Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Windstar Attach 10 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WINDSTAR DEVELOPMENT Lead Agency: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA94568 July 2007 i-- tt i 1J 2 ~'t-- Attachment 10 "tOe Vb 2'32.-- Table of Contents Earlier Analysis... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... "','" ... ... :.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .., ... ... ... .... ... ...3 West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area........................ .,.................................................4 Project Location and Site Information... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ......5 Project Description................................................................................................ ...6 Project Applications... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ......... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 7 Environmental Checklist... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..... ...8 Discussion of Checklist... ... ... ... ... ..... ... ... ... ... ... ... .., ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...23 Aesthetics... ... ... ... .., ... ... ... ... ... :.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ...23 Agricultural Resources.................................................................................... 24 Air Quality......... ... :'.. ...... ... ... ... ... ... ......... ",' ... ... ..... ': ... ... ...... ... ...... ... ... ......... ... .25 Biological Resources.........................................................~........ .................. ..26 Cultural Resources....................................................................................... .27 Geology and Soils... .., ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..28 Hazards and Hazardous Materials... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ...... ... :.. ... ...... ..29 Hydrology and Water Quality... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .;. ... ...30 Land Use and Planning... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .32 Mineral Resources..................... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1" ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... .......33 ' Noise... ... ... ... ......... .., ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..... .'...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... .33 Population and Housing.............................................................................. ....34 Public Services... ... ... .., ... ... ... ... ... ... ... :.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ......35 Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Transportation/Traffic.................................................... .'............................ ....37, Utilities and Service System... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ... ... .. ..44 Mandatory Findings of Significance... ... ... ... .. . ... ... ... ... ... . .. ... ,.. ... ... ... . .. ... ... ... ..... ..45 Appendices ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .,. .:.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .......46 A: Dublin San Ramon Services District: Windstar Development Water Demand B: Triggering Analysis for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Development Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 2 lOD~ 21>"2-- Mitigated Negative Declaration Windstar Development P A 06-009 Earlier Analysis Residential development of the Windstar site has been planned for and has been reviewed in several CEQA analyses. The previous analyses are briefly summarized below and in the accompanying initial study. The complete documents are on file and available for review in the Dublin City Hall. On February 8, 1990, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Board of Directors (Lead Agency for the 'project) approved the, extension of the BART transportation system to Dublin and Pleasanton. In conjunction with the system extension, the BART Board of Directors certified the Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project Environmental Impact Report (hereafter "Extension Project EIR") for the 12 mile BART rail line extension and two BART stations (SCH 1989011009) incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall, located at 100 Civic Plaza, during normal business hours. The Extension Project EIR also included a study of the environmental impacts related to constructing a parking lot for the BART Station on the Windstar parcel. In 2001, the BART Board of Directors approved, a plan to construct the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and the joint development of BART owned parcels (with non BART uses) within the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton. The BART Board of Directors (Lead Agency for the project) certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Transit Village Project (hereafter "Transit Village SEIR") on April 2, 2001 (SCH 2000042058) incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall, located at 100 Civic Plaza, during normal business hours. The Transit Village SEIR included a study of the environmental impacts related to the construction of a residential development on the Windstar parcel. The City of Dublin, as the Responsible Agency, processed a related Transit Village project proposed by Jones, Lang, LaSalle. On December 19, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution 226-00 adopting a Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan (hereafter "Specific Plan ND") incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall, located at 100 Civic Plaza, during normal business hours. During the same meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution 227-00 approving the West Dublin BART Specific Plan which encouraged high- intensity, mixed-use development in close proximity to the BART Station. The Specific Plan and the ND assumed high density residential uses on the Windstar Project site. On March 2, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution 29-04 adopting an Addendum to the Specific Plan ND and the Transit Village SEIR for the Transit Village project, incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall, located at 100 Civic Plaza, during normal business hours. This project, proposed by Orix/Ampelon, included a Specific Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 3 lO IDb2~V Amendment to allow a 210 unit residential development, 150 room hotel and 7,500 square feet of retait space. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines SS 15162 and 15163, the following initial study examines whether additional environmental review is required for the Windstar Project. Pursuant to More specifically, this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will examine whether the Project would result in new or more significant impacts or whether there are site or project specific impacts that were not addressed in either the Extension Project EIR or the Transit Village SEIR. All applicable mitigation measures in the Extension ProjectEIR and the Transit Village SEIR, in addition to the mitigation measures in this Mitigated Negative Declaration, continue to apply to this project. West Dublin BART Specific Plan The West Dublin BART Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council on December 19, 2000 (Resolution 227-00). The Specific Plan area is generally located between 1-580 to the south, Dublin Boulevard to the north, San Ramon Road to the west and 1-680 to the east. The Specific Plan area is shown on the map below. The West Dublin BART Specific Plan envisions a transit oriented development with a mix of uses located near public transportation. The Specific Plan envisions a variety of jobs, services, residential units and public transportation opportunities within the .specific plan area. The close proximity of jobs, services and dwellings to public transit encourages residents and employees to use public transit services. Additionally, once improvement projects are completed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 4 I 0 2.lJ() 2. .g -z.. area, there will be bicycle paths and sidewalks with landscaping to promote a pedestrian friendly environment and therefore will encourage residents and employees to walk rather than drive in the area. A Transit Oriented Development (TOD) provides many benefits to the community as well as the region. The TOD places a mixture of units in a walkable area and also includes a variety of convenient public transit opportunities to encourage the use of public transit or walking and thereby reducing vehicle trips. TODs are typically located in an urbanized area which also limits sprawl and greenfield development and focuses development where it can be efficiently supported. A TOD promotes smart growth and a healthy community by encouraging walking or bicycling and reducing automobile trips which reduce congestion and air quality impacts. . Project Location and Site Information The project site is located at 6600 Golden Gate Drive near the future BART Station. The location of the project site is shown on the map below. The project site is a portion of APN 941-1500-046 and comprises 3.66 acres. The project site contains annual grasslands and is relatively flat. The project site was previously developed with a drive-in-movie theater which was demolished approximately 30 years ago and has been vacant since then. A chain link fence is currently located around the property. The site is located within a highly urbanized area. Surrounding uses include a freeway, major roadways and buildings which contain. industrial, service, office and retail uses. Approvals have been granted for a new office and residential development located adjacent to the Windstar site (to the west). The BART parking structure is also currently under construction and construction of the new BART station should commence shortly. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 5 IO~i1b 2.gz,. Project site Project Description The Windstar project is a transit oriented, dense residential development proposed by Windstar. 'The Applicant has proposed to increase the number of units permitted on the site from 210 to 309 (an increase of99 units). The increase in the number of units will not increase the amount of surface area that will be developed. The increase in the number of units will result in an increase in the height of the building which will be increased by one-story and will result in a five story building. The Windstar project site is located next to the AMB project site which was approved for a 308 unit residential development and a 150,000 square foot office building. The proposed increase in the number of units is consistent with the General Plan. The site is designated as High-Density Residential in the General Plan and the designation allows a density of 25.1 units or more peracre. The increase in the number of units will require an amendment to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to allow the increased density. Prior analyses and the current Project assume that the site will be fully improved. The proposed Project will further the goal of the Specific Plan to lo~ate dwelling units near public transit and jobs. The site is located in an urbanized area, surrounded by office, retail and commercial buildings and roadways, and will represent an infill development by locating new residential dwellings where services currently exist. West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment Windstar has proposed a 309-unit residential project on a 3.66-acre vacant site at 6600 Golden Gate Drive in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. The property is designated as Residential in the West Dublin, BART Specific Plan which permits 30-58 dwelling units per acre. Because the West Dublin Specific Plan limits the maximum number of units permitted on the site to 210 dwelling units, the Applicant is requesting a Specific Plan Amendment to Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 6 IOc+D'b '2~~ increase the maximum density permitted under the Specific Plan to permit the proposed 309- unit project~ (The applicable General Plan designation of high density residential has no maximum range; therefore, the General Plan is not required to be amended). The increase in allowable density for the site will not result in an increase in the allowable density for other residential sites in the Specific Plan area. Because this is the only site that is designated as "Residential" in the Specific Plan, the increase in density will not result in an increase to other parcels within the Specific Plan area. The proposed Project includes a request to amend the Specific Plan so that the project will be consistent with the goals and policies in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Project Applications r Project applications considered in this Mitigated Negative Declaration include a Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment, Stage 2 Development Plan, Specific Plan Amendment and Site Development Review. West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment As proposed by the Applicant, a Specific Plan Amendment is required in order to increase the maximum number of units permitted in the Residential land use designation in the Specific Plan to accommodate the Project. Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment The Stage 1 Amendment is required in order to increase the number of units that are permitted to be constructed on the site. The Stage 1 Development Plan for the site was adopted by the City Council on Marth 16, 2006 (Ordinance 8-04) which permitted the construction of up to 210 dwelling units and needs to be amended to allow the construction of 309 units. Stage 2 Development Plan The Stage 2 Rezone establishes the number of units, permitted and conditionally permitted uses, site plan, development regulations and architectural standards. Site Development Review The Site Development Review is the review of the project plans including floor plans, site plan, landscaping and architectural plans. Finding There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the Project, with mitigation measures applicable from the Extension project EIR and the Transit Village SEIR, and as identified in the Initial Study, may have a significant effect on the environment. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 7 lOS-OO 21>Y City of Dublin Environmental Checklist Form Initial Study This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The Initial Study 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. 1. Project title: Windstar 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94588 3. Contact person and phone number: Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, City of Dublin Planning Division (925) 833-6610 4. Project location: 6600 Golden Gate Drive, Dublin, CA 94568 5. Assessors Parcel Number(s): 941-1500-046 6. Project sponsor's name and address: Bob Russell, Ampelon Development Group 2101 Webster Street, Suite 1605 Oakland, CA 94612 and Eric Heffner, Windstar 11149 North Torrey Pines Road, Suite 250 La Jolla, CA 92037 7. Gel1eral Plan Designations: High-Density Residential 8. Zoning:. PD (Planned Development) Residential (West Dublin BART Specific Plan) 9. Specific Plan Designation: 10. Description of project: The subject property is located at 6600 Golden Gate Drive near the future West Dublin BART station (currently under construction). The project site is 3.66 acres in size and is bound by Golden Gate Drive to the east and the future extension of St. Patrick Way to the north. The project site is currently vacant. ' Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin . July 2007 Page 8 IO~ Db 1f6~ The Applicant has requested a Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment, Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review permit approval to construct 309 residential units, parking and associated improvements on the project site. 11. Surrounding land uses and setting: . Surrounding properties and uses are shown below: Bowling Alley, Retail, Restaurant and Hotel 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Grading and Building Permits (City of Dublin) Sewer and Water Connections (DSRSD) 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. D Aesthetics D Agriculture Resources D Air Quality D Biological Resources D Cultural Resources D Geology /Soils D Hazards & Hazardous Materials G Hydrology I Water Quality D land Use I Planning Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 9 D Mineral Resources D Noise 10.., Ob 2~:?- D Population / Housing D Public Services D Recreation Q Transportation/Traffic D Utilities / Service Systems D Man~atOry Findings of Significan DETERMINATION: 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. X Development of the Project site has been reviewed in prior CEQA documents.' Significant impacts were identified and related mitigation measures continue to apply to the Project. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, beyond those previously identified,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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 the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ' .1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoidec;l or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ~ C ':-1 --- Signature -Jd1C'l/C)/ Dat --- ' - t::V \ C C-- C. "T yO~~ Printed name ~Or r)~ Title Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 10 lo~ 6b ~~~ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts The source of determination is listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each po impact at the end of the checklist. A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source: 1,3,4,9,12) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1,3,4,9,12) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 1,3,4,9,12) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 1,3,4,9,12) II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Respurces Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Source: 4,8,9) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 4,8,9) Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation X X X X X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 11 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Source: 4,8,9) III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance Criteria established by the applicable air quality Management or air pollution control district may be Relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?(Source: 4) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 4) 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)? (Source: 4) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?(Source: 1,4) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?(Source: 4,6) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or . 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 loa; D6 2~~ Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorooration X . X X X X X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 12 and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 1,4,7,9) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 1,4,7,9) c) Have a substantial adverse effect 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? (Source: 1,4,7,9) 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? (Source: 1,4,7,9) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Source:1 ,4,5,6,7,9) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or .state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1,4,7,9) v. CUL rURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 915064.5? (Source: 1,4,7,9) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 915064.5? (Source: 1,4,7,9) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique \I 0 Ob 2-~ z-.-- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact I m pact I ncorooration X X . X X X X X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 13 paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 1,4,7,9) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred _ outside of formal cemeteries? (Source: 1,4,7,9) VI. 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 Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Source: 4,7,8,9) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Source: 4,7,8,9) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source: 4,7,8,9) iv) Landslides? (Source: 4,7,8,9) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source: 4,7,8,9) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction 0 collapse? (Source: 4,7,8,9) 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: 4,7,8,9) 1/ ( ~ 2ZZ- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorooration X X X X , X X , X , .X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 14 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Source: 4,7,8,9) VII. 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? (Source: 7,8,9) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 7,8,9) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wast~ within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source:7,8,9) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 7,8,9) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within tw 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: 4) f) For a project within the vicinity of a privat~ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 4) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 4,6) It ~ 1b 2<gv- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with . Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact I ncorooration X X X - X X '( X X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 15 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlal!ds are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1,4) VII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2,6,7,8) 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 pre-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: 2,6,7,8) 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: 2,6,7,8) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a 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: 2,6,7,8) 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: 2,6,7,8) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 2,6,7,8) , (~OC "2- ~t.--' Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I ncorooration X . .X X X X X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 16 g) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Source: 1,2,6,7,8) h) Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area structure which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 1,2,6,7,8) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 2,6,7,8) j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, . tsunami, or mudflow? (Source: 2,6,7,8) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1,3 ) 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, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1,3,4.5) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source: 1,4) X. 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? (Source: 1,4,12) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-importan mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local "*~ ~<32.. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation X X X X X X X X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 17 general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1,4,12) XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise level excess of standards established in the local general p or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 1,4,5) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? (Source: 1,4,5) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing witho the project? (Source: 1,4,5) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source: 1,4,5) 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 in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 1,4) 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? (Source: 1,4) XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 1,2,4) ll5 6b2<3 2. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant I m pact Impact Mitigation Impact I ncorooration S Ie X X ) L X X X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 18 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacem"ent housing elsewhere? (Source: 1,6) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 1,6) XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for 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: Fire Protection? (Source: 2) Police Protection? (Source: 2) Schools? (Source: 2) Parks? (Source: 2) Other Public Facilities? (Source: 2) XIV. RECREATION.,.- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source: 1,6) 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: 1,6) Il~ &b ~2, Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I ncorooration X X . X X X X X X X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 19 xv. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source: 1,2,7) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard 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: 1,4) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Source: 1,6) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source: 1,2,6) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Source: 1,2,6) . g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source: 1,4) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source: 2) 111 Ob 2~2- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I ncorooration X X X X X X, X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 20 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 significantenvironmental effects? (Source: 2) 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 effects? (Source: 2) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 2) 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 provider's existing commitments? (Source: 2) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Source: 2) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Source: 2) XVII. 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 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? \ l~ Ob 2~2-- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact I m pact Mitigation Impact I ncorooration X X X , , X X X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 21 II ~ Db 2ft "2- c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation I m pact Incorporation X X 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 )? Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts: 1 . Location of project. 2. Staff review. 3. Field review. 4. City of Dublin General Plan. 5. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 6. Project Plans. 7. BART Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project Environmental Impact Report 8. West Dublin BART Specific Plan Negative Declaration. 9. WestDublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental Environmentallmpac Report. 10. Letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District. 11. Triggering Analysis for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Development. 12. West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 22 J Cj.D Ob 2~z. Discussion of Checklist Legend PS: LS/M: LS: NI: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact The following information is provided for the environmental checklist. I. Aesthetics The Project site is currently vacant. The site is surrounded by a variety of commercial and industrial uses. Project Impacts a-b) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista or state scene highway? NI. Construction of the Windstar project would change the character of the site from a vacant parcel in close proximity to office and light industrial buildings to a dense, urbanized site with 309 residential units. The increase in the number of units will result in an increase in the number of stories by one and the height of the building will be similar to the height of the approved AMB building located adjacent to the project site. The project site is within the BART Transit Village and the West Dublin Specific Plan ~.. area. A high density, transit oriented development has been planned for on this site since 2000. Additionally, a 308 unit project (AMB) was approved by the City Council on the adjacent parcel in 2003. As shown in the Specific Plan, the City has planned for the AMB Project I densification of this area to compliment the . West Dublin BART Station and to take . advantage of the area's proximity to the future BART Station as well as transit opportunities in the area. Aesthetic impacts related to the construction of this project were addressed in ,both the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (hereafter "Transit Village SEIR") and the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan (hereafter "Specific Plan MND"). The proposed development will be consistent with the architectural features and siting of the approved 210 residential development for this site as well as be compatible with the approved AMB residential development adjacent to the project site and future development in the Specific Plan area. . Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 23 lat no 2'82 c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? NI.The existing site is vacant and is located in a highly urbanized area. Once the project is complete, a new transit oriented development with sidewalks and landscaping will be constructed on the site which will enhance the site as well as comply with the guidelines in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Construction of the site as a high-density project is consistent with the vision of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan which has envisioned the area as a mixed use, pedestrian friendly neighborhood. d) Create light or glare? NI. A residential development has been planned for on this site in both the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the adopted Stage 1 Development Plan. The Stage 1 Development Plan allows the construction of a 210 residential development. The proposed increase of 99 units will not create additional light or glare other than what was identified in the Transit Village SEIR. Overall, no additional impacts related to aesthetics, other than what was identified in the Extension Project EIR, Transit Village SEIR or the Specific Plan MND, are expected to occur as a result of this Project. All mitigation measures included in the Extension Project EIR and the Transit Village SEIR will continue to apply to this project. ' II. Agricultural Resources The existing site has been vacant for several years. The site was previously developed with a drive-in movie theater that was demolished approximately 30 years ago. The project is not located on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance as identified by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Proiect Impacts a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or involve other changes which could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use? NI. The site has not been used for agricultural purposes for at least fifty years, and no Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement exists on the project site. The' project site is located ina highly urbanized area, is surrounded by industrial, office and retail buildings and is completely isolated from any agricultural resources. Additionally, the site is not located on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance as identified by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. No impacts to agricultural resources were identified in the previous environmental documents and no impacts are expected to occur as a result of this Project. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 24 I ';;) d-.. "b 2 8 2- . III. Ai r Quality Dublin is located in the Tri-Valley Air Basin. Within the Basin, state and federal standards for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are met. Standards for other airborne pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate matter (PM-10) are not met in at least a portion of the Basin. For additional background information, please refer to the Transit Village SEIR pages 4.4-1 - 4.4-8. For information on traffic assumptions, please refer to he Triggering Analysis in Appendix B of this Initial Study. Proiect Impacts a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? NI. The proposed project would not conflict with the local Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The proposed project encourages the use of public transit which will result in fewer car trips and will therefore generate fewer emissions that what is typically occurs from residential developments. The Project's addition of one additional story is not a substantial increase in constriction impacts and therefore no different or additional mitigation beyond Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 in the Transit Village SEIR is required for the Project. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS. Construction of the building and site improvements could result in exceedance of ai( quality standards due to dust and equipment emissions. However, the City of Dublin requires the approval and implementation of a Construction Impact Reduction Plan as a standard condition of approval for all new construction projects. Implementation of this standard condition will ensure that short-term air quality impacts remain less than significant. Additionally, the Transit Village SEIR includes Mitigation Measure 4,4,.1 which requires the implementation of several measures during construction to reduce air quality impacts associated with construction activities to a less than significant level. The Project will increase the number of vehicle trips in the area. However, the increased number of trips has been determined to be less than significant in the Triggering Analysis (Appendix B). Trips associated with this project, which result in an increase in air quality impacts associated with automobile use, will be less than what is found in typical residential developments which are located away from services, public transit and jobs. By increasing the density of this site, air quality impacts will be minimized by locating residents near jobs and public transit which will reduce congestion and vehicle trips in the area and therefore reduce air quality impacts. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS. Typical emissions associated with residential developments are emissions generated from vehicles. In this case, the primary mobile source pollutant is carbon monoxide (CO). Typically, areas of high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at high Levels of Service, LOS E or worse. As discussed underthe Traffic/Transportation Section in this document, all intersections affected by the proposed Project will continue to operate at an LOS of C or better with the recommended improvements and therefore will be a less than significant level fo'r CO concentrations. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 25 ld3 tb ~g?- Additionally, as discussed above, the proposed project represents smart growth in that it is located in close proximity to public transportation and Transit Oriented Developments typically have fewer vehicle trips than typical residential developments. One of the key benefits of a TOD for a City and the region is that a TOD typically reduces vehicle miles traveled and therefore reduces vehicle emissions. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? LS. Please refer to the discussion under section a-c. e) Would the project create objectionable odors? NI. The proposed Project includes typical residential uses which do not typically create objectionable odors. Overall, no additional impacts related to air quality, other than what was identified in the Extension Project EIR, Transit Village SEIR or the Specific Plan ND, are expected to occur as a result of this Project. All mitigation measures included in the Extension Project EIR and the Transit Village SEIR will continue to apply to this project. IV. Biological Resources Grasses on site The project site is in a highly urbanized area. No wetlands or other bodies of water are present on the site. The site currently contains common annual grasses and shrubs. No Heritage Trees (as defined by Chapter 5.60, Heritage Trees, of the Municipal Code) are present on the site. Construction of the site and removal of grasses was reviewed in the Extension Program EIR and the Transit Village SEIR and the amount of grassland removed in conjunction with this project will not be greater than what was previously reviewed. Project Impacts a-d) Would the Project have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive or special status species? Riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? LS. Potential impacts to rare, threatened or endangered species have been addressed in the Extension Project EIR and the Transit Village SEIR The development of the proposed Windstar project will result in the loss of approximately 3.66 acres of grassland habitat. No state or federally listed species orspecial status species were identified on the site in the Extension Project EIR, nor were any species identified during' a review of the California Department of Fish and Game's California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) in 2000 and during a site reconnaissance survey on March 16, 2000 (Transit Village SEIR). Due to the geographic location of the site between the 1-580 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 26 t2~ Ob l~?/ freeway corridor, m,ajor roadways and the surrounding developments, it is highly unlikely that any special status species have located on the site or have used the site as a movement corridor. The proposed increase in density for the site will not increase the amount of grassland that will be removed.. As proposed, the increase in density will result in an increase in the height of the Windstar building and no change has been made to the coverage that was preliminarily approved in 2004. Therefore, no new impacts to the site are expected to occur as a result of the proposed increase in the number of dwelling units on the site. The Extension Project EIR contains mitigation measures which require protection measures to ensure that runoff from construction aytivities to the Dublin Creek Watershed is minimized to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. e,f) Would the Project conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. There are no trees on the site which meet the requirements for protection under the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance. The project plans include a Landscape Plan which shows that new landscaping will be planted throughout the site. The site is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan. Overall, no additional impacts related to biological resources, other than what was identified in the Extension Project EIR, Transit Village SEIR or the Specific Plan MND, are expected to occur as a result of this Project. All mitigation measures included in the Extension Project EIR will continue to apply to this project. v. Cultural Resources The project site was previously developed with a drive-in movie theater which was demolished 30 years ago. The site has been vacant since then. Surveys of the site were conducted in conjunction with the Extension Project EIR and the Transit Village SEIR. No known historical or prehistoric resources have been found on the site. Proiect Impacts a-d) Would the Project cause substantial adverse changes to significant historic, archeological or paleontological resources or human remains? LS. The project site was surveyed for the Extension Project EIR and the Transit Village SEIR to determine if any cultural resources were present on the site. The survey found that no historic or prehistoric materials were present on the site. However, disturbance of unknown cultural resources, including disruption or destruction of prehistoric and/or historic resources could occur during grading and construction activities on the site. To reduce the potential impacts to these resources, Mitigation Measure 4.10-2, which requires that a qualified archeologist be consulted for evaluation of the 'site if any unidentified cultural resources are found was included in the Transit Village SEIR to reduce impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level. The proposed project will not increase Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin ' July 2007 Page 27 11.~OO;)g2- the area disturbed for construction and grading activities, other than what was previously identified, and therefore~no additional impacts to cultural resources are expected to occur as a result of this project. OveraU, no additional impacts related to cultural resources, other than what was. identified in the . Extension Project EIR, Transit Village SEIR or the Specific Plan MND, are expected to occur as a result of this Project. All mitigation measures included in the Transit Village SEIR will continue to apply to this project. IV. Geology and Soils The Project area is part of the San Francisco Bay Area, a seismically active region. The significant earthquakes that occur in the Bay Area are generally associated with crustal movement along well- defined, active fault zones of the San Andreas Fault system, which re'gionally trend in a northwesterly direction. The San Andreas Fault, which generated the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, passes west of the site. Two other major active faults in the area are the Hayward Fault (several miles west of the site) and the Calaveras Fault (located about 1,300 feet west of the site) which runs parallel to San Ramon Road and Foothill Road. Project Impacts a) Would the Project expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects including fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction or landslides? LS. As discussed above, the Project site is located within a seismically active region. The ,Extension Project EIR identified potentially significant impacts associated with strong seismic shaking and liquefaction. The Extension Project EIR included a mitigation measure which requires the Project developer to prepare a site specific geotechnical study for the project to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. b) Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? NI. The Project site is relatively flat and therefore has little potential for erosion potential. No significant soil erosion impacts were identified in the Extension Project EIR or the Transit Village SEIR. c) Would the Project be located on soil that is unstable or would become unstable as a result of the Project? LS. Please refer to the discussion under section a above. The Extension Project EIR identified soil instability impacts. associated with liquefaction and included mitigation measures which required engineered design with specific design standards which reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. ' d) Is the Project located on expansive soil? Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for VVindstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 28 12.~ Db Z?;2- LS. The Transit Village SEIR notes that the Project site is located on younger alluvial fan deposits which could include expansive soil components. The project design must conform to the Building Code which contains standard engineering design requirements which will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. e) Does the Project site have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks? NI. The Project will be connected to a sanitary sewer system provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District and therefore septic tanks will not be used. Overall, no additional impacts related to geology and soils, other than what was identified in the Extension Project EIR, Transit Village SEIR or the Specific Plan MND, are expected to occur as a result of this Project. All mitigation measures included in the Extensio'n Project EIR will continue to apply to this project. VI. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project site is currently vacant. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the site is not located on a hazardous waste and substance site. Phase 1 and 2 environmental assessments were conducted in conjunction with the Extension Project EIR and the Transit Village SEIR. The SEIR identified the project site as requiring monitoring and or a field sample prior to the commencement of construction activities. Project Impacts a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public through the transport, use, disposal or emission of hazardous materials? LS. The proposed project is a residential development. No transportation or emission of hazardous materials is expected to occur as a result of the project.. Small quantities of hazardous materials including pesticides, fertilizers and cleaning materials are expected to be used on site. Federal, State and local regulations are currently in place which control the use and storage of hazardous materials. Because only small quantities of these materials are expected to be used on the site and because the project would be required to comply with all applicable existing regulations concerning hazardous materials, the project would not represent a significant hazard to the public or environment. b) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? LS. Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Assessments were conducted on the site and the surrounding area for the Extension Project EIR and the Transit Village SEIR to identify hazardous or potentially hazardous conditions on the project site. As discussed in detail in the Transit Village SEIR (pages 4.7-1 - 4.7-10) multiple sites located within the vicinity of the project have the potential to contaminate the soils or shallow groundwater in the .area. Construction activity associated with the proposed project could expose workers or sensitive receptors. Mitigation measure 4.7-1 is included in Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 29 lcif'oo 2~? the Transit Village SEIR which requires field sampling of the site prior to construction to minimize potential human exposure to contaminants to a less than significant level. c) Would the Project emit hazardous emission within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? NI. The project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an' existing or proposed school. Additionally, the proposed Project is a residential development and hazardous emissions are not anticipated to result from this type of development. d) Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites? NI. See the response under section a for a discussion of potential impacts related to hazardous materials in the vicinity of the. Project site. e, f) If the site is located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the area? NI. The Livermore Municipal Airport is located approximately 6 miles southeast of the site. The Project site is not located within the airport land use plan for this airport. Additionally, the project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Would the proposed Project impair the implantation of the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? NI. Adequate emergency access will be provided in the area through the existing streets, internal driveway and by St. Patrick Way once completed. h) Would the proposed project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? NI. The Project site is located in an urban area which is currently served by existing fire stations. Overall, no additional impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, other than what was identified in the Extension Project EIR, Transit Village SEIR or the Specific Plan MND, are expected to occur as a result of this Project. All mitigation measures included in the Extension Project EIR and Transit Village SEIR will continue to apply to this project. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality The project site is relatively flat. Precipitation generally infiltrates into the site's soils during storm events. Because of the flat character of the parcel, precipitation generally infiltrates into the site's soils during storm events. The stormwater that does drain off the site generally flows to the east into existing storm drains within Golden Gate Drive and to the south into Dublin Creek. For additional background information please refer to the Transit Village SEIR (pages 4.2.1 - 4.2.8). Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 30 I~.g Jt 2~? Proiect Impacts a) Would. the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS/M. A study of non-point source (urban runoff) pollutants was conducted for the Extension Project EIR. The study concluded that the total amount of non-point source pollutant loads due to the construction of the BART Station and the associated parking would be less than 1 % of the overall pollutant loads entering the Alamo Creek at the 1-580 crossing. The proposed project will not increase the land that will be developed, over what was studied in the Extension Project EIR and the Transit Village SEIR, and therefore, no additional impacts will result from construction of this project. Additionally, the City's standard Conditions of Approval require the Applicant to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Implementation of this plan would minimize soil runoff from construction areas. In a letter received from Zone 7, the Agency requested that a hydrologic analysis be prepared to show rundff from the site will not have an impact on downstream facilities. Although previous reviews have determined that the project will not result in additional impacts, the analysis requirement is typically included in the standard conditions of approval for projects. In order to ensure that the Project will not impact downstream facilities, the following mitigation measure has been included to ,reduce impacts related to runoff from the site to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measure 1: The Applicant shall prepare a Hydrologic Analysis to show that runoff from the site will not impact downstream facilities. Zone 7 shall review the analyses for completeness and accuracy and shall approve the analysis prior to issuance of a Building Permit. b) Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water tables? LS. Because the proposed Project would develop the same area as anticipated in the Extension Project EIR and the Transit Village EIR, no new significant groundwater impacts are anticipated. c-d) Would the Project substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding on or off the project site? LS. The existing site is comprised of grassland and no impervious surfaces. The Extension Project EIR and the Transit Village SEIR assumed that the entire site would be impervious following construction of the Project. The proposed Project would not increase the total amount of impervious surface area, therefore, no additional impacts will occur as a result of the proposed Windstar Project. e) Would the Project create. stormwater runoff that would excfJed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? LS. The Extension. Project EIR included mitigation to minimize runoff from the Project site including the use of detention ponds to control the rate of stormwater runoff. As discussed above, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 31 \ 2."1 "6 2- ~ z., proposed Project will not increase the amount of surface area that will be graded or will be impervious. Over what was studied in the Extension Project EIR and the Transit Village SEIR. f) Would the Project substantially degrade water quality? LS. Construction and grading of the Project would temporarily disturb surface soils and would result in the removal of the existing grasses. Grading of the site could result in the exposure of soil to runoff, potentially causing erosion. Chemicals could also be released at the Project site during construction activities. The Transit Village SEIR includes Mitigation Measure 4.2-2 which requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, BMPs and long-term stormwater management to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. g) Would the Project place housing within a tOO-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Floor Insurance Rate Map? NI. This Project will not place structures within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area. h,i) Would the Project place within a tOO-year flood hazard boundary structures that impede or redirect flood floor, including dam failures? NI. No portion of the Project site is located within a flood hazard area as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. j) Would the Project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. The site is not located near a significant body of water which could result in a seiche. The risk of a potential mudflow is considered low since the site and area are generally flat and no historic mudflows or landslides have been identified on the site. V. Land Use and Planning The Project site is located adjacent to Golden Gate Drive and the future St. Patrick Way and in close proximity to the new West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station (currently under construction). The Project site is located with the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area which anticipates that the project site will be constructed with a high-density transit oriented development. Project Impacts a) Would the proposed Project physically divide an established community?, NI. Although the Project site is currently vacant, the site is located in a highly urbanized area within the City's West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Specific Plan area. Development of this site has been anticipated since the adoption of the Specific Plan in 2000. . Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 32 13D Db t.'O'"2.- b) Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. The proposed Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The increase in density to allow a total of 309 units on a 3.66 acre parcel is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of High-Density Residential which allows 25.1 units or more per acre. The proposed Project includes a request to increase the density above what the Specific Plan allows. The Applicant is requesting a Specific Plan Amendment to change the allowable density range for the "Residential" land use category to increase the maximum density to 84 units 'per acre. The increase in density will allow the construction of the proposed 309 unit residential development. The increase in allowable density for the site will not result in an increase in the allowable density for other residential sites in the Specific Plan area. Because this is the only site that is designated as "Residential" in the Specific Plan, the increase in. density will not result in an increase to other parcels. The proposed Project includes a request to amend the Specific Plan so that the project will be consistent with the goals and policies in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. c) Would the Project conflict with a habitat or natural community conservation plan? NI. A habitat or natural community conservation plan has not been adopted for this area and therefore development on the project site would not impact an established plan. Overall, no impacts to land use and planning are expected to occur as a result of this Project. . VI. Mineral Resources The Project site contains no known mineral resources. Proiect Impacts a, b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of significant mineral resources? NI. The Project site is not located in an area of aggregate resources. Neither the Extension Project EIR nor the Transit Village SEIR identified significant deposits of minerals. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur. Overall, no impacts to mineral resources are expected to occur as a result of this Project. XI. Noise Major sources of noise on and adjacent to the Project site include noise generated by vehicles on 1- 580 which is located approximately 440 feet away from the Project site. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 33 13lDb ~~ Project Impacts a-f) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard, expose people to groundborne vibration, result in permanent increases in ambient noise levels? LS. The Transit Village SEIR addressed potential noise impacts of implementing the proposed Transit Village project. Noise related impacts identified in the EIR included exposure of future residents in the residential portion of the development and occupants of the hotel to increased levels of noise due to the proximity of the 1-580 freeway corridor, and exposure of residents and occupants to construction noise from the BART Station and parking structure to be constructed on adjaceht sites. Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 through 4.3-4 outlined in the Supplemental EIR, require the project to incorporate measures to minimize noise from construction activities and sound attenuation for the building, will mitigate most of the noise impacts to a less than significant level. However, the impacts of noise generated by the 1-580 freeway corridor on exterior noise levels in outdoor areas of the project was identified as an impact that may remain significant even after mitigation and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. Additionally,. on-site construction activities that occur after the residential units are occupied could !3xceed acceptable ambient noise levels above the significance thresholds, even with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures. This impact was also identified as significant and unavoidable, with no additional or feasible mitigation available to reduce it to a less-than-significant level, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted in the BART SEIR. ' To mitigate interiofnoise levels to an acceptable level for the residences (Mitigation Measure 4.3-4) the project developers will be required to commission an independent acoustical consultant to develop noise attenuation measures to be incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed residential and hotel components of the project (Charles Salter and Associates, 1997). Adherence to site-specific mitigation measures contained in the acoustical analysis and all other mitigation measures set forth in the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit- Village Supplemental EIR will reduce noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. Overall, no additional impacts related to noise, other than what was identified in the Extension Project EIR, Transit Village SEIR or the Specific Plan MND, are expected to occur as a result of this Project. All mitigation measures included in the Extension Project EIR and Transit Village SEIR will continue to apply to this project. XII. Population and Housing. The City population as of January 1, 2007 was estimated by the State Department of Finance to be 43,630. Project Impacts a) Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 34 '?>2 flJ '2.~~ LS. Approval of the project would add an additional 99 multi-family housing units to the City's housing supply, and introduce residential development to an area of predominantly retail/commercial and office development. However, this is consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan and the General Plan land use designation, and is considered an appropriate land use given the location of the future West Dublin BART station and the regional need to develop housing in proximity to transit facilities. No impacts are therefore anticipated, and no mitigationmeasures are required. b,c) . Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI. The site is vacant, and no housing exists on the site. Implementation of the proposed project would therefore displace neither housing units nor people. Overall, no impacts with respect to population and housing are expected to occur as a result of this Project. XIII. Public Services. Fire Protection: The .City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County Fire Department for fire protection services including fire suppression, fire prevention, education, inspection services and hazardous material control to the community. Police Protection: The City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County Sheriff Department to provide 24-hour security patrols throughout the community in addition to crime prevention, crime suppression and traffic safety. Schools. The Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) provides educational services to residents in the City of Dublin. Maintenance. Maintenance of public streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of Dublin Public Works Department. Solid Waste Services. Solid waste services are provided by Amador Valley Industries. Project Impacts a) Fire protection? LS. Construction of the proposed project would increase demand for fire and emergency services on the site. As part of Site Development Review and Building Permit Review of this project, specific fire protection requirements will be imposed to ensure compliance with the California Fire Code to ensure that impacts are less than significant. b) Police protection? LS. An increase in the demand for police services may occur as a result of the increase in the number of units on the site. As part of the Site Development and Building Permit review process, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 35 \ ~ ~>>b ~~t.- specific security requirements will be imposed on the Project to ensure compliance with applicable provisions of the City of Dublin Municipal Code. Incorporation of these measures will ensure that impacts are less than significant. c) Schools? LS. The proposed Project will slightly increase the demand for schools. These demands will be offset by the payment of the School Impact Fee which must be pair prior to Building Permit Issuance. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. Approval of the project would increase the long-term maintenance demand for roads. However, the additional demands will be offset by additional City impact fees and property tax revenues. e) Solid waste generation? LS. Approval of the Project would increase generation of solid waste during construction and during the life of the buildings. The Project will be required to provide adequate garbage and recycling facilities on the site. Overall, no additional impacts with respect to public services are expected to occur as a resultof this Project. XIV. Recreation Nearby community and recreational facilities include: the Dublin Sports Park, the Library and the future Heritage Park. Proiect Impacts a, b) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or require the construction of new recreational facilities? LS. Impacts to parks and recreational facilities related to the project have been addressed in the Transit Village SEIR. A slight increase in demand for park facilities is anticipated with the Transit Village project; however, it is not expected that future residents of the project would utilize the park facilities in the City such that substantial deterioration of the facilities would occur. In accordance with City of Dublin regulations, policies and standard project conditions of approval, the Applicant will be required to pay park impact fees to cover any potential additional service costs related to the development. . Overall, no additional impacts to recreation are expected to occur as a result of this Project. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 36 I ~t.( ao ~$~' xv. Transportation/Traffic Development of the site as a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) with up to 210 units was approved in the 2004 Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone. The proposed Project will increase the total number of units on the site by 99' (to a maximum of 309 dwelling units). A Triggering Analysis (included as Appendix B) was prepared by T JKM in 2007 which reviewed whether the development would trigger specified improvements in the area and updated the traffic analysis. The prior SEIR examined a project of 160 dwelling units and 240 hotel room. The 2004 project increased the dwelling units from 160 to 210, but reduced the hotel rooms by nearly half, from 240 to 150. The 2004 addendum determined that the modified project would not result in any new or more significant impacts and would reduce the number of tips from the SEIR. As further discussed below, the update traffic analysis in Appendix B concludes that the current Project will result in acceptable Levels of Service with implementation of identified mitigation measures. . The project site is part of a TOD which includes pedestrian access to public transit (including a new BART Station), retail, entertainment, and commercial uses and in the future will also include additional office space, retail and housing units. The BART Station will be a transit hub and will have a bus pick-up and drop off area for several bus lines which can also be used by commuters in addition to the BART rail system. Traffic impacts related to the additional dwelling units is expected to be minor based on the proximity of public transit and the typical desire of occupants of a TOD to take advantage of transit and pedestrian opportunities in the area. TODs typically have fewer vehicle trips than dwellings located more than 1,4 mile from transit hubs. Development of a residential project in this. location represents smart growth in that it will reduce vehicle trips which reduces congestion and air quality impacts, is an infill development which protects greenfields and places development where it can be served by existing services and encourages walking, bicycling or the use of public transit. Existing Transportation Network The project site is served by a number of regional freeways and sub-regional arterial and collector roadways including: Interstate 580 - An eight lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local cities such as Livermore to the east and Hayward and Oakland to the west. Interchanges near the project site include Dougherty/Hopyard Road and San Ramon Road. Interstate 680 - A six lane north-south freeway that connects Dublin with local cities such as San Ramon to the north and Pleasanton to the south. Interchanges near the Project site include Village Parkway'and Amador Plaza Road. . Dublin Boulevard - This is a major arterial roadway in the City. The road extends from the City Limits in the west and will connect to Fallon Road in the future. Village Parkway - Extends from Clark Avenue to Alcosta Boulevard. Once Village Parkway crosses over Dublin Boulevard, it has four lanes with a raised center landscaped and hardscape medians. This road provides access to San Ramon and to a northbound freeway ramp onto 1-680. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 37 1~S-~2~Y- Amador Valley Boulevard - This. road is located northwest of the Project site and extends in an east- west direction. This road extends from San Ramon road to Dougherty Road. San Ramon Road - This road is located to the east of the Project Site. San Ramon Road extends from 1-580 (where it connects with Foothill Road in Pleasanton) to the City of San Ramon. St. Patrick Way - This two-lane road currently extends from an off-ramp from the 1-680 freeway to Golden Gate Drive. St. Patrick Way will be extended to the west jn the future in front of the project site (to the north) from Golden Gate Drive to Regional Street. Golden Gate Drive - This two-lane road is located adjacent to the project on the east and extends in a north-south direction. This road begins at Dublin Boulevard and ends in a bulb where the BART Station will be located. Existing Transit Services Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Rail - The Altamont Commuter Express operates three trains per day between Stockton and San Jose. The trains provide westbound service in the morning and eastbound service in the evenings. The ACE train has stations in Livermore near the downtown and on Vasco Road. The train also has one stop in Pleasanton on Pleasanton Avenue near Main Street. The Pleasanton ACE train station is likely to be used by Dublin commuters and bus services connect to the station which provides a transit link to Dublin. Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (also known as WHEELS) - The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority provides bus service to the communities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. Several lines provide service to Eastern Dublin. The closest stop near the Project site is located at Dublin Bowl less than one-quarter mile to the west of the ProjeCt site. The WHEELS bus system connects to both the ACE train and the BART station. Once the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is complete, it is likely that additional bus stops (including at the station) will be located in the area. Dial-A-Ride (DAR) - Dial-A-Ride is a bus service which will pick a resident up and drop the resident off at a desired location, by appointment. DAR is available for residents in Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore who have a disability or heath related condition and are unable to board a regular bus or are unable to get to a bus stop. . Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) - BART currently operates trains between the EAST Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station near Hacienda Drive and the Oakland/San Francisco area. Service is available seven days a week. The new West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is currently ul'1der construction and is expected to open in 2008. The new BART Station is located within walking distance of the Windstar project (approximately 250 feet to the south) and the new Windstar project and future projects will includes sidewalks, landscaping and other elements to promote a pedestrian friendly environment. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 38 \3~ ao 2'3~ Trip Generation The proposed-Project with 309 units is expected to generate 137 am peak hour trips (23 in and 113 out) and 161 pm peak hour trips (108 in and 53 out). The increase in the number of units for the site will result in an additional 96 am and 112pm trips. Intersections Reviewed Two intersections were review for this project. The intersections are St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive and Golden Gate Drive/Dublin Boulevard. The location of these intersections is shown on the map below: Planned Roadway Improvements Future planned improvements in the area are: . St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive intersection will be a four-way stop controlled intersection; and . St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive will be realigned with a two-lane eastbound approach. Intersection Level of Service Analysis - Existing Conditions The following table summarizes peak hour levels of service at the study intersections under existing conditions. Under existing conditions, both study intersections are currently operating at an LOS of A. The Map ID number relates to the location of the intersection on the map above. . a e XIS mg on I Ions ID Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 1 Dublin Boulevard/Golden V/C LOS V/C LOS Gate Drive (Signalized) 0.23 A 0.40 A 2 St. Patrick Way/Golden Delay LOS Delav LOS Gate Drive (Unsignalized) 7.6 A 8.2 A T bl 1 E . f C d"f V/C= Volume-to-capacity ratio for overall signalized intersection Delay= A verage delay in seconds per vehicle for overall four-way stop-controlled (unsignalized) intersection Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 39 \?JtOfJ 1.~2- Intersection Level of Service Analysis - Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions The following table summarizes peak hour levels of service at the study intersections under Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions. Under Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions,' both study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably at LOS A with minor changes in v/c ratios and average delay resulting from existing plus approved project conditions. a e . xlsmg us ~pprove rOject on I Ions . 10 Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 1 Dublin Boulevard/Golden V/C LOS V/C LOS Gate Drive (Signalized) 0.24 A 0.41 A 2 St. Patrick Way/Golden Delay LOS Delav LOS Gate Drive (Unsignalized) 7.6 A 8.3 A T bl 2 E . t' PI A d p' C d'f Intersection Level of Service Analysis - Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus BART Transit Village Conditions The Transit Village includes the proposed Project plus a 150 room hotel and 7,500 square feet of retail. The hotel and retail uses are included in the approved Stage 1 Development Plan. The Project proposed no changes to these uses. The following table summarizes the peak hour levels of service at the- study intersections under Existing Plus' Approved Projects Plus BART Transit Village Conditions. Table 3: Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus BART Transit VillaQe Conditions ID tersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 1 ublin Boulevard/Golden V/C LOS V/C LOS ate Drive (Signalized) 0.37 'A 0.57 A , 2 . Patrick Way/Golden Delay LOS Delav LOS ate Drive (Unsignalized 15.1 C 20.4 C Dublin General Plan Guiding Policy F in the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element requires intersections to strive for an 'LOS of D or better. As shown above, the intersections will continue to operate within acceptable City standards with completion of the proposed project. Project Impacts a) Would the Project cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity? ' LS/M. The Triggering Analysis completed for this Project concluded that the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to the intersections near the Project site with minor improvements to the intersections as set forth in the two mitigations below. The Project is subject to payment of the City's Traffic Impact Fee which funds improvements aimed at easing traffic congestion in the City. Currently, both study intersections operate at a LOS of A. With construction of the Windstar Project and the remainder of the Projects in the area (including the hotel, retail space and the adjacent AMB project), the study intersections are expected to operate at a LOS of C or better with the following mitigation measures: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 40 l3~ 00 Z3"Z.. - Mitigation Measure 2: The Applicant shall extend the northbound left turn storage lane by 100 feet plus 60 feet of transition taper and the northbound right turn storage by 220 feet on Golden Gate Drive near the intersection of Golden Gate Drive/Dublin Boulevard and shall revise the pavement striping accordingly (as shown on the following page and in Figure 11 in Appendix B): Extend Striping , by 100' ,EGEND See Figure 12 for details in this area. ~ .. Nortt Nollo S, - Existing ~oad~ay - Proposed Roadway J- Proposed Pavement Marking *- Roadway to be removed -Ir Pavement Marking to be removed Mitigation Measure 3: Approximately 6 on-street parking spaces shall be removed on Golden Gate Drive between St. Patrick Way and Dublin Boulevard and the northbound right turn lane shall be extended, with striping and red curbs (as shown above and in Figure 11 in Appendix B). Mitigation Measure 4: The ApplicanUDeveloper shall install an exclusive northbound right-turn lane at the Golden Gate Drive/St. Patrick Way intersection. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 41 \ ~ Ub 2~1" The above mitigation measures will reduce impacts related to longer northbound queues at the intersection of~Golden Gate Drive/Dublin Boulevard that will occur as a result of this Project to a less than significant level. Additionally, due to the nature of the project, a Transit Oriented Development, and the close proximity of the BART Station and other transit opportunities in the area, the proposed Project will encourage the use of public transit for residents and employees in the area which will in turn reduce congestion and air quality emissions that can typically be found in conjunction with traditional development that occurs in outlying areas or developments which are not located next to transit or job opportunities. b) Would the Project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated road? LS. The proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Designation of High- Density Residential which permits 25.1 units or more per acre. The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) encourages Transit Oriented Developments (TOD) in the County. The purpose of a TOD is to encourage the use of public transit, bicycling or walking which will reduce the demand on roadways. The proposed project will accomplish this by being located in close proximity to the new BART Station and transit hub as well as retail and restaurant uses and jobs. Additionally, as noted in the Analysis the only two intersections which will be significantly impacted are not CMA designated roads and will still fall within the acceptable LOS once the project is complete and the improvements included as mitigation measures have been constructed. c) Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns because it is not located near any airport. d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS. Approval of the Project would result in the construction of a new project with a new internal circulation system. The site plan has been reviewed by the Police Services Department and the Public Works Department to ensure that no hazards exist. e) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? LS. The proposed Project has been reviewed with respect to emergency access by the City's Fire Department and the Police Department. These Departments have determined that adequate access. will be provided to the site by the project's two access points. . f) Would the Project result in inadequate parking capacity? LS/M. The Project proposes 493 parking stalls. The project plans indicate that a total of 450 parking stalls will be located within the structure (secured parking), 44 parking stalls will be located along the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 42 !~O D6 "2~2 internal driveway and 10 parking stalls will be located on St. Patrick Way (which are not included in the total number of parking spaces because these 10 spaces are considered off-site parking spaces). The following table provides information on the number of required parking stalls and the number of proposed parking stalls. a e ropose ar mg a s Category Zoning Ordinance Stcmdard Proposed Dwelling Units 309 450 Guest 309 43 Total 618 493 T bl 4 P d P k" 5t II As shown in Table 4 above, the Applicant has requested parking that is 123 parking stalls less than . the Zoning Ordinance Standard. The Applicant is proposing 141 more restricted tenant/owner parking spaces and 266 fewer unrestricted/guest parking stalls would otherwise be provided under the Zoning Ordinance standard. The project site will have an overall parking ratio of 1.59 parking stalls per unit (the Zoning Ordinance standard is 2). In this case, the proposed parking is warranted due to the design of the project as a Transit Oriented Development with a BART Station in close proximity. As discussed in the Triggering Analysis, the typical parking ratio for Transit Oriented Developments in California is 1.41, which includes resident and visitor parking. As noted in the Triggering Analysis, the Parking Generation Manual, 3rd Edition, East Bay Transit Oriented Developments tend to have much lower parking supply ratios. For example, the Pleasant Hill BART TOD has a ratio of 1.08 and the Alameda County BART TOD has a ratio of 1.31. T JKM visited the Fruitvale Transit Village in Oakland, which is located adjacent to the Fruitvale BART Station, to review current parking practices in the East Bay. Based on this review, T JKM observed that the site, with a parking ratio of 1.31 spaces per unit, had adequate parking spaces to serve the development. Additionally, the Dublin Transit Center TOD currently permits a parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit. The proposed number of guest parking stalls are significantly lower than what is typically required for a residential development. The guest parking stalls will also be located outside of the secured parking garage, on the internal driveway system. Once the new BART Station is open, these stalls may be attractive for BART patrons to use for parking to avoid paying the parking fee at the BART Station or when the lot is full. These spaces may also be attractive for residents to park in instead of parking in the lot. In order to ensure that these parking spaces are limited to guest parking and to discourage BART patrons from using these stalls during the day, the following mitigation measure has been included to restrict parking to reduce impacts related to guest parking to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 5: Signage shall be installed on the internal driveway system which states that the parking stalls are limited to two hour parking Monday through Friday from 7 am to 5 pm. The Triggering Analysis (Appendix B) includes a discussion of the proposed number of parking spaces. In the Analysis, T JKM states that a parking ratio of 1.55 parking stalls would be adequate to serve the residential development. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 43 \ If I VO '2~7- g) Would the Project conflict with adopted policies supporting public transit? NI. As previously discussed, the proposed Project is a Transit Oriented Development which encourages the use of public transit, bicycling and walking due to the availability of public transit in the immediate area and through bicycle lanes and sidewalks in the area. The project furthers the goals of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan by developing the parcel as a residenti?ll development with a high density as recommended in the Specific Plan to facilitate efficient use of nearby public transit opportunities. . XVI. Utilities and Service Systems The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. The Project site is served by the following service providers: Sewage treatment and local water supply: Dublin San Ramon Services District and Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7. Regional water supply and distribution: Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 Storm drainage: City of Dublin/Alameda County Floor Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7. Proiect Impacts a-g) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, require new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities, require new storm drain facilities, require additional water supplies, require new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, or require new solid waste facilities? LS. Potential impacts of the Transit Village project were addressed in the Transit Village SEIR and the Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Impacts addressed included impacts to the wastewater and wastewater treatment and disposal system, water system, over drafting of groundwater resources, additional water treatment plant capacity needs,. inducement of substantial population growth as a result of an expanded water system, and need for additional water storage facilities. The environmental analyses concluded that the project would incrementally increase the need for these services, but to a less-than-significant level. Adequate resource supplies and utility services are available to the project site, and no mitigation measures are required. Some basic utility service fees, required of all construction within the City, may be required for connection to systems and facilities. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) has reviewed the proposed project and has noted that there are enough water resources in the City to serve the project (please refer to the letter from DSRSD included as Appendix B). . Overall, no additional impacts to utilities and service systems are expected to occur as a result of this Project. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 . Page 44 \ 4"2. 6"b :?~2, xv. 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? LS. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality, including biological resources or cultural resources with the implementation of mitigation measures included in the Extension Project EIR and the Transit Village SEIR and the Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans. 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). LS/M. Although incremental increases in certain areas can be .expected as a result of constructing this project, the project site lies within an area with an approved specific plan and the impacts of the project were anticipated and mitigated. As identified in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the only significant issue identified is traffic and parking, which will be reduced to a less than significant level with incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? LS. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Windstar City of Dublin July 2007 Page 45 Appendix A: Dublin San Ramon Services District: Windstar Development Water Demand 1'+~OO2.~~ , 44 fb 2~?-. DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT 7051 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, California 94568 Phone: 925 828 0515 FAX: 925 829 1180 www.dsrsd.com May 7, 2007 Erica Fraser, Senior Planner City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Windstar Development at Bart Transit Center - Water Demand Dear Ms. Fraser: Per your request, we have reviewed our water demand projections for the Windstar project in the Bart Transit Center development area. Windstar has requested an increase in the number of permitted DUEs for their project; increasing from 210 to 309 DUEs. The District is required to verify that the anticipated increase in water demand can be met with District water supplies. The District's planning staff looked into the possibility that the increase in DUEs for this project would be offset by a decrease in the number of DUEs in other projects in the District's service area. We looked into two projects that anticipate a decrease in DUEs from the original General Plan - Wallis Ranch and Vargas in eastern Dublin. Attached is a spreadsheet showing the analysis. We found that the anticipated decrease in the Wallis Ranch and Vargas developments will more than offset the anticipated increase in water demand for the Windstar project by over 21,000 gallons per day. Therefore, there is sufficient water supply for the District's service area to allow the increased water demand from the proposed increase in DUEs iJ! the Windstar project. DSRSD will analyze the sizing of the potable water pipelines in the locale for any required upsizes when w~ receive a set of proposed plans from the developer. If you have any questions about these projections, please contact Stan Kolodzie of this office at (925) 875-2253. If you would like to see any background information for these projections Stan can also provide you with that information. cr~ 1c:4 RHaDaRA N. BIAGTAN Senior Civil Engineer RNB/SK:es Enclosure cc: Stan Ko1odzie Eric Heffner, Windstar Communities Jeri Ram, City of Dublin The Dublin San Ramon Services District is a Public Entity REC~WED MAY 0 8 Z007 DUBLIN PLANNING ~:\ENGDEPT\DEl\1.AND PROJECTIONS\ Water Demand\Letrer - Water Demand Available for \X'indstar development.doc Increase in Water Demand Development Windstar (med-high density resid) Decrease in Water Demand Development Wallis Ranch (med density resid) Vargas( med density resid) DSRSD Service Area Water Demand Surplus or Deficit Surplus Calculation of Water Demand Balance Windstar . Bart Transit Center Previous No. of approved DUEs Revised No. of DUEs Incremental DUEs' 210 309 Previous No. of approved Revised No. of Incremental DUEs DUEs DUEs 1023 934 -89 110 33 -77 Estimated Demand in gal/daylDUE 99 157 Estimated Demand in galldaylDUE 225 225 \45~ 2U- Total Increased Demand, gal/day 15,543 Total Increased Demand, gal/day -20,025 -17,325 21,807 \ l\~ rz zg~ Appendix B: Triggering Analysis for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Development TJKM Transportation Consultants \ u. -, ro 2-~z.,. Vision That Moves Your Community Draft Triggering Analysis for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Development In the City of Dublin July 19,2007 Pleasanton Fresno Sacramento Santa Rosa www.tjkm.com TJKM Transportation - Consultants Vision That Moves Your Community Draft Triggering Analysis for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Development In the City of Dublin July /9, 2007 www.tjkm.com Prepared by: TJ KM Transportation Consultants 5960 Inglewood Drive Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588-8535 Tel: 925.463,061 I Fax: 925.463.3690 j'ljunsdictionIDIDub/inI157-001 On-calli Task 114 West BAR~ WindstarlReportlR 071907doc 1 L/: ~ fb 19 2.- TJKM - Transportation Consultants l4~ 'fJ 2~~ Table of Contents Introduction and Summary ..................................................,................................................................................ I Introduction .......,..............',..,.........., ,......,.,.....,.,.,.., ".. ....,.,.,.......,..,.,...;, ,.......,..., ,.,.,...,..............,.......,......., ,................,.,... ,...,.,...,..., ,.,....., I Summary............,....,...,....,.,.,..,.,.,.......,.,.".,.,.......,.,..."..,.,...........,......................................,.....,...............................,.,......,........,.,....,......,... I Analysis Methodolog;y ..............,............................................................................ ................................................. 5 Study I ntersections .......,......,.,.,.....,.,..,.,.....................,......,., ,.,..,............,......................'.."......, .......,....,., ,.....,........,..,............,.,.,..,.,...,. 5 Study Roadway Segments...,.........,....,.,.,....,.,..,....,..,...,................,...,.....,............."..,......."...............................,..,....,.....,.,.'............. 5 Scenarios,.,.,........., ,.,...,........,......,..,.,..............,., ..,........,.,....,.,., ,....,..,.,.......,...,...,..., ,.,..,................,...,.......,............,......,..........,.,.,., ..."...,.,., 5 Level of Service Analysis Methodology.....,.....,....,.,..,.,........,.............,......,..,.,........,...,.,..............................,.,.,..........,.,.,.,...,.... 5 Signal ized I ntersections...,.,.....,......,.,...........,.........,., ,....,...............,........,........,., ,....,.,...,.......,..., ,...,....,.........,..,.,..., ,...., ,....".....,.,.. 5 Unsignal ized Intersections ............,.,.,..." ..,.,.,.,.....,..,.,......,.., ,....,.'...,.,..,............. ,.,..,...,.,...,..............,....."'....,........,..,................ ,. 6 Significant Impact Criteria .,......,........,.....,.. .....,.,........,.,.,.."." .,..., .......,.,....,... '...,.,...........,.,,,......................................,............,.....,.,.. 6 Existing Conditions.................................................................................:............................................................... 7 Existing Roadway Network....,....,....,....,....,.,...,...,.,.".,.,...,...,.......,..,,............,...,..,..,..,.,.."........,.,."'...............,.".,.,.,.....,...,...,....,..,.7 Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Geometry...................,....................."'...............,..,......................................................... 7 Intersection Level of Service Analysis - Existing Conditions ........,..,...................,...........,.............................,....,....,.... 7 Roadway Segment Evaluation - Existing Conditions....,...,..,.....,.,.,..,.,..,...,."."...........,......,.......,....,...................,.,..,.,....,.7 Golden Gate Drive (between St Patrick Way and Dublin Boulevard) ......,.............................,...................... 8 Golden Gate Drive (south of St Patrick Way to the Cui de sac) ,....,..,....,........,................,......,.................,... 8 Existing plus Approved Project Conditions ................................................................................................... I Approved Project Description ...,...,...........,.,.,..,.,.., ,.,...."......,....,........'....., "...,.....,.,.,.,...........,.....,............. ..................,.........,... I Approved Project Trip Generation ,.,....,.,.,.,...,..,.".."...".,..,.,.....,...,.,.........,.'..,.,......,.....,.....,.,.,......,..............,.....,..,...'.',.,..,..., I Approved Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ......,............"'..............'...........,......................,..,..........'....,......... I Intersection Level of Service Analysis - Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions :........,................,....., 2 Roadway Segment Evaluation - Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions ...................,....,....................,... 2 Existing plus Approved Project plus BART Transit Village Conditions................................................... 5 Proposed Project Descri ption ,.....,.,.., ,.....,........,.,....,...,..,......,......., .,.',.,.,., ,...,.,..,.....' ""'"'''''' ,.....,.....,.,..........,.,....,.,..,...,...,.,...,. 5 Proposed Trip Generation ..................,..'.........,...,., ,......,.,......., ...,.,.,...,.,......'..' ".., ,.......,...,.,..".,..,....,.,.,..,............,..,.,.,....,.....,.,.., 5 Proposed Project and BART Trip Distribution and AssignmenL......,........,..,....................................................... 6 Intersection Level of Service Analysis - Existing Plus Approved Project Plus BART Transit Village Conditions ..,....,.,.....,.....,.....,..".,..,.,..............".,.,.,..,...,..,...,.,.,.......................,:..."...,.,.,.."..,..,.,.,.,...,..,.....,..,.,..,.,..,..."..,.,...,..,..,.,.,....,..,. I 8 Intersec:tion Mitigation (Dublin Boulevard at Golden Gate Drive).....,....,........,......................................"'...:....... 21 Roadway Segment Evaluation - Existing Plus Approved Project Plus BART Transit Village Conditions ..'.'........,'....,....,....,..,...,..,..,....,.......,......,.,....,.....,....,..,....,...,..........,.,.".....,....,.'.".,.,.,...,....,.,.....,...,.'.,......,.....,...,...,..,.,.'.',.,.', 22 Golden Gate Drive (between St Patrick Way and Dublin Boulevard) ..........,................,.....,........,............, 22 Golden Gate Drive (south of 51. Patrick Way to the Cui de sac) ..........................,....................................,.., 22 Proj ect Ci rcu lation and Parki ng .......................................................... .......................... ...................... .............. 25 Residential Parki ng .",....., ..,.,....,..,.,...,......,..,......,.....,.,......,.....,..,.,..." ,.,.,...,.,..,.,.,........, "......,.., ".....,.."", ",....., ,..,.,..,...,...., ,....,.,.,. 25 Hotel Parki ng......,...."'.. ,.,.......:,...,.,..,..,.....,.,.,.,.".........,.,., ..... ,....,... .,...,.,.,.", ..,.' "...", '..",.,.,.'.,.,.' "...,....,., '''' ,., ,.,.,.' ,.,.....,...,.,........". 25 On-street Golden Gate Drive Parking, ,.... ,...,..........,......,.......,..............,.. .." ,........,...,.,.,..,.,.,.,.,.,..,..." ,..,.,.......,...,.,....,.". 2 6 Circulation Around BART Parki ng Structure .,....,.. ........,.,."" "., ,.,.,., ,.,....,.....,.,...,...,....".,..,......" ,.,.....,.....,.,...,.,....,....., 26 Golden Gate Drive Traffic Circle..,...,..,.",...""...,.....,...,."....,.....",.......,....,...,...""".,..,.,..,..,...."..,...",.,.,.,...,.,.,.,.,..,.....,...", 26 Conclusions And Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 29 Study Pa rtici pants and Refe rences ................................. ................. ................. ......... ............... ......................... 3 I TJKM Personnel .".".............,.";,,....,....,.,...,.,.,.,...,.......,.,.,.,..".",..,.,..,...,.".,.,.."..."""".,.",.,.....".,.,.,.,."".,.,."...,.,.,..,.....,.,.,.,.....,.",..,., 3 I Persons Contacted ,..,.,.,..,.,.,."."...."...".,..,...,.,...,.......,.,.,.,...,.,., ,.,.." ,.,., ,.,.,.' '.'.." ".,.,.,...,......"" ..,.,.,.....,..,."..,...........,..,., ,.,...,., ,."., ,., 3 I References ".,.,.., ...,......,., ,.,...,.,.,." '"'''''''''' '.', ,.,...'., ".,.,.,.,..., ,..,.,.,., ..,...., ,.,.,..' ,...,.,.."..,..', "., ,...", ,.,.,.........,.,..,........" ,., ,...., ".." ,..".."" ,.." 3 I I TJKM Transportation . Consultants 15D Jb 2.g~ List of Appendices Appendix A - Level of Service Analysis Methodology Appendix B - Existing Traffic Counts Appendix C - Level of Service Worksheets: Existing' Conditions Appendix D - Level of Service Worksheets: Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions Appendix E - Level of Service Worksheets: Existing Plus Approved Project PIl,ls BART Transit Village Conditions Appendix F -Miscellaneous Level of Service Worksheets List of Figures Figure I: Vicinity Map .....,...,..,..,......,........,.,....................,.,....................,'..'.'....,.....,...,...,....",.,.,.,.,........,..,.,.,..'..........,..............,.,.....,...,. 3 , Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan ...,......,....,......,...,..................,..................,.,...'..,.,.........,."....,...........".,.....,...,..,.....,...,..............,....,....,...., 4 Figure 3: Existing Tuming Movement Volumes.....,...,.,...,...,..........,.....,.,.,......".,...,.....,..,.......,.,..,.,.......,.,................,.,....,....,.,.9 Figure 4: Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls......,..,.................,..........................,.................,...........,...... 10 Figure 5: Off-Site Commercial Trip Distribution Assumptions..,............,..,........................,......................................... I 3 Figure 6: Existing Plus Off-Site Commercial Tuming Movement Volumes..............,............"'.................,.......,... 14 Figure 7: Residential, Hotel, and Retail Trip Distribution Assumptions ........................................................,.......... 17 Figure 8: West Dublin BART Station Home-Based Trip Distribution Assumptions..................,........,........,.. 19 Figure 9: Existing Plus Off-Site Commercial Plus BART Transit Village T uming Movement Volumes .,.,.....,....,......,......,.,.,.."..,.,.............,.......,.,..,.,.,.....,..,.,.,.,..,.,.,..".......,.,.".,..,.,.."...:.,.,..,.,.,.,..,.,.....,...,.,............,...,.,.........,.,." 20 Figure I 0: Existing Plus Off-Site Commercial Plus BART Transit Village Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls ,., ,...,...,...,...,.".,.,.....,.,.,...,., .....,.,.,.....,....,.,.....,.,.,.,..", ,..,.,..,...,...,.,............,.,....,....."..,....,....,...,.,......,.,.....,..,..,....'.. 23 Figure II: Golden Gate Drive Improvements......,....,......,...........,....,..,.............................,..........,...............,"'.....................24 Figure 12: Site Access, Circulation and Parking Concept Plan........,...............,.......,...........,...........,...........,......,....,..,.. 28 List of Tables Table I: Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Conditions ......,................................,..............,........... 7 Table II: Approved Project Trip Generation......................................,....................................,........,......,...............,..........,..... I I Table III: Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions......,.. 12 Table IV: Proposed Project and BART Station Trip Generation.................,...................,..,..,....,........................,....,.. 16 Table V: Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Plus Approved Project Plus BART Transit Village Conditions...,.,."..".....,.........,......,...,.,..,...,....,.,.,.,.,..."......".".,.'....,......'....,'....,..,.,.,.,.".....,.,........."...,.,..,.'"",., I 8 TJKM Transportation Consultants l511J 2'B~ Introduction and Summary Introduction This report presents the results ofTJKM's triggering analysis for the proposed West Dublin Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Transit Village development in the City of Dublin, The study evaluates whether the development is expected to trigger the following improvements: I, Roadway modifications on Golden Gate Drive south of Dublin Boulevard. . 2. Traffic signal at the intersection of Golden Gate Drive and 51. Patrick Way. 3. Eastbound right-tum lane on Dublin Boulevard at Golden Gate Drive. The proposed project will consist of 309 residential condominium units, a ISO-room hotel, and 7,500 square feet of retail use. The units will initially be rented to the general public as residential apartment units with possible future conversion to condominium units. The project will be located adjacent to the future West Dublin I Pleasanton BART station, located in the median of Interstate 580 (1-580), Primary vehicle access will occur from Golden Gate Drive and 51. Patrick Way. The project will include a pedestrian connection to the future BART station. Figure I illustrates the project location and its vicinity. This study presents estimated trip generation of the proposed development and addresses potential traffic impacts. Figure 2 shows the proposed site plan. Summary The proposed West Dublin BART Transit Village development is expected to generate a net total of 2,815 daily trips, including 188 trips during the am peak hour and 230 trips during the p.m. peak hour, Under Existing Conditions, both study intersections (Dublin Boulevard I Golden Gate Drive and 51. Patrick Way I Golden Gate Drive) currently are operating at LOS A Under Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions, both study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably at LOS A. with minor changes in v Ic ratios and average delay, Under Existing Plus Approved Project Plus BART Transit Village Conditions, both study intersections are expected to continue operating within acceptable City standards. In particular, service levels at the 51. Patrick Way I Golden Gate Drive intersection is expected to be LOS C or better assuming the following improvements: . Realign the west leg to eliminate current "dog leg" condition. Stripe for a two-lane eastbound approach. . Install a stop sign on the eastbound approach to form a four-way stop-controlled intersection, Under this scenario, the BART Transit Village development is not expected to trigger a traffic signal I installation at the intersection of 51. Patrick Way and Golden Gate Drive. I .1 1 I j I I I i ! Draft Report - Tn'ggenng Analysis for the West Dublin BART T ranS/t Village Development Page I July 19, 2007 TJKM~ Transportation Consultants 152~2~2- The BART Transit Village development triggers the need for the following recommended improvements: . At the Dublin Boulevard / Golden Gate Drive intersection, extend the northbound left tum storage by I 00 feet plus 60 feet of transition taper and the northbound right tum storage by 220 feet. The pavement striping should be revised accordingly. This mitigation will accommodate the longer northbound queues expected with the project, . To accommodate the lengthened northbound right tum lane, approximately 280 feet of parking restriction will be required along Golden Gate Drive, This would eliminate about six curb parking spaces along the east side of Golden Gate Drive between St. Patrick Way and Dublin Boulevard See Figure I I fora sketch of the above recommendations. . It is also proposed to widen the west side of Golden Gate Drive by six feet south of St. Patrick Way to accommodate additional traffic. The widening offers an opportunity for parking on both sides of Golden Gate Drive, and the addition of an exclusive northbound right-tum lane at the Golden Gate Drive / St. Patrick Way intersection, Parking on the west side of Golden Gate Drive may be used as a BART Transit drop off lane for taxis, BART patrons and other Para transit vehicles. The above measures, if implemented, are expected to alleviate southbound queuing during the am peak hour and northbound queuing during the p.m. peak hour. Based on 2000 HCM methodology, the existing eastbound right-tum queue length at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive is approximately 210 feet during the pm peak hour, and the eastbound approach operates at LOS B. The BART Transit Village development is expected to increase the eastbound right-tum queue length by 110 feet from approximately 210 feet to approximately 320 feet during the p.m. peak hour. The eastbound right-tum approach level of service is expected to increase from LOS B to LOS C during the pm peak hour. Therefore, the project does not trigger the need for an exclusive eastbound right-tum lane. Draft Report - Tnggenng Analysis for the West Dublin BART T ransd Village Development Page 2 July 19, 2007 ,63 282. Q) L... :::J .~ u.. +-' C Q) E 0.. 0 Q) > Q) Cl Q) ~ :> .:! III C ro F tx: <( d) c - .0 :::J Cl +-' III ~ I c c.. .0 ro :::J ~ c: Cl 0 I: .q 0;::; 0 '+- u Q) 0 ,", " c: ... Q Q) '" >- .- ... i': +-' U -= 05 0 >- ... Z -0 W :::J != ... l? V) 0 w . c;> --' [;:; IRON HORSE PKWY, ~ _0:: 1:0( :=a1 .0 I: :l 5.2 0_- .....c::.B :Q:llfJ) w III Q) ii: ~~n~ DEMARCUS BLVD, cr: o WILLOW RD, OC ~ ..: OC <II (3 HOPYARD RD, DOUGHERTY RD, 15t}"62-~2- Figure 2 City of Dublin - West Dublin BART Transit Village Development Proposed- Site Plan 1 -..-.. - . 278-003 Tf - 4/5/07 - MP 51. PATRICK wY. Residential Condominiums 309 Units a::: /:) w ~ C!) z w /:) ...J o C!) H o BART Parking --..-------- West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station ~~ -s- Not to Scale ~ TJKM Transportation Consultants \56~ 2ty Analysis Methodology Study Intersections City staff approved the following two study intersections for this focused triggering analysis: I, Dublin Boulevard I Golden Gate Drive (Signal Control) 2, St. Patrick Way I Golden Gate Drive (Four-Way Stop Control) Study Roadway Segments City staff also approved the following two study roadway segments for this focused triggering analysis: I. Golden Gate Drive (between St. Patrick Way and Dublin Boulevard) 2, Golden Gate Drive (south of St. Patrick Way to the cui de sac) The study intersections and project area for the proposed Transit Village Development and West DublinlPleasanton BART station (also referred to collectively in this report as the BART Transit Village) are shown in Figure I. Scenarios Three study scenarios are addressed in this study: A. Existing Condltions- This scenario evaluates the study intersection based on existing traffic counts and field surveys. B. Existing plus Approved Pro;'ect Conditions - This scenario is similar to Existing Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from an approved off-site commercial development located northwest of the Dublin Boulevard I Amador Valley Plaza Road intersection. C Existing plus Approved Pro;'ect plus BART plus Transit Village Conditions- This scenario is similar to Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from the proposed BART Transit Village. level of Service Analysis Methodology Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative description of intersection operations and is reported using an A through F letter rating system to describe travel delay and congestion, Level of Service (LOS) A indicates free flow conditions with little or no delay, while LOS F indicates jammed conditions with excessive delays and long back-ups. Signalized Intersections TJKM evaluated operating conditions at the signalized study intersection using the Contra Costa Transportation Authority level of Service (CCT A LOS) Operations methodology contained in TRAFFIX software. Peak hour intersection conditions are reported as critical volume-to-capacity (vie) ratios with corresponding levels of service (LOS). Appendix A contains a detailed description of the methodology. Draft Report - Triggenng Analysis for the West Dublin BART T ransd Village . Deve/opment Page 5 July 19, 2007 TJKM Transportation Consultants 15~ Db Z~7- Unsignalized Intersections LOS at the unsignalized study intersection was evaluated using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Unsignalized Intersections methodology for STOP-controlled intersections. The method ranks level of service on an A though F scale similar to that used for signalized intersections, using average delay in seconds per vehicle for stopping movements as its measure of effectiveness. The methodology is also described in detail in Appendix A. Significant Impact Criteria An impact to a study intersection would,be significant if an intersection previously mitigated to an acceptable level would now exceed acceptable levels. The City of Dublin General Plan Circulation Element and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy F standards require that the City strive for LOS D at intersections. Therefore, any study intersections exceeding LOS D are impacted and will be considered for mitigation. According to the City's guidelines, the General Plan maximum average daily traffic (ADT) threshold standard for Class II Collector Streets (designed to accommodate two lanes of traffic) is 12,000 vehicles per day (vpd). ADT thresholds are used to detennine lane requirements on a given roadway. Draft. Report - Tn'ggenng Analysis for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Development , Page 6 July 19, 2007 TJKM Transportation Consultants \51un 2l6~ Existing Conditions Existing Roadway Network Dublin Boulevardis an east-west arterial roadway providing local and regional access to the City of Dublin. It consists of six lanes in the study area. The roadway runs approximately parallel with Interstate 580 (1-580) and has partial interchange connections with Interstate 680 (1-680) in the study area. Golden Gate Drive is a north-south local collector roadway that will connect to the proposed BART transit village. It currently consists of two travel lanes with curb parking on both sides, Existing Traffic Volumes and lane Geometry Baymetrics collected existing weekday a,m. and p.m. peak hour vehicle turning movement counts at both study intersections in January 2007. The traffic count sheets are included in Appendix B. Figure 3 illustrates the existing peak hour turning movement volumes at the two study intersections, Figure 4 shows the existing intersection lane geometry and traffic controls at the two. study intersections. Intersection level of Service Analysis - Existing Conditions Table I below summarizes peak hour levels of service at the study intersections under Existing Conditions, LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Under Existing Conditions, both study intersections currently are operating at LOS A. which is within acceptable City standards. Table I: Peak Hour Intersection levels of Service - Existing Conditions Existing Conditions ID Signalized A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection VIC LOS VIC LOS I Dublin Boulevard I Golden Gate Drive 0.23 A 0040 A Unsignalized A.M~ Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ID Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS 2 St. Patrick Way I Golden Gate Drive 7.6 A 8.2 A . . Notes: LOS = Level of Service V I C = Volume-to-capacity ratio for overall signalized intersection Delay = Average delay in seconds per vehicle for overall four-way stop-controlled (unsignalized) intersection Roadway Segment Evaluation - Existing Conditions According to Average Daily Traffic (ADT) data provided by the City, approximately 5, I 00 vehicles per day (vpd) currently use Golden Gate Drive. The ADT counts were conducted in June 2006. ' Appendix B contains a Traffic Flow Map of the City of Dublin. Based on the City's ADT threshold criteria, Golden Gate Drive is adequately serving existing traffic since traffic is significantly less than the City's threshold of 12,000 vpd for a two-lane road:Nay, Draft Report - Tn'ggering Analysis for the West Dublin BART T rans/t Vtllage Development Page 7 July 19, 2007 TJKM Transportation Consultants I 5'3 0() '2~ Golden Gate Drive (between St Patrick Way and Dublin Boulevard) Under Existing Conditions, approximately 86 vph and 100 vph use the southbound approach of Golden Gate Drive/St Patrick Way during the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour respectively. During the a,m, peak hour, the southbound approach operates at LOS A. with an average delay of approximately 7.7 sec/veh and a queue length of approximately 25 feet During the p.m. peak hour, the southbound approach to the intersection level of service is LOS A. with an average delay of approximately 8.3 sec/veh and a queue length of approximately 25 feet . Additionally, approximately 69 vph and 248 vph use the northbound approach of Golden Gate Drive/Dublin Boulevard during the a,m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour, respectively. Golden Gate Dn've (south ofSt Patn'ck Way to the Cui de sac) Under Existing Conditions, approximately 28 vph and 71 vph use the northbound approach of Golden Gate Drive/St Patrick Way during the a,m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour, respectively. During the a,m. peak hour, the northbound approach has an average delay of approximately 7.3 sec/veh and queue length of approximately 25 feet During the p,m. peak hour, the average delay is approximately 7.9 sec/veh and the queue length is approximately 25 feet Additionally, approximately 58 vph and 37 vph travel southbound on this segment of Golden Gate Drive during the a,m: peak hour and p,m. peak hour,respectively. Draft Report - Tnggenng Analysis for the West Dublin BART Transit Vtllage Development Page 8 July 19, 2007 ~ ..: :::s 0 bO M ,! i.i: III NC),. gffi'm 'll:C: c: GI ;;;;;- ~_jf;l) 6 0:2 :el5 ~~~ __lLt>)9~ GI~ r(~)f; l!! !L9j ~f;"Jt ~ t i" GI 9l 9t>--. ~- ...,X B~ O~" ~~~ IRON .Eo '1: ~~'" HORSE -; ~~ PKWY, D. ii) ..: 0 ,! ID DEMARCUS III ~"'~ ....el <oco~ BLVD. 'll:c: t?.;;;e c: GI "",..,<0 ~(9f;~)Lf; 0't:J ~M'" __(9~)l ;:"0 ).l,.. r(V6)Of; gel ",.., ~B9l93 ~t i" ..'t:J GI > ~~ L --. -~~ :Em (~9)l~" ~~:i5 ~"'~ .E -~<O co....'" :c ....,..,~ :) .... 0 ..... c: Q) E 0.. ..Q Q) 6) o Q) bO ~ :> .~ VI c: II) ro Q) F E or-: :J e::::- 4:.~ dl -4-1 c: c.: Q) -g E o ~ 1;: 0 ~~ I .~ c: c.: = s.. -g~ o bO 4- c.: o '.0 ~.~ O~ IS~ 2g'~ I- _0::: c:<( ::al J:l c: ::l c: 0 o.s:;::; _c:.ll! ~:Jl1J) Will Q) ii: ~HJt ci o WILLOW RD. '" ~ -<: '" lD 15 DOUGHERTY RD, 41 41 E E " " c: - .2,.g ~ t:i L. ~ L 41 " " 0 II> 0 0 :VII ..:. t:~..:::! 0 ~ ~ ~ '" ;::: 0 "00..0.. " L L :! Z ... V> <( 0.. W '= l:l . X X- 0 w 9 ...J X C- :;; ~ ::::l b.() i.i: +-' c: Q) E 0.. ..Q Q) > Q) o (I) o s... .4-J C ~o ~U :> u '-'= .~ q;;; ~ ro ellF '=:-0 ~ ~ <( (I) co c c: 0 = '.0 ..0 ro ::::l s... o So +-'<';: VI C ~ 0 ,U c: Q) _ C ..0 ro ::::l-l o b.() c '.0 (I) 4- o b- .- >< Uw ~ a,; o J!! III u~ r; Jb "2 ~'Z- ~H~ N ;tl: 5:2 ~~ ~~ -.I< -=:5 .. II. ii5 ~~~I+ +: +-A- ~ IRON HORSE PKWY, ~ _0:: c:<( :::a:I .gc:5 O.s;; 'li);:l IlIC1)CI) Will Gl ii: ri o r! 1! '-' <( r! III (5 WILLOW RD. a,; o J!! .. ...el ;t'1: I: ell O't:J "0 gel 11I-' '-'t:J ell > ~iii .= :c :I o DEMARCUS BLVD. ~ 1~~l... ;= ::~ttt.- HOPYARD RD. ri o z ::; '" Z <( r! u. DOUGHERTY RD, J.01< 1i1i3/S <: ,g I: u 0 r ~,... QJ C ~ E .~~ r;;: o >..V) u ~ Z -g g-~ ~ ~~.= ~ ~ . ~~ ~ T JKM _ Transportation Consultants tit) I at 2~2 Existing plus Approved Project Conditions This scenario is similar to Existing Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from an approved off-site commercial development located northwest of the Dublin Boulevard/Amador Valley Plaza Road intersection. Approved Project Description The approved 17,500-square foot off-site commercial project is to consist of 40 percent retail uses (7,000 square feet) and 60 percent restaurant uses (10,500 square feet). It is proposed to be located at the northwest comer of the Dublin Boulevard / Amador Plaza Road intersection in the City of Dublin. Approved Project Trip Generation Table II shows trip generation estimates for the approved project. The off-site commercial development is expected to generate approximately 1,636 daily trips, with 128 trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 141 trips occurring during the p.m peak hour. Table II: Approved Project Trip Generation Land Use Size Daily AM. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour (ITE Code) Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Retail (820) 7 Ksf 42.94 301 1,Q3 4 3 7 3.75 12 14 26 Restaurant (932) I 0.5 Ksf 127.15 1.335 11.52 63 58 121 10.92 70 45 ,115 Totals 17.5 Ksf 1,636 67 61 128 82 59 141 Sources: ITE Trip Generation (7th Edition, 2003), City of Dublin lahd use data (2007) Note: Ksf = 1 ,000 square feet Approved Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution is a process that determines in what proportion vehicles would travel between a given project site and various destinations outside a given study area, The process of trip assignment determines the various routes that vehicles would take from the project site to each destination using the estimated trip distribution. ' TJKM determined the approved project trip distribution based on consultation with City staff and knowledge of the study area. The approved project trip distribution is assumed to be as follows: . 15 percent to/from 1-680 South . 15 percent to/from Dublin Boulevard East, . 10 percent to/from 1-680 North . 10 percent to/from 1-580 East . 10 percent to/from Foothill Road South . 10 percent to/from Amador Valley Boulevard East . I 0 percent to/from Amador Plaza Road North . 5 percent to/from San Ramon Road North · 5 percent to/from 1-580 West . 5 percent to/from Golden Gate Drive South · 5 percent to/from Dublin Boulevard West Draft Report - Tn'ggenng Analysis for the West Dub/In BART T ranstt Vii/age Deve/opment Page II July 19, 2007 TJKM Transportation Consultants tlo ~ ~ 2<g~ I Project trips were assigne~~ the local street n~twork acco~ding to the above trip distribution, shown I In Figure 5, Figure 6 shows the resulting tuming movement volumes at the study intersections under I the Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions, I I I I I I Table III: Peak Hour Intersection levels of Service - Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions I I I I 1 I 1 1 Intersection level of Service Analysis - Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions Table III below summarizes peak hour levels of service at the study intersections under Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions, LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix D, Under Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions, both study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably at LOS A, with minor changes in vlc ratios and average delay, Existing Conditions Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions ID Signalized Intersection AM. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour AM. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour VIC LOS VIC LOS vIe LOS VIC LOS I Dublin Boulevard I Golden Gate 0.23 A 0.40 A 0.24 A 0.41 A Drive AM. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour AM. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ID Unsignalized Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 2 S1. Patrick Way I Golden Gate 7.6 A 8.2 A 7.6 A 8,3 A Drive , Notes; LOS = Level of Service V I C = Volume-to-capacity ratio for overall signalized intersection Delay = Average delay in seconds per vehicle for overall four-way stop-controlled (unsignalized) intersection Roadway Segment Evaluation - Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions Typically, p,m. peak hour counts are approximately ten percent 'of average daily traffic (ADT) counts, As shown on Figure 5, five percent of approved off-site Commercial Project trips are expected to use Golden Gate Drive to access BART parking during peak commute hours, Eighty-two daily trips are expected to be made tolfrom the off-site commercial and BART station area. Therefore under Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions, traffic volumes on Golden Gate Drive are expected to be approximately (5, I 00 + 82 = 5,182) vpd Based on the City's ADT threshold criteria, Golden Gate Drive is expected to adequately serve Existing Plus Approved Project traffic since 5,182 vpd is significantly less than the City's threshold of I 2,000 vpd for a two-lane roadway, Since a low amount of Approved Project trips are expected on Golden Gate Drive under Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions, the level of service, delay and queue length results are essentially the same as that for Existing Conditions, Draft Report- Tn'ggenng Analysis for the West Dublin BART T ransd Village Development Page 12 July 19, 2007 ..... c Q) E 0.. III 0 C Q) 0 > '.0 Q) Q. 0 E Q) ~ boO ..!:;! III III :> <( .~ c VI 0 C .~ ro ~ ~ ..0 ~ os: -4-1 <( III CO 0 c Q. - .0 ~ ::3 0 ~ ..... 1>0 VI U ~?;- ~ l... ~~ Iii Q) C '[j E 0 F'" L- 0 <Il I 'p R.a:: E E u c ~ ~~ E I: 0 L- 0 0 <Il 'Of- U .0 ... ..:. U 0' .E ...E <Il ::3 '" CO ... e 0 z >- <ilL- Vi a- Q) 0 'U uu.. ~ ;;:: ~+ >- ::::I L-_ - -4-1' z ... &~ 0 0 <( 0 Vl ",. V) U z ~t@ .q~ z I- ::; W . OJ l:) 0 ::> q U 0 0 W t;:; ...J IRON HORSE , PKWY, f- 0:: cc:( :=lXlc .cco ::l 0'- 0-1ii _c_ mill(/) III m Will Gl ii: I (p ~ Db 1--'62- JI~r ~H~ Q) l- ::3 LJ) boO II WILLOW RD, '" o a: ~ ~ III 19 DEMARCUS BLVD, HOPYARD RD. ~+ DOUGHERTY RD, Q) L :J b,() u: III Q) E ::J ~~ E -\-oJ 0.. c: o Q) Q) E > Q) o ~ L b.() c: c: l.- ~ .~ U l.- Q) E E o U o Q) .l-J -\-oJ III .- ~~ 10 c .0 :J o Q) b,() C1:l :> .t:! III c C1:l F ~ <( a:l .=: .0 :J "- o ~ .- X Uw '-0 r.; c .l!l III N ;t:C: S:E ti~ 11>.... ~~ :E~ E III Q. U) o~s 1'''D~ ~;;;;;;- ~(SZ) ~~ ~~~ ;=\mB~ (LS) ~C J ... t " (9Z) LP~ ...!~!... (B~)O~'- ~~e ~~N ~~ ri o a: fO '-' <( a: III i3 IRON HORSE PKWY, WILLOW ~D, r.; c .l!l III ....C) ;t:c: c: II> O'C ;::-0 ~C) U).... L.'C II> > :Em .= :E ::> c M _a~ ClOI"-~ :!.~~ ~~ClO ~(9C~) LC .IJ'" +-(Hh , ~TI,.., r(P6)OC (SL)NJ ~t~ (U)6- ~~~ (B9)6~ '- ~!~ -~ClO cnl"-N "'ClO~ ... DEMARCUS BLVD, ri o z :J '" z ~ u. DOUGHERTY RD. :':Ol:<it &:]'8 III ::J a::: b.() c: .~ .~ 1 to Y: L1b C6V ~~!~ 11> 11> E E c ..::! ::J :e o -!5 (; L- 'p 1..::> QJ U ::> L- E L ~05EO ~ I I 0 .... t:~~ u ~ ~'~ m ~ i': o "0 a. a. 0 zZI:I:l;::"" w Vl~a. 0 f- ~.~[@~ TJKM_ Transportation Consultants \ ~5UO 2-<Dt.- I Existing plus Approved Project plus BART Transit Village Conditions I This scenario is similar to Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from the proposed BART Transit Village, The.Dublin portion of the BART station includes a 713-stall parking garage. Proposed Project Description The proposed BART Transit Village project is proposed to be located at the southwest comer of the St Patrick Way / Golden Gate Drive intersection in the City of Dublin, This development will consist of 309 residential condominium units, a ISO-room hotel, and 7,500 square feet o(retail use. The site location is adjacent to 1-580 and the future West Dublin / Pleasanton BART station. Primary vehicle access will occur from Golden Gate Drive and St. Patrick Way. The project will include a pedestrian connection to the future BART station located in the median of 1-580. Proposed Trip Generation Table IV shows trip generation estimates for the proposed BART Transit Village, TJKM was guided by the traffic study for the approved Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the West Dublin / Pleasanton BART station, conducted in 2000. Trip generation for the BART Transit Village project was estimated based on rates provided in the Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), The proposed BART Transit Village project is expected to generate a net total of 2,815 daily trips with 188 trips during the am peak hour and 230 trips during the p.m. peak hour, The above net BART Transit Village project trips include a residential trip reduction of 30 percent. A University of Califomia at Berkeley study included data collected near BART stations in the East Bay (Cervero, 1993). The study concluded that commute ridership ranged between 28 and 41 percent for residences within one-third of a mile of a BART station. Based on this study and as a conservative analysis, the ITE rates were reduced by 30 percent for the residential development, resulting in the net trips described above. No separate reductions were made for the retail or hotel developments. Trip generation for the BART station is taken from a 2000 TJKM study on the same'site, It is also shown in Table IV. Draft Report- Tnggenng Analysis for the West Dub/In BART Transit VtI/age Development Page I 5 July 19, 2007 TJKM Transportation Consultants \ ~ f.o Db 2cQ V- Table IV: Proposed Project and BART Station Trip Generation BART Transit Village Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation Size Land Use (ITE Code) Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Residential Condominiums (230) 309 du 5.86 1,811 0.44 23 113 137 0.52 108 53 . 161 30% Reduction (543) [l) (34) (41 ) (32) ( 16) (48) Net New Residential Trips 1,268 16 79 96 75 37 112 Hotel (310) 150rm 8.17 1,226 0.56 51 33 84 0.59 47 42 89 On-Site Commercial (820) 7.5 Ksf 42.94 322 1.03 5 3 8 3.75 14 15 29 Net Total Project Trips 2,815 72 115 188 136 93 230 BART Trip Generation BART Station Home-based Trips 316 54 370 43 254 297 BART Station Work-based Trips 38 38 76 42 42 84 BART Station Total Trips 2,215 354 92 446 85 296 381 Grand Total Trips 5,030 426 207 634 221 389 611 Sources: ITE Trip Generation (7th Edition, 2003), City of Dublin land use data (2007), TJKM (2000) Notes: du = dwelling unit rm = Room; Ksf = '1,000 square feet Proposed Project and BART Trip Distribution. and Assignment TJKM determined the proposed BART Transit Village trip distribution based on the BART EIR, Trip distributions were developed separately for the residential, hotel, and retail compo~ents of the project and are shown in Figure 7. The residential distribution is assumed to be as follows: . 39 percent to/from 1-680 South . 10 percent to/from Dublin Boulevard East . 14 percent to/from 1-680 North . 5 percent to/from 1-580 East . 2 I percent to/from Foothill Road South . I percent to/from Amador Plaza Road North . I percent to/from San Ramon Road North . 7 percent to/from Dublin Boulevard West . I percent to/from Village Parkway North . I percent to/from Regional Street North The hotel and retail distributions are assumed to be as follows: . 20 percent to/from 1-680 South . 5 percent to/from Dublin Boulevard East . 20 percent to/from 1-680 North . 10 percent to/from 1-580 East . 15 percent to/from Foothill Road South . 5 percent to/from Amador Plaza Road North . 5 percent to/from San Ramon Road North . 5 percent to/from Dublin Boulevard West . 15 percent to/from Hopyard Road South Draft Report - Triggenng Analysis for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Development Page I 6 July 19, 2007 II) c .... 0 c .~ CI.l c.. E E 0.. 0 :J II) Q) II) > <( CI.l 0 C CI.l 0 ~ .~ :J - ...0 :> ';: .~ ~ VI II) C 0 ro F c.. ~ ~ <( .~ dl ~ c Q) ..0 0::: ::J -0 0 C .... rd be VI C ~ - :=ro Q) ~~ ~ c f!:'" I 0 0 _ ~.i! I "i:i u C nl "IS ~ ,!!! I: In - '- .. ~ o~ 0 ~ nl ..0 '-' "i:i ..:. (J' .E: c + ,-,'E ::J .~ Q:' nl - 5i 0 0 0 ~ z >- -0 ~ uLt (i; c ,0 -0 'iij ;:;: 0 > ::J o '--- "t- Q) It) z '-' nl I &t2 "" 0 Vl ex: '" 0 -0 u z z ...~t ~ II) ::; w ?- m l:1 0 Q) :::> 9 0 0 w 0::: .... -" '" IRON HORSE P'rQNY, I- 0:: "'2< :=a:lC .c C 0 :J 0'- ~1:E UlellU) ell Ul W::l 0:: lLolUJJ t~V' ~~~~ CI.l ~ ::JI"'-... t).() u: WILLOW RD, oc o a: ~ <: a: III (3 DEMARCUS BLVD, HOPYARD RD. . . /" ~++ ~ ~ It) DOUGHERTY RD, TJKM Transportation Consultants llo <6 00 2. ~ ;z.. TJKM additionally estimated home-based trip distribution to the future West Dublin / Pleasanton BART station, as shown in Figure 8. Home-based trips are BART riders who live near the proposed station. Distribution for these trips is assumed to be as follows: . 45 percent to/from 1-680 North . 20 percent to/from San Ramon Road North . 15 percent to/from Village Parkway North . 5 percent to/from Dublin Boulevard West . 5 percent to/from Starward Drive North . 5 percent to/from Donohue Drive North . 5 percent to/from Amador Valley Boulevard East The proposed project and BART trips were assigned to the local street network according to the above trip distributions. The resulting tuming movement volumes under Existing Plus Approved Project Plus BART Transit Village Conditions are shown in Figure 9. It should be noted that BART traffic to and from locations south of 1-580 is assumed to use the BART parking lot located in Pleasanton and therefore will not utilize the study intersections, Intersection level of Service Analysis - Existing Plus Approved Project Plus BART Transit Village Conditions Table V summarizes peak hour levels of service at the study intersections under Existing Plus Approved Project Plus BART Transit Village Conditions. LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix E. Under this scenario, both study intersections are expected to continue operating within acceptable City standards, Table V: Peak Hour Intersection levels of Service - Existing Plus Approved Project Plus BART Transit Village Conditions Existing Plus Approved Existing Plus Approved Project Plus ID Signalized Intersection Project Conditions BART Transit Village Conditions AM. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour AM. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour V/C LOS V/C LOS vIe LOS V/C LOS I Dublin Boulevard I Golden 0.24 A 0.41 A 0.37 'A 0.57 A Gate Drive ID Unsignalized Intersection AM. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour AM. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 2 St. Patrick Way I Golden Gate 7.6 A S.3 A 15.1 C* 20.4 C* Drive Notes: LOS = Level of Service, Bold indicates LOS below City standards. V I C = Volume-to-capacity ratio for overall signalized intersection Delay = Average delay in seconds per vehicle for overall four-way stop-controlled (unsignalized) intersection *Assumes four-way stop control with proposed project Draft Report - Tn'ggenng Analysis for the West Dub/In BART Transit Village Development PagelS July 19, 2007 (l) l... ::lOO 0.0 i..i: II) c: o '0 0- E :J II) II) <( c: ~ 0 C '0 (l) :J E..o c"'c o ~ (l) II) a>0 o 0- (l) .- l?fF '"C Q) II) ro dl J Q) E o I :> .~ VI C ro F ~ <( co c: C 0 .0 '0 ::l ro OUl t:t; ~~ Idl .~ .~ .0..0 ::l :J 00 - o ~ 8~ l[o~ 2<ZZ. ~~l~ IRON HORSE PKWY. WILLOW RD. Ii o a: ~ <( a: lD 5 DEMARCUS BLVD. HOPYARD RD, DOUGHERTY RD, b(l C =i"d c: ~~ 0 F~ .;::; ~a:: U ~ ~i L '- Ql -f- 0 '" ~E ..:. E. c: 0 0 >- Ql '- a; "1:l ULL ;::: :J '-- '" ~~ 0 VI '" z ~t t:: UJ . (J 0 q UJ t;; -' Q) lo... :J b,() II II) Q) E ::J ~ +-I C Q) E Q) > o I: bO C C ~ ~ Q) ~ t:= Q) .- E> o...'~ ..Q ~ Q) ro ~F [) Q)h:: ~<( =CC > .~ ~ ~(L ro F ~ <( dJ .~ ..0 :J [) .!'S! u ~ Q) E E o U Q) ~ +-I III .- ~V? >~ 10 c: ..0 :J [) II) ::J (L bO '- C o .p C.~ .- >< UUJ 0" .; c ,!! III --.... o~.... "'....- ~.... ~~~ ~d\7L) ~9 ).. \... ;=l?W \:9~ (Lg)~\:J ~t'" (~9~)09Z-+ ....!~!... (OE) ~Z" gJ~~ --N ~.... N~ IRON HORSE PKWY, I- _0::: c:<( ::[0 -gc:g oS;: 1iilii.B C11C1)(/) WCII Q) ii: ci o cr ~ <( cr III i3 N ~c: g~ ~~ ~~ :S~ .;: -; Q. ii5 WILLOW RD, .; c :! III ....Cl ~c: c: CII 0'0 ;0 ~Cl 11)-' 1..'0 CII > ]1iii .E :c :J C DEMARCUS BLVD. MO ~oo ""....~ ,,-- -00> ~~N ~((9\7E)9U )Ji'"' +- H) \7 ,.... Ii (L ~Z) E6 (9Llt>~ J ~ t (' (Z~) 6-+ -~~ (89) 6~" ~~~ ~O>~ --- o>....~ "''''''''' "N HOPYARD RD, ci o z ::; " ~ u. DOUGHERTY RD. J.o" <J&l:JIS 170 if/) 2~2- ~H~ OJ OJ E E :J C - ::J .g ~ ~ U I.. I.. I: OJ ::J ::J VI 0 0 0 SII ..:. c"""" 0 - '" '" ~ €~~ j:;: 0 Z ::J I: I: ... ,7; <( UJ a.. f- l'J . X X- 0 UJ ...J X 6 9 " ~ T JKM 4 Transportation Consultants \Il r5Q 2$2 ~assumed unde' this s;enario that the St Patrick Way I Golden Gate Drive intersection will be a I four~way stop-controlled intersection, with a realigned, two-lane eastbound approach. The I northbound approach lane configuration was modified to in. c1ude a shared through left turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane to determine if it offers any benefit in terms of intersection delay and I queue reduction. Figure I 0 shows the expected lane geometry and traffic controls under this scenario. TJKM also explored the possibility of removing stop signs on the northbound and southbound approaches, leaving only the eastbound and westbound approaches with stop control (i.e" two-way stop control). Removing the stop. signs is expected to deteriorate service levels, particularly for the westbound approach during am, peak hour. Therefore, this mitigation is not recommended. Widen the west side of Golden Gate Drive by six feet south of St. Patrick Way to accommodate additional1raffic. The widening offers an opportunity for parking on both sides of Golden Gate Drive, and the above-mentioned northbound right-turn lane, The above measures, if implemented, are expected to alleviate southbound queuing during the a.m. peak hour and northbound queuing during the p.m. peak hour. A detailed description of striping on Golden Gate is included under the Parking Access and Circulation section of this traffic report. Appendix F contains additional LOS worksheets for the analysis of Golden Gate Drive/St. Patrick Way with two-way stop control and the following two options for the northbound approach: . Single lane approach, . One shared through-left turn lane and one right turn lane. The second option is expected to operate better than the single lane (exiting geometry) option, TJKM also examined the need for a traffic signal at the St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive intersection. Based on this analysis, a traffic signal is not warranted under any of the scenarios, With four-way stop control in place, the intersection should operate acceptably from both capacity and safety standpoints. It appears that a traffic signal may be needed at this intersection when St. Patrick Way is extended westward to connect with Regional Street. Intersection Mitigation (Dublin Boulevard at Golden Gate Drive) Longer turning movement queues are expected with the proposed BART Transit Village at the Dublin Boulevard / Golden Gate Drive intersection, The CCT A methodology does not calculate queue lengths. Therefore the Highway Capacity Manua/ 2000 methodology was used to calculate queue lengths. Based on approach traffic volumes, p.rn. peak hour queue lengths at the intersection are expected to be longer than that for a.m. peak hour. The following results were obtained for the p.m. peak hour queue lengths and LOS: . Northbound right-turn - LOS C with approximately 286 feet queue length . Northbound left-turn - LOS C with approximately 161 feet queue length . Eastbound right-turn - LOS C with approximately 320 feet queue length Appendix F contains the queuing data worksheets. Based on ~he expected queue lengths and approach level of service (LOS q, an exclusive eastbound right-turn lane is not required at Dublin Boulevard at Golden Gate Drive. However, the storage Draft Report - Tnggenng Analysis for the West Dublin BART T ransJt Vtllage Development Page 2 I July 19, 2007 TJKM - Transportation Consultants 1/2 00 2Z2.- lengths for the northbound left-turn and right-turn approaches will need to be modified to accommodate additional queues. TJKM proposes the following mitigation measures to accommodate the additional queues, which are shown in Figure I I: . Increase the northbound left turn storage by 100 feet (from approximately 60 feet to I 60 feet) plus 60 feet of transition taper. Revise striping as shown, . Increase the northbound right turn storage by 220 feet (from approximately 60 feet to 280 feet). Revise striping as shown. . To accommodate the lengthened northbound right turn lane, approximately 280 feet of parking restriction will be required along Golden Gate Drive, This would eliminate about six curb parking spaces along the east side of Golden Gate Drive between St. Patrick Way and Dublin Boulevard, Roadway Segment Evaluation - Existing Plus Approved Project Plus BART Transit Village Conditions An ADT of approximately 8,860 vpd is expected on Golden Gate Drive under Existing Plus Approved Project Plus BART Transit Village Conditions, Based on the City's ADT threshold criteria, existing Golden Gate Drive geometry is expected to adequately serve this traffic. Golden Gate Dn've (between St. Patrick Way and Dublin Boulevard) Under Existing Plus Approved Project Plus BART Transit Village Conditions, approximately 312 vph and 248 vph are expected on southbound Golden Gate Drive during the a.m. peak hour and p,m, peak hour, respectively. The southbound approach to the intersection of Golden Gate Drive/St. Patrick Way level of service is LOS C, with an average delay of approximately 15,7 sec/veh, and a queue length of approximately 35 feet during the a.m. peak hour, The southbound approach to the intersection level of service is LOS B, with an average delay of approximately 135 sec/veh, and a queue length of approximately 25 feet during the pm peak hour, Adpitionally, approximately 223 vph and 579 vph are expected on northbound Golden Gate Drive during the a.m. peak hour and p,m. peak hour, respectively, Golden Gate Dn've (south of St Patrick Way to the Cui de sac) Under Existing Plus Approved Project Plus BART Transit Village Conditions, approximately 227 vph and 445 vph are expected on northbound Golden Gate Drive during the a,m, peak hour and p,m. peak hour, respectively. The northbound approach to the intersection of Golden Gate Drive/St. Patrick Way has an average delay of approximately 145 seclveh, and queue length of approximately 30 feet during the a,m. peak hour. The average delay is approximately 29.2 seclveh, and the queue length is approximately 100 feet for the northbound approach during the p.m. peak hour, Additionally, approximately 469 vph and 241 vph are expected on southbound Golden Gate Drivel St. Patrick Way during the am peak hour and pm peak hour, respectively, Draft Report- Tn'ggenng Analysis for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Development Page 22 July 19, 2007 (1) 30 boO u:: .... c (1)> E -4-1 0.. .- o ~ (1) ro ~F 01-: (1) a::: ~<( =co > V) .~ ::J VI ca... ro ~ ~ <( a:l c .0 :J o ro u 1- Q) E E o U Q) ~ .~ ~V? >::t:: 10 c .0 :J o '+- o C .- x UUJ V) o !... -4-1 C o U u E ro F "C C ro V) c o '-i:i ro 1- ::J bO <+= C o U ..: o S nl Nel ~r::: 5:2 tl& 4>-' ~~ -.x .E .g -; Q. U) c5 4> - nl ...el ~r::: r::: 4> 0"0 "0 gel U)-, ""0 4> > .EiXi .E :c :l o Ii o z ::; '" z i2 LL -.-4~ + +~tr ~ IRON HORSE PKWY, I- _lX: 1:< =all: .geo C.s+= _e.1'3 gj:Jl(l) w C'Cl G,) a: Ii o <r ~ <( <r lD i!i WILLOW RD, DEMARCUS BLVD. ~ 1ttt... ;= -: ~tt t.. HOPYARD RD, DOUGHERTY RD, Q) c ro ....J Q) ~ :Lov~ &;g,s V) ::J a... bO c '-i:i V) c liJ .u 0 ... .0 III u " E L III III 0 '" -;;; " E ... ..:. ~ c c 0 c no " III U 0 .E no Vi III E '" Vi "" E III >- u '" "" ;:::: 0 "'0 0- fE no 0 Vi Z :l 0 '" '0 u ~ ... .., .., .= f III W VI VI cr:. 0 l? t:: w . ~ ~ t ili@ 0 ....J 'i' [;:; City of Dublin -:- West Dublin BART Transit Village Development Golden Gate Drive Improvements 174- on 2?:Z. Figu re II \. ~\\ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ ~\\\ ~ \~\\ --- --- , 'U --- --- ::?- \t:j\S~ ___ --::- --- --- ~ ___ I ~ \ y ___ ___ --- ___ {~' \ :it': ___ --- -:. --- --- ~ \ /~............... ~ ' --- ~6. --- --- ~\(\ '0 ___ --- ___ \ --- , o~ --- --- <-:.~ ---;:-:\ \ ~ ~ '--- --- \ ~ \ ~, --- --::---::-~ \ \\~\ ~~~;;~ -:--::- --- ~ \ ~\~\ '<< \ \ :..--------- \ o. \\\ \ \"0 \ ~'b~l Extend Striping ~ \ C'l \ -a.\~~-i by 100' \ >. ~ \:~~<J, 1~, ~~~ ~% \ ,... \ ~ -a. Q \ \ ~ %,.\ \' '\ ~ ~~\ \\ ! c;> \ \____ q\\ \ . \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \1. \ ------- ~--------::- ~~-----------;=;- ~ ----~ ~ ~~ \~~ \1 / \\ / \1 \, ! LEGEND See Figure 12 for details in this area. --- NORTH Not to Scale --- Existing Roadway - Proposed Roadway ~ Proposed Pavement Marking --x- Roadway to be removed + Pavement Marking to be removed 278-00H I - 4/5/07 - MP Proposed 6; Widening ~ ! T JKM J Transportation Consultants I,~ 6fJ2gz- Project Circulation and Parking Figure 12 shows a schematic of the proposed project's site access, circulation and parking, Primary vehicle access will occur from Golden Gate Drive and St Patrick Way. The residential basement parking would be accessed via two driveway ramps. Residential Parking The project sponsor proposes to install 301 residential garage parking stalls at the basement level, 134 residential garage stalls at the street level, and 43 guest parking stalls along the driveways. This totals 478 stalls with a parking supply per residential unit ratio of 1.55. According to the City of Dublin parking code, two parking stalls are needed for each residential unit to meet peak parking demand that typically occurs between the hours of midnight to 5:00 a.m. Therefore the proposed 309 condominium units require approximately 618 stalls. The City's parking code requirement is 140 stalls more than the 478 proposed spaces. However, according to recent parking studies for Califomia Transit Oriented Developments (TODs), parking supply levels are somewhat less than typical levels in the cities in which those TODs are located, The average parking supply per unit is 1.41, including visitor parking. This is approximately 10 percent less than what the project applicant proposes, Additionally, according to the Parking Generation Manual. 3rd Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the average peak period parking demand for residential condominiums is 1.46 vehicles per dwelling unit Other East Bay Area TODshave much lower parking supply ratios. For example, a Pleasant Hill BART TOD has a ratio ofl ,08 and Alameda County BART TOD has a ratio of 1.31, TJKM visited a peer site, the Fruitvale T ran.sit Village in Oakland, to leam about current TOD parking practices in the East Bay Area, The TOD is adjacent to the Fruitvale BART Station, Currently, all residential units are rented out to the general public and there is privately operated on-site parking. Residents who want to use the onsite parking facility are required to pay a $70 monthly fee per parking space, The parking fee and pqrking supply effectively regulate residential vehicle ownership. This parking supply ratio is 1.31 spaces per l:lnit Based on the above experience, it is reasonable to expect that the proposed parking supply ratio of 1.55 spaces per residential unit will adequately serve the BART Transit Village development However, TJKM recommends residential parking be monitored to see if future consideration should be made to accommodate limited ovemight residential parking in the BART parking garage. Hotel Parking The proposed ISO-room hotel will have a limited use banquet facility and a restaurant with 160 parking stalls. Primary access to the Hotel and Retail will occur via Golden Gate Drive and a shared driveway that separates the hotel and retail from the residential component of the mixed-use development Based on ITE rates, a ISO-room hotel is expected to require approximately 137 parking spaces using an average peak period parking demand ratio of 0,91 vehicles per room. The proposed supply of 160 spaces for the hotel exceeds this requirement However, based on ITE studies on similar hotel sites, the average parking supply ratio is 1.3 spaces per room. There are ongoing discussions by stakeholders and BART for an opportunity to utilize the BART Parking garage currently being constructed for overflow hotel guest parking, Hotel parking demand is at its peak between about 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., when BART parking demand is reduced. Draft Report - Tnggering Analysis for the West Dublin BART TranSit Village Development Page 25 July 19, 2007 TJKM Transportation Consultants IlLo UO 2~2- Additionally, it is expected that some motorists might use the hotel retail parking lot to pick up passengers if Golden Gate Drive is congested with parking around the BART Parking garage. Since this is an off peak parking demand for the hotel it is not expected to impact the parking supply for the hotel. On-street Golden Gate On've Parking \ As shown in Figure 12, on street parking for the project will be allowed on Golden Gate Drive. The proposed improvements along Golden Gate Drive will eliminate approximately six curb parking spaces along the east side of Golden Gate Drive between St Patrick Way and Dublin Boulevard to accommodate northbound right-turn movements at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard I Golden Gate Drive, Also, approximately two curb parking spaces will be eliminated along the west side of Golden Gate Drive south of the intersection of Golden Gate Drive I St. Patrick Way to accommodate convenient westbound left-turns and improve sight distance for eastbound right-turning vehicles at the intersection. Additionally, five curb parking spaces will be eliminated with the provision of an exclusive 100 feet northbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Golden Gate Drive and St Patrick Way. The City of Dublin could consider the use of short term parking (such as 24 minutes) for the on street stalls south of St Patrick Way so they will be available for dropping off and picking BART riders during peak periods. Circulation Around BART Parking Structure TJKM understands that the north aisle located south of the parking garage will be used for both as a bus staging area and for "kiss and ride" purposes and the south aisle located south ofthe parking garage driveway will be reserved for bus drop offs. If instead, the north aisle were only used for "kiss and ride" and the south aisle for both bus drop off and staging area, buses that have been staged would no longer need to circulate around the parking structure to reach the south aisle. If this pattern is not changed, it appears that the traffic circle island radius is too large to accommodate bus maneuvers. TJKM recommends the installation of in pavement lighted crosswalks at the intersection of Golden Gate DrivelBART Parking driveway and south of the parking garage to enhance pedestrian safety, See Figure I 2 for the above recommendations, Golden Gate On've Traffic Circle It is recommended to install a traffic circle island at the Golden Gate Drive cui de sac for the following two reasons: I, Firstly, most BART patrons are typically in a hu~ry to catch trains during peak commute periods, The traffic circle island and to on street parking along Golden Gate Drive create a visual channel that is expected to be effective in calming traffic speeds entering the BART parking garage. 2. Secondly, without a traffic circle, motorists are likely to make u-turns along the segment of Golden Gate Drive, south of Saint Patrick Way after pick-ups and drop offs. The u-turns may impact traffic operations along Golden Gate Drive particularly at the entrance and exit driveways of the BART parking garage facility and at the entrance to the proposed West Dubl,in BART Transit Village development The traffic circle island is expected to facilitate an orderly traffic circulation along Golden Gate Drive after pick-ups and drop offs without the need to enter the BART parking garage. Draft Report - Triggen'ng Analysis for the West DuM'n BART Transit Village' Development Page 26 July 19, 2007 TJKM- Transportation Consultants \IL UfJ2<b~ Based on Auto tum template analysis, the northeastem curb retum located at the intersection of the BART driveway and Golden Gate Drive will need to be modified (minimum 25 feet recommended) together with an appropriate traffic circle island radius (approximately 12 feet maximum radius) ,to allow convenient bus circulation within a constrained right of way, I ! I I Draft Report - Tn'ggenng Analysis for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Development ' Page 27 July 19, 2007 Q) 1- :J .~ u.. +-' C Q) E 0... ..Q Q) ~ Cl c: ro 0.. +-' Q) c.. ~ ~ :> 5 .~ u ~ b.O F .~ ~~ a:: ro <(0.. dl-o c c: = ro -g c: Cl .Q +-' ~ :J u s... +-' III ~ I .~ .0 :J Cl vi VI 0> u ..... u 0<: cO> .- +-' UV5 ~H~ . "'-',:~: ~ ~ ' " :..;.," .,1'-' .~.,.~' ..-:-..- ...,.,. ,..1"- ,.,.- ~. .~ .,;l \ \ Q) >~~ \\ ~ t , \, ~ ~ \., ~ '6 ; \ a> "t " ~~ \'. ~ ~ o-v. \ t \; \. .,;l\ ~\ C, ,c Q)' () -z., u.-l , ,..,,'.\ "'- 'L.\ \ ~"j. '0"", ". \' '\~)/ % , , ,~",:,:""",;,.,:.(c;,,8;("\'_\\/~~~' "\\~?,. !. "n\' <~\',\ . . /'\., ~,..,.~"J'\'./ J i, ;-<x' ,,,';:c\ / i O/~:,~~~:'/'" \. .. '.:', '.V: . ",,/'> "';-:: ;:.> ,~- , . ,I ,,\\\\~0 ,^.,"~., ,<'1.\ /" ~ , ~',;; ":~':ji,j.,;:::;;-;;;:f~\ " :). .. '..- .,,, ...... ,<., \. , .'. V' .;.~-;::::..~;/~" .<;o'O~ \., \ . .,,, .,<,/ . "". "'., "., ,. :.--;;::,,;. _,0 " ~\\ . . .., .: . ", ; ,', \ V . ".,' ' \/ \' , '\\;\\,\, \:./\. \,//" '1 " -\ · ", \ '\ \ \ \' .,. -s.")" \ \\ '\ ,\ " ;; -t " '\ ~,\ \\ ~\ \ Ao\ I~" 1l. 'i, (j , " :f.\\ \\ <> <<, \ ~\ '..f\ ,\. \/ \ . ,,,..., . ' ' ' . ,\ '" \, '0 . '~\ '- \, _ 4 \ '- \"\. ~ /~,v J I'" .~ \\~, ~ 0~"~.?\;;> />/" ,/ ,\\> \ \, -- /,/ \~~;~ ' .' -< . , " ../. \ '.\ / ,', ...." ',\, t, '\, Q) ro <) (/) .8 o z ,.. '€ .... ~ ,'~ \ t! l1il OlOlg .!;.Q Q ~::::: 2- ~~t5 ,...1)Ol Cii C::'o- .....CIl>::. Olt)Q cc::;:; ::::... 1)CIl.Q c::E.... CIlOl" '. -.c:: Ol ~~t)~ OOVlCll :<:: :r: .~ ~ <{I ~'i', /" "\,.:'\: ~'... ." . ,. ~ ,;,' /'. TJKM Transportation Consultants IlQuoZgZ. Conclusions And Recommendations TJKM has reached the following conclusions regarding the proposed West Dublin BART Transit Village Project in the City of Dublin. The proposed West Dublin BART Transit Village project is expected to generate a net total of 2,815 daily trips, including 188 trips during the am peak hour and 230 trips during the p,m. peak hour. Under Existing Conditions, both study intersections currently are operating at LOS A. Under Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions, both study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably at LOS A. with minor changes in v Ic ratios and average delay. Under ExiSting Plus Approved Project Plus BART Transit Village Conditions, both study intersections are expected to continue operating within acceptable City standards, In particular, service levels at the St. Patrick Way I Golden Gate Drive intersection are expected to be LOS C or better assuming the following improvements: . Realign west leg to eliminate current "dog leg" condition. Stripe for a single-lane eastbound approach. . Install stop sign on eastbound approach to form four-way stop-controlled intersection. At the Dublin Boulevard I Golden Gate Drive intersection, longer northbound turning movement queues are expected with the project. TJKM recommends the following mitigation: . Increase northbound left turn storage by I OOJeet (from approximately 60 feet to 160 feet) plus 60 feet of transition taper and revise striping accordingly, . Increase northbound right turn storage by 220 feet (from approximately 60 feet to 280 feet) and revise striping accordingly. . To accommodate the lengthened northbound right turn lane, approximately 280 feet of parking restriction will be required along Golden Gate Drive. This would eliminate about six curb parking spaces along the east side of Golden Gate Drive between St. Patrick Way and Dublin Boulevard. The BART Transit Village development is expected to increase the eastbound right-turn queue length by 1 10 feet from approximately 210 feet to approximately 320 feet during the pm peak hour. The eastbound right-turn approach level of service is expected to increase from LOS B to LOS C during the p,m. peak hour. Based on the level of service results, it is reasonable to conclude that the BART Transit Village development is not expected to trigger the need for an exclusive eastbound right-turn lane under near term traffic conditions. The project sponsor proposes to install 30 I residential garage parking stalls at the basement level, 134 residential garage stalls at the street level, and 43 guest parking stalls along the -driveways totaling 478 stalls, with a parking supply per residential unit ratio of I :55. This is expected to be adequate for the BART Transit Village development. Draft Repott- Tn'ggenng Analysis for the West Dublin BART T ranstt Village Development . Page 29 July 19, 2007 TJKM Transportation Consultants l<6DUU 28 Z, Based on ITE rates, a ISO-room hotel is expected to require approximately 137 parking spaces using an average peak period parking demand ratio of 0,91 vehicles per room. This amount is less than the proposed 160 space parking supply for the hotel. Stakeholders and BART are encouraged"to seek opportunities to utilize the BART Parking garage currently being constructed for overflow hotel guest parking, Based on Auto tum template analysis, the northeastem curb retum located at the intersection of the BART driveway and Golden Gate Drive will need to be modified (minimum 25 feet recommended) together with an appropriate traffic circle island radius (approximately 12 feet maximum radius) to allow convenient bus circulation within a constrained right of way. TJKM recommends the installation of in pavement lighted crosswalks at the intersection of Golden Gate Drive/BART Parking driveway and south of the parking garage to enhance pedestrian safety, See Figure 12 for the above recommendations. Draft Repol1 - T n'ggenng Analysis for the West Dub/In BAR T Transit Vtllage Development Page 30 July 19, 2007 T JKM ~ Transportation Consultants \. Study p:rticipants and References I I TJKM Personnel I Chris Kinzel, P.E. David Mahama, P.E. Andrew Kluter, P,E. Geri Foley Margie Pfaff Persons Contacted Ray Kuzbari, P.E. Frank Navarro, P.E. Robert Russell Maren Moegel l~ lOb 2-D?- Principal-In-Charge Project Engineer Senior Transportation Engineer Graphic Designer Word Processing City of Dublin City of Dublin Ampelon Development Group MVE Studio, Inc. References Cervero, Robert. RIdership Impacts of Transit-Focused Development in CalIfornia, University of California at Berkeley, 1993. Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCT A) Technical Procedures Manual, 2006. Highway CapaCIty Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.c, 2000, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington DC, 2001 West Dublin / Pleasanton BAR T Station and T ranstt Village Draft Traffic Study, TJKM Transportation Consultants, September 2000. Wilson, Richard, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Parking Policy for Transit-Oriented Development' Lessons for Gties, T ranstt Agencies, and Developers:journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 8. No. 5. 2005. Draft Report - Tn'ggenng Analysis for the West DublIn BART T ranstt Village Development Page 3 I July 19,2007 \'b2OV 2~~ Appendix A - level of Service Analysis Methodology \ <6 3~ 2~Z, APPENDIX ,A LEVEL OF SERVICE The description and procedures for calculating capacity and level of service are found in Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Highway Capacity Manual 2000 represents the latest research on capacity and quality of service for transportation facilities. Quality of service requires quantitative measures to characterize operational conditions within a traffic stream. Level of service is a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility that has analysis procedures available. Letters designate each level, from A to F, with level-of-service A representing the best operating conditions and .level-of-service F the worst. Each level of service represents a range of operating conditions and the driver's perception of these conditions. Safety is not included in the measures that establish service levels. A general description of service levels for various types of facilities is shown in Table A-I Table A-I Uninteffupted Flow Interrupted Flow Freeways Signalized Intersections Facility Multi-lane Highways Unsignalized Intersections Type Two-lane Highways Two-way Stop Control Urban Streets AII-wav StOD Control LOS A Free-flow Very low delay. S Stable flow. Presence of other users Low delay. noticeable. C Stable flow. Comfort and convenience Acceptable delay. starts to decline. D High density stable flow. Tolerable delay. E Unstable flow. Limit of acceptable delay, F Forced or breakdown flow. Unacceptable delay LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION Source: Highway Capacity Manua/2000 Urban Streets The term "urban streets" refers to urban arterials and collectors, including those in downtow~ areas. Arterial streets are roads that primarily serve longer through trips. However, providing access to abutting commercial and residential land uses is also an important function of arterials. A-I l <g4 ~ 2<gZ. Collector streets provide both land access and traffic circulation within residential, commercial and industrial areas. Their access function is more important than that of arterials, and unlike arterials their operation is not always dominated by traffic signals. Downtown streets are signalized facilities that often resemble arterials. They not only move through traffic but also provide access to local businesses for passenger cars, transit buses, and trucks. Pedestrian conflicts and lane obstructions created by stopping or standing buses, trucks and parking vehicles that cause turbulence in the traffic, flow are typical of downtown streets. The speed of vehicles on urban streets is influenced by three main factors, street environment, interaction among vehicles and traffic control. As a result, these factors also affect quality of serVice. The street environment includes the geometric characteristics of the facility, the character of roadside activity and adjacent land uses. Thus, the environment reflects the number and width of lanes, type of median, driveway density, spacing between signalized intersections, existence of parking, level of pedestrian activity and speed limit. The interaction among vehicles is determined by traffic density, the proportion of trucks and buses, and turning movements. This interaction affects the operation of vehicles at intersections and, to a lesser extent, between signals. Traffic control (including signals and signs) forces a portion of all vehicles to slow or stop. The delays and speed changes caused by traffic control devices reduce vehicle speeds, however, such controls are needed to establish right-of-way. The average travel speed for through vehicles along an urban street is the determinant of the operating level of service. The travel speed along a segment, section or entire length of an urban street is dependent on the running speed between signalized intersections and the amount of control delay incurred at signalized intersections. Level-of-service A describes primarily free-flow operations. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at signalized intersections is minimal. Level-of-service B describes reasonably unimpeded operations. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and control delays at signalized intersections are not significant. Level-of-service C describes stable operations, however, ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock location may be more restricted than at level-of-service B. Longer queues, adverse signal coordination, or both may contribute to lower travel speeds. Level-of-service D borders on a range in which in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. Level-of-service D may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or a combination of these factors. Level-of-service E is characterized by significant delays and lower travel speeds. Such operations are caused by a combination of adverse progression, high signal density, high volumes, extensive delays at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing. Level-of-service F is characterized by urban street flow at extremely low speeds. Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with high delays, high volumes, and extensive queuing. The methodology to determine level of service stratifies urban streets into four classifications. The classifications are complex, and are related to functional and design categories. Table A-II describes the functional and design categories, while Table A-Ill relates these to the urban street classification. \g5Vb2~-z.- Once classified, the urban street is divided into segments for analysis. An urban street segment is a one- way section of street encompassing a series of blocks or links terminating at a signalized intersection. Adjacent segments of urban streets may be combined to form larger street sections, provided that the segments have similar demand flows and characteristics. Levels of service are related to the average travel speed of vehicles along the urban street segment or section. Travel times for existing conditions are obtained by field measurements. The maximum-car technique is used. The vehicle is driven at the posted speed limit unless ~mpeded by actual traffic conditions. In the maximum-car technique, a safe level of vehicular operation is maintained by observing proper following distances and by changing speeds at reasonable rates of acceleration and deceleration. The maximum-car technique provides the best base for measuring traffic performance. An observer records the travel time and locations and duration of delay. The beginning and ending points are the centers of intersections. Delays include times waiting in queues at signalized intersections. The travel speed is determined by dividing the length of the segment by the travel time. Once the travel speed on the arterial is determined, the level of service is found by comparing the speed to the criteria in Table A-IV. Level-of-service criteria vary for the different classifications of urban street, reflecting differences in driver expectations. Table A-II Criterion Functional Category Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Mobility function Very important Important Access function Very minor Substantial Points connected Freeways, important activity centers, major Principal arterials traffic Qenerators Relatively long trips between major points Trips of moderate length within relatively Predominant trips served and through trips entering, leaving, and small geographical areas passing through city Criterion Design Category High-Speed Suburban Intermediate Urban Driveway access density Very low density Low density Moderate density High density Multilane divided; Multilane divided: Multilane divided or Undivided one Arterial type undivided or two- undivided or two- undivided; one way, way; two way, two lane with lane with shoulders shoulders lwolane or more lanes Parking No No Some Usually Separate left-turn lanes Yes Yes Usually Some Signals per mile 0.5 to 2 1 to 5 4 to 10 6to 12 Speed limits 45 to 55 mph 40 to 45 mph 30 to 40 mph 25 to 35 mph Pedestrian activity Very little Little Some Usually Roadside development Low density Low to medium Medium to moderate High density density density FUNCTIONAL AND DESIGN CATEGORIES FOR URBAN STREETS Source: Highway Capacity Manua/200a A-3 l ~(p fb 2'i 7.- ' Table A-nl Functional Category Design Category Principal Arterial MinorArterial High-Speed I Not applicable Suburban II II Intermediate II II10rlV Urban III or IV IV URBAN STREET CLASS BASED ON FUNCTION AND DESIGN CATEGORIES Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000 Table A-IV Urban Street Class I 1/ 1/1 IV Range of Free Flow Speeds (mph) 45 to 55 35 to 45 30 to 35 25 to 35 Typical Free Flow Speed (mph) 50 40 33 30 Level of Service Average Travel Speed (mph) A >42 >35 >30 >25 B >34 >28 >24 >19 C >27 >22 >18 >13 D >21 >17 >14 >9 E >16 >13 >10 >7 F s16 S13 S10 s7 URBAN STREET LEVELS OF SERVICE BY CLASS Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000 Interrupted Flow One of the more important elements limiting, and often interrupting the flow of traffic on a highway is the intersection. Flow on an interrupted facility is usually dominated by points of fixed operation such as traffic signals, stop and yield signs. These all operate quite differently and have differing impacts on overall flow. Signalized Intersections The capacity of a highway is related primarily to the geometric characteristics of the facility, as well as to the composition of the traffic stream on the facility. Geometries are a fixed, or non-varying, characteristic of a facility. At the signalized intersection, an additional element is introduced into the concept of capacity: time allocation. A traffic signal essentially allocates time among conflicting traffic movements seeking use of the same physical space. The way in which time is allocated has a significant impact on the operation of the intersection and on the capacity of the intersection and its approaches. l~ 1 an 2<g z.. Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration; fuel consumption, and increased travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number off actors that relate to control, traffic and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during base conditions, i. e., in the absence of traffic control, geometric delay, any incidents, and any other vehicles. Specifically, level of service criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of average control delay per vehicle, typically for a 15-minute analysis period. Delay is a complex measure and depends on a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the ratio of green time to cycle length and the volume to capacity ratio for the lane group. For each intersection analyzed the average control delay per vehicle per approach is determined for the peak hour. A weighted average of control delay per vehicle is then determined for the intersection. A level of service designation is given to the control delay to better describe the level of operation. A description oflevels of service for signalized intersections can be found in Table A-V ~, Table A-V Level of Service Description Very low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. Progression is extremely favorable, A and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short cvcle lenoths may tend to contribute to low delav values. B Control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 seconds per vehicle. There is good progression or shortcvcle lenoths or both. More vehicles stop causino hiaher levels of delav. Control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. Higher delays are caused by fair progression or longer cycle lengths or both, Individual cycle failures may begin to C appear. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase doe not serve queued vehicles. and overflow occurs. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though many still pass throuoh the intersection without stoppino. Control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds per vehicle. The influence of D congestions becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volumes. Many vehicles stop, the oroDortion of vehicles not stoppino declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds per vehicle, The limit of acceptable E delay. High delays usually indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volumes. Individual cvcle failures are freauent. Control delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. Unacceptable to most drivers, F Oversaturation, arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to higher delay, DESCRIPTION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Source: Highway Capacity Manua/2000 The use of control delay, which may also be referred to as signal delay, was introduced in the 1997 update to the Highway Capacity Manual, and represents a departure from previous updates. In the third edition, published in 1985 and the 1994 update to the third edition, delay only included stopped delay. Thus, the level of service criteria listed in Table A-V differs from earlier criteria. Un signalized Intersections The current procedures on unsignalized intersections were first introduced in the 1997 update to the Highway Capacity'Manual and represent a revision of the methodology published in the 1994 update to the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The revised procedures use control delay as a measure of effectiveness to determine level of service. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel A-5 , ?:/66fJ 2~~ consumption, and increased travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a nwnber of factors that relate to control, traffic and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during base conditions, i. e., in the absence of traffic control, geometric delay, any incidents, and any other vehicles. Control delay is the increased time oftrave1 for a vehicle approaching and passing through an unsignalized intersection, compared with a free-flow vehicle if it were not required to slow or stop at the intersection. Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersections Two-way stop controlled intersections in which stop signs are used to assign the right-of-way, are the most prevalent type of intersection in the United States. At two-way stop-controlled intersections the stop-controlled approaches are referred as the minor street approaches and can be either public streets or private driveways. The approaches that are not controlled by stop signs are referred to as the major street approaches. The capacity of movements subject to delay are detennined using the "critical gap" method of capacity analysis. Expected average control delay based on movement volume and movement capacity is calculated. A level of service designation is given to the expected control delay for each minor movement. Level of service is not defined for the intersection as a whole. Control delay is the increased tim~ of travel for a vehicle approaching and passing through a stop-controlled intersection, compared with a free-flow vehicle if it were not required to slow or stop at the intersection. A description of levels of service for twocway stop-controlled intersections is found in Table A-VI. Table A-VI DESCRIPTION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR Two- WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description A Very low control delay less than 10 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay, B Low control delay greater than 10 and up to 15 seconds per vehicle for each movement subiect to delav. C Acceptable control delay greater than 15 and up to 25 seconds per vehicle for each movement subiect to delav. 0 Tolerable control delay greater than 25 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle for each movement subiect to delav. E Limit of tolerable control delay greater than 35 and up to 50 seconds' per vehicle for each movement subject to delav. F Unacceptable control delay in excess of 50 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay. Source: Highway Capacity Manua/2000 J:\T JKM Appendices\lOS-HCM 2000.doc 7 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE METHODOLOGY FOR INTERSECTIONS Level of service is the primary measure of effectiveness to be used in evaluating traffic operations at signalized intersections. All participating jurisdictions must use the adopted LOS methodology in d~veloping their General Plan Growth Management Element, monitoring LOS at Reporting Intersections, and preparing traffic impact stud- ies, A jurisdiction may undertake additional analysis if desired. An example of such a supplemental analysis of delay is described in Section 7.3. At a minimum, however, a local jurisdiction must use the Authority's LOS method to comply with the GMP. If a jurisdiction elects to use another method for calculating LOS, it must be used in addi- tion to the adopted methodology described in this section. Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance may also include LOS as a quantifiable measure of effectiveness for Regional Routes. The Authority's adopted LOS methodol- ogy shall also be used for these analyses, as well as for eMP-related studies. The LOS methodology may be used to evaluate existing levels of service at signalized intersections using actual traffic count data. or future levels of service using forecast traffic projections, The adopted method is similar to the Circular 212 Plannjng Method except that through movement capacity has been increased from 1.500 vehicles per hour to 1,800 vehicles per hour, Level of service is calculated by critical movement with lower capacities assumed for turning movements. 7.1 Saturation Flow Rates The saturation flow rate is the basis for determining the capacity of an intersection. It represents the maximum number of vehicles that can pass through an intersection un- , der prevailing traffic conditions. The Authority has modified the Circular 212 Opera- tions and Design Method by assuming a saturation flow rate of 1,800 vehicles per hour (rather than 1,500 vehicles per hour), Final Technical Procedures Update - 19 July 2006 45 l ~4 00 ~ ~~ Technical Procedures Update Saturation flow rates were measured at four intersections in Contra Costa County in February, 1990 to verify the appropriateness of this saturation flow rate, The method for collecting saturation flow rate data described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Man- ual (HCM) was used. The results are summarized in Table 7. Considerable variation in saturation flow rates were observed at each intersection, The data suggested that the operations and design capacities based on the 1,800 vehicles per hour saturation flow rate are frequently achieved within Contra Costa County. Table 7: Measured PM Peak Hour Saturation Flow Rates Selected Intersections in Contra Costa County Number of Sam- Highest Measured Intersection Movement pIes (Vehicles Per Hour) Treat Boulevard/Clayton Road Left 4 1,7 52 LeftlThru 4 2,054 Thru 8 2.4 87 Thru/Right 4 1,793 Buchanan Road/Somersville Road Left 8 2,048 Thru 2 2,014 Alcosta Drive/Crow Canyon Left 3 2,152 Road Thru 5 2,261 Right 1 2,531 Blume Drive/HilltopDrive Left 4 2,084 Thru 4 1,807 WEIGHTED AVERAGE Left 19 2,152 LeftlThru 4 2,054 Thru 19 2.487 Thru/Right 4 1.793 Right 1 2,531 Source: Patterson Associates, February, 7990 As indicated in Table 7. the saturation flow rates varied by movement type. Exclusive left-turn saturation flow rates were approximately 10 percent less than those for through lanes. Saturation flow rates for shared left and through lanes were 18 percent lower than for through lanes, Sufficient data was not collected to provide statistical ac- curacy for these averages. They were consistent. however, with the passenger car equivalent (PCE) values adjustments provided in Circular 212. I , :46 I I I Final Technical Procedures Update - 19 July 2006 l '1D ~2~"), Chapter 7: Level-of-Service Methodology for Intersections 7.2 Optional Capacity Reduction The effect of vehicle mix, intersection geometrics and other factors on intersection ca- pacity is well documented. These factors, however, are not considered directly in the Circular 212 Planning Methodology. This was why a lower capacity (1,500 vph) was originally selected for use in Circular 212, The Authority methodology, which uses a .higher capacity (1.800 vph), may underesti- mate existing or future congestion at some locations. The reductions in the capacities provided in Table 8 are therefore optional. provided that measurement of saturation flow rates at those locations justify the lower capacities. Once an intersection's capacity is reduced. it cannot be increased unless intersection geometrics are improved and higher saturation flow rates have been measured in the field. Under no circumstances can a signalized intersection capacity above 1,800 vph be used under the Authority methodology. Saturation flow rates must be measured using the technique described in Chapter 9, Appendix IV of the 1985 HCM. (A copy is provided in Appendix A of these Technical Procedures). The saturation flow rates must be adjusted to establish the capacity for the traffic movement considered. Adjustment of the saturation flow rates should be performed as described in equation 9-1 of the 1985 HCM: e,=s,x(K) I , C I Where (for lane group or approach i): 'c, = capacity in vehicles per hour Sj = saturation flow rate in vehicles per hour g = effective green time in seconds C = intersection cycle length in seconds 7.3 Supplemental Analysis of Delay Because the Authority's LOS method applies fixed critical lane volumes uniformly throughout the county, the method may underestimate congestion at locations with poor geometrics (older intersections with poor turning radii and small approach widths). or overestimate congestion at locations with excellent geometries (newer inter- Final Technical Procedures Update - 19 July 2006 47 \qlao~~~ Technical Procedures Update sections with ideal conditions) and aggressive drivers. The selected method may not identify locations where severe congestion is limited to a single intersection approach, nor does it reflect significant peaking and congestion within the peak hour. To address these shortcomings. the following supplemental analyses may be performed in addition to using the Authority's method to identify congested locations: 1. Field measurement of delay on the congested approach or full intersection can be collected using the methodology described in the most recent version of the HCM or Appendix A. Exhibit 15-2 of the 2000 HCM, The measured delay should be compared with those provided in the most current version of the HCM. 2. Synchro@ or similar software may be used in operations analyses to estimate vehicle delay and LOS based upo~ delay. The summary of intersection levels of service should be supplemented to reflect the re- sults of the delay analyses when significant variations are found. 7.4 Level-af-Service Calculation Method Signalized intersection levels of service should be calculated using the LOS software that is included "free" with this document, or a commercially-available software pack- age that adheres to the Authority's LOS methodology, The software incorporates the following steps. If done manually, the following nine steps should be used to perform the analysis: Step 1 Lane Geometry Identify the number and type of lanes for each approach. Step 2 Intersection Volumes Identify-:by counting (if analyzing existing conditions) or estimating (if analyzing fu- ture conditions)~left-turn, through, and right-turn volumes for each approach for the peak (design) hour volumes in vehicles per hour for each peak hour to be analyzed. In most cases, the analysis will assess both the AM and PM weekday peak hour. For pro- jects with peak periods that occur during midday or on weekends, additional time peri- ods should be analyzed. 48 Final Technical Procedures Update - 19 July 2006 lq2tr:t)~~ Chapter 7: Level-of-$ervice Methodology for Intersections Step 3 Phasing Identify the type of phasing (protected left turns, shared, or split) to be used at the in- tersection. Step 4 Left-Turn Check When a traffic signal phase permits left turns against opposing traffic rather'than pro- viding an exclusive left-turn phase, a check must be made to determine if sufficient left- turn capacity is provided to meet demand. This check will apply to LOS calculations for both existing, observed conditions and future estimated demand. Determination of the need for an exclusive left-turn phase under existing conditions should also consider ac- tual traffic counts, left-turn delay. observed queuing, and accident history. The left-turn capacity is the combination of left turns made against opposing through movements and left turns made during the amber portion of the phase. The capacity during the amber portion (VJ-the maximum number of left turns that can clear in this period-equals two times the number of signal cycles per hour. If the number of cycles per hour is not known, assume that the maximum number of left turns that can clear the intersection in one hour equals 90. The capacity for left turns during the green cycle (V J~the maximum number of left turns that can clear against opposing traffic volumes-is estimated using the following equation: v ~ == 1,200 (~) - V 0 Where: Vi = left-turn volume. in vehicles per hour, that can clear during the green for opposing through traffic G maximum green plus amber time* C cycle time for opposing through traffic* Va sum of opposing through and right-turn volumes in vehicles per hour Final Technical Procedures Update - 19 July 2006 49 l'13 ~ 2-CZ;V Technical Procedures Update * If either the maximum green time or the cycle time is not known, use the through and right-turn volumes for the approach divided by the number of lanes. Add the number of left turns calculated in the change interval Vc to the number calcu- lated in the permitted left for a total number of left turns that can clear without a pro- tected left (VJ. If the number of left turns calculated above (left-turn capacity) is more than those estimated for the project, no protected left-turn phase is needed. If the num- ber of left turns calculated above is less than the left turn demand, operating difficulties and increasing delays will be experienced. Step 5 Adjust Turning Volumes Two situations may require adjustment of observed or estimated turning volumes: 1. Right turns where no separate right-turn lane is provided and significant pedes- trian activity exists, and 2. Left turns where no separate left-turn lane is provided. The PCE adjustments recommended in Circular 212 (see Appendix A of the Technical Procedures) should be used. If the Authority's LOS software is used, adjustmeI1ts to the turn volumes should be made prior to entering into the program. Step 6 Calculate Volume-to-Capacity Ratio by Movement The volume-to-capacity ratio of each of the 12 individual movements and any com- bined movements of the intersection are calculated as follows: . Right-turn volumes on exclusive right-turn lanes are reduced to account for right turns on red. This reduction will equal the non-conflicting left-turn vol- umes with a minimum reduction of 90 vehicles per hour. (Non-conflicting left turns go concurrently with the right turn. For example. the non-conflicting left turn for the northbound right turn is the westbound left turn.) Determine the capacity of each movement and each combined movement from Table 8. Calculate the volume-to-capacity ratio for each movement and combined movement by dividing the adjusted volumes by the capacities. For combined movements, use the combined volumes divided by the combined capacities. . . 50 Final Technical Procedures Update -19 July 2006 lC14 ~~V' Chapter 7: Level-of-Service Methodology for Intersections' Step 7 Determine Critical Volume-to-Capacity Ratios Determine the highest total volume-to-capacity ratios for conflicting movements for both the north-south and east-west directions. For a non-split phased direction, the highest total of the right-turn or the through (or through plus right-turn if no exclusive right-turn lane exists) plus the opposing left-turn volume-to-capacity ratios are chosen. For a split phased direction, the highest volume-to-capacity ratio from each of the ap- proaches is chosen. Free right turns are not included in the calculation since they are not under signal control. Circular 212 does not clearly indicate how the critical movements are to be selected for single lane approaches (that is, when all right, left and thru movements are made from single approach lane). Under the Circular either the approach with the highest volume or both approaches could be designated as the critical movement. As part of the level- , of-service method adopted by the Authority. however, both approaches should be con- sidered critical movements. Table 8: Lane Capacities 1 Lane Type 2-Phase 3-Phase 4+-Phase Exclusive Lane 1,800 1,720 1,650 Shared Lane 1,800 1.720 1.650 Dual Turn Lanes2.3 1.636 1,564 1.500 Triple Turn Lanes2.4 1.565 1.496 1.435 1 Capacities for a single lane, If multiple lanes are provided, capacity in the table is multiplied by number of Janes to obtain total capacity for movement group. 2 Can include one shared lane (e,g. one exclusive left. plus one shared through left is considered dual turn lane). 3 Assumes 45%-55% lane split. 4 Assumes lane use 15% higher in the most used lane, Step 8 Sum the critical vOlume-to-capacity ratios for each approach Step 9 Compare the sum of the critical volume-to-capacity ratio with the ranges in Table 9 to determine the intersection level of service Final Technical Procedures Update - 19 July 2006 51 lt15 6b]$V Technical Procedures Update Table 9: Level of. Service Ranges Level of Service Sum of Critical VlC ~ 0.60 0.61 - 0.70 0.71 - 0.80 0.81 - 0.90 0.91 - 1.00 > 1.00 A B C D E F OPTIONAL RIGHT-TURN ON RED ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURE The VCCC method, as implemented in DOS, TransCAD, and other commercial soft- ware, internally reduces the input right turn volume, using the right turn lane code and other factors, to establish an "adjusted" volume that accounts for right turns on red (RTOR). The adjusted right-turn volume is then applied in the V/C calculation. This adjustment occurs automatically within the software, and is not directly controlled by the user. Past experience has proven that, from time ~o time, the program does not adequately reflect higher levels of RTOR activity that may be occurring in the field. In cases where the program under-estimates the RTOR adjustment, it will also over-estimate the VIC ratio. If, in the analyst's judgment. the RTOR adjustment is being underestimated, then the analyst has the option of conducting a RTOR count and further adjusting the right turn volumes used in the LOS computation based upon observed conditions. The RTOR count may be conducted after the full turning movement count has been completed. The analyst should determine when the peak hour window occurred within the peak period of the full turning movement count, and should return to the intersec- tion to conduct a spot count during that same peak hour window. The spot count should be for a minimum of one hour, and conducted in accordance with the Traffic Counting Protocol in Appendix F. The RTOR adjustment should be made as described below. The key to the input coding convention is found in the VCCC User's Manual, and is reprinted here in Figure 6. For clarity, we have assumed that there is only one right-turn lane involved (hence the cod- ing 1.1,1.4, etc.). The following guidelines apply, however, to double (and triple) right turns as well (e.g. 2.1. 2.4, or 3.1, 3.4, etc): 52 Final Technical Procedures Update - 19 July 2006 l4~ 00 28"3-- Chapter 7: Level-at-Service Methodology tor Intersections Where Right-Turn Lane Code is 1.1 or 1.4 and LOS Calculation is for Existing Conditions: If the right turn lane code is Liar 1.4 (that is, where the right turning vehicle on red must look for gaps in the cross traffic) and the analyst is computing LOS for existing condi- tions, then the analyst subtracts the ROTR volume counted in the field from the origi- nal right turn volume. (This new result is the "analyst-adjusted volume".) If the result- ing analyst's adjusted volume is lower than the adjusted volume reported by the soft- ware, then the analyst subtracts the difference in these two adjusted volumes from the original right turn vol,ume input for the approach. The VCCC method should then compute an adjusted right turn volume that matches the analyst-adjusted volume. Right-Turn Lane Code is 1.1 or 1.4 and LOS Calculation /s for Future Conditions: If the right turn lane code is 1.1 or 1.4 and the analyst is computing LOS for future conditions, an addi- tional step is required. The analyst measures the right turn on red volume in the field as before. This value, however, is discounted for any future ROTR capacity absorbed by the forecast growth in conflicting cross-street traffic that uses the same lane as the RTOR vehicles are trying to turn into. To calculate this discounted ROTR amount, the growth in conflicting through traffic should be divided by the number of through lanes on the cross street approach and that growth in per lane through volume subtracted from the counted RTOR volume. The reduced RTOR volume is then used as in step I above to compute analyst-adjusted right turn volume. Right-Turn Lane Code is 1.5 or 1.6: Ifthe right turn lane code is 1.5 or 1.6 (right turn arrow and u-turns from the opposing approach prohibited), and RTOR is also allowed (that is, only a green arrow is displayed and there is no red arrow to prohibit RTOR), then the same volume adjustment process is applied as described above under step 1. If a red right turn arrow is displayed, however, then RTORs are prohibited and no RTOR ad- justment is appropriate. Right-Turn Lane Code is 1.7 or 1.8: If the right turn lane code is 1.7 or 1.8 (signal con- trolled right turns turning into their own receiving lanes on the cross street), then there are no conflicts with cross street through traffic and the same volume adjustment proc- ess can be applied as described above under step 1. Right-Turn Lane Code is 1.9: If the right turn lane code is 1.9 (a free right). no RTOR ad- justment should be required. The VCCC method ignores the right turn volume and vie ratio in the computation of the intersection vlc ratio. Final Technical Procedures Update -19 July 2006 53 1'1, Ubt$Y In the CCTALOS methodology, each travel movement - left (L), through (T) and right (R) - is coded to reflect the number of lanes and the use of those lanes. This coding is theform of X.Y, where X reflects the number t q8 002~t.. of lanes available, both exclusively and shared with other travel movements, for the p'articular movement and where Y reflects the movement permitted from the lane, as detailed below. ~.~~o::>.v.~'>l:i'~t'tl<U'"~~>lJ.~.~-~~~~~~~~~~ WhereY=O The lane is used exclu- sively for a particular movement (e.g., as an exclusive left-turn lane) Where Y = 1 The lane is shared, that is, either of two move- ments can be made from the lane (e.g., a lane shared by through and right-turn traffic WhereY=2 Two or more through lanes are shared, one with left-turn traffic and one with right-turn traffic WhereY=4 Right-turn traffic, using a wide outside lane, can bypass through traffic to make a right turn on red Where Y = 5 Denotes a right-turn movement from an ex- clusive right-turn lane with a right-turn arrow and prohibition of the conflicting U-turn movement i! t i i! ! 1" I: ! ' .t..,...1. I, _.___....."."m I" I~'t }ri i 1.0 1.0 1.0! L T R ! i . , ! ; , . ,"t I 1.0 L t:}rl 2.1 . 1.1 ! T R ~}r 1.1 2.2 1.1 L T R i"tit t r i 1.0 2.1 1.4 L T R hlttir[. ! 1.0 2.0 1.5! L T R WhereY= 6 Denotes a right-turn movement from a shared lane with a right-turn arrow and prohibition of the con- flicting U-turn move- ment WhereY= 7 Turn lane that is shared with a through lane or left-turn lane and under signal control, and that has its own lane to turn into. There must be at least two through lanes Where Y = 8 Denotes an exclusive turn lane that is under signal control and has its own lane to turn into Where V = 9 Denotes an exclusive turn lane that is not under signal control and has its own lane to turn into, often referred to as a "free"turn. Since the volumes of this lane do not conflict with other intersection movements, the vlc ratio of the free right- turn movement is not included in the sum of critical vlc ratios. T 11 .__~..._~,,~__l ;.~__ , !~Jt}( i 1.0 3.1 1.6 i L T R. i I ~ii .,,~ -----~ '".~ .j....i ii~ il~ !~: t rr~-~ i 1.0 i 2.1 1.7 L T R 1 i ~:I il~ ..-------'-.J i; ! ii~ i .']...-.1..'(----- \~:t,t!(i ; 1.0 I 2.0 :1.8 j L T R ~. ~ '.~ !~! t: t lr..r~........-....-... i I . I I ! I ' i , ! 1.0 2.0 1.9! L T R Figure 6 Description of Lane Configuration Input Coding fur~eCCTALOSProgrnm DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS CCTA SIGNALIZED METHODOLOGY Background The CcT A intersection capacity analysis methodology is described in detail in the Technical Procedures Manual ofthe CCTA, January, 1991. It is identical to the Circular 212 Planning methodology except that the lane capacity has been increased from 1500 vph to between 1650 to 1800 vph based on saturation flow measurements taken at four intersections in Contra Costa County. (See following Table 9 from the Technical Procedures Manual.) On average, saturation flow rates for left-turn lanes were over ten percent lower than for through lanes. However, insufficient data was collected to provide statistical accuracy for the averages. Thus, saturation flow rates for through lanes are equal to those for turn lanes. ' This methodology determines the critical movement for each phase of traffic. It then sums the critical volume-to-capacity ratio by phase to determine the intersection volume-to-capacity ratio. Circular 212, on the other hand, sums the critical movement volumes themselves and compares them to the total capacity of the intersection to determine, in effect, the volume-to-capacity ratio of the intersection as a whole. Levels of Service The volume-to-capacity ratio is related to level of service (LOS). The following level of service for Signalized Intersections depicts the relationship between the volume-to-capacity ratio and level of service. An intersection operating at capacity would operate at LOS E. Level of Service F is not possible for existing conditions, but can be forecasted for future conditions when volume projections exceed existing capacities. Input Data The intersection capacity work sheets use a code to identify different lane configurations. This nomenclature is described on the following Description of Lane Configurations. Right turn on red adjustments are accounted for as well as unequal distribution of turn volumes in double turn lanes. For more information, see Circular 212 and the CcTA Technical Procedures Manual. LEVEL OF SERVICE RANGES VOLUME TO MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES LOS CAPACITY RATIO 2-Phase 3-Phase 4+-Phase A ::: 0.60 1,080 1,030 990 B 0.61 - 0.70 1,260 1,200 1,160 C 0.71 - 0.80 1,440 1,380 1,320 D 0.81 - 0.90 1,620 1,550 1,490 E 0.91 - 1.00 1,800 1,720 1,650 F ------------- N ot Applicable-------n--- Source: Contra Costa Grov.1h Management Program. Technical Procedures, Table 9. cClavc.app \q~6Q 2~2- ~'[) D ~ 2~2- DESCRIPTION OF LANE CONFIGURATION FORMAT The number of lanes and the use of the lanes is denoted with a special nomenclature described below: Denotes an exoresswav through movement. 1::~==I.'fl 4 ,;,:.:,,'2.1 T I: ,," 1.0L I:~~-::-" 1.5R 5 ....:.:.-2.01 1:){-1.0L I : ::;r:-: 1.0 n Denotes a turning movement which has a separate lane to turn into, as shown below: ~:H~ 1.1 n 7 ",,": "'. ,,-- UH I+:+[ Wf~ .. l,an ... ~'", 8 ~_~.~.' ~:: ~ It:t - It:t.. ~"L..... I.g" 9 :::~.;?Ol ,... 1.0l IH Lane Nomenclature X,Y Where When Y is ... o I: ~~::: ;:~~ t' 1.0 L I: I: 'T,.lR 1 ~~'l t.- 1.0 L I: I:~ 2 ~~:-.~~~ . .,... I.Il I: 6 ~::'. 3.lT I : tl= La L cctavc.app x Y Denotes the total number of lanes available for a particular movement. Denotes how the lanes are used. ...The following anplies: A lane used exclusively for a particular movement (Le., exclusive left-turn lane). A lane which is shared, that is, either of two different movements can be made from a particular lane (Le., a lane which is shared by through and right-tum traffic). Denotes two or more through lanes in which two lanes are shared, one with left-turn traffic, the other with right-turn traffic. Denotes a right-turn movement from a wide outside lane where right-turn vehicles can bypass through traffic sharing the lane to make a right-tum on red. . Denotes a right-turn movement from an exclusive right-tum lane with a right-turn arrow and prohibition on the conflicting U-turn movement. Denotes a right-turn movement from a shared lane with a right-turn arrow and prohibition on the conflicting U-turn movement. Tum lane which is shared with a through lane or left-turn lane and under signal control, and which has its own lane to turn into. There must be at lease two through lanes. Exclusive turn lane which is under signal control, and which has its own lane to turn into. Exclusive turn lane not under signal control and which has an exclusive lane to turn into, often referred to as a "free" turn. Since the volumes in this lane do not conflict with other intersection movements, the V/C ratio of the free right-turn movement is not included in the sum of critical V IC ratios. .. J:ITechnicallAppendlceslCCTA Signalized Methodology.doc 2D lotJ2.~2- L_____~_______,,________w_____.__~_.__._, Appendix B - Existing Traffic Counts 202 ~212..- Project: 157-001 Task 114 Control Speed Limit Survey Date: 1/8/2007 DAY: Tuesday N-S Approach: Golden Gate Drive Signal 30 Survey Time: 7:00 AM To 9:00 AM E-W Approach: Dublin Boulevard Signal 30 City: Dublin Recorder: Eisongoh PEAK HOUR Golden Gate Drive t Arrival I Departure Volumes 8:00 AM TO 9:00 AM 12 7 6 North PHF = 0.58 . 25 65 ) I.. . t ~ L "E 46 17 '" TOTAL > 415 +- ..- 448 Q) ~ :; PHF = PHF = 0 474 ~ +- 373 fJ) 0.90 0.88 .S 648 --. ~ 517 :0 ::J 128 ~ ,r- 58 0 . t , t r 193 69 30 2 37 I PHF = 0.90 PHF = 0.59 Time Period Eastbound Northbound Westbound I Southbound From To Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right I Total I SURVEY DATA ! , . . 7:00 AM --- 7:15 AM 1 ~?--'I 18 2 0 3 10 66 2 0 0 1 150 ----- --- 7:15AM --- 7:30 AM 4 130 40 8 0 6 20 172 2 1 0 1 384 ----- --, 1------- .. ..- 7:30 AM --- 7:45AM 8 224 66 9 0 12 30 251 2 3 2 . 1 608 n._....__ -- -, ".",---- - . 1-----'-- 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM 9 334 97 16 0 19 45 335 4 5 2 2 868 8:00 AM --- 8: 15 AM 16 447 134 23 0 28 63 441 8 7 2 5 1,174 - --- 8:15AM --- 8:30 AM 24 _ 579 166 29 0 33 72 520 11 8 4 10 1 ,456 ------- 8:30 AM --- 8:45AM 39 679 195 35 0 40 82 617 15 9 6 11 1,728 8:45 AM -- 9:00 AM 55 808 225 46 2 56 103 708 21 11 9 14 2,058 I TOTAL BY PERIOD ! . 7:00 AM --- 7:15AM 1 47 18 2 0 3 10 66 2 0 0 1 150 -- ,1--- 7:15AM --- 7:30 AM 3 83 22 6 0 3 10 106 0 1 0 0 234 - 7:30 AM --- 7:45 AM 4 94 26 1 0 6 10 79 0 2 2 0 224 ----- 7:45 AM --- 8:00 AM 1 110 31 7 0 7 15 84 2 2 0 1 260 8:00 AM --- 8:15 AM 7 113 37 7 0 9 18 106 4 2 0 3 306 8:15AM --- 8:30 AM 8 132 32 6 0 5 9' 79 3 1 2 5 282 8:30 AM --- 8:45 AM 15 100 29 6 0 7 10 97 4 1 2 1 272 8:45 AM --- 9:00 AM 16 129 30 11 2 16 21 91 6 2 3 3 330 I HOURLY TOTALS ! 7:00 AM -- 8:00 AM f--_.9 334 97 ~, 0 19 45 335 4 ~- ,--~ f--_?_'- 868 7:15AM --- 8:15 AM 15 400 116 . 21 0 25 53 375 6 7 2 4 1,024 ------ 1----- -- 7:30 AM n_ 8:30 AM ~,- 449 126 _3~_ 0 27 52 348 9 7 4 9 1,072 7:45 AM -- 8:45AM 31 I,~_~- 129 26 0 28 52 366 13 6 4 10 1,120 1---- --.-- 8:00 AM --- 9:00 AM 46 474 128 .30 I 2 37 58 373 17 6 7 12 1,190 I I Lane Configuration I Overall Peak HoUr Factor 0.72 I 0.90 0.86 0.68 0.25 0.58 0.69 0,88 I 0.71 0.75 0.58 . 0.60 0.90 T JKM Intersection Turning Movement Summary 2. 0 ~ rro '2.'$ '2.- Project: 157-001 Task 114 Control Speed Limit Survey Date: 1/8/2007 DAY: Tuesday . N-S Approach: Golden Gate Drive Signal 30 Survey Time: 4:00 PM To 6:00 PM E-W Approach: Dublin Boulevard Signal 30 City: Dublin Recorder: Eisongoh PEAK HOUR Golden Gate Drive t Arrival I Departure Volumes 4:15PM TO 5:15 PM 61 11 68 North PHF= 0.69 ~ 140 172 ~ I. . t ~ L 'E 119 38 '" TOTAL PHF= PHF= > 851 .- .- 795 Q) I 2,3651 :; 0.94 0.95 0 978 ~ .- 696 co .5 1185 ~ ~ 1182 :c :J 88 ~ ~ 61 0 . t , t ~ 160 245 94 15 136 I PHF = 0.95 PHF= 0.85 Time Period Eastbound I Northbound Westbound Southbound I From To I Left Thru Right I Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total I SURVEY DATA ! . . 4:00 PM -- 4:15 PM 23 220 20 26 2 28 13 183 6 16 3 16 556 - 4:15 PM -- 4:30 PM 65 466 40 47 4 61 30 367 7 36 7 31 1,161 4:30 PM -- 4:45 PM 90 706 69 64 8 89 47 546 18 49 9 -~ 1,736 -- -,_.- :-----,. ...-,.---- 4:45 PM -- 5:00 PM 117 965 89 91 13 129 61 725 31 66 13 59 2,359 5:00 PM --- 5:15 PM 142 1,198 108 120 17 164 74 879 44 84 14 77 2,921 5:15PM -- 5:30 PM 165 1 ,445 126 141 23 200 91 1,025 56 102 24 95 3,493 - 5:30 PM -- 5:45 PM 191 1,708 149 166 26 229 106 1,185 65 117 26 115 4,083 5:45 PM -- 6:00 PM 211 1,958 166 184 28 262 124 1,340 78 138 30 131 4,650 I . . . . ! 4:00 PM --- 4:15 PM 23 220 20 26 2 28 13 183 6 16 3 16 556 4:15 PM --- 4:30 PM 42 246 20 21 2 33 17 184 1 20 4 15 605 4:30 PM -- 4:45 PM 25 240 29 17 4 28 17 179 11 13 2 10 575 4:45 PM -- 5:00 PM 27 259 20 27 5 I 40 14 179 13 17 4 18 623 5:00 PM --- 5: 15 PM 25 233 19 29 4 35 13 154 13 18 1 18 562 -. 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PM ~_23 247 18 21 6 36 17 146 12 18 10 ,~- 572 5:30 PM -- 5:45 PM ~-- 263 23 ,?2- _,3 29 ( 15 160 9 15 2 '"-, 2~_ 590 5:45 PM --- 6:00 PM 20 250 17 18 2 33 18 155 13 21 4 16 567 I HOURLY TOTALS ! 4:00 PM --- 5:00 PM 117 965 89 91 13 129 61 725 31 66 13 59 2,359 ----...- 4:15 PM --- 5:15PM 119 978 88 94 15 136 61 696 38 68 11 61 2,365 I--- 4:30 PM --- 5:30 PM 100 979 86 94 19 139 61 658 49 66 17 64 2,332 -- 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM 101 1002 80 102 18 140 59 639 47 68 17 74 2,347 5:00 PM --- 6:00 PM 94 993 77 93 15 133 63 615 47 72 17 72 2,291. I ! Lane Configuration I I I I Overall Peak Hour Factor I 0.71 0.94 0.76 0.81 0.75 0,85 I 0.90 0.95 0.73 I 0.85 I 0.69 0.85 I 0.95 T JKM Intersection Turning Movement Summary 2D~0fJ 262- Project: 157-001 Task 114 Control Speed Limit Survey Date: 1/8/2007 DAY: Tuesday N-S Approach: Golden Gate Drive Signal 30 Survey Time: 7:00AM To 9:00 AM E-W Approach: St. Patrick Street Signal 30 City: Dublin Recorder: Eisongoh PEAK HOUR Golden Gate Drive t Arrival I Departure Volumes 8:00 AM TO 9:00 AM 10 45 31 North PHF = 0.87 . 86 55 ) ~ . t -1f L Qi 14 25 ~ TOTAL U3 ~ 31 .- ~ 54 .>< 12 -+ .- 18 PHF= PHF = .g ro 0.75 28 -. -. 52 0.75 Cl U3 2 -~ r 11 . t , t ~ 58 28 3 16 9 I PHF = 0.77 PHF = 0.67 Time Period Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound From To Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total I SURVEY DATA ! . . 7:00 AM -- 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 4 3 10 1 23 7:15AM -- 7:30 AM 3 0 1 0 2 0 6 4 6 7 21 2 52 7:30 AM -- 7:45 AM 4 2 1 0 3 4 8 8 11 14 38 2 95 I --.- 7:45 AM --- 8:00 AM 4 3 1 0 6 5 9 15 13 21 57 4 138 8:00 AM -- 8:15 AM ~- 5 1 0 9 7 11 21 18 29 70 7 183 8:15AM -- 8:30 AM 5 7 2 0 10 9 15 26 22 36 80 8 220 8:30 AM --- 8:45 AM ~- 11 3 1 16 12 18 31 27 43 92 9 270 -- -- 8:45 AM --- 9:00 AM 18 15 3 3 22 14 20 33 38 52 102 14 334 I TOTAL BY PERIOD I ! . 7:00 AM --- 7:15AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 4 3 10 1 23 -- I---- ._-_._.~ 7:15AM -- 7:30 AM 3 0 1 f--~- ~ 0 2 _~ 3 2 4 11 1 29 --- f----- t----- 7:30 AM --- 7:45 AM 1 2 0 0 1 4 2 4 5 7 17 0 43 --- - --- 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM 0 1 0 0 3 1 1 7 2 7 19 2 -43 8:00 AM --- 8:15 AM 1 2 1-__0 0 3 2 2 6 5- 8 13 3 45 ...~ -- 8:15 AM -- 8:30 AM ~--- 2 1 0 1 2 4 5 4 7 10 1 37 1---- --- 8:30 AM --- 8:45 AM 2 4 ~,!.- ~--- -- 6 3 3 5 5 7 12 1 50 8:45AM --.. 9:00 AM 11 4 0 2 6 2 2 2 11 9 10 5 64 I HOURLY TOTALS ! 7:00 AM --- 8:00 AM 4 3 1 0 6 5 9 15 13 21 57 __ _'!~ 138 --- I--- 7:15AM -- 8:15AM 5 5 1 0 9 7 7 20 14 26 60 6 160 7:30 AM --- 8:30 AM 2 7 1 0 8 9 9 22 16 29 59 6 168 ,- 7:45 AM -- 8:45 AM 3 9 2 1 13 8 10 23 16 29 54 7 175 8:00 AM --- 9:00 AM 14 12 2 3 16 9 11 18 25 31 45 10 196 I ! Lane Configuration I I I I Overall Peak Hour Factor 0.32 I 0.75 0.50 I 0.38 0.67 I 0.75 0.69 0.75 0.57 0.86 0.87 0.50 0.77 T JKM Intersection Turning Movement Summary L o5ifb 2. '6'], Project: 157-001 Task 114 Control Speed Limit Survey Date: 1/8/2007 DAY: Tuesday N-S Approach: Golden Gate Drive Signal 30 Survey Time: 4:00 PM To 6:00 PM E-W Approach: St. Patrick Street Signal 30 City: Dublin Recorder: Eisongoh PEAK HOUR Golden Gate Drive t Arrival/ Departure Volumes 5:00 PM TO 6:00 PM 18 25 57 North PHF= . 0.89 ~ 100 115 .J l. . t Qj ~ L 18 50 l!! TOTAL PHF= PHF= U5 ~ 82 .- ~ 122 "" 20 -.. .- 63 0.71 0.75 0 .;:: 'lii 41 -+ ~ 100 D.. U5 3 -~ tr 9 . t , t ~ 37 71 1 47 23 I PHF = 0.93 PHF= 0.78 Time Period Eastbound I Northbound Westbound Southbound I From To Left Thru Right I Left Thru Right Left Thru Right I Left Thru Right Total . I SURVEY DATA ! . , , , , 4:00 PM -- 4:15 PM 3 2 0 1 16 5 10 2 12 15 2 0 68 ,--- - 4:15 PM -- 4:30 PM 4 5__ 1 2 34 8 14 5 28 34 10 2 147 -- -- 4:30 PM --- 4:45 PM 8 ~,-- 1 2 47 15 17 8 38 49 17 2 213 --- --- 4:45 PM -- 5:00 PM 8 10 2 2 54 17 17 14 49 63 20 3 259 5:00 PM --- 5:15 PM 15 17 2 2 63 27 20 19 61 75 27 6 334 -- --------- -, 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PM 18 21 --~-,. 3 74 29 21 39 73 91 33 11 417 -,- -- 5:30 PM -- 5:45 PM 20 26 4 3 89 36 24 56 88 103 40 14 503 -- -- 5:45 PM n_ 6:00 PM 26 30 5 3 101 40 26 77 99 120 45 21 593 I ! . , 4:00 PM -- 4:15PM 3 2 0 1 16 5 10 2 12 15 2 0 68 4:15 PM -- 4:30 PM 1 3 1 1 18 3 4 3 16 19 8 2 79 4:30 PM --- 4:45 PM f--- 4 4 0 0 13 7 3 3 10 15 7 0 66 4:45 PM --- 5:00 PM 0 1 1 0 7 2 0 6 11 14 3 1 46 5:00 PM --- 5:15 PM 7 7 0 0 9 10 3 5 12 12 . 7 3 75 - 5:15PM - 5:30 PM 3 4 2 1 11 2 1 20 12 16 6 ~-- 83 -- 5:30 PM --- 5:45 PM 2 5 0 0 15 7 3 17 15 12 7 3 86 -- 5:45 PM -- 6:00 PM 6 4 1 0 12 4 2 21 11 17 5 7 90 I HOURLY TOTALS ! . . 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PM 8 10 2 2 54 ~- 17 14 49 63 -~ J--~' 259 I-----~ --" f-----c-- 4:15 PM .-- 5:15 PM 12 15 2 1 47 22 10 17 49 60 25 6 266 ----.- f---- - 4:30 PM -- 5:30 PM 14 16 ~-- 1 40 21 7 34 45 57 23 9 270 1------ -- --- -- 4:45 PM --- 5:45 PM 12 17 3 1 42 21 7 48 50 54 23 12 290 5:00 PM --- 6:00 PM 18 20 3 1 47 23 9 63 50 57 25 18 334 I ! I I I I , . I Overall Lane Configuration Peak Hour Factor I 0.64 0.71 0.38 0.25 0.78 0,58 I 0.75 0.75 0,83 I 0.84 I 0.89 0,64 I 0.93 T JKM Intersection Turning Movement Summary 201.0 ~'5# "......, Ul OJ E ~ - o > u \i:: "- ro L. I- >- - -- ro o OJ C\ ro L. OJ > <C '-'" #'# , 0. ro ~ ~ o LL- U "- "- ro L. .... .. 1 ! l l ~ l; 11 B .. I i ~ ! ii - '" I ~ 8 ... .. l!. .. " ,!; '" 1i ~ 5 0 ~ .. !! ii! o l! .j! B .It :. ODD \0 o o N OJ c: :J r""'\ III .!! ~ c: .c ,l' 10 ~ 0 0 , ~ "- ! 0 10 N >- fg 0 j .., $ '" u / 0 201 % 2, t:i 7-- Appendix C - level of Service Worksheets: Existing Conditions I I 20<3~ 2~~ Existing AM Tue May 8, 2007 17:01:14 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report CCTALOS Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 95 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.226 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive Dublin Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1-----.;.---------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ____________1_______________1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 30 2 37 6 7 12 46 474 128 58 373 17 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1\00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 30 2 37 6 7 12 46 474 128 58 373 17 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 '0.58 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 51 3 63 10 12 21 51 527 142 66 424 19 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 51 3 63 10 12 21 51 527 142 66 424 19 RTOR Reduct: 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Vol: 51 3 0 10 12 21 51 527 142 66 424 19 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 51 3 0 10 12 21 51 527 142 66 424 19 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: . Sat/Lane: 1650 1650 1650 ~650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 0.63 1.00 2.36 0.64 1.00 2.87 0.13 Final Sat.: 1650 1650 1650 1650 608 1042 1650 3898 1052 1650 4734 216 ____________I____~----------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.09 0.09 Crit vol: 51. 33 223 66 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA 20C1 ~ 2.~2- Existing PM Tue May 8, 2007 17:0l:29 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report CCTALOS Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 95 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.398 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.d sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive Dublin Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Includ~ Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1, 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------1--------:.,------11-----------'----11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 94 15 136 68 11 61 119 978 88 61 696 38 Growth Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 94 15 136 68 11 61 119 978 aa 61 696 38 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 111 18 160 99 16 88 127 1040 94 64 733 40 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 111 18 160 99 16 88 127 1040 94 64 733 40 RTOR Reduct: 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Vol: 111 18 96 99 16 88 127 1040 94 64 733 40 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 111 18 96 99 16 88 127 1040 94 64 733 40 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.85 1.00 2.75 0.25 1.00 2.84 0.16 Final Sat.: 1650 1650 1650 1650 252 1398 1650 4541 409 1650 4694 256 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.16 0.16 Crit Vol: 111 104 378 64 Crit ,Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA L LV u:o 2.~t, Existing AM Tue May 8, 2007 17:01:14 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Irttersection #2 Golden Gate Drive/St. patrick Way ******************.************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : 0.118 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.6 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive St. Patrick Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'Lanes: 0 0 I! 0 0 0 0 I! 0 0 0 0 I! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------1---------------11-----;----------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 3 16 9 31 45 10 14 12 2 11 18 25 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 16 9 31 45 10 14 12 2 11 18 25 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 PHF Volume: 4 24 13 36 52 11 19 16 3 15 24 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 4 24 13 36 52 11 19 16 3 15 24 33 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1;00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 4 24 13 36 52 11 19 16 3 15 24 33 ~-c---------I---------------II---------------II---------------11-----,.---------1 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.11 0.57 0.32 0.36 0.52 0.12 0.50 0.43 0.07 1_00 0.42 0.58 Final Sat.: 92 491 276 303 439 98 394 338 56 661 331 460 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.6 8.1 7.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/veh: 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.6 8.1 7.4 LOS by Move: A A A A A A .A A A A A ApproachDel : 7 . 3 7 .7 7 . 6 7.6 Delay Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 ApprAdj Del: 7 . 3 7.7 7 . 6 7 .6 LOS by Appr: A A A A AIIWayAvgQ: 1.2 1.2 1.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.5 1.8 1.8 ******************************************************************************** o 7.4 1.00 7.4 A Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA Existing PM Tue May 8, 2007 17:01:29 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Golden Gate Drive/St. Patrick Way ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.203 Loss Time (see): 0 (Y+R=4.0 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.2 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive St. Patrick Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L ' T R L T R L T R ____________1_______________11_______________11_______--------11---------------1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 I! 0 0 0 0 I! 0 0 0 0 I! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I----------~----I Volume Module: Base Vol: 1 47 23 57 25 18 18 20 3 9 63 50 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 47 23 57 25 18 18 20 3 9 63 50 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.78 0.78 0.86 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.75 0.75 0.75 PHF Volume: 1 60 27 64 28 20 25 28 4 12 84 67 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1 60 27 64 28 20 25 28 4 12 84 67 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 1 60 27 64 28 20 25 28 4 12 84 67 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - II - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - II - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.01 0.69 0.30 0.57 0.25 0.18 0.44 0.49 0.07 1.00 0.56 0.44 Final Sat.: 11 537 238 435 191 137 323 359 54 636 414 329 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: vol/Sat: 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.20 0.20 Crit Moves: **** Delay/Veh: 7.9 7.9 7.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 7.9 7.9 7.9 LOS by Move;: A A A ApproachDel: 7.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 7.9 LOS by Appr: A AllWayAvgQ: 2.9 2.9 **** **** **** 8.3 1. 00 8.3 A 8.3 1. 00 8.3 A 8.3 1. 00 8.3 A 3.9 8.3 1. 00 8.3 A 8.1 1. 00 8.1 A 8.1 1. 00 8.1 A 8.1 1. 00 8.1 A 1.9 8.1 1. 00 8.1 A 8.3 1. 00 8.3 A 8.5 1. 00 8.5 A 8.5 1. 00 8.5 A 5.9 8.5 1. 00 8.5 A 2.9 3.9 3.9 1.9 1.9 0.5 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA 2..llifJ '2,1~ o 5.9 Appendix D - Level of Service Worksheets: Existing Plus Approved Project Conditions 21"2.40 '2~~ 2 13 '1J t.~1-- Exist. + Off Site Comm. AMTue May 8, 2007 17:03:56 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report CCTALOS Method (Future Volume Alternative) *********************************************~********************************** Intersection #1 Dublin BoulevardlGolden Gate Drive ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 95 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.238 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 30 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive Dublin Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1------_..:_------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: - Base Vol: 30 2 37 6 7 12 46 474 128 58 373 17 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 30 2 37 6 7 12 46 474 128 58 373 17 Added Vol: 0 2 0 8 2 7 13 13 0 0 7 8 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 30 4 37 14 9 19 59 487 128 58 380 25 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 51 7 63 24 16 33 66 541 142 66 432 28 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 51 7 63 24 16 33 66 541 142 66 432 28 RTOR Reduct: 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Vol: 51 7 0 24 16 33 66 541 142 66 432 28 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.bo 1.00 1.00 Final Vol. : 51 7 0 24 16 33 66 541 '142 66 432 28 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.32 0.68 1.00 2.38 0.62 1.00 2.81 0.19 Final Sat.: 1650 1650 1650 1650 530 1120 1650 3920 1030 1650 4644 306 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I------------~--I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.09 0.09 Crit Vol: 51 48 128 66 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA Exist. + Off Site Comm. PMTue May 8, 2007 17:04:19 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report CCTALOS Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 95 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.409 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive Dublin Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11----------- ----I Control: Protected 'protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - II - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -II - - - - - - - - -'- - - - - - 11- - - - - - - - - - - - - --I Volume Module: Base Vol: 94 15 136 68 11 61 '119 978 88 61 696 38 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 94 15 136 68 11 61 119 978 88, 61 696 38 Added Vol: 0 2 0 7 1 7 16 16 0 0 7 10 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 94 17 136 75 12 68 135 994 88 61 703 48 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 111 20 160 109 17 99 144 1057 94 64 740 51 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 111 20 160 109 17 99 144 1057 94 64 740 51 RTOR Reduct: 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Vol: 111 20 96 109 17 99 144 1057 94 64 740 51 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 111 20 96 109 17 99 144 1057 94 64 740 51 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.85 1.00 2.76 0.24 1.00 2.81 0.19 Final ,Sat.: 1650 1650 1650 1650 247 14.03 1650 4547 403 1650 4634 316 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.16 0.16 Crit Vol: 111 116 384 64 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA "2 I '-l ~ ;2.~ 2l59J '2.1$'b- Exist. + Off Site Comm. AMTue May 8, 2007 17:03:56 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Golden Gate Drive/St. Patrick Way ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.121 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.6 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A *************************************************************************,*****.** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive St. Patrick Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 I~--------------I 1---------------1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min _ Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 .1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I Volume Module: Base Vol: 3 16 9 31 45 10 14 12 2 11 18 25 Growth Adj: LOa 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00. Initial Bse: 3 16 9 31 45 10 14 12 2 11 18 25 Added Vol: 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 3 18 11 31 47 10 14 12 2 13 18 25 User Adj: 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 PHF Volume: 4 27 16 36 54 11 19 16 3 17 24 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 4 27 16 36 54 11 19 16 3 17 24 33 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Final Vol.: 4 27 16 36 54 11 19 16 3 17 24 33 ------------I------~--------II---------------II---------~-----II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.09 0.57 0.34 0.35 0.54 0.11 0.50 0.43 0.07 1.00 0.42 0.58 Final Sat.: 81 484 296 294 446 95 392 336 56 657 330 458 - - - - - - - - - - - -I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -11- - - - - - - - - - -- - - -11- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -11- - - - - - - - - - - - - --I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.07 Cr i t Move s : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Delay/Veh: 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.7 8.2 7.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.7 8.2 7.5 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A A A ApproachDel: 7.3 7.8 7.7 7.6 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 7.3 7.8 7.7 7.6 LOS by Appr: A A A A All WayAvgQ: 1. 4 1. 4 1. 4 3.3 3.3 3.3 1. 2 1. 2 1. 2 0.6 1. 8 1. 8 ******************************************************************************** o 7.5 1. 00 7.5 A Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA' 21~ on 2~2-- Exist. + Off Site Comm. PMTue May B, 2007 17:04:19 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Golden Gate Drive/St. Patrick Way ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Cri tical '\1;01. /Cap. (X) : 0.204 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.3 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive St. Patrick Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ____________I_____________~_II_______________II_______--------11------------ ---I Volume Module: Base Vol: 1 47 23 57 25 18 18 20 3 9 63 50 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 47 23 57 25 18 18 20 3 9 63 50 Added Vol: 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 1 49 25 57 26 18 18 20 3 10 63 50 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.7B 0.78 0.B6 0.B9 0.B9 0.B9 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.75 0.75 0.75 PHF Volume: 1 63 29 64 29 20 25 2B 4 13 84 67 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1 63 29 64 29 20 25 28 4 13 84 67 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 1 63 29 64 29 20 25 28 4 13 84 67 ____________1_______________11_______________11_______--'-------II---~-------- ---1 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.01 0.68 0.31 0.56 0.26 0.18 0.44 0.49 0.07 1.00 0.56 0.44 Final Sat.: 11 530 245 430 196 136 322 35B 54 635 412 327 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 I-------~-------I 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.08 O.OB 0.08 0.02 0.20 0.20 Crit Moves: **** Delay/Veh: 7.9 7.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 7.9 7.9 LOS by Move: A A ApproachDel: 7.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 7.9 LOS by Appr: A AllWayAvgQ: 3.0 3.0 o **** **** **** 7.9 1. 00 7.9 A 8.3 1. 00 8.3 A 8.3 1. 00 8.3 A 8.3 1. 00 8.3 A 4.0 8.3 1. 00 8.3 A 8.1 1. 00 8.1 A 8.1 1.00 8.1 A 8..1 1. 00 8.1 A 1.9 8.1 1. 00 8.1 A 8.3 1. 00 8.3 A 8.5 1. 00 8.5 A 8.5 1. 00 8.5 A 5.9 8.5 1. 00 8.5 A ******************************************************************************** 3.0 4.0 4.0 1.9 1.9 0.5 5.9 Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. , Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA 211 6tJ '2~V ~ppendix E ~ level of Service Worksheets: Existing Plus I Approved Project Plus BART Transit Village Conditions 218 5fJ 2~~ Exist. + Off Site Corom. + BA {:t'T + Proj. AM. Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report CCTALOS Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 95 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.403 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive Dublin Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 I-~-------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Mi n. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1. 0 2 1 0 ____________I_____~_________II---------------II---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 30 2 37 6 7 12 46 474 128 58 373 17 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 30 2 37 6 7 12 46 474 128 58 373 17 Added Vol: 63 2 89 8 2 7 13 13 153 71 7 8 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 93 4 126 14 9 19 59 487 281 129 380 25 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 158 7 214 24 16 33 66 541 312 147 432 28 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 158 7 214 24 16 33 66 541 312 147 432 28 RTOR Reduct:O 0 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Vol: 158 7 67 24 16 33 66 541 312 147 432 28 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 158 7 67 24 16 33 66 541 312 147 432 28 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.32 0.68 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.81 0.19 Final Sat.: 1650 1650 1650 1650 530 1120 1650 3300 1650 1650 4644 306 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.16 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.09 Crit Vol: 158 48 312147 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA 2 i45Q '2. <81-- Exist. + Off Site Comm. + e, A~ '\ t- Pc-oj. pM Page 2-1 ----------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ******************************************************************************** Level Of Service Computation Report CCTALOS Method (Future Volume Alter~ative) Intersection #1 Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 95 Critical VOl./Cap. (Xl: 0.567 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 53 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive Dublin Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 94 15 136 68 11 61 119 978 88 61 696 38 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 94 15 136 68 11 61 119 978 88 61 696 38 Added Vol: 123 2 209 7 1 7 16 16 107 39 7 10 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 217 17 345 75 12 68 135 994 195 100 703 48 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 255 20 406 109 17 99 144 1057 207 105 740 51 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 255 20 406 109 17 99 144 1057 207 105 740 51 RTOR Reduct: 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Vol: 255 20 301 109 17 99 144 1057 207 105 740 51 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 255 20 301 109 17 99 144 1057 207 105 740 51 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes:' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.85 1.00 2.51 0.49 1.00 2.81 0.19 Final Sat.: 1650 1650 1650 1650 247 1403 1650 4138 812 1650 4634 316 ------------1---------------.11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.01 0.18 0.07'0.07 0.07 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.06 0.16 0.16 Crit Vol: 301 109 422 105 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA . 2 2D i5Q 2.~V- Exist. + Off Site Comm. + BM~. i + Pro,). A WI Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Golden Gate Drive/St. Patrick Way ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 80 Critical Vol./Cap. (Xl: 0.583 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 15.1 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive St. Patrick Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R 'L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 I! 0 0 0 0 I! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - II - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 3 16 9 31 45 10 14 12 2 11 18 25 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 16 9 31 45 10 14 12 2 11 18 25 Added Vol: 0 147 52 0 215 11 7 5 0 196 7 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 3 163 61 31 260 21 21 17 2 207 25 25 User Adj: 1.00,1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 PHF Volume: 4 243 91 36 299 24 28 23 3 276 33 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 4 243 91 36 299 24 28 23 3 276 33 33 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 4 243 91 36 299 24 28 23 3 276 33 33 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.01 0.72 0.27 0.10 0.83 0.07 1.00 0.89 0.11 1.00 0.50 0.50 Final Sat.: 8 447 167 61 512 41 423 405 48 500 283 283 ----------:..-1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.55 0.12 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 14.5 14.5 14.5 15.7 15.7 15.7 10.7 10.0 10.0 17.1 9.5. Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 14.5 14.5 14.5 15!7 15.7 15.7 10.7 10.0 10.0 17.1 9.5 LOS by Move: B B B C C C B A A C A ApproachDel: 14.5 15.7 10.3. 15.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 14.5 15.7 10.3 15.7 LOS by Appr: B C B .C AllWayAvgQ: 25.7 25.7 25.7 30.1 30.1 30.1 1.4 1.1 1.1 26.1 3.0 3.0 ******************************************************************************** o 9.5 1. 00 9.5 A Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA Exist. + Off Site Comm. + BAP-T -t-()("oj. f>M Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ************,******************************************************************** Intersection #2 Golden Gate Drive/St. Patrick Way ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 80 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.843 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 20.4 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************~* Street Name: Golden Gate Drive St. Patrick Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East. Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 I! 0 0 0 0 I! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 10 0 1 0 ___________~ 1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 1 47 23 57 25 18 18 20 3 9 63 50 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 47 23 57 25 18 18 20 3 9 63 50 Added Vol: 0 323 51 0 136 12 11 8 0 68 8 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 1 370 74 57 161 30 29 28 3 77 71 50 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.78 0.78 0.86 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.75 0.75 0.75 PHF Volume: 1 474 86 64 181 34 41 39 4 103 95 67 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1 474 86 64 181 34 41 39 4 103 95 67 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 1 474 86 64 181 34 41 39 4 103 95 67 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.01 0.84 0.15 0.23 0.65 0.12 1.00 0.90 0.10 1.00 0.59 0.41 Final Sat.: 2 563 102 136 384 72 430 417 45 464 303 213 ____________I______________~II---------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.470.47 0.47 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.22 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves: ***~ **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 29.2 29.2 29.2 13.5 13.5 13.5 11.1 10.5 10.5 11.9 11.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Vehi 29.2 29.2 29.2 13.5 13.5 13.5 11.1 10.5 10.5 11.9 11.9 LOS by Move:. D D D B B B B B B B B ApproachDel: 29.2 13.5 10.8 11.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 29.2 13.5 10.8 11.9 LOS by Appr: D B B B AllWayAvgQ: 96.6 96.6 96.6 19.1 19.1 19.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 6.2 9.6 9.6 ********************************************************************~*********** 11.9 1. 00 11.9 B Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA 2 2l~ 21>2r o d, ~ d 01J 2-~?" Appendix F - Miscellaneous level of Service Worksheets . Existing LOS worksheets showing HCM 2000 queue lengths at Dublin Boulevard / Golden Gate Drive. . Existing + Off Site Commercial + BART Transit Village LOS worksheets showing HCM 2000 queue lengths for the addition of a northbound right-tum lane at Golden Gate Drive / St. Patrick Way. .. Existing + Off Site Commerci~1 + BART Transit Village LOS worksheets showing HCM 2000 queue lengths for the removal of two stop signs at Golden Gate Drive / St. Patrick Way. . Existing + Off Site Commercial + BART Transit Village LOS worksheets showing HCM 2000 queue lengths for the removal of two stop. signs and the addition of a northbound right-tum lane at Golden Gate Drive / St. Patrick Way. I I i ~ ~31J2~], ~~5:_+_ ~ _S~~ _ ~~~'_~ _~AP- T + Proj: A-~_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~:~ _ = = = _ __ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Methoq (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 95 Critical vol./Cap. (X): 0.450 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 24.7 Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive Dublin Boulevard Approach: North Bound SouthBound East Bound West Bou~d Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane s : 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 30 2 37 6 7 12 46 474 128 58 373 17 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 30 2 37 6 7 12 46 474 128 58 373 17 Added Vol: 39 3 68 15 3 14 25 25 142 69 14 . 17 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 69 5 105 21 10 26 71 499 270 127 387 34 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 117 8 178 36 17 45 79 554 300 144 440 39 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 117 8 178 36 17 45 79 554 300 144 440 39 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 117 8 178 36 17 45 79 554 300 144 440 39 ____________1_______________11_______________11_______--------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.86 0.86 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 0.72 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.76 0.24 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 1805 471 1224 1805 3275 1637 1805 4711 414 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.00 0.11 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.17 0.18 0.08 0.09 0.09 Cr i t Move s : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.19 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.40 0.40 Volume/Cap: 0.35 0.02 0.45 0.45 0.35 0.35 0.23 0.42 0.45 0.45 0.23 0.23 Uniform Del: 33.8 27.2 30.5 44.3 39.5 39.5 32.9 20.1 20.5 34.9 19.0 19.0 IncremntDel: 0.6 0.0 0.8 4.0 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 34.4 27.2 31.3 48.2 40.7 40.7 33.2 20.3 20.6 35.9 19.0 19.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 34.4 27.2 31.3 48.2 40.7 40.7 33.2 20.3 20.6 35.9 19.0 19.0 LOS by Move: C C C D D D C C. C D B B ('HCM2kAV9Q: 80 5 120 41 51 51 52 161 178 105 84 84 . ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA o JL. a \J.,.e>>- rJbf QI.\t.\\-t. re- po r te.~ l~ -te..e ct.,s ~ ~ (>U lA VI e. ;"1\ fe...e.-t: b4.S~ 0" ;looo HeM ~bLo~ e ~ · S"E.. 0 f' W\)~-<. ~E-'T : To ~ ~IUA~ ~ f.,.,.. ~ €M~ r\'~ -t-vvvI ~"fW""d- ~ ~~".J ~ ~ ~4 ~ 2~2.. e~'tSt. 1- off s', te... COMff'. -\- BAit\, r ProJ'.. ?t'\. Page 1-1 ~----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive ****************************************~*************************************** Cycle (sec): 95 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : 0.710 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 31.3 Optimal Cycle: 60 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive Dublin Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min, Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 94 15 136 68 11 61 119 978 88 61 696 38 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Initial Bse: 94 15 136 68 11 61 119 978 88 61 696 38 Added Vol: 123 2 209 7 1 7 16 16 107 39 7 10 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 217 17 345 75 12 68 135 994 195 100 703 48 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHFVolume: 255 20 406 109 17 99 144 1057 207 105 740 51 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 255 20 406 109 17 99 144 1057 207 105 740 51 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 255 20 406 109 17 99 144 1057 207 105 740 51 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: . Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.85 1.00 2.51 0.49 1.00 2.81 0.19 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 1805 249 1410 1805 4228 829 1805 4807 328 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.D1 0.25 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.15 0.15 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.29 0.35 0.35 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.35 0.08 0.29 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.48 0.03 0.71 0.71 0.48 0.48 0.54 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.54 0.54 Uniform Del: 27.6 20.0 26.5 42.3 37.3 37.3 37.5 26.6 26.6 42.5 28.6 28.6 IncremntDel: 0.7 0.0 4.1 14.3 1.5 1.5 2.2 1.4 1~4 14.7 0~4 0.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 LOO 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 28.3 20.0 30.6 56.7 38.8 38.8 39.6 27.9 27.9 57.2 29.0 29.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.3 20.0 30.6 56.7 38.8 38.8 39.6 27.9 27.9 57.2 29.0 29.0 LOS by Move: C C C E D D D C C E C C HCM2kAvgQ: 161 9 286 116 92 92 115 320 320 113 189 189 ~******************************************************************************** 9.- Qv.# Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ~// G(v...e,^-Il.. re{1H ~ ~ ~ ~\~~~ ~~ \A\'\.e. \~ fu..t ~~u9. 0"- ,lc;>() 0 \\eM M~ck 'v>~ 'j . ~~o~e. t>f- W1)~~-l-\-e.E-'(: \'. ~lo\~ ~e..v....e... ~fCl' ~ ~+-I"u",,"-41. '('"irl--1--~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~. ;;).;2 5 6fJ 2 ~}.- MITIG8 - Existing AM Wed May 9, 2007 10:33:31 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 95 Cd tical Vol. /Cap. (X) : 0,248 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 17.0 Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive Dublin Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 11 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ____________1_______.________11_______________11______---------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 30 2 37 6 7 12 46 474 128 58 373 17 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 30 2 . 37 6 7 12 46 474 128 58 373 17 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 30 .2 37 6 7 12 46 474 128 58 373 17 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 51 3 63 10 12 21 51 527 142 66 424 19 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 51 3 63 10 12 21 51 527 142 66 424 19 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 51 3 63 10 12 21 51 527 142 66 424 19 ------------l--------~------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 0.63 1.00 2.36 0.64 1.00 2.87 0.13 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 1805 634 1086 1805 3953 1068 1805 4926 225 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 o~oo 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.09 0.09 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.54 0.54 0.15 0.510.51 Volume/Cap: 0.25 0.01 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.17 0.17 Uniform Del: 38.4 33.1 34.4 45.5 41.3 41.3 33.7 11.8 11.8 35.9 12.3 12.3 IncremntDel: 0.6 0.0 0.5 2.7 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 39.1 33.1 34.9 48.2 42.3 42.3 34.0 11.8 11.8 36.4 12.3 12.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh:' 39.133.1 34.9 48.242.3 42.3 34.011.8 11.8 36.412.3 12.3 LOS by Move: . D C c' D D D C B (f2 D B B fiHCM2kAvgQ: 39 2 43 14 28 28 34 95' 95 47 62 62 ( **********************~************.************************ ****************** q~R.M. .e. Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ~'f>11 ql.ole.lA..e. re..yo(U t) 1RL J.:.)tp..",~ y~ \.o..V'ot. '\V'\ f.u....,\; loo...&e..D I) (\ ~o (:> 0 +\-c..M M..e.T\-...cl.. \o~'1 . ~ ato 6Q 2.~-z, MITIG8 - Existing PM Wed May 9, 2007 10:34:05 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 95 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.470 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.9 Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive Dublin Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: . 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------II--~--------:----I Volume Module: Base Vol: 94 15 136 68 11 61 119 978 88 61 696 38 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 94 15 136 68 11 61 119 978 88 61 696 38 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 94 15 136 68 11 61 119 978 88 61 696 38 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 111 18 160 99 16 88 127 1040 94 64 733 40 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 111 18 160 99 16 88 127 1040 94 64 733 40 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 111 18 160 99 16 88 127 1040 94 64 733 40 - _. - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'- II - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.85 1.00 2.75 0.25 1.00 2.84 0.16 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 1805 253 1405 1805 4702 423 1805 4879 266 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.01 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.04 0.15 0.15 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.47 0.47 0.08 0.37 0.37 Volume/Cap: 0.38 0.04 0.47 0.47 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.40 0.40 Uniform Del: 35.6 29.9 32.8 39.2 35.3 35.3 34.8 17.1 17.1 42.1 22.0 22.0 IncremntDel: 0.8 0.0 1.0 1.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.1 2.5 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 36.4 29.9 33.9 40.9 36.2 36.2 )5.7 17.2 17.2 44.6 22.1 22.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/veh: 36.4 29.9 33.9 40.9 36.2 36.2 35.7 17.2 17.2 44.6 22.1 22.1 LOS by Move: D C C D D D D B Cili). D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 80 10 114 82 76 76 91 208 208 61 155 155 **************************"******************************** ****************** Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ;;;;. ~ 1 DfJ 2.-~ y E)(I$T + eff SliE Cl>MM. -\- e,A-~T _ AM Page 1-1 ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume ,Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Golden Gate Drive/St. Patrick Way ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 80 Cri tical Vol. /Cap. (Xl: 0.639 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 15.7 Opt imal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive St. Patrick Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------II--------------~ I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 CD 0 0 Q) 0 0 I! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 3 16 9 31 45 10 .14 12 2 11 18 25 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 16 9 31 45 10 14 12 2 11 18 25 Added Vol: 0 147 52 0 215 11 7 5 0 196 7 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 3 163 61 31 260 21 21 17 2 207 25 25 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 PHF Volume: 4 243 91 36 299 24 28 23 3 276 33 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 4 243 91 36 299 24 28 23 3 276 33 33 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 4 243 91 36 299 24 28 23 3 276 33 33 - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - II - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - II - - -,- - - - - - - - - - - - II - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.02 0.98 1.00 0.10 0.83 0.07 1.00 0.89 0.11 1.00 0.50 0.50 Final Sat.: 10 538 611 56 467 38 425 408 48 494 279 279 ------------1---------------11----------:...----11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.45 0.45 0.15 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.56 0.12 0.12 Crit Moves: **** Delay/Veh: 13.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 13.9 LOS by Move: B ApproachDel: Delay Adj: ApprAdjDel: LOS by Appr: AllWayAvgQ: 18.3 **** **** **** 13.9 1. 00 13.9 B 12.6 1. 00 12.6 B 18.3 9.3 1. 00 9.3 A 19.1 1. 00 19.1 C 19.1 1. 00 19.1 C 19.1 1. 00 19.1 C 38.4 19.1 1. 00 19.1 C 10.8 1. 00 10.8 B 10.1 1. 00 10.1 B 10.5 1.00 10.5 B 1.2 10.1 1. 00 10.1 B 17.6 1. 00 17.6 C 9.7 1.00 9.7 A 16.1 1. 00 16.1 C 3.1 9.7 1. 00 9.7 A 4.0 38.4 38.4 1.4 1.2 27.0 3.1 ***************************************************************************"***** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. Traffix 7.8.0715 (cl 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA plo\,~I'O~f. o~ wbllc.S\tee-1: 1"<<:> ,,,,~k~~ ~ ~ '1- ~'~ 0. l'I.o,..tt-.~~~ r\~," ~t'\ ~. ~d.'6 6Q 2$ ~ E)(\~>" -r OPT= SI1'E. COMM. + ~A-(fT"_,PM page 1-1 -------------------------- -----------------------------------. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ************************************************~******************************* Intersection #2 Golden Gate Drive/St. Patrick Way ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 80 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : 0.806 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4. 0 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 19.1 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive St. Patrick Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement; L T R L T R L T R' L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 €) 0 0 Q) 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ____________I_______________II______________~ 11-------------.--11---------------1 volume' Module: . Base Vol: 1 47 23 57 25 18 18 20 3 9 63 50 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 47 23 57 25 18 18 20 3 9 63 50 Added Vol: 0 323 51 0 136 12 11 8 0 68 8 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 1 370 74 57 161 30 29 28 3 77 71 50 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.78 0.78 0.86 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.75 0.75 0.75 PHF Volume: 1 474 86 64 181 34 41 39 4 103 95 67 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1 474 86 64 181 34 41 39 4 103 95 67 PCE ,Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj:1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 1 474 86 64 181 34 41 39 4 103 95 67 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 I~--------------I 1---------"-----1 Saturation Flow Module: Adjust~ent: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.01 0.99 1.00 0.23 0.65 0.12 1.00 0.90 0.10 1.00 0.59 0.41 Final Sat.: 2 588 660 125 354 66 424 410 44 459 299 211 ------------1---------------11--------------- \ 1---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.81 0.81 0.13 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.32 0.32 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 28.3 28.3 8.8 15.6 15.6 15.6 11.2 10.6 10.6 12.1 12.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adjbel/Veh: 28.3 28.3 8.8 15.6 15.6 15.6 11.2 10.6 10.6 12.1 12.1 LOS by Move: D D A C C C B B B B B ApproachDel: 25.3 15.6 10.9 12.1 Delay Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 ApprAdjDel: 25.3 15.6 10.9 12.1 LOS by Appr: D C B B AllWayAvgQ: 80.1 80.1 3.6 23.3 23.3 23.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 6.3 9.8 9.8 ******************************************************************************** **** 12.1 1.00 12.1 B Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet.' Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA fV.~to~f bf' wc.-,\U\l'e..E-\~ Ie. \~~\-"~lI\.~ tlM.. ~ r.f o..J.A'~... V\~"'~ C"i3\.-.tt-twr-n lI"l"t. -;,. '2 a, CIQ ~z).- ~"I"T. 4- OF~S,rE. CCMlV'I. 4- e.M~.T_ A:M Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ****************************************************,**************************** Intersection #2 Golden Gate Drive/St. patrick Way ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 15.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 44.3] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive St. Patrick Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: :r" T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 3 16 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 16 Added Vol: 0 147 PasserByVol: 0 0 Initial Fut: 3 163 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.67 0.67 PHF Volume: 4 243 Reduct Vol: 0 0 Final Vol.: .4 243 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 323 xxxx xxxxx 334 xxxx xxxxx 713 725 311 693 692 289 Potent Cap.: 1248 xxxx xxxxx 1236 xxxx xxxxx 349 354 734 361 370 755 Move Cap.: 1248 xxxx xxxxx 1236 xxxx xxxxx 302 342 734 333 358. 755 Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.03 xxxx xxxx 0.09 0.07 0.00 0.83 0.09 0.04 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx xxxxx 181 xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.9 xxxx xxxxx 8.0 xxxx xxxxx 18.1 xxxx xxxxx 51.7 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * A * * C. * * F * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 362 xxxx xxxx 485 SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.2 xxxxx .xxxx 0.5 Shrd ConDel: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 15.7 xxxxx xxxx 13.6 Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * C * * B ApproachDel : xxxxxx xxxxxx 17 .0 44 .3 ApproachLOS : * * C E ************~******************************************************************* 9 1. 00 9 52 o 61 1. 00 0.67 91 o 91 31 1. 00 31 o o 31 1. 00 0.87 36 o 36 45 1. 00 45 215 o 260 1. 00 0.87 299 o 299 10 1. 00 10 11 o 21 1. 00 0.87 24 o 24 14 1. 00 14 7 o 21 1. 00 0.75 28 o 28 12 1. 00 12 5 o 17 1. 00 0.75 23 o 23 2 1. 00 2 o o 2 1. 00 0.75 3 o 3 11 1. 00 11 196 o 207 1. 00 0.75 276 o 276 18 1. 00 18 7 o 25 1. 00 0.75 33 o 33 25 1. 00 25 o o 25 1. 00 0.75 33 o 33 Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA Pl.Uti/6SE. o~ \'lu..\<; c;*eE'i: T", \;"'\/4T ~ ~ <1- f-e.w....6I1\. ~ +W.. <; ~f ~~~ 011\ G,ol&.~ GCl.\(>... \)l\v.e.. . J ~3D'5 2~v E)(\Si. + of,F ~11E: COVv\l'v\'. +--e:,Att,_ flM Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) *********.*********************************************************************** Intersection #2 Golden Gate Drive/St. Patrick Way ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 27.9] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive St. Patrick W~y Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 O' 1 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: '1 47 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 47 Added Vol: 0 323 PasserByVol: 0 0 Initial Fut: 1 370 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.78 0.78 PHF Volume: 1 474 Reduct Vol: 0 0 Final Vol.: 1 474 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4,0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 215 xxxx xxxxx 560 xxxx xxxxx 926 889 198 868 863 517 Potent Cap.: 1367 xxxx xxxxx 1021 xxxx xxxxx 251 285 848 275 295 562 Move Cap.: 1367 xxxx xxxxx 1021 xxxx xxxxx 155 266 848 231 275 562 Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.06 xxxx xxxx 0.26 0.15 0.00 0.45 0.34 0.12 ------------1-"--------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Level Of Service Module: . 2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 25.2 xxxx xxxxx 53.1 xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.6 xxxx xxxxx 8.8 xxxx xxxxx 36.5 xxxx xxxxx 32.6 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * A * * E * * D * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 285 xxxx xxxx 349 SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.5 xxxxx xxxx 2.3 Shrd ConDe I :xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.9 xxxxx xxxx 23.9 Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * C * * C ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 27.9 27.3 ApproachLOS: * * D D ******************************************************************************** 23 1..00 23 51 o 74 1. 00 0.86 86 o 86 57 1. 00 57 o o 57 1. 00 0.89 64 o 64 25 1. 00 25 136 o 161 1. 00 0.89 181 o 181 18 1. 00 18 12 o 30 1. 00 0.89 34 o 34 18 1. 00 18 11 o 29 1. 00 0.71 41 o '41 20 1. 00 20 8 o 28 1. 00 0.71 39 o 39 3 1. 00 3 o o 3 1. 00 0.71 4 o 4 9 1. 00 9 68 o 77 1. 00 0.75 103 o 103 63 1. 00 63 8 o 71 1. 00 0.75 95 o 95 50 1. 00 50 o o 50 1. 00 0.75 67 o 67 Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA r\ol.\C.90 S'~~ F w.~'" S'tt EET T~ ,;"'..Jfl k:l....\c ~ ~ ~ re........."\~ ~ Stt-p <i\'~"/\.s ()\\ &..t~~ G.....k ~.\I-e.. ~.3 I DQ '"2. ~2--- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------.---------- E...,c\Si + Of-~ SITE CoMM. + ~Aa.\_ AM Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 12.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 36.6] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Golden Gate Drive/St. Patrick Way ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive St. Patrick Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 (!> 0 .0 (!) 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------1---------------11----.-----------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 3 16 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 16 Added Vol: 0 147 PasserByVol: 0 0 Initial Fut: 3 163 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.67 0.67 PHF Volume: 4 243 Reduct Vol: 0 0 Final Vol.: 4 243 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xx~x 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 323 xxxx xxxxx 334 xxxx xxxxx713 725 311 647 646 243 Potent Cap.: 1248 xxxx xxxxx 1236 xxxx xxxxx 349 354 734 387 393 800 Move Cap.: 1248 xxxx xxxxx 1236 xxxx xxxxx 305 342 734 357 380 800 Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.03 xxxx xxxx 0.09 0.07 0.00 0.77 0.09 0.04 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx xxxxx 158 xxxx xxxxx control Del: 7.9 xxxx xxxxx 8.0 xxxx xxxxx 18.0 xxxx xxxxx 42.3 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * A * * C * * E * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 362 xxxx xxxx 515 SharedQueue : 0 . 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0 . 2 xxxxx xxxx 0 . 4 Shrd ConDel: 7.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 15.7 xxxxx xxxx 13.0 Shared LOS: A * * * * * * * C * * B ApproachDe1: xxxxxx xxxxxx 16.9 36.6 ApproachLOS: * * C E ******************************************************************************** 9 1. 00 9 52 o 61 1. 00 0.67 91 o 91 31 1. 00 31 o o 31 1. 00 0.87 36 o 36 45 1. 00 45 215 o 260 1. 00 0.87 299 o 299 10 1.00 10 11 o 21 1. 00 0.87 24 o 24 14 1. 00 14 7 o 21 1. 00 0.75 28 o 28 12 1. 00 12 5 o 17 1. 00 0.75 23 o 23 2 1. 00 2 o o 2 1. 00 0.75 3 o 3 11 1. 00 11 196 o 207 1. 00 0.75 276 o .276 18 1. 00 18 7 o 25 1. 00 0.75 33 o 33 25 1. 00 25 o o 25 1. 00 0.75 33 o 33 Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. "" Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA ~ IJ...If...Q ~ ~ G ~ WJ"lLloC-n\"E:.e-'\ ~ \0 \'lAJe.a+\~~ ~ ~\- 4 re..M.A"\~ 1--->" 9t-f S't')"'-l -..A ~~... lUIV~\"'"d r\~-~V\ ~. ;). '3 2.1J "Z '$ t.- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E')(\~T + 0 F~ SITE (OMM. 4- !5A-(Z T_ PM Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 27.4] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Golden Gate Drive/St. Patrick Way ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Golden Gate Drive St. Patrick Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: LT' R L T R L T R L T R ____________I_____________~-I 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Uncontroll~d Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include -Include . Include Include Lanes: 0 Q) 0 0 Q) 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 --~---------\---------------l [---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 1 47 Growth Adj: 1.00.1.00 Initial Bse: 1 47 Added Vol: 0 323 PasserByVol: 0 0 Initial. Fut: 1 370 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.78 0.78 PHF Volume: 1 474 Reduct Vol: 0 0 Final Vol.: 1 474 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 ____________I___~___________I 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 215 xxxx xxxxx 560 xxxx xxxxx 926 889 198 825 820 474 Potent Cap.: 1367 xxxx xxxxx 1021 xxxx xxxxx 251 285 848 294 312 594 Move Cap.: 1367 xxxx xxxxx 1021 xxxx xxxxx, 159 266 848 247 292 594 Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.06 xxxx xxxx 0.26 0.15 0.00 0.42 0.32 0.11 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx XXXXX 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 24.3 xxxx xxxxx 48.3 xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.6 xxxx xxxxx 8.8 xxxx xxxxx 35.3 xxxx xxxxx 29.6 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * A * * E * * D * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 285 xxxx xxxx 369 SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.5 xxxxx xxxx 2.1 Shrd ConDel: 7.6 xxxx XXXXX xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.9 xxxxx xxxx 22.1 Shared LOS: A * * * * * * * C * * C ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 27.4 25.0 ApproachLOS: * * D D ******************************************************************************** 23 1. 00 23 51 o 74 1. 00 0.86 86 o 86 57 1. 00 57 .0 o 57 1. 00 0.89 64 o 64 25 1. 00 25 136 o 161 1. 00 0.89 181 o 181 18 1. 00 18 12 o 30 1. 00 0.89 34 o 34 18 1. 00 18 11 o 29 1. 00 0.71 41 o 41 20 1. 00 20 8 o 28 1. 00 0.71 39 o 39 3 1. 00 3 o o 3 1. 00 0.71 4 o 4 9 1. 00 9 68 o 77 1. 00 0.75 103 o 103 63 1. 00 63 8 o 71 1. 00 0.75 95 o 95 50 1. 00 50 o o 50 1. 00 0.75 67 o 67 Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. Traffix 7.8.0715 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TJKM, PLEASANTON, CA f>1,A..1!.P6SE of: \fJfl~I-<.Stte.e'r: "To i...I.I~""~ ~ ~ 6-f y~V'~ ~ ~e 'V{~ ~ ~~ " \UsY~W~'" r\~-~ ~.