Clearance Time (s)
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
458
1695
1226
532
1559
485
532
1974
858
362
1965
855
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.30
c0.37
0.04
0.07
0.06
0.07
c0.24
c0.09
0.16
v/s Ratio Perm
0.12
0.03
0.21
0.02
v/c Ratio
2.23
1.12
0.37
0.61
0.19
0.10
0.67
0.77
0.69
0.82
0.52
0.08
Uniform Delay, dl
65.0
50.0
28.2
64.0
38.2
37.2
64.5
47.1
45.5
65.7
42.9
36.9
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
562.2
63.2
0.1
1.5
0.1
0.1
2.7
3.0
4.4
13.4
1.0
0.2
Delay (s)
627.2
113.2
28.2
65.5
38.3
37.3
67.2
50.1
50.0
79.1
43.9
37.1
Level of Service
F
F
C
E
D
D
E
D
D
E
D
D
Approach Delay (s)
256.2
49.5
52.3
49.7
Approach LOS
F
D
D
D
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
133.5 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
1.09
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
101.2% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
a
Packet Pg. 220
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
tt
r
t
))
ttt
r
)
ttt
r
Volume (vph)
391
232
24
191
80
140
105
2068
370
175
1067
154
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
5.3
5.3
4.5
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.95
1.00
0.97
0.95
0.97
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
3539
1583
3433
3201
3433
5085
1583
1770
5085
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
3539
1583
3433
3201
3433
5085
1583
1770
5085
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
Adj. Flow (vph)
471
280
29
230
96
169
127
2492
446
211
1286
186
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
24
0
101
0
0
0
177
0
0
105
Lane Group Flow (vph)
471
280
5
230
164
0
127
2492
269
211
1286
81
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
6.5
13.1
13.1
6.4
13.0
5.0
33.5
33.5
5.5
34.0
34.0
Effective Green, g (s)
6.5
13.1
13.1
6.4
13.0
5.0
33.5
33.5
5.5
34.0
34.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.08
0.17
0.17
0.08
0.17
0.06
0.43
0.43
0.07
0.44
0.44
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
5.3
5.3
4.5
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
4.5
2.5
4.0
4.0
2.5
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
287
596
267
282
535
221
2190
682
125
2222
692
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.14
c0.08
0.07
0.05
0.04
c0.49
c0.12
0.25
v/s Ratio Perm
0.00
0.17
0.05
v/c Ratio
1.64
0.47
0.02
0.82
0.31
0.57
1.14
0.40
1.69
0.58
0.12
Uniform Delay, dl
35.6
29.2
27.0
35.1
28.4
35.4
22.1
15.2
36.1
16.5
13.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
303.8
1.0
0.0
16.0
0.6
2.9
68.2
0.5
341.6
0.4
0.1
Delay (s)
339.4
30.2
27.0
51.2
29.0
38.3
90.4
15.7
377.8
16.9
13.1
Level of Service
F
C
C
D
C
D
F
B
F
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
216.8
39.3
77.4
61.8
Approach LOS
F
D
E
E
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
87.9 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
1.01
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
77.8 Sum of lost time (s) 14.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
83.6% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 221
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
)))
tt
r
t
r
tt
r
tt
rr
Volume (vph)
940
1
163
5
2
0
40
525
2
0
398
383
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
Lane Util. Factor
0.94
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
0.88
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
4990
3539
1583
1770
1863
1770
3539
1583
3539
2787
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
4990
3539
1583
1770
1863
1770
3539
1583
3539
2787
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)
1011
1
175
5
2
0
43
565
2
0
428
412
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
115
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
291
Lane Group Flow (vph)
1011
1
60
5
2
0
43
565
1
0
428
121
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
22.8
22.7
22.7
1.3
1.2
4.9
29.0
29.0
19.5
19.5
Effective Green, g (s)
22.8
22.7
22.7
1.3
1.2
4.9
29.0
29.0
19.5
19.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.44
0.44
0.29
0.29
Clearance Time (s)
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
Vehicle Extension (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
1719
1214
543
35
34
131
1550
693
1042
821
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.20
0.00
c0.00
0.00
0.02
c0.16
0.12
v/s Ratio Perm
0.04
0.00
0.04
v/c Ratio
0.59
0.00
0.11
0.14
0.06
0.33
0.36
0.00
0.41
0.15
Uniform Delay, dl
17.8
14.3
14.9
31.9
31.9
29.1
12.4
10.5
18.7
17.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.6
0.0
0.1
2.6
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.1
Delay (s)
18.5
14.3
15.0
34.5
32.9
29.6
12.5
10.5
19.1
17.3
Level of Service
B
B
B
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
17.9
34.0
13.7
18.2
Approach LOS
B
C
B
B
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
17.1 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.42
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
66.2 Sum of lost time (s) 8.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization
58.8% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
a
Packet Pg. 222
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
t
Movement
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations
Y
t
tt
Volume (vph)
9
103
727
59
238
237
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
6.0
4.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
Frt
0.88
0.99
1.00
1.00
Flt Protected
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1624
3499
1770
3539
Flt Permitted
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1624
3499
1770
3539
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
9
108
765
62
251
249
RTOR Reduction (vph)
102
0
13
0
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
15
0
814
0
251
249
Turn Type
NA
NA
Prot
NA
Protected Phases
4
6
5
2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
2.4
17.1
7.8
28.9
Effective Green, g (s)
2.4
17.1
7.8
28.9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.06
0.41
0.19
0.70
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
6.0
4.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
94
1449
334
2476
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.01
c0.23
c0.14
0.07
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
0.16
0.56
0.75
0.10
Uniform Delay, dl
18.5
9.2
15.8
2.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.3
1.6
8.2
0.1
Delay (s)
18.8
10.8
24.0
2.1
Level of Service
B
B
C
A
Approach Delay (s)
18.8
10.8
13.1
Approach LOS
B
B
B
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
12.3 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
41.3 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
53.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 223
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & 1-580 EB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
tt
r
ttt
r
Volume (vph)
252
0
789
0
0
0 0
1646
931
0
745
605
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.88
0.86
0.86
0.91
1.00
Frt
1.00
0.85
0.97
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
2787
4681
1362
5085
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
2787
4681
1362
5085
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90 0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)
280
0
877
0
0
0 0
1829
1034
0
828
672
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
148
0
0
0 0
55
0
0
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
280
0
729
0
0
0 0
2157
651
0
828
672
Turn Type
custom
custom
NA
Free
NA
Free
Protected Phases
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
Free
Free
Actuated Green, G (s)
15.5
15.5
26.5
50.0
26.5
50.0
Effective Green, g (s)
15.5
15.5
26.5
50.0
26.5
50.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.31
0.31
0.53
1.00
0.53
1.00
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
1064
864
2481
1362
2695
1583
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.46
0.16
v/s Ratio Perm
0.08
c0.26
0.48
0.42
v/c Ratio
0.26
0.84
0.87
0.48
0.31
0.42
Uniform Delay, dl
13.0
16.1
10.2
0.0
6.6
0.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.81
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.0
7.2
4.5
1.2
0.3
0.8
Delay (s)
13.0
23.4
14.7
1.2
5.6
0.8
Level of Service
B
C
B
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
20.9
0.0
11.7
3.4
Approach LOS
C
A
B
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
11.3 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
52.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 224
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & 1-580 WB on-ramp/1-580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
rr
ttt
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
0
0
0
366
95
0
0
1663
34
0
1037
338
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.95
0.95
0.91
1.00
0.86
0.86
Frt
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1681
1719
5085
1583
4783
1362
Flt Permitted
0.95
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1681
1719
5085
1583
4783
1362
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)
0
0
0
407
106
0
0
1848
38
0
1152
376
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
128
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
0
0
252
261
0
0
1848
38
0
1184
210
Turn Type
Perm
NA
custom
NA
Free
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
8
18
Free
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
11.4
11.4
31.1
50.0
31.1
31.1
Effective Green, g (s)
11.4
11.4
31.1
50.0
31.1
31.1
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.23
0.23
0.62
1.00
0.62
0.62
Clearance Time (s)
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
383
392
3163
1583
2975
847
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.36
0.25
v/s Ratio Perm
0.15
0.15
0.02
0.15
v/c Ratio
0.66
0.67
0.58
0.02
0.40
0.25
Uniform Delay, dl
17.5
17.6
5.6
0.0
4.7
4.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
0.41
1.00
0.20
0.03
Incremental Delay, d2
3.1
3.3
0.5
0.0
0.3
0.5
Delay (s)
20.6
20.9
2.7
0.0
1.3
0.7
Level of Service
C
C
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
20.7
2.7
1.1
Approach LOS
A
C
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
4.4 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
51.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
a
Packet Pg. 225
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
))
ttt
rr
)))
ttt
r
)))
ttt
rr
))
ttt
r
Volume (vph)
20
2473
0
1133
0
0
0
1551
0
0
153
781
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
5.3
4.9
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.91
0.94
0.91
0.91
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
5085
4990
5085
5085
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
5085
4990
5085
5085
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
21
2603
0
1193
0
0
0
1633
0
0
161
822
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
87
Lane Group Flow (vph)
21
2603
0
1193
0
0
0
1633
0
0
161
735
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
pm+ov
Protected Phases
3
8
7
4
1
6
5
2
3
Permitted Phases
8
4
6
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
68.7
34.1
29.7
22.0
20.7
89.4
Effective Green, g (s)
68.7
34.1
29.7
22.0
20.7
89.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.69
0.34
0.30
0.22
0.21
0.89
Clearance Time (s)
5.3
4.9
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
2358
1734
1482
1119
1053
1583
v/s Ratio Prot
0.01
c0.51
c0.24
c0.32
0.03
0.32
v/s Ratio Perm
0.15
v/c Ratio
0.01
1.50
0.80
1.46
0.15
0.46
Uniform Delay, dl
4.9
33.0
32.5
39.0
32.5
1.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.81
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.0
228.6
3.1
210.8
0.3
0.1
Delay (s)
4.9
261.5
35.6
242.4
32.8
1.0
Level of Service
A
F
D
F
C
A
Approach Delay (s)
259.5
35.6
242.4
6.2
Approach LOS
F
D
F
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
174.9 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
1.25
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
110.8% ICU Level of Service H
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
a
Packet Pg. 226
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
t
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
Y
)
ttt
ttt
r
Volume (vph)
9
73
57
549
484
45
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.91
1.00
Frt
0.88
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.99
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1630
1770
5085
5085
1583
Flt Permitted
0.99
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1630
1770
5085
5085
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
Adj. Flow (vph)
12
99
77
742
654
61
RTOR Reduction (vph)
89
0
0
0
0
30
Lane Group Flow (vph)
22
0
77
742
654
31
Turn Type
NA
Prot
NA
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
4
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
4.5
3.8
30.2
22.4
22.4
Effective Green, g (s)
4.5
3.8
30.2
22.4
22.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.10
0.09
0.69
0.51
0.51
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
167
153
3490
2589
806
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.01
c0.04
0.15
c0.13
v/s Ratio Perm
0.02
v/c Ratio
0.13
0.50
0.21
0.25
0.04
Uniform Delay, dl
18.0
19.2
2.5
6.1
5.4
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.1
2.6
0.1
0.1
0.0
Delay (s)
18.1
21.8
2.6
6.2
5.4
Level of Service
B
C
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
18.1
4.4
6.1
Approach LOS
B
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
6.1 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.27
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
44.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
29.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
a
Packet Pg. 227
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
t
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
rr
tt
t
Volume (vph)
102
309
371
634
152
45
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.88
0.97
0.95
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.97
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
2787
3433
3539
3418
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
2787
3433
3539
3418
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
111
336
403
689
165
49
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
244
0
0
20
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
111
92
403
689
194
0
Turn Type
NA
custom
Prot
NA
NA
Protected Phases
4
58
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
6.0
21.4
12.0
53.0
37.0
Effective Green, g (s)
6.0
21.4
12.0
53.0
37.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.08
0.27
0.15
0.68
0.47
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
135
761
525
2392
1613
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.06
c0.03
c0.12
c0.19
0.06
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
0.82
0.12
0.77
0.29
0.12
Uniform Delay, dl
35.7
21.4
31.9
5.1
11.6
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
30.2
0.0
6.0
0.3
0.2
Delay (s)
65.9
21.5
37.9
5.4
11.7
Level of Service
E
C
D
A
B
Approach Delay (s)
32.5
17.4
11.7
Approach LOS
C
B
B
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
20.6 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.40
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
78.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
33.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
c
a�
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 228
5.1.b
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
tt
r
)))
ti�
tip
r
tt
r
Volume (vph)
185
1271
84
104
477
25
132
657
515
170
540
174
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
5.7
5.7
4.0
5.7
4.0
5.3
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.3
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.95
1.00
0.94
0.95
0.97
0.91
0.91
0.97
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.97
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
3539
1583
4990
3513
3433
3291
1441
3433
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
3539
1583
4990
3513
3433
3291
1441
3433
3539
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
201
1382
91
113
518
27
143
714
560
185
587
189
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
46
0
3
0
0
19
27
0
0
128
Lane Group Flow (vph)
201
1382
45
113
542
0
143
869
359
185
587
61
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
4
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
9.7
40.1
40.1
3.0
33.4
7.5
34.5
34.5
6.0
33.0
33.0
Effective Green, g (s)
9.7
40.1
40.1
3.0
33.4
7.5
34.5
34.5
6.0
33.0
33.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.09
0.39
0.39
0.03
0.33
0.07
0.34
0.34
0.06
0.32
0.32
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
5.7
5.7
4.0
5.7
4.0
5.3
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.3
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
325
1383
619
146
1144
251
1107
485
201
1138
509
v/s Ratio Prot
0.06
c0.39
c0.02
0.15
0.04
c0.26
c0.05
0.17
v/s Ratio Perm
0.03
0.25
0.04
v/c Ratio
0.62
1.00
0.07
0.77
0.47
0.57
0.78
0.74
0.92
0.52
0.12
Uniform Delay, dl
44.7
31.2
19.6
49.5
27.6
46.0
30.7
30.1
48.1
28.3
24.6
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
2.5
23.9
0.1
20.4
0.4
1.8
3.9
6.2
41.2
0.5
0.1
Delay (s)
47.1
55.1
19.7
69.9
28.0
47.8
34.6
36.3
89.3
28.8
24.7
Level of Service
D
E
B
E
C
D
C
D
F
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
52.2
35.2
36.4
39.7
Approach LOS
D
D
D
D
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
42.5 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
102.6 Sum of lost time (s) 13.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
82.8% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
a
Packet Pg. 229
5.1.b
Appendix B
Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis
Tt
Packet Pg. 230
5.1.b
Roadway Segment
Segment
Length
(mi)
Speed
Limit
Speed
Constant
Median/
Curb
Cross
Section
Adj
Access
Points
Access
Density
Lanes
Access Adj
Base Freeflow
Speed (mph)
Distance
between
Signals
Signal
Spacing
Adj
Freeflow
Speed
(mph)
Freeflow
Travel Time
(sec)
Approach
Peak
Hour
Signal
delay
Average
Travel Time
(sec)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Speed
Ratio
Segment
LOS
Tassajara Rd between Gleason
Restrictive
Southbound
AM
24.8
1 69.6
26
65%
C
PM
37.8
82.6
22
55%
C
Dr and North Dublin Ranch
0.5
45
46.8
Median,
-2.7
2
4
2
-0.2
43.9
1 100
0.9
40.2
44.8
Northbound
AM
18.4
63.2
28
70%
B
Dr
Curb
PM
34.9
79.7
23
57%
C
Tassajara Rd between North
Dublin Ranch Dr and Fallon
1.1
45
46.8
Non-
restrictive
-0.5
5
5
1
-0.3
46.0
5800
1.0
45.9
86.2
Southbound
AM
86.2
46
100%
A
PM
86.2
46
100%
A
Northbound
AM
9.0
95.2
42
91 %
A
Road
Median,
PM
24.8
111.0
36
78%
B
Curb
Tassajara Rd/Camino Tassajara
Southbound
AM
13.2
98.5
40
86%
A
PM
24.5
109.8
36
78%
B
between Fallon Rd and
1.1
45
46.8
No Median,
0
6
5
I
-0.3
46.5
5800
1.0
46.4
85.3
Northbound
AM
2.5
87.8
45
97%
A
Windemere Parkway
No Curb
PM
3.3
88.6
45
97%
A
Camino Tassajara between
Southbound
AM
11.8
329.2
45
97%
A
PM
8.0
325.4
45
97%
A
Windemere parkway and
4.1
45
46.8
No Median,
0
18
4
1
-0.3
46.5
21600
1.0
46.5
317.4
Northbound
AM
8.0
325.4
45
97%
A
Lusitano Street
No Curb
PM
8.4
325.8
45
97%
A
Camino Tassajara between
Restrictive
Southbound
AM
213.9
40
99%
A
PM
213.9
40
99%
A
Lusitano Street and Crow
2.4
45
46.8
Median,
-2.7
0
0
2
-0.2
43.9
1 150
0.9
40.4
213.9
Northbound
AM
23.7
237.6
36
89%
A
Canyon Rd
Curb
PM
30.5
244.4
35
87%
A
Camino Tassajara between
Restrictive
Southbound
AM
28.0
278.8
37
89%
A
PM
50.8
301.6
35
84%
B
Crow Canyon Road and
2.9
45
46.8
Median,
-2.7
0
0
2
-0.2
43.9
1600
0.9
41.6
250.8
Northbound
AM
250.8
42
101%
A
Sycamore Valley Road
Curb
PM
250.8
42
101 %
A
Existing Conditions
Packet Pg. 231
5.1.b
Roadway Segment
Segment
Length
Speed
Limit
Speed
Constant
Median/
Curb
Cross
Section
Access
Points
Access
Density
Lanes
Access
Adj
Base Freeflow
�
Speed
Distance
between
Signal
Spacing
Freeflow
Speed
Freeflow
Travel Time
Approach
Peak
Hour
Signal
delay
Average
Travel Time
Segment
LOS
(mi)
Adj
(mph)
Signals
Adj
(mph)
(sec)
(sec)
Tassajara Rd between Gleason
Restrictive
Southbound
AM
34.9
79.7
C
PM
25.2
70.0
C
Dr and North Dublin Ranch
0.5
45
46.8
Median,
-2.7
2
4
2
-0.2
43.9
1 100
0.9
40.2
44.8
Northbound
AM
44.3
89.1
D
Dr
Curb
PM
92.5
137.3
E
Tassajara Rd between North
Non-
Southbound
AM
86.0
A
PM
86.0
A
Dublin Ranch Dr and Fallon
1.1
45
46.8
restrictive
-0.5
5
5
2
-0.2
46.1
5800
1.0
46.0
86.0
Northbound
AM
7.4
93.4
A
Road
Median,
PM
12.3
98.3
A
Curb
Tassajara Rd/Camino
Southbound
AM
18.0
103.1
B
PM
18.7
103.8
B
Tassajara between Fallon Rd
1.1
45
46.8
No Median,
0
6
5
2
-0.2
46.6
5800
1.0
46.5
85.1
Northbound
AM
4.1
89.2
A
and Windemere Parkway
No Curb
PM
5.3
90.4
A
Camino Tassajara between
Southbound
AM
35.6
352.3
A
PM
13.8
330.5
A
Windemere parkway and
Lusitano Street
4.1
45
46.8
No Median,
No Curb
0
18
4
2
-0.2
46.6
21600
1.0
46.6
316.7
Northbound
AM
10.0
326.7
A
PM
10.9
327.6
A
Camino Tassajara between
Restrictive
Southbound
AM
213.9
A
PM
213.9
A
Lusitano Street and Crow
2.4
45
46.8
Median,
-2.7
0
0
2
-0.2
43.9
1 150
0.9
40.4
213.9
Northbound
AM
23.9
237.8
A
Canyon Rd
Curb
PM
26.8
240.7
A
Camino Tassajara between
Restrictive
Southbound
AM
29.8
280.6
A
PM
56.3
307.1
B
Crow Canyon Road and
Sycamore Valley Road
2.9
45
46.8
Median,
Curb
-2.7
0
0
2
-0.2
43.9
1600
0.9
41.6
250.8
Northbound
AM
250.8
A
PM
250.8
A
Cumulative Conditions 4-Lane Scenario
U
a�
0
d
c
d
E
c
rn
a
�a
0
�a
�a
N
N
�a
H
T
0
m
c
m
t
U
�a
Q
t
r
3
E
c
aD
Q
Q
CY
w
U
N
N
C
E
t
V
Q
Packet Pg. 232
5.1.b
Roadway Segment
Segment
Length
(mi)
Speed
Limit
Speed
Constant
Median/
Curb
Cross
Section
Adj
Access
Points
Access
Density
Lanes
Access Adj
Base Freeflow
Speed (mph)
Distance
between
Signals
Signal
Spacing
Adj
Freeflow
Speed
(mph)
Freeflow
Travel Time
(sec)
Approach
Peak
Hour
Signal
delay
Average
Travel Time
(sec)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Speed
Ratio
Segment
LOS
Tassajara Rd between Gleason
Restrictive
Southbound
AM
33.7
1 78.4
23
57%
C
PM
16.9
61.6
29
72%
B
Dr and North Dublin Ranch
0.5
45
46.8
Median,
-2.7
2
4
3
-0.1
44.0
1 100
0.9
40.3
44.7
Northbound
AM
41.5
86.2
21
52%
C
Dr
Curb
PM
90.4
135.1
13
32%
E
Tassajara Rd between North
Dublin Ranch Dr and Fallon
1.1
45
46.8
Non-
restrictive
-0.5
5
5
3
-0.1
46.2
5800
1.0
46.1
85.9
Southbound
AM
85.9
46
100%
A
PM
85.9
46
100%
A
Northbound
AM
7.3
93.2
42
91 %
A
Road
Median,
PM
12.5
98.4
40
87%
A
Curb
Tassajara Rd/Camino Tassajara
Southbound
AM
16.9
101.9
39
84%
B
PM
19.1
104.1
38
82%
B
between Fallon Rd and
1.1
45
46.8
No Median,
0
6
5
3
-0.1
46.7
5800
1.0
46.6
85.0
Northbound
AM
3.9
88.9
45
97%
A
Windemere Parkway
No Curb
PM
5.4
90.4
44
94%
A
Camino Tassajara between
Southbound
AM
29.9
346.0
43
92%
A
PM
13.8
329.9
45
96%
A
Windemere parkway and
4.1
45
46.8
No Median,
0
18
4
3
-0.1
46.7
21600
1.0
46.7
316.1
Northbound
AM
8.5
324.6
45
96%
A
Lusitano Street
No Curb
PM
10.8
326.9
45
96%
A
Camino Tassajara between
Restrictive
Southbound
AM
213.5
40
99%
A
PM
213.5
40
99%
A
Lusitano Street and Crow
2.4
45
46.8
Median,
-2.7
0
0
3
-0.1
44.0
1 150
0.9
40.5
213.5
Northbound
AM
23.5
237.0
36
89%
A
Canyon Rd
Curb
PM
28.0
241.5
36
89%
A
Camino Tassajara between
Restrictive
Southbound
AM
30.8
281.1
37
89%
A
PM
55.1
305.4
34
82%
B
Crow Canyon Road and
2.9
45
46.8
Median,
-2.7
0
0
3
-0.1
44.0
1600
0.9
41.7
250.3
ENrthbound
AM
250.3
42
101%
A
Sycamore Valley Road
Curb
PM
250.3
42
101 %
A
Cumulative Conditions 6-Lane Scenario
Packet Pg. 233
5.1.b
Appendix C
Lane Assumptions
Packet Pg. 234
Existing Conditions
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Segment
Original Model Inputs
Modified based on Existing
Model Adjustment?
Lane Assumptions
Change from Modified
Lane Assumptions
Change from Modified
(NB/SB)
Conditions (NB/SB)
(NB/SB)
Existing?
(NB/SB)
Existing?
Tassajara Rd/Camino Tassajara
1-580 WB Ramps to Dublin Blvd
3/3
3/3
No
3/3
No
3/3
No
Dublin Blvd to Central Pkwy
2/2
2/3
Yes
2/3
No
3/3
Yes
Central Pkwy to S Dublin Ranch Cir
2/2
2/2
No
2/2
No
3/3
Yes
S Dublin Ranch Cir to N Dublin Ranch Cir
2/2
2/3
Yes
2/3
No
3/3
Yes
N Dublin Ranch Cir to Fallon Dr
2/2
1/1
Yes
2/2
Yes
3/3
Yes
Fallon Dr to Windemere Pkwy
1/1
1/1
No
2/2
Yes
3/3
Yes
Windemere Pkwy to Lucitano St
1/1
1/1
No
2/2
Yes
2/2
Yes
Lucitano St to Tassajara Ranch Dr
2/2
2/2
No
2/2
No
2/2
No
Tassajara Ranch Dr to Crow Canyon Rd
2/2
3/3
Yes
3/3
No
3/3
No
Fallon Dr
1-580 WB Ramps to Central Pkwy
1/1
2/2
Yes
3/3
Yes
3/3
No
Central Pkwy to Gleason Dr
1/1
3/3
Yes
3/3
No
3/3
No
Gleason Dr to Signal Hill Dr
1/1
2/2
Yes
3/3
Yes
3/3
No
Signal Hill Dr to Tassajara Rd
1/1
3/3
Yes
3/3
No
3/3
No
Other modifications to the model - added a second
centroid connector to represent Silvera Ranch Dr connecting to Tassajara Rd
in addition to Fallon Rd to better model traffic assignment stemming
from that residential
development.
Packet Pg. 235
5.1.b
Lane Assumptions
U
aD
0
L
a
_
aD
E
_
rn
a
0
L
N
N
R
H
T
_
0
.y
d
N
_
d
E
t
V
r
r
Q
t
r
3
E
3
d
Q
Q
CY
w
U
Packet Pg. 236
5.1.b
Lane Assumptions (cont'd)
U
a�
0
L
a
MB E
_
tM
Gl
(land Rd w
E
El
a
CY
w
Packet Pg. 237
5.1.b
Lane Assumptions (cont'd)
0
Scenario 1
a.
Scenario 2
E
z
w
(2040)
(2040)
h
7
h h
��0/
LL
7 N
7 W
(C
L
N
(a
d
i
M
y
'.
y
i
7 t
7
N N
7
�
h
C
a
7
z
O
N N
7 3
W W
7 i
y
f6 nr nr
7
�M
7
lL6
7
M �'
>
7
N 7 1
1
1
'
M
7
W.
1
to
(6
7
++
y
T 7
Q
1 y
1
(p
~
q
T
w Q 7
1 d
y E
nw
7
9
1 7
P7
1P
Y V
r P7
wr
33
1
7
`�' .i
y
1
}
_
w7 1
7
h 3
It,
Q
NM
"z
A A
2
�x .�
1
i
2
p �
�! W
W ^^
y
1 rz -1
3 i
r
z z NNz
z 3
w T
r
z z
x
'1
G
f
a
1
1
i W"J_
1"iN
1y
7 q
T
`� i W
Wow 1"1�
1'
1y
1 1
1 1 i
�r 1
1
•
1 1
�
r
7
7
w3
'3}}
3
3 3 3 3 3
3
3
7
nn
n3 -�
-�
3
W
W
-�
-� CY
3 3 '$
N" 3 3
7
1
3 3 3
7 n n 3 3
3
W
Y
Dublin vd
'ww
r "" ��
Y
D"blin B13
2
z
2
a
z
z
fn
o
q
q
ro�/In
� ��
ti t
hz
2 N
1
T 'L 1
7
_
_
_
d
E
s
Q
Packet Pg. 238
5.1.b
Lane Assumptions (cont'd)
Scenario 1
Scenario
land Rd
U
a�
0
T
0
.y
y
C
d
E
t
V
R
r�
Q
t
r�
�3
E
c
aD
Q
Q
CY
w
U
9
Packet Pg. 239
5.1.b
Appendix D
Model Link Volumes
Tt
Packet Pg. 240
5.1.b
Link Volumes
a�
0
L
a
c
aD
E
c
a�
a
0
w
L
f
0
2
E
ci
Q
�3
E
c
aD
Q
Q
C�
w
U
N
N
r
C
E
t
V
R
Q
Packet Pg. 241
5.1.b
Link Volumes (cont'd)
PM
L
a
c
0
E
a
a�
a
c�
0
L
f
0
.y
N0
I.L
r
E
V
r
a
3
E
c
m
a
a
cY
W
U
N
N
C
N
E
t
V
R
Q
Packet Pg. 242
5.1.b
Link Volumes —AM Peak Hour
Scenario 1
Scenario 'd
C
d
E
t
V
R
El
Packet Pg. 243
5.1.b
Link Volumes — PM Peak Hour
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
E
El
Packet Pg. 244
5.1.b
Appendix E
Select -link Analysis
r
u
0
0
L
a
c
m
E
c
a�
a
c�
0
L
f
0
E
a
3
E
c
m
a
a
cY
W
U
Co
N
C
N
E
t
V
R
Q
Packet Pg. 245
I 5.1.b I
Camino Tassalara Capacity Analysis
1,000 500 250
0 .5 1 1.5
Miles
AM Peak Hour Select -Link Analysis - Scenario 1
Packet Pg. 246 1
I 5.1.b I
Camino Tassa'ara Capacity Analysis
750 375 188
0 .5 1 1.5
Miles
PM Peak Hour Select -Link Analysis - Scenario 1
0
- o-
Packet Pg. 247 1
I 5.1.b I
Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis
750 375 188
0 .5 1 1.5
Miles
AM Peak Hour Select -Link Analysis - Scenario 2
Packet Pg. 248
Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis
750 375 188
0 .5 1 1.5
Miles
PM Peak Hour Select -Link Analysis - Scenario 2
0
0-
�E
U
a
Packet Pg. 249
5.1.c
RESOLUTION NO. -20
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
GENERAL PLAN AND THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN RELATED TO
THE TASSAJARA ROAD ALIGNMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted Right -Of -Way Lines for Tassajara Road by
Ordinance No. 20-99 and Ordinance No. 21-04; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93,
certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, SCH #91103064) (the "1993 EIR")
that analyzed the ultimate development of Tassajara Road at six travel lanes; and
WHEREAS, in 2004, the Dublin City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for a precise alignment of a future six -lane major roadway within the Eastern Dublin
Planning Area (Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Ultimate Road Right -of -Way Alignment Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, SCH #2004042008) (the "2004 IS/MN"); and
WHEREAS, the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designate a six -
to eight -lane roadway of Tassajara Road; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 7.68, the City of Dublin has
proposed a revised alignment for portions of Tassajara Road that differs slightly from the
alignment previously approved in May 2004 (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project includes a programmatic change in the number of ultimate travel
lanes from six lanes to four lane for the portion of Tassajara Road as depicted on Exhibit 1,
attached to this Resolution and hereby incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the affected segment of Tassajara Road is between Palisades Drive and the
Alameda -Contra Costa County limit line; and
WHEREAS, to complete the Project, the alignment of Right -Of -Way Lines on Tassajara
Road between Palisades Drive and Alameda -Contra Costa County line must be adjusted; and
WHEREAS, the Right -Of -Way Lines are appropriate and compatible with the existing and
planned land uses and will not overburden public services; and
WHEREAS, no changes to land use designations and land use provisions of the General W
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are proposed; and M
r
c
WHEREAS, the properties through which the proposed Right -Of -Way Lines pass are within
the boundary of Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and therefore will be encompassed by, and
consistent with, the General Plan; and
a
Packet Pg. 250
5.1.c
WHEREAS, precise alignment for the future Right -Of -Way Lines will not have a substantial
adverse effect on safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to
property or public improvements; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code
Section 21166, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 require that when an EIR
or negative declaration has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration
shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial
evidence in light of the whole record, that one or more of the following exists:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions
of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative
Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would
in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of
the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt
the mitigation measures or alternative; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, Dublin has completed an Initial c
Study/CEQA Addendum (the "Addendum") for the Project as shown in the Initial Study/CEQA
Addendum for the Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -Of -Way Alignment Project prepared by Jerry N
Haag on January 2020 is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein; and
M
WHEREAS, the Addendum concluded that the Project would not result in any new
significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in E
1993 EIR or the 2004 IS/ND and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met; and
CU
Q
Packet Pg. 251
5.1.c
WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 11, 2020
on the proposed establishment of the Right -Of -Way Lines, for which proper notice of the public
hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission considered the Addendum as well as the
1993 EIR and 2004 IS/ND referenced above, before taking action on the Project, and the Planning
Commission did further hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony
hereinabove as set forth before taking any action; and
WHEREAS, consistent with section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City
obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage
Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on
the proposed General Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation
within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required under section
65352.3; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as
described in Exhibit A, based on findings as set forth in Exhibit A, the amendments are in the
public interest, promotes general health, safety and welfare, and that the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as so amended, will remain internally consistent.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11t" day of February 2020 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
3476306.2
Planning Commission Chair
Packet Pg. 252
5.1.d
RESOLUTION NO. xx-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
RELATED TO THE TASSAJARA ROAD ALIGNMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted Right -Of -Way Lines for Tassajara Road by
Ordinance No. 20-99 and Ordinance No. 21-04; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93,
certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, SCH #91103064) (the "1993
EIR") that analyzed the ultimate development of Tassajara Road at six travel lanes; and
WHEREAS, in 2004, the Dublin City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for a precise alignment of a future six -lane major roadway within the Eastern Dublin
Planning Area (Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Ultimate Road Right -of -Way Alignment Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, SCH #2004042008) (the "2004 IS/MN"); and
WHEREAS, the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designate a six -
to eight -lane roadway of Tassajara Road; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 7.68, the City of Dublin has
proposed a revised alignment for portions of Tassajara Road that differs slightly from the
alignment previously approved in May 2004 (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project includes a programmatic change in the number of ultimate travel
lanes from six lanes to four lane for the portion of Tassajara Road as depicted on Exhibit 1,
attached to this Resolution and hereby incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the affected segment of Tassajara Road is between Palisades Drive and
the Alameda -Contra Costa County limit line; and
WHEREAS, to complete the Project, the alignment of Right -Of -Way Lines on Tassajara
Road between Palisades Drive and Alameda -Contra Costa County line must be adjusted; and
WHEREAS, the Right -Of -Way Lines are appropriate and compatible with the existing
and planned land uses and will not overburden public services; and
WHEREAS, no changes to land use designations and land use provisions of the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are proposed; and
WHEREAS, the properties through which the proposed Right -Of -Way Lines pass are w
within the boundary of Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and therefore will be encompassed by, and a)
consistent with, the General Plan; and
a
Packet Pg. 253
5.1.d
WHEREAS, precise alignment for the future Right -Of -Way Lines will not have a
substantial adverse effect on safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be
injurious to property or public improvements; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code
Section 21166, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 require that when an
EIR or negative declaration has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR or negative
declaration shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis
of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that one or more of the following exists:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions
of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative
Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR
was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the
following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
than shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt
the mitigation measures or alternative; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, Dublin has completed an a
r
Initial Study/CEQA Addendum (the "Addendum") for the Project as shown in the Initial
Study/CEQA Addendum for the Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -Of -Way Alignment Project w
prepared by Jerry Haag on January 2020 is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein;
and w
c
WHEREAS, the Addendum concluded that the Project would not result in any new
significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in
a
2
Packet Pg. 254
5.1.d
1993 EIR or the 2004 IS/ND and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met;
and
WHEREAS, consistent with section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City
obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage
Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City
on the proposed General Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a
consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required
under section 65352.3; and
WHEREAS, on February 11, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 20-—
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan amendments and the entirety of the Project, which resolution is incorporated
herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission considered the Addendum as well as the
1993 EIR and 2004 IS/ND referenced above, before taking action on the Project, and the
Planning Commission did further hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and
testimony hereinabove as set forth before taking any action; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated , 2020 and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Initial
Study, and CEQA Addendum, for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project,
including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, on
at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on , 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution xx-20
adopting the Initial Study and CEQA Addendum and an updated Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Initial Study and all above -referenced
reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, as set forth below, are in the public interest, will a
promote general health, safety and welfare, and that the General Plan as amended will remain r
internally consistent. The proposed project is consistent with the guiding and implementing a
policies of the General Plan in each of the Elements and will allow for the continued
implementation of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The General Plan w
amendments noted below will ensure that the implementation of the proposed project is in
compliance with the General Plan and that each Element within the General Plan is internally w
consistent.
E
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following
amendments to the General Plan: a
3
Packet Pg. 255
5.1.d
Table 5-1 shall be amended to read as follows:
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION
Fallon Road Widening
Widening of Fallon Road tosix lanesfrom Positano Parkwayto Dublin
Boulevard.
Tassajara Road Widening
Widening of Tassajara Road to four lanes between the Alameda -Contra
Costa County line to North Dublin Ranch Drive.
Tassajara Road Widening
Widening of Tassajara Road to six lanes between North Dublin Ranch Drive
to Dublin Boulevard.
Tassajara Road Widening
Widening of Tassajara Road to eight lanes between Dublin Boulevard and
1-580 westbound ramps.
Dublin Blvd Widening Widening of Dublin Boulevard to six lanes from Brannigan Street to
Fallon Road.
Dublin Blvd Extension Dublin Boulevard six lane extension, from Fallon Road to Croak Road.
Dublin Blvd Extension Dublin Boulevard four lane extension, from Croak Road to North
Canyons Parkway
Arnold Road Widening Widening Arnold Road to four lanes from Dublin Blvd to Central
Hacienda Drive Widening
Parkway.
Widening Hacienda Drive to six lanes from Dublin Boulevard to Central
Parkway.
Hacienda Drive Widening
Widening Hacienda Drive to four lanes from Central Parkway to
Gleason Road.
Scarlett Court Extension
Extend/Widen Scarlett Drive to four lanes from Dublin Boulevard to
Dougherty Road.
Grafton Street Completion
Completion of Grafton Street between Central Parkway and Dublin
Boulevard.
Fallon Road Widening
Widening of Fallon Road to four lanes from Tassajara RoadtoSilvera
Ranch Drive.
Central Pkwy Extension
Central Parkway two lane extension, from Fallon Road to Croak Road.
Dougherty Road Widening Widening Dougherty Road to six lanes from Sierra Court to City limits.
St. Patrick Way
Extend St. Patrick Way from Regional Street to connect to its current
terminus west of Golden Gate Drive. a
E
0
Packet Pg. 256
5.1.d
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following
amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan:
Section 5.1.1 — TASSAJARA ROAD shall be amended to read as follows:
Tassajara Road is a major north -south arterial in the City of Dublin. Tassajara Road
is a two-lane undivided arterial between the Alameda - Contra Costa County line to
North Dublin Ranch Drive and from North Dublin Ranch Drive to 1-580 it is currently a
four to five lane facility.
Section 5.2.2 NORTH -SOUTH CIRCULATION, fifth Paragraph, shall be amended to
read as follows:
Tassajara Road will be the major north -south road through Tassajara Village Center,
Foothill Residential, Tassajara Gateway and Town Center carrying substantial traffic
from both the planning area and beyond into the retail core. Tassajara Road will
meet the northern portion of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road at an intersection. The
plan concentrates residential and employment users along Tassajara Road to
encourage transit use for local and regional travel. The minimum right of way from I-
580 to Dublin Boulevard shall be 152 feet. North of Dublin Boulevard to North Dublin
Ranch Drive the minimum right-of-way shall be 128 feet, and North Dublin Ranch
Drive to the Alameda -Contra Costa County limit line varies between 108 feet to 110
feet. Additional right-of-way will be needed for transitions and additional turn lanes.
Section 5.2.7 ARTERIAL STREETS shall be amended to read as follows:
The arterial streets in East Dublin are designed to carry very high traffic volumes with
a minimum of interference from connecting traffic. The major arterial streets include
Dublin Boulevard, as well as Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. In
general, these streets will provide six through lanes, with up to eight through lanes for
short street sections connecting directly to a freeway interchange. Dublin Boulevard
between Croak Road and North Canyons Parkway in Livermore will be a four -lane
roadway. Tassajara Road between the Alameda -Contra Costa County limit line and
North Dublin Ranch Drive will be a four -lane roadway. Access to arterials will be
permitted only at signalized intersections with arterial or collector streets, or at
selected controlled locations with the approval of the Director of Public Works.
Section 7.5.2 STREETS shall be amended to read as follows:
TASSAJARA ROAD
No on -street parking.
Signalized intersections based on current and projected traffic flows and
CalTrans Traffic Signal Warrant Standards.
FROM SOUTH OF GLEASON ROAD TO 1-580 w
c
• 14' median with large canopy tree.
• 20' from curbline to ROW line includes canopy tree and secondary tree, sidewalk
or pedestrian/bike path. Sidewalk may be widened and the secondary tree a
5
Packet Pg. 257
5.1.d
eliminated where buildings are built at the 10' set back line. (See Figure 7.40)
FROM GLEASON ROAD TO NORTH DUBLIN RANCH DRIVE
• Six lane arterial street
• 38' landscaped median, with 24' for future lanes
• 20' from curbline to ROW line includes large canopy tree and 8 foot sidewalk or
bike/pedestrian path.
• 10' landscaped setback outside ROW.
FROM NORTH DUBLIN RANCH DRIVE TO THE ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
LIMIT LINE
• Four lane arterial street.
• 16' landscaped median.
• 10' landscaped setback outside ROW.
• 10' to 20' from curbline to ROW line includes canopy tree and secondary
tree and 6' to 10' sidewalk or bike/pedestrian path. Sidewalk may be
widened and the secondary tree eliminated where buildings are built at the
10' set back line.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2020 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
a
0
Packet Pg. 258
5.1.e
NTY �.^"
AMCDHOSIC *� 1 ���" PROPOSED REVISED
CDW*°�'.�IIM�T ��♦ ALIGNMENT OF
.•" 01 TASSAIARA ROAD
- . PALISADES DR.
A LANES
n
LEGEND:
46-
SEGMENT OF I' O/y�Q
FUTURE TASSAIARA
RD. THAT WILL BE
REDUCED FROM 6-
TO 4-LANES
o 4 LANES
r
r'
TASSAIARA
N. DUBLIN i.
ROAD RANCH DR, s
S. DUBLIN t'
RANCH DR.' ,
r
�+ �b LANES
P1
GLEASON DR. �-
■
CENTRAL PKWY.
■
E
■
DUBUN BLVD, ■ d
1 s LANES
Source: City of Dublin
7
T
Packet Pg. 259
5.1.f
RESOLUTION NO. 20-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER AN INITIAL STUDY/CEQA
ADDENDUM PREPARED FOR THE TASSAJARA ROAD ALIGNMENT PROJECT AND
ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH PRECISE ALIGNMENT FOR THE
FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR TASSAJARA ROAD BETWEEN PALISADES DRIVE
AND ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LIMIT LINE
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted Right -Of -Way Lines for Tassajara Road by
Ordinance No. 20-99 and Ordinance No. 21-04; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93,
certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, SCH #91103064) (the "1993 EIR")
that analyzed the ultimate development of Tassajara Road at six travel lanes; and
WHEREAS, in 2004, the Dublin City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for a precise alignment of a future six -lane major roadway within the Eastern Dublin
Planning Area (Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Ultimate Road Right -of -Way Alignment Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, SCH #2004042008) (the "2004 IS/MN"); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 7.68, the City of Dublin has
proposed a revised alignment for portions of Tassajara Road that differs slightly from the alignment
previously approved in May 2004 (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project includes a programmatic change in the number of ultimate travel
lanes from six lanes to four lane for the portion of Tassajara Road as depicted on Exhibit 1,
attached to this Resolution and hereby incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the affected segment of Tassajara Road is between Palisades Drive and the
Alameda -Contra Costa County limit line; and
WHEREAS, to complete the Project, the alignment of Right -Of -Way Lines on Tassajara
Road between Palisades Drive and Alameda -Contra Costa County line must be adjusted; and
WHEREAS, the Right -Of -Way Lines are appropriate and compatible with the existing and
planned land uses and will not overburden public services; and
WHEREAS, the properties through which the proposed Right -Of -Way Lines pass are within 3
the boundary of Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and therefore will be encompassed by, and consistent
with, the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, precise alignment for the future Right -Of -Way Lines will not have a substantial
adverse effect on safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to E
property or public improvements; and
w
r
Q
Packet Pg. 260
5.1.f
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code
Section 21166, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 require that when an EIR
or negative declaration has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration
shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial
evidence in light of the whole record, that one or more of the following exists:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of
the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would
in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of
the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measures or alternative; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, Dublin has completed an Initial
Study/CEQA Addendum (the "Addendum") for the Project as shown in the Initial Study/CEQA
Addendum for the Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -Of -Way Alignment Project prepared by Jerry
Haag on January 2020 is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum concluded that the Project would not result in any new
significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in 1993
EIR or the 2004 IS/ND and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 11, 2020 C°
on the proposed establishment of the Right -Of -Way Lines, for which proper notice of the public
hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
w
r
Q
Packet Pg. 261
5.1.f
WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission considered the Addendum as well as the
1993 EIR and 2004 IS/ND referenced above, before taking action on the Project, and the Planning
Commission did further hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony
hereinabove as set forth before taking any action; and
WHEREAS, all of the above Resolutions and Ordinances are incorporated by reference and
are available for public review during normal business hours at the Community Development
Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, on the
basis of substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to, the 1993 EIR, the
2004 IS/ND, the Addendum, and all related information presented to the Planning Commission, that
the environmental effects of the proposed Project were sufficiently analyzed and that an Addendum
is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Project will not result in any new significant impacts
or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the previous CEQA
documents and no further environmental review under CEQA is required.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
City Council adopt a Resolution of Intention to establish Right -Of -Way Lines for Tassajara Road
between Palisades Drive and Alameda -Contra Costa County.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of February 2020 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
3476044.2
6
r
Q
Packet Pg. 262
5.1.g
RESOLUTION NO. XX-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
CONSIDER AN INITIAL STUDY/CEQA ADDENDUM AND
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH PRECISE ALIGNMENT FOR THE FUTURE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR TASSAJARA ROAD BETWEEN PALISADES DRIVE AND
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA COUNY LIMIT LINE
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted Right -Of -Way Lines for Tassajara Road by
Ordinance No. 20-99 and Ordinance No. 21-04; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93,
certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, SCH #91103064) (the "1993 EIR")
that analyzed the ultimate development of Tassajara Road at six travel lanes; and
WHEREAS, in 2004, the Dublin City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for a precise alignment of a future six -lane major roadway within the Eastern Dublin
Planning Area (Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Ultimate Road Right -of -Way Alignment Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, SCH #2004042008) (the "2004 IS/MN"); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 7.68, the City of Dublin has
proposed a revised alignment for portions of Tassajara Road that differs slightly from the alignment
previously approved in May 2004 (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project includes a programmatic change in the number of ultimate travel
lanes from six lanes to four lane for the portion of Tassajara Road as depicted on Exhibit 1,
attached to this Resolution and hereby incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the affected segment of Tassajara Road is between Palisades Drive and the
Alameda -Contra Costa County limit line; and
WHEREAS, to complete the Project, the alignment of Right -Of -Way Lines on Tassajara
Road between Palisades Drive and Alameda -Contra Costa County line must be adjusted; and
WHEREAS, the Right -Of -Way Lines are appropriate and compatible with the existing and
planned land uses and will not overburden public services; and
WHEREAS, the properties through which the proposed Right -Of -Way Lines pass are within
the boundary of Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and therefore will be encompassed by, and consistent x
with, the General Plan; and w
ti
WHEREAS, precise alignment for the future Right -Of -Way Lines will not have a substantial a
adverse effect on safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to E
property or public improvements; and CU
a
Packet Pg. 263
5.1.g
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code
Section 21166, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 require that when an EIR
or negative declaration has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration
shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial
evidence in light of the whole record, that one or more of the following exists:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of
the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would
in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of
the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measures or alternative; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, Dublin has completed an Initial
Study/CEQA Addendum (the "Addendum") for the Project as shown in the Initial Study/CEQA
Addendum for the Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -Of -Way Alignment Project prepared by Jerry
Haag on January 2020 is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum concluded that the Project would not result in any new
significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in 1993
EIR or the 2004 IS/ND and no other CEQA standards for supplemental revisions are met; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after hearing and considering all said reports, "
recommendations and testimony at a public hearing on February 11, 2020, adopted Resolution 20-
_, recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution of Intention.
a
Packet Pg. 264
5.1.g
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,
on the basis of substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to, the 1993
EIR, the 2004 IS/ND, the Addendum, and all related information presented to the City Council, that
the environmental effects of the proposed Project were sufficiently analyzed and that an Addendum
is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Project will not result in any new significant impacts
or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the previous CEQA
documents and no further environmental review under CEQA is required.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts this Resolution of
Intention and calls for a public hearing pursuant to Sections 7.68.080 through 7.68.100 of the
Dublin Municipal Code, at 7:00 p.m. on , 2020, in the City of Dublin City Council
Chambers, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California, to hear protests and objections to the establishment
of the proposed Right -Of -Way lines as depicted on the legal description and plat attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is directed to post this Resolution of
Intention in accordance with Section 7.68.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code at least 10 days before
the public hearing.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2020 by the following vote
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
City Clerk
3476237.1
Mayor
Packet Pg. 265
5.1.h
MEDP6 CO�141V
�� COSH A � .
0 C%" �%t f
LEGEND:
SEGMENT OF
FUTURE TASSAJARA
RD. THAT WILL BE
REDUCED FROM 6-
TO 4-LANES
'w PROPOSED REVISED
ALIGNMENT OF
TASSAJARA ROAD
'-'—PALISADES DR.
IL4,
� "R4
��ANE
TASSAJARA
N. DUBLIN
ROAD RANCH DR.
it}
S. DUBLIN
RANCH DR.
b LANES
GLEASON DR.
■
CENTRAL PKWY.
■
E
■
DUBLIN BLVD,
8 LAN ES�—�
Source: City of Dublin
1-580
it N
00
c
m
U
a
r
Q
Packet Pg. 266
19702-020�
1/28/2020
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION
LANDS OF SINGH FAMILY PROPERTIES LP TO BE
CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN FOR
TASSA,IARA ROAD WIDENING
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF THE LANDS OF SINGH FAMILY PROPERTIES LP, AS
DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT SERIES NO.2006392818, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH CORNER OF PARCEL B OF THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "TRACT
NO. 8133" RECORDED IN BOOK 343 OF MAPS AT PAGES 11 THROUGH 19, ALAMEDA COUNTY
RECORDS, COMMON TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD,
SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF SINGH FAMILY PROPERTIES
LP, THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TASSAJAftA ROAD, ALONG A NON -TANGENT
CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 833.00 FEET, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS
NORTH 56053'23" EAST, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18°13'44" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 265.02
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1. ALONG A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIG14T WITH A RADIUS OF 833.00 FEET, FROM
WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 75007'07" EAST, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
20057'08" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 304.62 FEET;
2. NORTH 06004'15" EAST, 72.56 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF SINGH;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF SINGH FAMILY PROPERTIES LP THE
FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1. SOUTH 73050'31" WEST, 4.78 FEET;
2. THENCE SOUTH 73 552'02" WEST, 162.51 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ENTERING SAID LANDS OF SINGH FAMILY
PROPERTIES LP THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
I. SOUTH 25"42'3I" EAST, 368.54 FEET;
2. NORTH 75007'07 EAST, 16.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 28,696 SQ. FT MORE OR LESS
PORTION OF APN 986-0004-001-00
END OF DESCRIPTION
0
a
P:\19702\SRV\Mapping\Desc\19702_ROW DEDICATION-7.doc
Packet Pg. 267
PREPARED BY:
IAN B CE t
LICEN ED ND SURVEYOR NO. 8817
STATE CALIFORNIA
�Q LAND SG
MA
Q No.8817 j6
_ d
0 AL
K RY & SO M mr "am'
CIVIL ENGINEERINGsLAND PLANNING* LAND SURVEYING
5142 Franklin Drive Suite B, Pleasanton, CA. 94588-3355
(925) 225-0690
DATE
19702-02�
1/28/2020
Page 2 of 3
0
r
C
d
E
L
t,1
a
P:\19702\SRV\Mapping\Desc\19702_ROW DEDICATION-7.doc
Packet Pg. 2 8771
5.1.i
�50'
N73 \ N68°08'17"E(R)�
B4. 7W -a \\ S . 25'
om��®®���
DETAIL " A" „w 1 V2
NTS
p2
RA CQSl A S73050'31 'U
GflU C�UNC�
N 4.7B
CP
�P
0
311YCH FAMIL Y WT
tp
PROPERTIES L P +
APN 9,36-0004-001-00
SERIES NO. 2006392013
AREA TO BE DEDICATED
2B,696± SF
PROP R/W
0 50 100 200
SCALE: 1 "-100'
LEGEND
P.O.B.
P.O.C.
EX
PROP
R/W
SF
(R)
L2(R
EXHIBIT "A"
PAGE 3 OF 3
1
Curve
Table
Curve #
Radius
Delta
Length
G1
3000.00'
0015'03"
13.13'
SEE DTAIL "A"
THIS SHEET
,w
CIO 0
0 6;
0 0
Line Table
Line #
Bearing
Length
L1
N6004'15"E
72.56'
L2
N75007'07"E
16.99'
{V
a WW c7�
d W
Co I \ PARCEL C
CP TRACT 8102
r �C, \ 347 M. 50-- 7'0
oNk° �cs;
ko
P.O.B. 1 r
V-y
r '
acq w
EX R IW
BOUNDARY OF DESCRIPTION
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
CONTROL LINE
COUNTY LINE
ANGLE POINT
POINT OF BEGINNING
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
EXISTING
PROPOSE
RIGHT OF WAY
SQUARE FEET
RADIAL BEARING
2r�P
P . 0. C .
PARCEL B
TRACT 8133
343 M. I 1
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LANDS OF SINGH FAMILY PROPERTIES LP TO
BE CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN FOR
TASSAJARA ROAD WIDENING
CITY OF DUBLIN CALIFORNIA
50MPS
MOL III
ImIlAcKAY &,m'h An"
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
51420 FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 9458E (925)225-0690
DRAWN DATE SCALE JOB NO.
EJ DEC. 2019 1"=100' 19702-020
0
c
d
E
a
Packet Pg. 269