Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.3 Attach4 Draft EIR (3)gradual decline in emission rates from vehicles as older, more polluting, cars are retired and replaced with new, cleaner, cars. This trend of reduced emissions from vehicles has resulted in continual reductions in measured concentrations of this pollutant in the Bay Area for the past 20 years, and this trend is expected to continue. The project's cumulative impact on carbon 'monoxide concentrations is considered to be less than significant. As part of the proposed Transit Center, the applicant has proposed a 22-Kv on- site electrical generator that would supplement normal deliveries of electricity by PG&E and would assure continued operations during rolling brownouts and blackouts. This generator would be operation on a regular basis and would not be a "peaking" type generator that only operated during brownout or blackout period. Based on information supplied by the project applicant (6/11/01), estimated total emissions from the facility in full operation is anticipated to be 3 pounds of NOx and related pollutants per hour. Emissions from the thermal exhaust stack would be ejected vertically at a velocity of approximately 400 mph, which would cause the emission plume to dissipate into the atmosphere at an elevation several hUndred feet above the ground. Prevailing winds in the project area are from the northwest, dispersing emissions in a southeast direction and to be diluted into relatively minor concentrations. Emissions from the generation facility are expected to mix with existing air emissions from the adjacent 1-580 freeway, so that any increases from the proposed generation facility would be insignificant. Prior to installation and operation of the proposed generator, the operator will be required to obtain permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to ensure that emissions comply with applicable air quality standards. Impact 4.2-2 (local air quality impacts): Incremental increases in air pollution could be anticipated with buildout of the proposed project, however, such increases would be below the standard of air quality significance through the year 2025, as established by the BAAQMD. Necessary permits will be required for the proposed on-site electrical generation facility from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (tess-than-significant). Regional impacts Vehicle trips generated by project land uses would result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Estimates of regional air emissions generated by project traffic were made using the URBEMIS-7G computer program. Table 6 indicates the estimated incremental daily emissions associated with project-related traffic for reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen (two precursors of ozone) and PMt0. Commercial and residential uses also contain a number of intermittent area sources of air pollution. The term "area" source relates to the dispersed nature of these sources. Aerosol products, household paints and solvents, gardening equipment, space/water heating and residential wood burning are examples of area sources. These sources are typically very small compared to transportation emissions. BAAQMD CEQA guidelines do not recommend quantification of Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 51 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin these emissions sources, and the significance of project impacts is to be based on transportation emissions alone. Guidelines for the evaluation of project impacts issued by the BAAQMD ~, consider emission increases of ROG, NO× or PM10 to be significant if they exceed 80 pounds per day. Because project emissions listed in Table 7 would exceed this criterion for all three pollutants, the project would have a significant adverse _ impact on regional air quality. BAAQMD guidance for CEQA documents provides that any project found to have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative impact. The proposed project would therefore have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality, Because of the general west-to-east transport of pollutants that occurs in the project area, the effects of project-related emissions would also affect the adjacent - San Joaquin Valley air basin. Transport of pollutants from the Bay Area air basin to the San Joaquin air basin is a contributor to problems in that air basin. Table 7. Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day Reactive Nitrogen PM10 Organic Oxides Gases Project Emissions 305.9 474.0 184.0 BAAQMD Significance 80.0 80.0 80.0 Threshold Source: Donald Ballanti Impact 4.2-3 (regional air quality impacts): Buildout of the proposed project would exceed the maximum BAAQMD air quality standards for regional impacts (significant and unavoidable impact). The proposed project is a mixed-use, thrill, high-density development with pedestrian and transit orientation. The project site is also at the southern terminus of the Iron Horse regional bicycle trail. These characteristics provide for much higher internal and non-auto travel mode percentages compared to typical suburban residential or commercial development. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (together with five other regional agencies) has recently embarked on a program to encourage compact, infill development near public transit. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 52 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin The BAAQMD policies call for large development projects in the Bay Area to include as many of the following strategies as possible to minimize regional air quality impacts: · Connect with and add to regional bikeways and trail systems. · Plan for future bus stops and transit facilities. · Utilize street patterns that provide multiple and parallel routes between destinations. · Provide sidewalks and bikeways along Urban arterials and collector streets. · Where possible, provide pedestrian and bicycle connections between residential areas and nearby transit stations/stops, commercial areas, centers of employment, parks and schools. · At commercial sites coordinate building placement, orientation and design in order to create pedestrian-oriented spaces and pathways. · At commercial sites orient buildings and main entrances towards streets with transit facilities. · Minimize large setbacks for commercial and multi-family land uses, particularly on streets with transit facilities. · At transit stops provide attractive shelters, benches, landscaping and lighting to protect riders from the weather, buffer them from abutting streets, and promote safety. · Provide secure and conveniently located bicycle parking and storage in commercial, public and multi-family residential developments. As noted in the Project Characteristics section above, the proposed Transit Center project includes variants of all of these strategies, since one of the major design criteria for the Center is accessibility to non-automobile forms of transportation. However, The BAAQMD calculates that use of the above strategies could reduce projected regional air quality impacts by 20 percent or more compared to a more typical suburban development. There is, however, currently no practical way to reduce the project emissions by the more than 80 percent increment that would be necessary to bring project impacts below BAAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the project's impacts on regional air quality are considered significant and unavoidable. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 (construction impactsI: The following measures are recommended, baSed on BAAQMD standards, to reduce construction impacts to a level that is less-than-significant. The following construction practices should be required during all phases of construction on the project site: · Water all active construction areas as needed; · Watering or covering of stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind; Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 53 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin Impact Zl.ll-1 (external intersection impacts): Increased levels of peak hour traffic associated with the proposed project would result in significant and unacceptable levels of service at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard (AM and PM) and Hacienda Drive/I-580 westbound off-ramp (AM) intersections (significant). Internal and perimeter intersections _ In addition to impact analysis for 20 external study intersections adjacent to the project area, nine internal and perimeter intersections have also been evaluated for peak hour operation. A schematic diagram showing the proposed internal _ street network, internal study intersectionS, and existing plus future base plus project volumes is contained in the complete traffic analysis for the project (Appendix 8.7). Internal and perimeter intersections included in the analysis _ include the following: a. DeMarcus Boulevard/Digital Drive -- b. Iron Horse Parkway/Digital Drive c. Campus Drive/Digital Drive d. Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard -- e. Arnold Road/Digital Drive f. Commerce One AcceSs/Digital Drive g. Hacienda Drive/Digital Drive -- h. Commerce One Access/Arnold Road i. Arnold Road/Altamirano Road -- Roadway lane geometries have also been assessed. Specifically, the future roadways of Arnold Drive (southerly extension), Digital Drive (between DeMarcus Boulevard and Hacienda Drive), Campus Drive, Altamirano Road -- and the existing roadways of DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway have been analyzed for minimum lane requirements. Based on projected daily and peak hour volUmes at these study intersections and on roadway segments, -- recommended lane configurations are detailed in the full traffic impact prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix 8.7). With recommended circulation improvements, key project study intersections along Arnold Road and Digital Drive have been analyzed for peak hour _ operation. Specifically, the intersections of DeMarcus/Digital Drive, Iron Horse/Digital Drive, Campus/Digital Drive, Arnold/Digital Drive, Commerce One Access/Digital Drive, Commerce One Access/Arnold, and _ Arnold/Altamirano have been analyzed for peak hour operation. As outlined in Table 22, the seven of the nine internal access intersections would operate at LOS B or better, representing very stable conditions. (Please refer to Table 21 for AM -- and PM peak hour operation of the Dublin/Arnold and Hacienda/Digital Drive intersections.) -- As part of the proposed project, DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway would be significantly reduced in size and scale as a result of the proposed project, and the existing circulation adjacent to the BART station entrance would -- also be modified. DeMarcus Boulevard, currently a four-lane divided street, Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 152 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 _ City of Dublin would be reduced to a two-lane divided street. Iron Horse Parkway would be modified from a four-lane divided street to a three lane (1 southbound 2 -- northbound) street with no median. DeMarcus Boulevard adjacent to the BART station would be modified from a one-way street to a two-way street, although the existing separated bus lanes would remain. These improvements are anticipated to accommodate projected Transit Center development traffic while creating a more pedestrian-friendly environment. Table 22. Projected AM and PM Peak Hour Operation of Internal Access Intersections Intersection LOS-V/C LOS-V/C AM PM -- DeMarcus/Digital Dr. A 0.19 A 0.23 Iron Horse/Digital Dr. A 0.28 A 0.31 Campus/Digital Dr. B 0.61 A 0.42 -- Arnold/Dublin~ ..... Arnold/Digital Dr. A 0.45 A 0.55 _ Commerce One/Digital Dr. A 0.38 A 0.52 Hacienda/Digital Dr. - ..... Commerce One/Arnold A 0.32 A 0.56 -- Altamirano/Arnold A 0.29 A 0.20 Notes: (1) The Arnold/Dublin and Hacienda/Digital Dr. intersections' LOS have been analyzed as part of ~ the external intersection and street network. Please refer to Table 21. Source: Omni-Means Impact 4.11-2 (internal intersection impacts): Approval and construction of the proposed Transit Center would increase traffic on local streets, however, none of -- the internal intersections would experience significant levels of traffic especially during peak morning and evening hours (less-than-significant). -- Transit operation impacts BART -- The effects of the proposed project have been quantified in terms of potential increases in daily ridership. Discussions with BART staff indicate that BART has not performed detailed analyses regarding the impacts of adjacent office and/or -- residential development adjacent to existing BART stations. However, other independent studies have been conducted which attempt to quantify the impact of adjacent development in and around existing BART stations~ Specifically, a study conducted by the University of California Berkeley has evaluated the effects on increased ridership of development immediately adjacent to existing BART stations. Proportional BART ridership data for both residential and office uses could be quantified as follows: Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 153 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin Residential: 1,500 households (units) x 1 Adult/household x 32.1% x 2 trips per day* = 963 riders (481 out during the AM peak and 481 in during the PM -- peak). This assumes a minimum of 25Oworking days/year~ Office: 2,000,000 s.f. office / 200 s.f per employee x 17.1% x 2 trips per day* = 3,420 riders (1,710 in during the AM peak and 1,710 out during the PM peak). _ As shown above, during the peak commute hours the proposed project has the potential to generate 481 riders from proposed residential development and 1,710 riders from proposed office development (one-way trips). The office BART riders _ would be in the reverse commute direction (eastbound) coming to the proposed project. Based on current BART ridership data, 1,388 riders enter/exit the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station during the AM peak hour (1,063 entering _ [westbound] and 325 exiting [eastbound]). Currently, BART provides four 8-car trains to/from the station during the peak hours. Each train has a capacity of 560 seats which would equate to 2,240 seats (560 seats/train x 4 trains) during the peak -- hour. However, BART assumes a ridership load capacity of 1.35 per train during peak -- commute periods. This load factor allows for riders in the seats as well as standing in the aisles. For this reason, total peak hour capacity would increase to 3,024 seats for the four peak hour BART trains. In the eastbound or reverse -- commute direction, the addition of 1,710 riders to the existing 325 riders would total 2,035 BART riders. This would be well within the carrying capacity of the current system in the Dublin/Pleasanton area which BART serves. In addition, -- in the westbound AM peak commute direction, the proposed project would be adding 481 new riders for a total of 1,544 riders during the AM peak hour. Again, this is well within the carrying capacity of the current Dublin/Pleasanton BART -- system. During the PM peak hour BART, existing BART ridership is lower with 1,266 passengers. Therefore, project impacts would be less during the PM peak hour. It is noted that the calculations used for the proposed project to quantify BART _. impacts are likely to be conservative. These calculations assume that all potential riders from the proposed project would use BART during the AM or PM peak hour. BART studies indicate that there are AM and PM peak periods where _ BART riders access the system. These hours are between 6:30-9:30 AM and 4:30- 7:30 PM. It is likely that riders from the proposed project would not all access the BART system during just the AM and PM peak hours and would be dispersed _ throughout the AM and PM peak periods. In addition, the BART percentage splits for residential and office BART use may be high. This is based on overall Bay Area transit usage, which rarely exceeds over 10 percent of all travel mode -- splits. LAVTA -- The effects of the proposed project have been quantified in terms of potential increases in monthly bus ridership. Based on discussions with LAVTA staff, Wheels routes lA and lB, 3, and 4 have ample capacity and could absorb -- increases as high as 20-30 percent in monthly ridership. Wheels routes 10 and 12 Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 154 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 -- City of Dublin are nearing capacity. Projected monthly ridership data assumes 2-3 percent mode split for bus ridership. Based on proposed residential and office uses, monthly ridership data could be quantified as follows: Residential: 1,500 households (units) / 1 Adult/household x 2-3% transit ridership x 2 trips per day x 20 working days per month = 1,200-1,800 monthly riders Office: 2,000,000 s.£ office / 2500 s.f per employee x 2-3% x 2 trips per day x 20 working days per month = 8,000-12,000 monthly riders Ridership calculations for proposed residential and office uses indicate that there could be an increase of 9,200-13,800 monthly riders on LAVTA bus routes in the -- project study area. Based on an overall monthly ridership of 118,167 passengers on Wheels routes lA and lB, 3,4,10, and 12, this would equate to an 8-11 percent increase in monthly ridership. This increase would not be considered significant ~- for the subject Wheels routes with the exception o£ routes 10 and 12. LAVTA is in the process of updating their Transit Plan and will be re-timing routes 10 and 12 to allow for more monthly capacity. With projected increases from the -- proposed project, there may be standing (seats and aisles full) on routes 10 and 12 but this would not be considered significant with respect to overall monthly capacity. Impact 4.11-3 (public transit impacts): Use of BART and LAVTA facilities is anticipated to increase, primarily due to the close proximity of residential and employment opportunities adjacent to the eastern Dublin-Pleasanton BART statiOn, however, the majority of BART trips are expected to be in reverse directions. Certain LAVTA bus trips may be full during peak hours, however, this is considered less-than-significant in relation to overall monthly capacity (less-than-significant impact). Vehicle parking The proposed Transit Center project includes removing most of the existing _ BART surface parking lots and replacing these spaces with a five-level parking .- garage that would contain approximately 1,700 spaces. The garage would be located on approximately 4.1 acres of land adjacent to 1-580, including the site of .- the existing BART Traction Station. The Traction Station would be incorporated into the ground floor of the parking garage. Based on information supplied by the applicant, the garage would be designed to accommodate an additional floor -- in the future, that could accommodate approximately 250 additional parking spaces. The proposed garage and adjacent surface parking would include a mix of standard and handicap-accessible spaces as well as parking for BART staff. As described in the Project Description, proposed Transit Center development would rely primarily on structured parking incorporated into individual - development projects. The precise amount of parking provided for each individual project would be determined during the Stage 2 Rezoning and Site Development Review process. The project applicant is proposing that Transit -- Center residential development provide parking at a lower rate than the 2 spaces Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 155 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 ~ City of Dublin per residential unit required by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, based on the proximity to the BART station. Similarly, the ancillary ground-floor retail uses are proposed to have less parking than typically required under the Dublin Zoning Ordinance because these retail uses will primarily be used by pedestrian residents, office workers and BART patrons. Approximately 200 additional on-street parking spaces would be provided on Iron Horse Parkway, DeMarcus Boulevard, around the Village Green, and on Digital Drive and Campus Drive to serve as a reservoir of short-term parking for residential and office visitors and retail customers from outside the area. Curbside parking on these streets is also proposed to increase their appeal to pedestrians by providing an additional buffer between sidewalk areas and vehicle travel lanes. Even thoUgh the proposed Transit Center project will increase the permanent supply of BART parking by 500 spaces and have the potential to expand the BART parking garage by additional 250 spaces in the future, the existing BART surface parking lots generally fill up by 8:00 am, indicating that a potential demand for even more BART parking. While it is anticipated that the recently approVed West Dublin BART station will reduce the demand for parking somewhat at the East Dublin BART station, it is likely that BART parking spaces will continue to be at a premium. Unless properly managed, on-street parking spaces and nearby residential and office parking structures could be used by BART patrons, precluding parking for residents and visitors. Impact 4.11-4 (parking): Due to anticipated parking demand, BART patrons could utilize on-street and nearby private residential, retail and office parking, resulting in insufficient parking for these uses (significant impact and mitigation is required). Cumulative impacts Cumulative traffic conditions with and without the proposed Dublin Transit Center have been evaluated for the horizon Year 2025. This analysis is consistent with Caltrans guidelines for future roadway improvements and is also consistent with Alameda County Congestion Management Agency guidelines for MTS street network evaluation. -- Methodology for year 2025 base year traffic projections Cumulative year 2025 traffic volumes have been based on the Tri-Valley Transportation Model. Specifically, the Tri-Valley transportation model's land -~ use assumptions were updated using the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 98 land use data. Since ABAG projections only extend to the horizon year 2020, a trendline was developed starting at the Year 2000 and -- extended every five years to 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 to determine land use trends and growth patterns. A five year average growth rate was determined by. land use type and applied to Year 2020 land use data to generate Year 2025 land Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 156 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 ~ City of Dublin . - use growth projections. These projections include major land development _ projects in the Tri-Valley region. In addition to generating Year 2025 land use projections, the Tri-Valley _ Transportation Model's street network was updated using the recent Alamo Creek Transportation Model developed by Dowling Associates. The updated street network reflects the extensions of Dublin Boulevard to Hacienda Drive as -- well as the Scarlett Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. Base Year 2025 model projections fOr the AM and PM peak hour were also adjusted to reflect existing and base model traffic volumes. This involved manually -~ adjusting specific turning movement volumes to be consistent with other future base traffic studies conducted in the area. Lastly, specific future year 2025 base model volumes for the Dublin/Dougherty and Santa Rita/I-580 Eastbound off- ~ ramp/Pimlico intersections were reviewed by Dublin Transportation staff prior to inclusion in this study. -- Year 2025 street network improvements Circulation improvements for the Year 2025 would be beyond those improvements currently planned with existing plus future base plus project -- impacts. These future improvements are addressed in the Dublin General Plan Circulation Element. Specific roadway and intersection circulation improvements which would affect the project study area include: Roadways: · Tassajara Road: Tassajara Road would be widened from four to eight -- travel lanes from 1-580 to Central Parkway, and from four to six lanes , north of Central Parkway. · 1-580:1-580 would have one eastbound and one westbound auxiliary lane added between the Tassajara Road/Santa Rita interchange and the Fallon .~ Road interchange. · Hacienda Drive: Hacienda Drive would be widened from three to four _ through lanes north of Central Parkway, pending traffic growth. ~'~ Intersections: _ · Dougherty/Scarlett: The northbound Dougherty Road approach would be widened to include one (1) left-turn lane, three (3) throUgh lanes and one (1) free right-turn lane. The southbound Dougherty Road approach would -- be widened and restriped to include two (2) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) free right-turn lane. ~ · Dublin/Scarlett: The southbound Scarlett Drive approach would be constructed to include two (2) left-turn lanes, one (1) through lane, and one (1) right-turn lane. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach would -- be widened and restriped to include one (1) left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The westbound Dublin Boulevard approach would be widened and restriped to include one (1) -- left-turn lane, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) shared through/right- Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 157 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 ~ City of Dublin turn lane. It is noted that these improvements are a part of what is being recommended for existing plus future base plus project conditions with the recommended construction of the Scarlett Drive extension. ~_ · Tassajara/Gleason: The northbound Tassajara Road approach would be widened and restriped to include two (2) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The southbound Tassajara Road -- approach would be widened and restriped to include one (1) left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The eastbound Gleason Drive approach would be restriped to include two (2) left-turn ~ lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The westbound Gleason Drive approach would be constructed to include two (2) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. · Tassajara/Centrat Parkway: The northbound Tassajara Road approach would be widened and restriped to include two (2) left-turn lanes, three (3) ~ through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The southbound Tassajara · Road approach would be widened and restriped to include two (2) left,turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The eastbound -- Central Parkway approach would be restriped to include one (1) left-turn lane, one (1) through lane, and one (1) right-turn lane. The westbound Central Parkway approach would be constructed to include two (2) left- - tum lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. · Tassajara/Dublin: The southbound Tassajara Road approach would be -- widened to include two (2) left-turn lanes, four (4) through lanes, and one (2) right-turn lanes. The northbound Tassajara Road approach would be widened to include three (3) left-turn lanes, four (4) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach Would be widened to include two (2) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and ~ two (2) right-turn lanes. The westbound Dublin Boulevard approach would be widened to include three (3) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. Base year 2025 without project Year 2025 project study intersection LOS without the proposed Transit Center -- have been calculated in Table 23. As calculated, one project study intersection would experience significant congestion during the AM and/or PM peak hour. This would be the Dougherty/Dublin study intersection. In addition to road -- improvements identified for existing plus future base plus project conditions, the following improvements are suggested for this intersection to accommodate non-project cumulative traffic. It is anticipated these improvements will be ~ funded through the City's CIP, by traffic impact fees or from other sources: · Dougherty/Dublin: The southbound Dougherty Boulevard approach -- should be modified to include two (2) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) shared thrOugh/right-turn lane. The northbound Dougherty Road approach should be widened and re-striped to include - three (3) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes and two (2) right-turn Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 158 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 ~ City of Dublin lanes. The westbound Dublin Boulevard approach should be modified to include three (3) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) shared through/right-turn lane. With these improvements, intersection LOS would improve from LOS F (1.01) to D (0.89) during the AM peak hour and from LOS E (0.94) to D (0.90) during the PM peak hour. In addition, the section of southbound Dougherty Road between Dublin Boulevard and 1- 580 would need to be modified to accommodate four (4) travel lanes. These lanes should be configured so that the right most lane would lead exclusively to the 1-580 westbound on-ramp, with the second right most lane leading to the overpass or the 1-580 westbound on-ramp. These improvements would require widening and re-striping the 1-580 westbound diagonal on-ramp. Base year 2025 with project AM and PM peak hour Dublin Transit Center project trips were manually added into base Year 2025 transportation model volumes to ensure the most conservative analysis. With proposed project traffic, study intersection LOS have been calculated and are shown in Table 23. Calculated intersection LOS reflects planned and recommended circulation improvements (mitigation measures) used for Year 2025 base volumes without the proposed project. As shown in Table 23, with proposed project traffic the Dougherty/Dublin intersection would experience congested conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. Specifically, Dougherty/Dublin intersection would be operating at LOS E (0~97) during the AM peak hour and LOS E (1.06) during the PM peak hour. Exhibits 18a and 18b show cumulative traffic conditions with the proposed project, under AM and PM peak hour conditions, respectively. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 159 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin Table 23. Cumulative Year 2025 With and Without Project Level of Service (LOS), AM and PM Peak Hoursz' 2 Intersection Year 2025, No Project Year 2025, With Project LOS-VIC LOS-VIC LOS-VIC LOS-V/C AM PM AM PM 1, Dougherty/Scarlett 2 A 0.62 B 0.71 A 0.64 D 0.81 2. Dougherty/Dublin D 0.89 D 0.90 E 0.97 F 1.06 3. Dougherty/I-580 WB C 0.77 D 0.81 C 0.77 D 0.83 off ramp 4. Hopyard/I-580 EB off B 0.69 D 0.88 B 0.70 D 0.90 ramp 5. Dublin/Scarlett A 0.59 A 0.51 B 0.81 A 0.64 6. Dublin/DeMarcus A 0.46 A 0.49 B 0.74 B 0.59 7. Dublin/Iron Horse A 0.44 B 0.47 B 0.66 D 0.82 8. Dublin/Arnold B 0.69 C 0.74 C 0.74 D 0.83 9. Arnold/Central2 A 0.18 A 0.10 A 0.19 A 0.32 10. Hacienda/Gleason A 0.22 A 0.15 A 0.26 A 0.18 11. HaCienda/Central A 0.50 A 0.51 A 0.54 A 0.52 12. Hacienda/Dublin B 0.65 C 0.73 C 0.74 D 0.88 13. Hacienda/Digital Dr._ A 0.40 B 0.62 C 0.74 D 0.88 14. Hacienda/I-580WB B 0.75 A 0.38 D 0.89 A 0.57 off ramp 15. Hacienda/I-580 EB D 0.89 B 0.66 D 0.90 C 0.73 off ramp 16. Tassajara/Gleason A 0.57 A 0.60 B 0.61 B 0.61 17. Tassajara/Central2 A 0.60 B 0.61 B 0.61 B 0.62 18. Tassajara/Dublin C 0.74 D 0.82 C 0.77 D 0.82 19. Tassajara/I-580 WB A 0.58 C 0.78 A 0.58 C 0.80 off ramp 20. Tassajara/I-580 EB D 0.83 D 0.87 D 0.83 D 0.88 off/Pimlico Notes: (1) Signalized intersection LOS is based on Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) methodology. (2) Year 2025 no project base year volumes based on the Tri-Valley Transportation Model updated with ABAG Projections 98'. Five year growth factor applied to Year 2020 land use projections to obtain Year 2025 volumes. Assumes Alamo Creek Transportation Model street network (Dowling Associates,/nc. Dub/in Transit 2025 Land Use P'98, November 15, 2000). Source: Omni-Means Impact 4.11-5 (cumulative traffic impacts): In 2025, the combination of project- related traffic and cumulative traffic at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would experience congested conditions during the AM and PM Peak hours. Specifically, this intersection would be operating at LOS E (0.97) during the Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 160 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin AM peak hour and LOS E (1.06) during the PM peak hour with proposed project traffic (significant and unavoidable impact, full mitigation not feasible). All other project study intersections would be operating at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours with Year 2025 plus project traffic volumes. Roadway segment impacts Based on discussions with City Transportation staff, a daily traffic analysis was conducted for selected roadway segments in the project study area. The following twelve segments were analyzed for daily traffic volumes: a. Hacienda Drive between 1-580 and Digital Drive b. Hacienda Drive between Digital Drive and Dublin Boulevard c. Hacienda Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway d. Hacienda Drive between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive e. Arnold Road between Altamirano Road and Digital Drive f. ArnOld Road between Digital Drive and Dublin Boulevard g. Arnold Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway h. Arnold Road between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive i. Central Parkway between Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive j. Central Parkway between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road k. Dougherty Road between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard 1. Scarlett Drive Extension between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road Consistent with previous analyses conducted in the study area, average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were generated by assuming that PM peak hour volumes represent 10 percent of ADT volumes for future base, proposed project, and Year 2025 base volumes. These projected ADT volumes were then added to existing daily volume traffic and haVe been shown in Table 24. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 161 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin Table 24. Projected Average Daily Traffic Volumes on Selected Roadways Segments Road Segment Exist. E+FB E+FB+ 2025 (No 2025 Proj. Proj.) (w/Proj.) Hacienda Dr. 1-580 / Digital 15,400 44,150 61,690 45,125 62,625 Dr. Digital 15,400 34,630 37,430 34,875 37,687 Dr./Dublin Blvd. Dublin 12,600 27,300 28,200 27,300 28,200 Blvd./Central Pkwy. Central 10,650 15,960 16,860~ 15,960 16,860 Pkwy./Gleason Arnold Road Altamirano- 0 3,870 8,425 3,870 8,425 The Boulevard The Boulevard- 0 4,370 7,975 4,370 7,975 Dublin Blvd. Dublin Blvd.- 3,730 7,050 7,990 7,050 7,990 Central Pkwy. Central Pkwy- 3,730 5,640 6,240 5,640 6,240 Gleason Central Pkwy. Arnold- 0 6,540 6,875 6,540 6,875 Hacienda Hacienda- 1,150 6,450 6,900 6,450 6,900 Tassajara Dougherty Rd. 1-580-Dublin 40,680 52,660 57,730 75,020 80,060 Blvd. Scarlett Drive Extension Dublin- 0 0 14,000 11,600 14,000 Dougherty Source: Omni-Means Engineers & Planners, Consultants Report: Transportation Impacts For the Proposed Dublin Transit Center, City of Dublin, Administrative Draft Report, December 15, 2000. 1. The southbound volume estimate on Hacienda Ddve between Gleason Ddve and Central Parkway would total 970 vehicles during the PM peak hour with existing plus future base plus project traffic. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 162 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin ~1~oo 3109~ ~ ~ 15 57~ ~ 327 ~ ~ 933 ~ ~ I g ~l -~-~-~.~1 I ~3~ ¥ 742 I ~l~ + ~l /~ 1+3Ol 7~ 3o~ ~1~ + ~ I '- I"~¥~ 'x I -~"~1~ ~ ~'1 ~4 ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ 7~ ~l ~ 117+ 1711 ~8~8 ~ ~ Exhibit 18a CUMULATIVE (YEAR 2025) AND PROJECT CITY OF DUBLIN ~ AM PEAK HOUR DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER i TRAFFIC VOLUMES ,,~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ...... ~...~. ~ ,,+ ~ 1035~/~oo '" CENTRAL P~. ~ , ~ 579 DUBLIN BL~. Omni-Moans Exhibit 18b CUMULATIVE (YEAR 2025) AND PROJECT CITY OF DUBLIN j~ PM PEAK HOUR DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER i TRAFFIC VOLUMES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ~ The City has established maximum ADT thresholds for two-lane, four-lane, and six-lane roadways and arterials based on the Transportation Research Boards 1994 Highway Capacity Manual and the City of Dublin General Plan. This includes 15,600 ADT for a two-lane roadway, 30,000 ADT for a four-lane arterial, and 50,000 ADT for a six-lane arterial to maintain LOS D. Based on these maximum thresholds, all selected roadway segments would be operating at acceptable levels of service with the exception of one roadway segment. Hacienda Drive between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive would exceed the 15,600 ADT volume with existing plus future base plus project traffic. Also, anticipated traffic volumes on the Scarlett Drive extension between Dublin Boulevard av.d Dougherty Road would approach the City's threshold of 15,600 ADT with existing plus future base plus project traffic. Impact 4.11-6 (roadway segment impacts): All roadway segments would operate at satisfactory and less-than-significant levels within the Transit Center area, however, the segment of Hacienda Drive between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive would exceed the 15,600 ADT volume with existing plus future base plus project traffic. The future extension of Scarlett Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road would approach maximum average daily traffic volumes and would also carry a significant number of peak hour turning movements (significant impaCt). 1-580 mainline freeway operation Year 2025 Without Project Mainline AM and PM peak hour directional volumes on 1-580 have been evaluated for the Year 2025 without the project. As shown in Table 25, four mainline freeway segments were analyzed along 1-580 in the project study area. These include the following segments: · 1-680 to Dougherty Road · Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road · Tassajara Road to Fallon Road As shown in Table 25, all four segments in the westbound commute direction are projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour with Year 2025 no project volumes. During the PM peak hour, the 1-680 to Dougherty and Tassajara to Fallon segments would be operating at LOS F in the eastbound commute direction. The Dougherty to Hacienda and Hacienda to Tassajara segments would be operating at LOS D and E, respectively. Year 2025 With Project With proposed Dublin Transit Center traffic added to Year 2025 no project mainline freeway volumes, projected LOS for eastbound and westbound segments would remain unchanged. However, with a projected LOS of F in the AM westbound commute direction, proposed project trips would be adding to an already deficient condition. During the PM peak hour, project trips would also be Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 165 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin adding to a deficient condition between 1-680 and Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. These specific segments would not meet the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency's minimum freeway LOS standards. This would be true without proposed project trips. For this reason, the additiOn of project trips to mainline 1-580 peak hour directional volumes would be considered a significant, unavoidable impact. As partial mitigation, individual development projects within the Transit Center project area will be required to pay regional Transportation Impact Fees, a portion of which will be used to fund freeway improvements. Impact 4.11-7 (mainline freeway operation impacts): In 2025, without the Transit Center project, 1-580 mainline conditions will exceed the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency's threshold of significance. The addition of Transit Center traffic would worsen this condition (significant and unavoidable impact, mitigation is not feasible since freeway improvement is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin). Table 25. Year 2025 1-580 Mainline Freeway Operation, AM and PM Peak Hour LOS Year 2025 (No Project) Year 2025 (W/Project Location Capacity AM PM AM PM Vol. LOS Vol. LOS Vol. LOS Vol. LOS 1-580, 1-680 to Dougherty Eastbound 9,200 6,537 D 10,270 F 7,439 E 10,541 F Westbound 9,200 10,315 F 8,072 E 10,536 F 8,840 E 1-580, Dougherty to Hacienda Eastbound 13,800 6,783 C 9,714 D 7,339 C 92378 D Westbound 9,200 10,279 F8,126 E 10,414 F 8,600 E 1-580, Hacienda to Tassajara Eastbound 11,500 5,563 c 9,736 E 5,681 C 10,150 E Westbound 9,200 10,690 F 7,174 D 11,177 F 7,318 .D 1-580, Tassajara to Fallon Eastbound 9,200 5~557 c 9,946 F 5,705 C 10,395 F Westbound 9,200 10,019 F 6,494 D 10,549 F 6,656 D Notes: (1) Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 1 997, Chapter 3, Table 3-1, LOS Criteria For Basic Freeway Sections, December 1997. Assumes maximum service flow rate of 2,300 passenger cars per hour per lane. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 166 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 -- City of Dublin (2) Year 2025 base year no project volumes based on the Updated Tri-Valley Transportation Model using ABAG Projections 98'. Proposed Dublin Transit Center peak hour trips were then manually added into these base volumes to generate Year 2025 with project volumes. Source: Omni-Means MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 (external intersection impacts): The following improvements shall be undertaken to reduce impacts to external intersections to a less than significant level: (a) The Scarlett Drive extension between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard shall be constructed to relieve the Dougherty/Dublin intersection of south and east bound AM peak hour traffic and west and north bound PM peak traffic. (b) Dougherty/DubIin intersection. The eastbound approach of Dublin Boulevard at this intersection shall be widened to include an additional through lane. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach would have one (1) left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and two (2) right-turn lanes. The westbound left-turn lanes from Dublin Boulevard onto Dougherty Road shall be lengthened to accommodate additional traffic demand safely and efficiently. As part of these intersection improvements, Dougherty Road should be four (4) lanes in the southbound direction between Dublin Boulevard and the 1-580 westbound on-ramp. These lanes should be configured so that the right most lane would lead exclusively to the 1-580 westbound on-ramp, with the second right most lane leading to the overpass or the 1-580 westbound on-ramp. These improvements would require widening and re-striping the 1-580 westbound diagonal on-ramp. With these improvements, intersection LOS would improve from E (0.97) to LOS C (0.74) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, LOS would improve from E (0.99) to LOS D (0.86). (c) Hacienda~I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp: The northbound Hacienda Drive approach (overcrossing) shall be widened to three (3) northbound travel lanes. This improvement would require some alignment modifications to the 1-580 westbound loop on-ramp. In addition, the 1-580 westbound off-ramp approach would need to be widened to include three (3) left- turn lanes and two (2) right-turn lanes. With these improvements, intersection LOS would improve from F (1.17) to LOS D (0.89) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, LOS would improve from B (0.61) to LOS A (0.57). (d) Dougherty/Scarlett intersection: The southbound Dougherty Road approach shall be widened and re-striped to include two (2) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) free right-turn lane. The two left- turn lanes on this approach would be required based on projected AM peak hour traffic volumes. The northbound approach should be widened and re-striped to include one (1) left-turn lane, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) free right-turn lane. The westbound Scarlett Drive Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 167 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin approach should have two (2) right-turn lanes and one (1) shared through/left-turn lane. The two right-turn lanes on this approach would be reqUired based on projected PM peak hour traffic volumes. With these improvements, intersection LOS is projected to be B (0.63) during the AM peak hour and LOS C (0.78) during the PM peak hour. (e) Dublin/Scarlett intersection: The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach shall be modified to include one (1) left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The westbound Dublin Boulevard approach should be widened to include one (1) left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and two (2) right-turn lanes. The two right-turn lanes on this approach would be required based on projected PM peak hour traffic volumes. The northbound Scarlett Drive approach would include one (1) left-turn lane and one (1) shared through/right-turn lane. The southbound Scarlett Drive approach would include two (2) left-turn lanes, one (1) through lane and one (1) right-turn lane. The two left-turn lanes on this approach would be required based on projected AM peak hour traffic volumes. With these improvements, intersection LOS is projected to be B (0.63) during the AM peak hour and LOS A (0.59) during the PM peak hour. Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 (parking): Post all on-street parking within the Transit center for short-term (2 or 4 hour) use. Through the Site Development Review process for individual development projects, ensure that on-site parking lots and structures discourage unauthorized BART patron use through security, validation or other means. Mitigation Measure 4.11-3 (cumulative traffic impacts): The southbound Dougherty Road approach shall be modified to include two (2) left-turn lanes, ~- three (3) through lanes and one (1) shared throughJright-turn lane. The northbound Dougherty Road approach shall be modified to include three (3) left- turn lanes, three (3) through lanes and two (2) right-turn lanes. The westbound -- Dublin Boulevard approach shall be modified to include three (3) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes and one (1) shared through/right turn lane. With these _. improvements, the intersection would operate at LOS E (0.7) during the AM peak hour and LOS F (1.06) during the PM peak hour. Additional improvements are not feasible given the physical constraints at the Dougherty/Dublin _ intersection. It is recommended that the City monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis and continue to obtain updated volume forecasts for future horizon years (i.e. Year 2025). In addition, current and future _ phases of the 1-580 Smart Corridor Project would likely relieve some congestion at the Dougherty/Dublin intersection through ITS measures and discourage traffic from diverting off the freeway due to congestion or incidents. Mitigation Measure 4.11-4 (roadway segment impacts): The road segment of Hacienda Drive between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive should be widened -- from three to four travel lanes and the Scarlett Drive extension between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road shall be constructed with four travel lanes prior to buildout of the proposed Transit Center. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 168 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 -- City of Dublin IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION -- With the exceptions of cumulative traffic and mainline freeway operations, all traffic impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level. For cumulative _ traffic impacts, additional roadway widening or improvements beyond that identified in this EIR is infeasible due to lack of sufficient roadway widening. Improvements to the 1-80 freeway would not be feasible since any such .~ improvement is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin. 4.12 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This section of the EIR discusses provision of community services, including fire and police services, schools, solid waste disposal and utility systems, including -- water, sewer, natural gas, electricity and telecommunication systems. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Fire Protection Fire service in Dublin is provided by the Alameda County Fire Department, -- which is under contract ~ to the City of Dublin7 to provide fire suppression, inspection to ensure development conformity with the Uniform Fire Code and emergency medical response. ~ The Department maintains one fire station near the project area. Station 15 is located behind the Santa Rita jail complex-approximately one mile, north of the proposed Transit Center. This station will be replaced by a new-fire station (Station 17) t© be constructed nearer the project on Madigan at Broder. Station 17 _ is anticipated to be completed and operational in 2002 and will house both an engine and truck company with a staff of 6. Both stations will be staffed by Fire Department personnel on a 24-hour basis and would have a response time of 5 .~. minutes or less to the project area. The stations will be assisted in responses to calls for service by Station 16, located on Donohue Drive. Once Station 17 becomes operational, Station 15 will transition to a volunteer station. The Alameda County Fire Department maintains existing mutual aid agreements with surrounding fire departments in San Ramon, Pleasanton, , Livermore, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Camp Parks and the San Ramon Valley Fire ProteCtion District. -- The City of Dublin currently levies a fire protection fee for new development to offset the cost of providing new stations, equipment and personnel. Fees are paid to the City at the time of building permit issuance based on square footage of the -- respective building(s). Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 169 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 -- City of Dublin Police Protection The Dublin Police Services Department provides crime prevention investigation services and traffic control services to the City of Dublin and the project site. The Department is actually a part of the Alameda County Sheriff's Department. However, personnel are assigned to the City of Dublin on a long-term basis. Services are provided out of a main headquarters facility at the Dublin Civic Center. The Department maintains a full-time staffing ratio of 1.6 officer-to- population, with a current complement of 40 sworn officers and 7.5 non-sworn civilian staff. The Department also maintains a variety of vehicles and support equipment. Responses times for calls for service average 3.5 minutes for emergency calls and 12 minutes for non-emergency calls. Security at the BART station is the responsibility of BART security personnel. Schools The Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) provides K through 12 educational services children in the City of Dublin. Schools nearest the Transit Center project area include: · Elementary (grades K-5): Dougherty Elementary, located on Hibernia Drive within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, was recently opened by the District. It has a capacity of 700 and a current enrollment of 289 students. · Middle School (grades 9-8): Wells Middle School provides service to the site. The school is located at 6800 Perm Drive and has a capacity of 1000 students. The current enrollment is 988. The District has planned a new middle school in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, east of Tassajara Road and north of Gleason Drive, which is anticipated to open in 2004. · High School (9-12): Dublin High School serves the entire City of Dublin. Located at8151 Village Parkway, Dublin High has a capacity of 1,695 students and a current enrollment of 1040 students. Solid waste disposal The Livermore-Dublin Waste Disposal service has a franchise with the City of Dublin to proVide solid waste and recycling collection to both residences and businesses within Dublin. Solid waste is transported to the Altamont landfill Site in eastern Alameda County on Greenville Road. Approvals were recently granted to expand the area and capacity of the landfill, and the landfill has an estimated remaining capacity of 25+years. The City of Dublin is also mandated by state law (AB 939) to reduce the quantity of solid waste entering the landfill. The City is complying with this mandate, however, targeted reductions have been less than expected. Livermore-Dublin Solid Waste Disposal is currently undertaking activities to increase recycling efforts, including the recent-adoption of an ordinance to require submittal of plans for recycling of construction debris. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 170 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin Water demand and supply Water service to the project area and to the City of Dublin is provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), headquartered in Dublin. DSRSD owns and operates a water distribution system, including transmission lines, pump stations and water turnouts. DSRSD obtains water from Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, which is discussed, below. DSRSD was formed in 1953, formerly known as the Valley Community Services District. Treated water is supplied to DSRSD by Zone 7 from Zones 7's Cross Valley .- Aqueduct through four turnouts. Turnout No. 1 is located at the intersection of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail. Turnout No. 2 is located at the · intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Stagecoach Road. The third -- turnout is in the vicinity of Arnold Drive and Altamirano Road, adjacent to the project area The fourth turnout is within Camp Parks in Eastern Dublin. -- Water received from the turnouts is distributed throughout Dublin via a grid of underground water transmission lines, delivering water to residences, businesses and other customers within the District's service area. Exhibit 19 shows the location of existing water facilities near the proposed project area. These existing facilities consist of a 12-in line within the right-of-way of Dublin Boulevard which is fed from a 16-in. line within Arnold Road that transitions into a 24-in line moving south into Pleasanton. A water distribution system has also been constructed to serve the BART station from the Dublin Boulevard facility and includes a combination of 8-and 12-inch lines down DeMarcus Road and Iron Horse Parkway to the BART station. The BART system extends to the west and connects to an 8-in. line serving existing businesses along Scarlett Court. _ The District has recently begun providing recycled (reclaimed) water for irrigation and other non-potable uses. DSRSD Ordinance No. 280 requires recycled water use for approved customer categories for all new land uses, ,~ including commercial, multi-family residential and institutional irrigation uses within the DSRSD potable' water service area. New development within the Eastern Dublin area has been required to install dual water systems and a recycled _ water distribution system has been installed within the major streets, including Dublin Boulevard. A Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Ord. No. 980) has also been adopted by DSRSD to minimize use of irrigation water. DSRSD's Urban Water Management Plan (May 2000) includes a projection of future potable and reclaimed water use through the year 2025. This projection is ..... shown on Table 26, folloWing. DUblin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 171 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin Central Pkwy. [CAMP PAR Si Interstate 580 / Dublin-Pleas!retort BART Stat SOURCE: Dublin San Ramon Serv/ces District (DSRSD) Exhibit 19 EXISTING WATER -- FACILITIES Existing Water Line ~i~ Site Boundary CITY OF DUBLIN DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER i o ~o ~o ~o ~o f~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Table 26. Projected DSRSD Water Demand (Potable & Reclaimed) (Acre-Feet/Year) Demand Source 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 POTABLE WATER Dublin 6,620 8,670 10,500 11.700 12,300 12,500 Dougherty 480 2,000 3,520 4,560 4,560 4,560 Valley Subtotal 7,100 10,700 14,000 16,300 16,800 17,100 RECYCLED WATER Dublin 120 960 1,920 2,650 2,700 2,700 Dougherty 80 490 890 1,210 1,210 1,210 Valley Subtotal 200 1,450 2,810 3.860 3,910 3,910 TOTAL 7,300 12,200 16,800 20,200 20,700 21,000 Source: DSRSD To supply sufficient water to meet the anticipated growth in demand, DSRSD -- plans to use a combination of potable and recycled water supplies as well as conservation of water resources. The wholesale supplier of water to DSRSD is Zone 7. Zone 7 relies on a combination of supplies to meet retail water needs. Existing water sources include: · State Water Project: Zone 7 has a 75-year contract with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to receive water from the State Water Project (SWP). SWP water is delivered to Zone 7 from the Feather River Watershed via the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This water is theft transported to Zone 7 through the California Aqueduct to the South Bay Aqueduct and Lake Del Valle. Water enters the Zone 7 system from the South Bay Aqueduct and from Lake Del Valle at two Zone 7 treatment plants: the PattersOn Pass Treatment Plant and the Del Valle Water Treatment Plant. Zone 7 reached its full entitlement of 46,000 acre feet per year in 1997. Actual water deliveries vary, depending on hydrologic conditions, requests by other contractors, delivery capacity and environmental/regulatory requirements. Zone 7 anticipates a long-term annual average delivery of 75% of its entitlement. Byron-Bethany Irrigation District: Since 1994, Zone 7 has been receiving Water via a short-term water transfer from the Byron-Bethany Irrigation DiStrict. Zone 7 has made arrangements with this District to make this a Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 173 Draft Environmental ImPact Report July 2001 City of Dublin long-term (15) year arrangement. The agreement calls for delivery of 2,000 acre- feet per year. Berrenda Mesa Water District: Additional water from the SWP is available to ZOne 7 through the Berrenda Mesa Water District in Southern California. A water transfer was approved by the Zone 7 Board of Directors in January, 1998 to provide 7,000 acre feet of water per year, principally for use in the Dougherty Valley in Contra Costa County. Local Surface Water: Lake Del Valle is a local storage reservoir operated as -- part of the SWP. However, Zone 7 has rights to 7,000 acre-feet of water per year from the lake's watershed. -- Local Groundwater: Zone 7 and DSRSD uses the local underground aquifer basin as a storage facility for imported water. The aquifer is also naturally recharged by rainwater falling in the watershed area. It is -- estimated that a safe yield of 13,200 acre-feet of water per year can be withdrawn from the basin. DSRSD operates pumping facilities near the intersection of Stoneridge Drive and lohnson Drive in Pleasanton, -- although the yield from these pumps is low. Future water sources anticipated by DSRSD and Zone 7 include additional -- pumping from the underground basin and an additional water entitlement agreement with the Berrenda Mesa Water District. '-- Both DSRSD and Zone 7 have adopted contingency plans for water cutbacks in the event of a drought. Zone 7 and DSRSD currently charge-connection and other fees on new development within the District's service area. Fees are used for construction of _ planned water system capital improvements including storage, pumping, transmission and on-going system water maintenance and improvements. .- Wastewater treatment and disposal Collection and treatment of wastewater in the Cities of Dublin and the south one-half of San Ramon are the responsibility of DSRSD. Disposal of treated _ wastewater is under the jUrisdiction of the Livermore-Amador Valley Wastewater Authority. -- DSRSD has constructed a comprehensive grid of sewer trunks, mains and laterals throughout their service area. Near the project area, a major wastewater main that collects all wastewater from Eastern Dublin is located within the -- Arnold Road right of way, south of Dublin Boulevard. This deep mainline then follows the 1-580 frontage before going south under the freeway near the BART station. The approximate location and size of existing sewer facilities is shown on -- Exhibit 20. Wastewater collected from the City of Dublin travels by gravity to the DSRSD -- wastewater treatment plant, which is located near the southeast corner of 1-580 Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 174 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 -- City of Dublin and 1-680 in the City of Pleasanton. The plant has a rated dry-weather capacity of 11.5 mgd (million gallons per day) and is currently being enlarged to '- accommodate a daily flow of 17.0 mgd. The expansion is anticipated to accommodate future growth in DSRSD's service area until approximately 2010 ,- (Webb, pers. Comm., 11/22/00). DSRSD currently charges wastewater connection and other fees on all new development within the District's service area. Fees are used for construction of planned wastewater treatment and collection system capital improvements as well as on-going wastewater system maintenance. Disposal of treated effluent from DSRSD's wastewater treatment plant in Pleasanton is the responsibility of the Livermore Amador Valley Water - Management Agency (LAVWMA). LAVWMA currently exports secondary treated wastewater to the East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) interceptor pipeline for ultimate discharge to San Francisco Bay via a deepwater outfall. The -- original LAVWMA export pipeline system was constructed in 1979 with a built- in capacity limit of 21 million gallons per day (mgd). This original system has been in continuous operation since that time. By the mid-1990s, continuing development in the Livermore-Amador Valley resulted in the need for additional export capacity. In 1997/1998, average dry- - weather flow in the LAVWMA export system was 14.3 mgd, and peak wet- weather flow was at or near the system capacity of 21 mgd. In August 1997, -- LAVWMA's member agencies agreed to proceed with a project to expand LAVWMA wet weather disposal capacity from 21 to 41.2 mgd, through rehabilitation of the existing LAVWMA export pipeline, installation of a new '-- pipeline, and construction of a new 41.2-mgd pumping station. Recently, member agencies have agreed to funding and design of project improvements is underway, with the expanded disposal pipeline is anticipated to be completed by '- approximately Fall of 2003. Power and Gas Electrical power and natural gas are provided within to the City of Dublin and the region by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. A major electrical transmission _ line is located just to the west of the Transit Center project area, within the former railroad right-of-way that connects electrical substations located in San Ramon in the north and Pleasanton to the south, as well as the BART substation _ located within the project. An additional 60 Kv transmission line branches off of this line and crosses 1-580 near the BART station, then follows the south side of the freeway east, before crossing the freeway again and following the Arnold ~- Road right-of-way approximately I mile north to another substation located within Camp Parks. This substation currently provides stepped-down power to Camp Parks and most of Eastern Dublin via smaller underground distribution -- lines located in Dublin Boulevard and other major streets. Another, above- ground distribution line follows the north side of the 1-580 freeway frontage. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 175 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin ~ ~ ......... ,,. ~ .....-' e) ..7' x.-' ....' . r ........... .= %. t~! ,[ Interstate 5801 Dublin-P]easanton BART Station _ ~ .... s.,.~....~........... SOURCE: Dub/in San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) Exhibit 20 EXISTING SEWER FACILITIES · -.---- Existing Sewer Line N ~ Site Boundary CITY OF DUBLIN ~ DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER i o ~o .~o ~o ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ~ PG&E has recently proposed new Tri-Valley transmission facilities to increase -- local electrical energy supply in the Pleasanton, North Livermore, Dublin/San Ramon areas. An Environmental Impact Report (Tri-Valley 2002 Increase -- Project, SCH# 2000042087) has been released by the California Public Utilities Commission. The proposed project includes a number of new and upgraded electrical substations and construction of 230 kilovolt overhead transmission _ lines within the Tri-Valley area to increase the long-term supply of electricity within the area. -- On a state-wide level, electric service providers are experiencing problems receiving deliveries of wholesale electric power from outside sources. Beginning in early 2001, portions of California are experiencing rolling brownouts and -- blackouts during periods of peak power use. Power brownouts and blackouts are anticipated to continue at least throUgh the summer of 2001 as additional power sources are sought. Increased efforts at energy conservation are being requested -- by power providers as well as local and state governments. PG&E also has several high-pressure underground natural gas transmission -- lines within or adjacent to the Transit Center project area. One high pressure line runs along the 1-580 frontage, with a major feeder line running north along Arnold Road. Another natural gas line is located within the former railroad .-- right-of-way along the western boundary of the project area. An above-ground PG&E pressure-reducing station is located in the middle of Site A, within the interim BART parking lot. This pressure-reducing station is no long connected -- to the gas system and PG&E is considering removing it. Smaller distribution lines have been placed under Dublin Boulevard and DeMarcus Boulevard when these streets were recently constructed. Telecommunications Pacific Bell provides local telephone service within Dublin and surrounding communities. Fiber-optic lines have been installed by Pacific Bell, Sprint and other firms in the area, and the joint trench in the Dublin Boulevard right-of- way was recently constructed to accommodate underground phone, fiber-optic and cable services. STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project would be considered to result in a significant impact if there is a demonstrable need for additional fire, police or emergency service personnel to serve the project or if new or enlarged facilities are required, including schools, water, wastewater collection, treatment or disposal facilities, or solid waste, telecommunications or energy facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following environmental impacts are anticipated should the proposed Transit Center project be approved. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 177 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin Fire protection -- Approval of the proposed Transit Center project would increase the need for 'fire services in the area by adding a significant amount of new office and commercial space and residential dwellings. The number of calls for service related to _ increased medical emergencies is expected to increase based on the anticipated resident, worker and visitor population. However, it is anticipated that this increase in service need can be accommodated with the existing and planned fire _. station facilities in the area. The City of Dublin requires that all new development pay a fire protection fee, which is used to fund fire station capital facilities. Of specific concern to Alameda County Fire Department officials is the anticipation that office buildings will be as tall 10 stories, which would be -- significantly taller than other buildings in Dublin. While fire flow pressures appear to be adequate to supply sufficient water for 10 story buildings in this area, buildings above six stories will require that specific life-safety features be -- included in their design. Individual buildings and building complexes proposed within the Transit Center -- will be reviewed by the Alameda County Fire Department as a normal procedure for City review of Stage 2 Planned Development (PD) rezoning, Site Development Reviews and subdivision maps for compliance with the Uniform -- Fire Code and normal City fire protection requirements. These include but not are not limited to meeting minimum fire flow for the type of construction proposed, providing adequate emergency access to all structures, appropriate -- installation of fire hydrants, providing built-in fire protection systems, and meeting life safety and exiting requirements and other provisions. Impact 4.12-1 (fire protection) Implementation of the proposed project would increase the number of calls for service for fire protection and emergency medical response. Construction of office buildings greater than six stories will require specialized fire equipment and fire protection procedures (significant). Police services According to Police Services Department representatives, the amount of proposed development would represent a significant effort on the part of the _ Police Services Department to handle increased calls for service. The proposed development is expected to increase calls for police services, specifically regarding traffic control, burglary, theft and neighborhood and domestic disturbances from -- the residential portion of the project. However, it is anticipated that increased service levels will be sufficiently funded from General Fund revenues. -- Of special concern is the potential for future project development to utilize private on-site security and the potential coordination problems with the Police Services Department. In previous experiences, on-site security protocol for some -- high-tech users have not been consistent with standard City requirements. Individual buildings and building complexes proposed within the Transit Center .-- will be reviewed by the Dublin Police Services Department as a normal Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 178 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 -- City of Dublin procedure for City review of Stage 2 PD rezonings, Site Development Reviews _ and subdivision maps for compliance with the Dublin Security Ordinance and other standard safety and security requirements. _ The Department anticipates construction and staffing of a satellite police facility in the Eastern Dublin area, howeVer, a specific location has not been chosen. ._ Impact 4.12-2 (police services): Implementation of the proposed Transit Center project is expected to increase calls for police services, specifically regarding traffic control, burglary, theft and neighborhood and domestic disturbances from the _ residential portion of the project. Coordination of security protocol between fUture site users and the Dublin Police Services Department would also be of concern (significant). Schools The Dublin Unified School District is in the process of updating its facility -- planning. Draft student generation rates for high-density development project that, each high density residential dwelling would generate 0.06 elementary students, 0.03 middle school students and 0.01 high school students. For the -- maximum buildout of the residential portion of the Transit Center (1500 dwellings), the following student yield is expected: -- · Elementary Students: 90 · Middle School Students: 45 · High School Students: 15 These generation rates may be conservative, given that a number of the proposed residential units are likely to be studio or one-bedroom units, given the -- 60-70 unit/acre densities proposed. These types of units are anticipated to generate fewer, school-age children than typical multi-family dwelling units. However, according to representatives of the Dublin Unified School District, any additional students would result in an incremental but potentially significant impact to local public schools within the service area of the proposed project, due _ to the amount of new development in the area and the number of school facilities currently planned. _ Should the 300 "flex" units be constructed on Sites E-1 and D-l, an additional 18 elementary students, 9 middle school students and 3 high school students would be generated. Impact 4.12-3 (schools): Implementation of the proposed project would generate an-estimated 90 new elementary school students, 45 middle school students and -- 15 high school students at full project buildout that would need to be accommodated by the Dublin Unified School District. Anticipated students would require the cumulative construction of new school facilities. -- Development of "flex'' residential dwelling units would generate an additional 30 K-12 students (significant). Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 179 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin Solid waste disposal Based on discussions with the Livermore-Dublin Solid Waste Disposal Company, approval and construction of the proposed Transit Center project would increase the amount of short-term construction debris and the long-term ~- quantity of solid waste from the site. Additional equipment and personnel would be needed to collect this increased amount of solid waste; however, increased fees and user charges would offset any increased capital and/or _ personnel costs. Adequate capacity exists within the local landfill to accommodate anticipated increases in the amount of solid waste. -- When submitted, individual site plans and subdivisions would be reviewed by the Livermore-Dublin Solid Waste Disposal Company to ensure that an appropriate number of solid waste and recycling facilities are provided and that , solid waste collection trucks have adequate access to such facilities. Impact 4.6-4 (solid waste disposal): Based on discussions with the solid waste -- hauler for the City of Dublin, approval and construction of the proposed Transit Center would increase the amount of solid waste entering the waste' stream. Additional quantities of solid waste, including construction debris could be -- accommodated at the nearest landfill. Additional capital equipment and personnel would be funded from user fees and charges (tess-than-significant). -- Water demand Construction of the proposed Transit Center would increase demand for potable water for domestic and commercial purposes. The following table is an estimate -- of potable water use requirements for the full buildout of the proposed Transit Center. -- Table 27. Estimated Transit Center Potable Water Demand Land Use Square Footage/ Generation Factor Est. Water Demand D.U. (gallons/day) Office 2,000,000 0.1gallon/s.f./ 200,000 day Retail Commercial 70,000 0.1gallon/s.f./ 7,000 day Residential 1500 d.u. 160 gal./unit/day 240,000 Total 447,000 Source: DSRSD Construction of the proposed project would therefore increase estimated potable water demand by 447,000 gallons per day, excluding irrigation requirements and also excluding existing BART station water use. This would be an incremental increase in water use for Dublin and surrounding communities served by DSRSD and Zone 7. In the event that 300 residential dwellings were to be constructed on the proposed "flex" sites (Sites D-1 and E-l), the amount of water anticipated for use by 300 residential units rather than 480,000 sq. ft. of office Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 180 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin space, there would be a reduction of approximately 17,000 gallons per day of water demand. In addition, there would be an increase in demand for non-potable irrigation water. The estimated amount of water needed for landscaped areas would be r-- approximately 27,500 gallons per day (based on an estimated 15 percent of the site devoted to landscape and a standard requirement of 36 vertical inches of _ irrigation water per year, per DSRSD standards. DSRSD staff has indicated that landscaped areas are required to be irrigated with recycled water and the District is reserving 10 acre-feet of reclaimed water per year for use in the proposed -- Transit Center project. Recycled water distribution pipes are currently in place within Dublin Boulevard and would be extended to interior streets within the Transit Center as they are constructed. Proposed water lines (both potable and -- recycled water) within the Transit Center are shown on exhibits included behind the Appendix section of this document. -- Approximately 2,200 gallons per day of water would be needed for cooling of the on-site electrical generation facility. Water used for cooling purposes would be recycled water. Based on DSRSD's Urban Water Management Plan, the District has planned for consumption of 185,000 gallons of water per day for the proposed Transit Center -- development. This amount of water demand was predicated on a less intense land use than proposed in the Transit Center. However, based on discussions with DSRSD staff (personal communication between Jerry Haag and Bruce Webb -- of DSRSD, 12/12/00), DSRSD and Zone 7 have existing, long-term contracts in place to be able to serve the full amount of development currently proposed in the Transit Center. Impact 4.12-5 (water demand): Implementation of the proposed project would -- generate an estimated increase of 447,000 gallons per day for water services. Extension of the recycled water pipelines through the project area and adherence to standard water conservation measures imposed by the City of Dublin would _ assist in reducing total water demand. Since the DSRSD and Zone 7 have long- term water agreements in place to serve the proposed development at full build out, increased water demand would be less-than-significant (less-than- _ significant). Based on discussions with DSRSD staff (12/12/00), the information presented -- above fulfills the responsibility of the City of Dublin under Government Code Section 65302.2 to use the local urban water management plan as a source document in amending the General Plan. Wastewater generation Wastewater generation would be increased should the proposed Transit Center -- be approved and constructed. The following table is an estimate of increased dry weather sewage generation for the full buildout of the proposed project. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 181 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 -- City of Dublin Table 28. Estimated Transit Center Wastewater Generation Land Use Square Footage/ Generation Factor Est. Wastewater D.U. Generation Office 2,000,000 0.1gallon/s.f. / 200,000 _._ day Retail Commercial 70,000 0.1gallon/s.f./ 7,000 _ day Residential 1500 d.u. 160 gal./unit/day 240,000 Total 447,000 -- Source: DSRSD Construction of the proposed project would therefore increase estimated -- wastewater flows from the project to 447,000 gallons per day, not including existing wastewater flows from the on-site BART station. This would be an incremental increase in wastewater generation based on system-wide capacity for -- collection and treatment. According to DSRSD officials, future development of the Transit Center site has been anticipated in District long-term service plans and anticipated land uses could be accommodated within the existing and planned collection and treatment system. Proposed sewer lines within the Transit Center are shown on exhibits included behind the Appendix section of this document. Impact 4.12-6 (wastewater collection and treatment): Implementation of the _ proposed project would generate an estimated 447,000 gallons per day in wastewater flows. DSRSD has anticipated this approximate level of development on the project site and existing and planned wastewater collection and treatment _ facilities can accommodate the buildout of the project. Impacts to the wastewater collection and treatment system would be less-than-significant (less-than- significant). Wastewater disposal Based on discussions with LAVWMA staff, the completion of a larger -- wastewaster disposal facility from the DSRSD wastewater treatment plant to the East Bay Discharger's Authority outfall pipe to San Francisco Bay would be adequate to accommodate increased wastewater flows from the proposed Transit -- Center development. Impact 4.12-7 (wastewater disposal): Implementation of the proposed project -- would generate an estimated increase of 447,000 gallons per day of treated effluent. Based on discussions with LAVWMA staff, planned improvements to the local wastewater disposal system would be adequate to accommodate full -- buildout of the Transit Center project, and disposal of increased quantities of treated wastewater would be less-than-significant (less-than-significant). Electric power and natural gas The proposed Transit Center represents an incremental yet potentially significant amount of new office and residential development that would require electricity Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 182 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 -- City of Dublin from an already strained local transmission system and a State power system with inadequate short-term power reserves. While it is anticipated that both the State and local electrical Supply and transmission problems will be largely solved within the next several years, there is uncertainty as when additional long-term solutions can be identified and implemented. In response to this uncertainty, the project proponent is proposing that the _ TranSit Center development include an on-site power generating facility that could be up to 33 megawatts in size. This facility would be located in the southeasterly portion of the project area, near Arnold Road and the 1-580 -- frontage and could be housed inside a building that would be architecturally compatible with the proposed office development in that area. By siting it in this location, the existing high-pressure gas transmission line could be tapped to -- power the generating facility's turbines and the existing 60 Kv electrical power line along Arnold Road could be utilized for both backup power and transmitting unneeded power back to the electrical grid. The location adjacent to -- the freeway should also help mask any noise produced by the gas-powered turbines. -- However, even with an On-site power generating £acility, the proposed Transit Center development will still require electrical power provided by PG&E, either directly or as backup. Due to the uncertain resolution of both the local -- transmission and State power production issues, it is unclear at this time when PG&E will be able to provide sufficient power to the project area to permit full buildout of the Transit Center. Impact 4.12-8 (electric power): Implementation of the proposed Transit Center would require additional power supplies. Until State and local power supply and transmission issues are resolved, it is uncertain whether PG&E can provide a reliable supply of electrical power. While the proposed project includes an on- _ site electric power generation facility, this may not generate sufficient power to supply the entire Transit Center without supplemental or back-up power from PG&E (significant). Telecommunications Based on discussions with Pacific Bell planning engineers, there are no specific _ plans for extensions of telecommunication service to the project area unless such requests are made by property owners or project developers. Approval and construction of the proposed Transit Center project would incrementally -- increase the demand for telecommunication facilities in this portion of Dublin, however, existing facilities can be extended to serve anticipated service demand increases. These are likely to occur on a project-by-project basis, as individual -- development projects may be submitted to the City of Dublin for approval. No additional staffing would be required by Pacific Bell. -- Impact 4.12-9 (telecommunication facilities): Implementation of the proposed project would incrementally increase the demand for telecommunication facilities within the project area. However, existing facilities can be extended to -- serve the site with no increases anticipated in staffing so the impact to Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 183 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 -- City of Dublin telecommunication services would be less-than-significant. (less-than- _ significant) MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 (fire protection) Proposed high rise buildings (greater than 6 stories feet in height) shall incorporate augmented fire protection measures, including but not limited to caches of fire fighting equipment on upper floors and other project-specific measures as identified by the Alameda County Fire Marshal. Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 (police services): Individual buildings and/or complexes of buildings proposed for construction within the Transit Center shall -- submit a safety and security plan for the approval of the Police Chief. Safety and Security Plans shall include but not limited to provision for private security measures, methods to achieve coordination with the Dublin Police Services -- Department and other items as deemed important by the Dublin Police Services Department. -- Mitigation Measure 4.12-3 (schools): Prior to issuance of the first building permit within the Transit Center, the project proponent shall enter into a school mitigation program with the Dublin Unified School District to ensure that future -- land uses within the Transit Center pay a fair share towards off-setting costs for new school facilities within the District. Developers of individual projects within the Transit Center shall be required to pay mitigation fees, as specified in the -- mitigation agreement, at time of building permit issuance by the City of Dublin. Mitigation Measure 4.12.4 (electrical power): Prior to issuing building permits for individual projects within the Transit Center, the City of Dublin shall require that "will serve" letter issued by PG&E indicating that there is sufficient electric power and transmission capacity to serve the proposed project, taking into account any on-site generation facility. IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION All impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. 4.13 RECREATION ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES -- This section of the EIR discusses potential impacts to park and recreation facilities. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 184 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Neighborhood and community facilities The City of Dublin provides local and community park and recreational facilities for use and enjoYment by local residents. City recreational facilities closest to the project site include: · Emerald Glen Park: This is a 50-acre community park located on the west side of Tassajara Road between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive. Phase one of Emerald Glen Park was recently dedicated and opened for public use. The initial phase consists of 26 acres of parkland containing a skateboard park, lighted basketball and tennis courts, baseball/soccer fields, a playground and turfed areas. · Alamo Creek Park: This 8-acre park is located approximately two miles from the project site on the west side of Dougherty Road and Willow Creek Drive. Recreational features available at Alamo Creek Park include basketball courts, picnic areas, pay equipment and walkways. The City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Department organizes and implements a wide range of year-around recreational programs for local residents of all ages. Programs and activities are made available at various locations of the city but primarily at City parks and playgrounds. Dublin currently charges a park in-lieu fee for all new residential dwellings in the City, paid at the time of building permit issuance, for the acquisition and development of parks within the City. Maintenance of parkland is funded by the City's General Fund. Regional facilities Construction and maintenance of regional recreational facilities is the responsibility of the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD), headquartered in Oakland. The closest regional recreational facility nearest the proposed project is the Iron Horse Trail. This is a multi-use recreational trail extending from Martinez in the north to Shadow Cliffs Park, located south of the 1-580 freeway in Pleasanton, approximately 20 miles in length. The trail is generally located within an abandoned railroad right-of-way and provides ,access to major job destinations along the trail corridor such as Bishop Ranch and Hacienda Business Park. Major portions of the Iron Horse Trail have been built and are operational and include opportunities for bicycling, hiking and jogging. Within Dublin, the Iron Horse Trail has been constructed north of Dougherty Road, north of the project site. The right-of-way for the Trail forms the westerly boundary of the project site and is currently undeveloped between Dublin Boulevard and the Eastern Dublin BART station. -- Completion of Iron Horse Trail improvements adjacent fo the site is planned to ~ be accomplished by the Alameda County Public Works Department. According to representatives of the Department, necessary environmental permits have been -- obtained from regulatory agencies and funding has been secured to complete trail Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 185 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 -:, City of Dublin improvements. Plans and specifications are presently being prepared and construction of full trail improvements is anticipated for Spring, 2002. Improvements planned to consist of an unfenced 10-foot wide paved trail within _ the existing right-of-way. Maintenance of the Iron Horse Trail is the responsibility of the East Bay Regional Parks District, Alameda County Public Works Department and the City of Dublin, for portions of the trail within the _. City of Dublin. Other East Bay Regional Parks District facilities in the general project area include -- the planned Shadow Cliffs to Iron Horse Trail. This trail is presently under construction in several locations and, when complete, will provide a direct connection to the Dublin Sports Park, Dublin Civic Center and the Iron Horse -- Trail. STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project would be considered to result in a significant impact if there is a demonstrable increase in the use of a local, community or regional -- park, playground or recreational facility. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following environmental impacts are anticipated should the project be approved: Local recreational facilities Approval of the proposed Transit Center project would increase the demand for -- local and community parks and recreational facilities within the City of Dublin. Given the proposed high density configuration of the residential component of the project, minimal open space and recreational facilities are anticipated to be constructed either as part of specific development projects or by the City. The major open space feature is proposed to be the Village Green area, planned to be -- located as a major focal point of the residential area. Although a precise plan has not been prepared for this feature, the Village Green may consist of an open turf area with limited active play or recreation opportunity. Since the density of the proposed residential component of the Transit Center is anticipated to be high with small per-unit square footages, there will likely _ limited occupancy of the dwellings by families with small children. This, in turn, would lower the demand for local recreational facilities in close proximity to the residential area. Larger, community,scale parks and recreational facilities would -- be available for future residents of the Transit Center at Emerald Glen Park. In addition, individual developers of specific residential projects within the -- Transit Center will be required to pay in-lieu park fees to the City of Dublin to fund acquisition and development of additional local and community park facilities. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 186 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 --, City of Dublin Impact 4.13-1 (local and community recreation facilities) Implementation of the proposed project would increase the demand for local and community park and recreation facilities for future residents within the Transit Center project; however, since the type of residential dwellings would not be primarily occupied by families with small children due to space constraints and adequate park and recreation facilities exist to the east, this impact is deemed less-than- significant(less-than-significant). Regional recreational facilities Approval and implementation of the Transit Center project would increase the use of the Iron Horse Trail in the vicinity of the project by residents, employees and visitors to the Transit Center from areas north of the Transit Center. However, since the Iron Horse Trail has been planned a major regional trail facility for a number of years and one of the purposes of the Transit Center development is to promote non-automotive modes of transportation. Based on discussions with representatives from the East Bay Regional Parks District, approval and construction of the Dublin Transit Center should not have a significant impact on the trail. Impact 4.13,2 (regional recreation facilities) Implementation of the proposed project would increase the use of regional recreation facilities, especially the Iron Horse Trail, which forms the westerly boundary of the project site. Use of other regional recreational facilities, which are owned and maintained by the East Bay Regional Parks District is anticipated to increase based on an increase in the number of residents within the project area (less-than-significant). MITIGATION MEASURES None required. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 187 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 -- City of Dublin 5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project The California Environmental Quality Act requires identification and comparative analysis of feasible alternatives to the proposed project which have the potential of achieving project objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts of the project. This EIR identifies the following significant and unavoidable impacts: regional cumulative air quality impacts, cumulative (Year 2025) traffic impacts, impacts to mainline freeway operations near the project site. The following discussion considers alternative development scenarios. Through comparison of these alternatives to the proposed project, the advantages of each can be weighed and considered by the public and by decision-makers. CEQA Guidelines require a range of alternatives "governed by the rule of reason" and require the EIR to set forth a range of alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Alternatives selected for analysis in this document include: · Alternative 1: "No Project" (required by CEQA to be considered). · Alternative 2: Lower Height Transit Center (6 story maximum height for office buildings). · Alternative 3: All Campus Office development. -- · Alternative 4: Lower intensity Transit Center development. Alternatives are described and evaluated below. An off-site alternative was initially considered but rejected since no large, vacant ~ parcels of a similar size were identified near an existing BART station. Although some amount of vacant land was available in downtown Dublin at the southerly terminus of Golden Gate Drive, the amount of vacant land was smaller than that ..,, required for the Transit Center and has since been committed to a separate development project. 5.1 No Project CEQA requires an analysis of a "no project" alternative. Under this alternative, it is assumed that the existing vacant land would continue to remain vacant, the BART parking lots would remain as is, and no development of any kind would occur. This alternative would avoid the range of environmental impacts described in this document, including: Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 188 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 · --, City of Dublin · Aesthetics and Light and Glare: There would be no aesthetic change to the site. The existing BART station, surface parking lot and other BART ~- improvements would remain. Approximately one-half of the site would remain vacant. Existing levels of light and glare would remain. · Air Quality: Existing sources of air emissions would remain. There would be no short-term air quality impacts associated with construction of the ~_ Transit Center. Long-term emissions would be significantly less than under the proposed development program since fewer vehicles would be attracted to the site_. · Biological Resources: There would be no impacts to existing on-site biological resources. Cultural Resources: There would be no impacts to cultural resources since no major construction or disruption of the soil-would occur. · Geology and Soils: No excavation, grading or related impacts would occur, · nor would there be anticipated impacts related with exposing building ~- improvements, employees and visitors to the potential of seismic hazards. · Water and Hydrology: Existing hydrologic and drainage patterns would -~ remain unchanged. · Hazards: The underground petroleum pipeline and fiber optic cable would -- not be subject to potential damage as a result of construction activities resulting from the proposed project. · Land Use: Land use on the project site would remain as presently constituted, including the existing BART station, surface parking lot as _ associated improvements. Approximately one-half of the site would continue to be vacant. The project site would not generate employment or housing within the community nor would tax revenues accrue to the City ~_ of Dublin and other agencies. · Noise: Existing major noise generators near the site would remain, ~ including BART operations and the 1-580 freeway. Residents and office workers would not be present on the project site, and, thus would not be subject to these noise levels. · Population and Housing: There would be no increase in on-site population or employment. Anticipated housing units and employment -- facilities within Dublin and the Tri-Valley area would need to be located elsewhere in the region, and would be unlikely to be as close to a major transit hub. · Transportation, parking and circulation: Existing traffic patterns would continue as currently found. There would be no traffic generation frOm -- the project site Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 189 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 ~ City of Dublin · Utilities and Public Services: Since no new demand would be created for new and/or upgraded utilities and community services, there would be no need to extend police, fire, schools, water, sewer, telecommunication and power facilities to the site. · Recreation: There would be no increased use or demand of local or regional recreational facilities. While project-specific impacts would be less than the proposed project with the No Project Alternative, this alternative would not meet objectives of the proposed project. There would be no mixed-use transit-oriented development, with no opportunities to create a pedestrian-friendly environment that would assist in increasing BART and bus usage. Development that would have been accommodated within the proposed project would likely take place in locations farther from multiple public transit opportunities. Opportunities to increase tax and other revenues to the City of Dublin and Alameda County would be lost. 5.2 Alternative 2: Same Intensity Transit Center, Lower Building Height The second alternative assumes that the site would be approved for a Transit Center project with the same amount of development as the proposed project (up to 2 million square feet of office, up to 70,000 square feet of retail commercial and up to 1,500 multi-family dwelling units), but buildings would be restricted to six stories, rather than the proposed 10 story limit. Anticipated impacts associated with this alternative would include: · Aesthetics and Light and Glare: Office building heights would be less than with the proposed project. Reducing the number of stories would require a greater building footprint to accommodate the office square footage. This would result in reduced opportunities to cluster buildings to maintain view corridors through the site. Consequently, view obstruction from the freeway could be greater than with the proposed project. Light and glare impacts w6uld be similar as with the proposed project. Eliminating proposed ten story buildings at the project site would diminish the design opportunities to establish a visual focal point for the Transit Center or to provide open space areas. · Air Quality: The same air quality impacts as the proposed project would remain: short-term construction-related impacts, long-term local impacts and cumulative regional impacts. Like the proposed project, construction and local long-term impacts could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, but cumulative regional impacts would be significant and unavoidable. · Biological Resources: The same type and level of impacts would be created as the proposed project, since approximately the same amount of ground disturbance would be created. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 190 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin · Cultural Resources: The same type and level of impacts would be created as the proposed project, since approximately the same amount of ground disturbance would occur. · Geology and Soils: A similar amount of excavation, grading and earth moving would .occur as anticipated for the proposed project since the ~._ entire site would be re-graded. The same potential would exist for soil .: erosion from wind and water. The same value of building improvements and the same number of employees and visitors would be subject to - potential seismic hazards. · Water and Hydrology: Slightly greater impacts would occur with this ~ alternative than with the proposed project, in that there would be more land coverage-with buildings, parking lots and other impervious surfaces. Less open space would be provided on the site than under the proposed -~ project, and less opportunities for on-site biofiltration of stormwater. · Hazards: The same type and level of impact would result as with the -- proposed project, since all of the site would be developed. · Land Use: Land use impacts within the project area and surrounding areas ~ would be essentially the same as the proposed project, since the same amount of residential, office and commercial square footage would be constructed. The height limit for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would -- not need to be modified, but there would also be less opportunity to create a visual "gateway" at the BART station. · Noise: Slightly more noise related impacts could occur to the residential component, since lower height office buildings would provide less noise -- shielding for residential units and the proposed Village Green open space feature. * Population and Housing: The same impacts would result to local, city- wide and sub-regional population and housing, since the same amount of development would occur as under the proposed project. · Transportation, parking and circulation: The same traffic and transportation impacts would occur as under the proposed project, since the same local streets would be constructed or improved and the same total and peak hour trips would be generated as under the proposed project. Like the proposed project, significant and unavoidable impacts would be created with regard to mainline freeway operations and cumulative traffic impacts. · Utilities and Public Services: The same impacts to utility and service prOviders would likely occur as under the proposed project, since the same amount of development would occur. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 191 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin · Recreation: There would be the same increased use and demand for local and regional recreational facilities as the proposed project, since the same amount of development would occur. However, there would be less opportunities for on-site open space, which could result in more pressure _. on off-site recreational opportunities. This alternative would generally meet the project objective of creating a state of ._ the art, mixed-use transit village development. However, the amount of open space on the site would be substantially reduced from the proposed project, since more ground area would need to be developed with buildings to achieve the - amount of development identified as a project objective. This could have negative impacts on stormwater runoff leaving the site, the overall pedestrian nature of the development, and pressures on off-site recreational facilities, ~ although the amount of difference in impact is difficult t© quantify. This alternative would also not reduce significant and unavoidable impacts identified in this EIR associated with the proposed project. 5.3 Alternative 3: Campus Office Development The third alternative assumes development of all office uses adjacent to the - existing BART station. For purposes of this analysis, an FAR of 0.60 has been selected for office development, which represents similar development intensity for other Campus Office parcels within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. No retail or housing development has been included in this alternative. The amount of office development at full buildout under this alternative would be _ approximately 1,498,115 square feet. The existing BART station surface parking lots would remain as presently configured. · Aesthetics and Light and Glare: View obstruction of the ridgelands could be less than with the proposed project and Alternative.2 because the lower FAR would likely lead to primarily surface parking lots surrounding office. _ complexes, characteristic of much of existing development in the Tri- Valley. Building heights would be less than with the proposed project and there would be increased opportunities to maintain view corridors ,_. through the project area than with Alternative 2. Potential light and glare impacts would be leSs than with the proposed project and Alternative 2 because there would be no residential component. · Air Quality: Air quality impacts would be reduced from the proposed project and Alternative 2 due to the fewer square feet of office and no -- residential component, resulting in an overall reduction in automobile trips. Short-term construction-related impacts would be slightly reduced with this Alternative, because no construction would occur on the existing - BART parking lots. However, cumulative regional impacts would still qualify as significant under BAAQMD criteria. Due to lower office densities, more surface parking lots and no retail or residential -- component, there would be less of a reduction in automobile trips due to a ~ mix of uses in proximity to each other, and it is unlikely that the project area would be as pedestrian friendly as the proposed project. This could Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 192 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 ~ City of Dublin result in a lower rate of public transit usage and more single-occupant automobile usage. Because there would be less of an on-site jobs/housing '- balance, automobile trips associated with the development could facilitate additional peak hour commuting to employment. Construction and local _ long-term impacts could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, but cumulative regional impacts would likely be significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project. · Biological Resources: The same type and level of impacts would be created as the proposed project and Alternative 2, since all vacant areas of the -- project area would be disturbed to accommodate office development. · Cultural Resources: The same type and level of impacts would be created -~ as the proposed project and Alternative 2, since the entire project area would be disturbed to accommodate development. ~ · Geology and Soils: A similar amount of excavation, grading and earth . moving could occur as anticipated for the proposed project and Alternative 2 since the entire vacant portion of the project area would be -- graded. The same general potential would exist for soil erosion from wind and Water. There would be a slight decrease in potential seismic hazard, since there would be no residential component, and there would be fewer -- on-site employees and visitors as would exist under the proposed project. · Water and Hydrology: The same or slightly less impacts would occur -- regarding generation of stormwater from the project areas since surface parking lots would be predominant, versus parking structures in the ~ .proposed project. The lower density office development may permit more pervious open spaces although the existing BART parking lot would remain and there would be no Village Green. The amount of reduced _- stormwater runoff would likely be less-than-significant. · Hazards: The same type and level of impact would result as with the _ proposed project, since all vacant portions of the project area would be developed. ,_ · Land Use: Land use impacts within the project area and surrounding areas would be essentially the same as the proposed project, since a substantial portion of the site would be developed, However, this alternative would -- not be consistent with General Plan policies to intensify land uses near public transit hubs and the BART station, nor would it be a balanced mix of development. This alternative would not meet General Plan policies -- concerning the provision of housing, nor would there be opportunities to provide affordable housing. General Plan policies regarding the provision of retail services would also not be met, nor policies encouraging the -- creation of more vital working environments or environments attractive to pedestrians. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 193 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 -- City of Dublin · Noise: Slightly fewer noise related impacts would occur than the proposed project, since there would be no on-site residents to be affected by construction, freeway or helicopter noise. · Population and Housing: Although only about 75% of the office development would be constructed under this alternative, there would be no residential component, which would result in a substantial imbalance in Dublin's jobs/housing balance, compared to the proposed project or Alternative 2. · Transportation, parking and circulation: Slightly less traffic and transportation impacts would occur as under the proposed project or Alternative 2, since there would be fewer automobile trips associated with a lesser amount of office development. A smaller contribution would be made to cumulative traffic conditions in comparison to the proposed project, however, cumulative traffic impacts and impacts to freeway mainline impacts would likely still remain. · Utilities and Public Services: There would be fewer impacts to utility and service providers would likely occur as under the proposed project or Alternative 3, since a smaller amount of development would occur on the site. · Recreation: There would be significantly less for local and regional recreational facilities as the proposed project or Alternative 2, since no residential development would occur on the site. This alternative would not meet the project objective of creating a state of the art, mixed use transit village development, but would result in a continuation of single use office parks, similar to other areas of Eastern Dublin. The amount of open space on the site would be somewhat greater than the proposed project, since less development would occur within the area. Less employment would occur and no housing would be built, which would be inconsistent with Dublin General Plan goals and objectives of providing more affordable housing and mixed use development near Transit hubs. Cumulative traffic impacts and impacts to mainline freeway operations in the vicinity would be less, but would likely still be significant and unavoidable. Approximately the same impacts would result with regard t° hydrology, cultural resources, and geology. No direct impacts would result with increasing school-aged children, since no residential dwellings would be built. Biological impacts would be approximately the same as the proposed project, since the same amount of ground disturbance would occur. 5,4 Alternative 4: Lower Density Transit Center The fourth alternative assumes develOpment of a transit center adjacent to the existing BART station, however at a lower land use intensity. For purposes of this analysis, an FAR of 0.60 has been selected for office development, which represents similar development intensity for other Campus Office parcels within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. This would result in 918,150 square feet of Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 194 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin office development, or less than half the amount of office development in the proposed project. An average density of 35 dwellings per acre has been used for the residential component, which would be equivalent to 800 dwellings, or slightly more than half the number proposed. BART surface parking would be replaced with a parking structure, as in the proposed project. No ancillary retail uses have been assumed for this alternative. Anticipated impacts associated with this alternative would include: · Aesthetics and Light and Glare: View obstruction from the freeway would be similar to Alternative 3 and less than Alternative 2 and the proposed project, although the BART parking garage would block some views.. Light and glare impacts would be the same as with the proposed project~ · Air Quality: Fewer air quality impacts as the proposed project: short-term construction-related impacts, long-term local impacts and cumulative regional impacts. Construction and local long-term impacts could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, but cumulative regional impacts would likely still be significant and unavoidable. · Biological Resources: The same type and level of impacts would be created as the proposed project and the two previous alternatives, since the entire site would be disturbed to accommodate development. · Cultural Resources: The same type and level of impacts would be created as the proposed project and the two previous alternatives, since the entire site would be disturbed to accommodate development. · Geology and Soils: The same amount of excavation, grading and earth moving would occur as anticipated for the proposed project and Alternatives 3, since the entire site would be re-graded. The same potential would exist for soil erosion from wind and water. There would be a lowered value of on-site improvements than the proposed project since there would be less development and there would be fewer on-site employees and visitors subject to seismic hazards as would exist under the proposed project. · Water and Hydrology: There would be slightly less impact regarding water quality under Alternative 4 than the proposed project since more pervious open spaces would be incorporated within the project area due to less development. The amount of reduced stormwater runoff would likely be less-than,significant. · Hazards: The same type and level of impact would result as with the proposed project and all other alternatives, since all of the site would be . developed. · Land Use: Land use impacts on the project site and surrounding areas would be essentially the same as the proposed project, since a substantial Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 195 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin portion of the site would be developed. However, this alternative would not be consistent with General Plan policies to intensify land uses near public transit hubs. It would also not represent the most efficient use of land near a BART station. · Noise: Slightly less noise related impacts would occur than the proposed project, since there would be fewer on-site residents to be affected by construction noise. The amount of vehicle generated noise would also be somewhat less than the proposed project, since fewer automobile trips would result due to a smaller amount of development. · Population and Housing: Approximately the same impacts would result to local, city-wide and sub-regional population and housing as would the proposed project since a smaller number of offices and residences would be created but in the same proportion as the proposed project. · Transportation, parking and circulation: Less traffic and transportation impacts would occur as under the proposed project, since there would be fewer automobile trips associated with a lesser amount of office development. Significant and unavoidable impacts to mainline freeway operations would likely occur as would cumulative impacts to intersections near the project area. · Utilities and Public Services: There would be fewer impacts to utility and service providers would likely occur as under the proposed project, since a smaller amount of development would occur on the site. · Recreation: There would be less of an impact to local and regional recreational facilities than with the proposed project, since a smaller amount of residential development would occur on the site. This alternative does not meet the project objectives since it would not represent the highest Site utilization as would the proposed project, nor would it maximize the amount of development occurring near a major transit hub. It would also not provide a critical mass of employment, shopping and residential land uses to create a critical mass that could support a transit village on the site. It is unlikely that Alternative 4 would reduce significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project to less-than-significant levels. 5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e) (24) of the State of California CEQA Guidelines states that if the envirOnmentally superior alternative is the "No Project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. For the project analyzed in this EIR, the No Project alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative, since none of the anticipated environmental impacts described in Section 4.0 would occur, primarily traffic, biological resources and air quality impacts. However, the No Project alternative would not meet the project objectives to facilitate a state-of- Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 196 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin the-art transit village within the project area, provide for significant _ employment opportunities, or increase local tax and other revenues to the City and the County. ~ Many of the project objectives speak directly to the concept of creating a mixed- use, pedestrian-friendly development that is accessible to public transit, including BART and Wheels bus service. The proposed project has been .~ designed in response to these objectives by the project proponent in cooperation with BART to encourage a pattern of development that will achieve benefits over more conventional suburban development in terms of reducing vehicle ~ travel and an attendant reduction in motor vehicle emissions. None of the other alternatives identified in this EIR would result in environmental impacts significantly lower than the proposed project while still meeting identified -- project objectives. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 197 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin _ 6.0 Analysis of Long-Term Effects This section of the DEIR addresses the potential long-term effects of implementing the proposed project, as required by CEQA. 6.1 Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Irretrievable Commitment -- of Resources Construction of the proposed project would directly result in irretrievable -- commitment and use of energy and non-renewable resources for construction and operation of future office, residential and retail uses, including such resources as sand and gravel, lumber and other forest products, asphalt, -- petrochemicals and metals. The level and amount of commitment of such resources is commensurate with similar development projects undertaken in the Bay Area and throughout California and the nation. 6.2 Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project -- All EIRs must consider the potential growth inducement of projects. A project is generally considered to be growth inducing if it will foster economic or population growth or will cause the construction of new housing, either directly -- or indirectly, within a given geographic area. Projects which remove obstacles to population growth are also deemed to be growth inducing. Increases in population may strain existing community services or utility systems, so -- consideration must be given to this impact. The characteristics of a project that may encourage or facilitate other growth activities which could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively, must also be -- discussed. Approval of the proposed project could be considered growth inducing, since additional employees, visitors and associated vehicular traffic would be attracted to the site. However, the proposed project represents an effort to provide an array of relatively dense complementary land uses close to a regional and community transit hub to promote non-automotive modes of transportation. Also, the type of uses proposed for the site would be consistent with the City's General Plan and other regional planning efforts to promote relatively intense mixed-use development near public transit facilities to minimize use of auto transit. 6.3 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are those which taken individually may be minor but, when combined with similar impacts associated with existing development, proposed development projects and planned but not built projects, have the potential to generate more substantial impacts. CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be evaluated when they are significant and that the discussion describe the severity of the impacts and the estimated likelihood of their occurrence. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 198 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin CEQA also states that the discussion of cumulative impacts contained in an EIR need not be as detailed as that provided for the project alone. Cumulative impacts may be addressed using one of two methods: · a listing of past, present and reasonable anticipated future and probable projects, within or adjacent to the community containing the project site, which could produce related or cumulative impacts; or · a summary of projections contained in the adopted General Plan or related planning documents which evaluated regional environmental impacts of a number of projects within a given geographic area. For purposes of this EIR the first approach has been chosen to address cumulative impacts. A listing of such projects is included in the Transportation and Circulation Section (Section 4.11), which includes a number of projects in adjacent communities A summary of expected cumulative impacts follows: · Aesthetics and Light and Glare: Limited cumulative impacts on aesthetic resources would occur, including incremental increases in light and glare. However, since the site is located in a substantially urbanized area, cumulative impacts are considered less than significant. · Air Quality: Cumulative air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.2. This section identifies that the proposed project would contribute pollutants to the atmosphere above Bay Area Air Quality Management District standards. Such impacts could not be reduced to less-than- significant levels and would therefore be considered significant and unavoidable. · Biological Resources:: Cumulative impacts of the project on biological impacts would be limited and would include minimal loss of Congdon's spikeweed and habitat for burrowing owl. These impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels and would not cumulatively considerable. · Cultural Resources: Potential impacts to cultural resources are not considered cumulative. Geology and Soils: Potential impacts to geology and soils are not considered cumulative. -- · Water and Hydrology: Cumulative impacts to flooding and stormwater runoff are addressed in Section 4.7. Buildout of the proposed Transit Center project would contribute to cumulative stormwater runoff within -- the Tri-Valley area, however local and regional drainage facilities exist or have been planned to safely accommodate these anticipated increases. On- site measures would be included as part of the proposed project to ensure Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 199 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 ~- City of Dublin surface water quality impacts would be less-than-significant. Therefore, water and water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. · Hazards: Potential impacts to hazards are not considered cumulative. · Land Use: Cumulative land use impacts would result should the proposed Transit Center project be approved, however, these would be ... less-than-significant since the site is located in a substantially urbanized area. The type and density of use would be consistent with local and regional policies_to minimize automobile trips by promoting a mix of -- complementary uses near major transit hubs. · Noise: Cumulative noise impacts resulting from the project_are ,- anticipated to be less-than-significant, since existing noise levels on the site caused by vehicles using 1-580 freeway and BART operations would be greater than noise generated by proposed land uses. · Population and Housing:: Cumulative impacts to population, employment and housing is addressed in Section 4.10. Although the -- proposed project would add additional office space, with associated employment, to the Tri-Valley area, the project would also comply with local and regional agency policies to construct higher density, mixed-use -- projects near major transit hubs, such as exist on the project site. · Transportation, parking and circulation: In 2025, the combination of -- project-related traffic and cumulative traffic at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would experience congested conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. Specifically, this intersection would be operating at LOS E (0.97) during the AM peak hour and LOS E (1.00) during the PM peak hour. Another identified cumulative _ impact would be the addition of project traffic to 1-580 that would exceed the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency's threshold of significance for mainline freeway operations. Both of these cumulative impacts are considered significant and unmitigatable. Future parking requirements associated with the proposed project is not considered cumulatively considerable due to the provision of on-site parking spaces _ and the nearby available of public transit to serve future development. · Utilities and Public Services: Cumulative impacts are anticipated with ~- regard to water, sewer, police, fire, education, solid waste services and future need for natural gas and electrical energy. Long-term water supplies are available to serve the proposed project, according to DSRSD -- representatives and adequate capacity exists to accommodate the project's anticipated cumulative contribution to wastewater collection, treatment and disposal. Buildout of the proposed project would add to cumulative -- demand for electrical and natural gas energy, however, this need is being addressed on a regional and state-wide level and with the provision of an on-site power-generating facility. Cumulative impacts related to ~ educational facilities can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 200 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 ~-- City of Dublin Although construction of the proposed Transit Center would add to the cumulative municipal solid waste stream, adequate long-term facilities exist to accommodate the project's contribution. In sum, there would be less-than-significant cumulative considerable impacts associated with the proposed project · Recreation: Buildout of the proposed project would add to the cumulative needs for parks and recreation facilities in the Eastern Dublin area, however the nature of the proposed high density housing component associated with the project and minimal occupancy by younger residents would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact. 6.4 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable impacts in considering whether to approve the underlying project. If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the anticipated unavoidable impacts, the adverse environmental impacts may be considered acceptable by the Lead Agency. To approve the project without reducing or eliminating a significant adverse impact, the Lead Agency must make a Statement of Overriding Consideration supported by the information in the record. Three impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable: · Regional cumulative air quality impacts; · Cumulative (Year 2025) traffic impacts; · Mainline freeway operations near the project area. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 201 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin 7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted 7.1 Persons and Organizations EIR Preparers The following individuals participated in the preparation of this document. Jerry Haag, Urban Planner (project manager) Patricia Jeffery, AICP, Placemakers, (assistant project manager) George Nickelson, P.E., Omni-Means (traffic) Peter Galloway, Omni-Means (traffic) Donald Ballanti (air quality) James Reyeff, Illingworth & Rodkin, (noise) Mike Porto, Stevenson, Porto & Pierce (hydrology) William Young, P.E. (hydrology) Malcolm Sproul, LSA Associates (biology) Tim Lacy, LSA Associates (biology) Becky Sherry, LSA Associates (biology) Hope Kingma, LSA Associates (biology) Sigrida Reines, Treadwell & Rollo (hazardous materials) Miley Holman, Holman Associates (cultural resources) Chuck Cornwall Environmental Vision (visual simulation) Jane Maxwell, Blue Ox Associates (graphics) City of Dublin Staff Eddie Peabody, Ir., AICP, Community Development Director Kevin van Katwyck, P.E. ,Senior Civil Engineer Ray Kuzbari, P.E., Traffic Engineer Diane Lowart, Director of Parks and Recreation Rose Macias, Crime Prevention Officer Edward Laudini, Fire Marshal Project Sponsors Pat Cash_man, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority Stuart Cook, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority Other Agencies and Organizations Contacted Alameda County Zone 7- Alameda County Zone 7- Alameda County Public Works Departrnent-Rene Baile Dublin San Ramon Services District-Bruce Webb LAVWMA-Vivian Housen BART-Kathy Mayo Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 202 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin East Bay Regional Parks District-Steve Fiala Pacific Gas & Electric-Jerry O'Hara Dublin Unified School District-Dr. John Sugiyama 7.2 References The following documents, in addition to those included in the Appendix, were used in the preparation of this DEIR. Beedy, E. C., S. D. Sanders, and D. A. Bloom. 1991. Breeding status, distribution, and habitat associations of the tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), 1850-1989. June 21, 1991. Jones & Stokes Associated, Inc. (JSA 88-187.) SaCramento, CA. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. Brian Kangas Foulk. 1998. Santa Rita Property Aerial Photo, Alameda County, 1998. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB): special-status species occurrences report for the following U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute quads: Niles, Dublin, Livermore, Hayward, Newark, Las Trampas Ridge, Diablo, Tassajara, and La Costa Valley. CalifOrnia Department of Fish and Game, Natural Resources Division, Sacramento,. California, 2000. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth edition, electronic version). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P, Tibor, Convening Editor. Sacramento, CA, 2000. California Public Utilities Commission, Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report, Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project, Aspen Environmental Group, 2001. Dublin San Ramon Services District, Urban Water Master Plan, 1999 Dublin San Ramon Services District, Wastewater Collection System Master Plan: Final Report, Montgomery Watson Engineers, 2000. City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, WRT Associates, 1998 -- City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan, WRT Associates, 1994 City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor, Policies and Standards, David -- Gates and Associates, 1996. City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985 (adopted), 1998 (revised) Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 203 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 -- City of Dublin Erler & Kalinowski, Inc., Results of Soil and Groundwater Investigation and -- Screening Human Health Risk Assessment for Properties Located at Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard in Dublin, California, June 19, 1998. _ Environmental Science Associates, Environmental Baseline Study: 47-Acre Parcel at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin California, September 1990. Grinnell, J. and A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacif. Coast Avif. 27: 608. Harding Lawson Associates. 2000. Preliminary Wetland Assessment: Iron Horse Trail Extension, Alameda County, California. Prepared for Alameda County Public Works Agency. H.T. Harvey & Associates, Inc. 1999. Dublin Ranch Areas F, G, and H (Pao Yeh Lin Property) Ecological Impacts and Mitigation. Prepared for Ted C. Fairfield, consulting civil engineer, Pleasanton, CA. H.T. Harvey & Associates, Inc. 2000. Iron Horse Trial Extension California red- legged frog and California tiger salamander site assessment. Prepared for Alameda County Public Works Agency. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1995. Inventory of special-status plant and wildlife species at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. June 21, 1995. (JSA 93-240.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Sacramento, CA. Kangas Foulk, Brian. 1998. Santa Rita Property Aerial Photo, Alameda County. Kleinfelder, Inc., Surface Rupture Hazard Study Camp Parks Dublin, California, October 12, 1999. Kleinfelder, Inc., Geology and Soils Information to Address Items on the Project CEOA Checklist for the Dublin Transit Center in Dublin, California, December 4, 2000. _. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 1994. San Joaquin Kit Fox Assessment, Gale Ranch, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, CA Prepared for Shapell Industries, Milpitas, CA. 20 pp. + -- appendices. Mallette, R. D. and G. Gould. 1976. Raptors of California. California Department -- of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, 1976. Palmer, R. S. (Ed.). Handbook of North American birds: diurnal raptors (Vols. 4 -- and 5). Yale Univ. Press, New Haven and London, 1988. Preston, R.E. Preliminary report on the conservation status of Congdon's -- spikeweed (Hemizonia parryi subSp, congdonii) in the south and east San Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 204 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 -- City of Dublin Francisco Bay area and Monterey County,, California. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, February 23, 1999. Reynolds, V. BART Dublin/Pleasanton Extension; County of Alameda; U.S. Army, Camp Parks; Joint Project Site, Dublin, California. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Pursuant To Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. (Maps I and lA), 1994. Skinner, M. W. and B. M. Pavlik. Inventory. of rare and endangered vascular plants of California. Special Publication #1, 5th Ed. California Native Plant -- Society, Sacramento, CA. 1994. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Soil Survey Alameda Area, California. United -- States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with California Agricultural Extension Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1966. Stebbins, R. C. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Second edition, revised. Houghton Mifflin Book Co., Boston. 1985. Treadwell & Rollo, Inc., Hazardous Materials Assessment Dublin Transit Center Dublin, California, December 7, 2001. City of PleaSanton, General Plan, 1996 '-- United States Army, Enviromental Noise Management Plan, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, California, Directorate of Environmental Health Planning, 2000 United States Army, Camp Parks RFTA Draft Master Plan, 2000. WESCO. Final Results of Surveys for San Joaquin Kit Fox and Burrowing Owl in the Dougherty Valley, Contra Costa County. Prepared by Western Ecological .-- Services Company, Inc., Novato, CA. Prepared for City of San Ramon, San Ramon, CA, 1991. _ WESCO. Results of Supplemental Surveys for San Joaquin Kit Fox on the Dougherty Valley Project Site. Prepared by Western Ecological Services Company, Inc., Novato, CA. Prepared for Contra Costa Community -- Development Department, Martinez, CA. 1991. Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. Eds. California's -- Wildlife. Volume II: Birds. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 1990. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 20b Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 -- City of Dublin 8.0 Appendices Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 206 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin Appendix 8.1 Notice of Preparation Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 207 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin Notice of Preparation To: -- Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: _ City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 -- Contact: Eddie Peabody Jr., AICP, Planning Department, (925) 833 6610 The City of Dublin will be the Lead Agency and hereby invites comments on the proposed scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. Your agency may need to use the EIR prepared by the Lead Agency when considering follow-on permits or -- other approvals for this project. _ Project Title: Dublin Transit Center (PA 00-13). Project Location: Immediately north of the existing Dublin-Pleasanton BART station and bounded by 1-580 to the south, the Iron Horse Trail to the west, Dublin Boulevard to the north and Arnold Road to the east. See attached project location map. The site encompasses approximately 91 aces of land. _ Project Description: Approval and construction of a mixed-use transit oriented project consisting of a maximum of two million square feet of offices, 1,500 dwelling units and 70,000 square feet of retail commemial development. A multi-level parking garage is also proposed to serve patrons of the BART station. Requested entitlements include an -- amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan to add this area to the Specific Plan and rezoning of the site to Planned Development (PD). The attached supplement identifies potential environmental effects anticipated to be discussed in the Environmental Impact Report. -- Due to time limits mandated by State law, your response must be returned at the earliest possible time but not later than 30 days following receipt of this notice. Please send your response to the contact person identified above. -- Date: Signature: Title: Telephone: City of Dublin - Notice of Preparation Supplemental Information Project Title: Dublin Transit Center (PA 00-13) -- Date: November 10, 2000 Discussion of _ Probable Environmental Impacts: l) Aesthetics and Light and Glare: Including construction of mid-rise office buildings adjacent to the 1-580 freeway, potential blockage of views and increases in light and glare onto _ adjacent sites. 2) Air Quality: Including short- and long-term and cumulative potential air quality impacts. 3) Biological Resources: Including potential impacts to sensitive plant and animal species and their habitats. -- 4) Cultural Resources: Including potential impacts to historic, cultural, archeological and paleontologic resources. 5) Soils and Geology: Including potential impacts to soils, topographic features, soil erosion and _ seismic hazards. 6) Hazards: Including potential impacts related to existing hazardous materials on the site. 7) Water and Hydrology: Including potential impacts to surface water quality, increased storm water runoff and flooding. -- 8) Land Use: Including potential impacts to existing on-site land uses, surrounding land uses and land use regulatory programs. 9) Noise: Including potential impacts related to construction noise, long term operational noise -- of future land uses and noise associated with transit and vehicular transportation. 10) Population and Housing: Including potential increases in local population, job creation and jobs-housing balance. 11 ) Transportation and Circulation: Including potential impacts to local and regional roadways -- and freeways, public transit and pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems. 12) Public Services and Utilities: Including potential impacts related to the provisions of police, fire, schools, solid waste services local and regional water, sewer, storm drain, energy and _ communications systems, to support the proposed development. 13) Recreation: Including impacts to local, community and regional recreational facilities 14) Cumulative Impacts: Including cumulative impacts regarding population and employment increases, recreational use, traffic, air quality, water use, sewage generation and storm water -- runoff. J J J i J j J J ' J J J J J J i J J J j j SOUTHERN PAClIq'E,RAILROAD C~ ,, CAMP PARKS E AS TE R N GLEASON DRIVE D U B L I N D U B L I N EMERALD PARK CENTRALPARKWAY DUBLIN BOULEVARD 580 DUBLIN/PLEASANTON BART STATION I - HACIENDA BUSINESS PARK P L E A S A N T O N Site Location--Dublin Transit Center November 2000 NOTICE OF PREPARATION DISTRIBUTION LIST Dublin Transit Center Project November 2000 California State Clearinghouse- Terry Roberts -- Dublin San Ramon Services District (Bruce Webb/Rhodora Biagton) * Dublin Unified School District- John Sugiyama/Jim Harper LAVTA - Austin O'Dell Zone 7, ACFC&WCD -Yan Kee Chan Alameda County Planning Department- Adolph Martinelli Surplus Property Authority of Alameda County - Pat Cashman Alameda County Public Works Department -- Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission East Bay Regional Parks District U.S, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks) - Lt. Col. Dale Bain PG&E Pacific Bell TCI Cable Livermore Dublin Disposal Service- Dan Borges -- U.S. Postal Service - Postmaster City of Pleasanton Planning Department City of Livermore Planning Department _ CalTrans - District 4 CEQA Coordinator and Project Development BART - Mary Ann Payne LAVTA U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Regulatory Branch - California Department of Fish and Game - Ken Aasen, Katelyn Bean, & Officer Powell U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - State Supervisor Regional Water Quality Control Board _ Bay Area Air Quality Management District Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Metropolitan Transportation Commission City Departments Diane Lowart, Parks and Community Services Director Kevin Van Katwyk, Senior Civil Engineer Police Services -- Fire Department Maintenance Division (MCE) Appendix 8.2 - Responses to Notice of Preparation -- Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 208 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin  STATE OF CALIFORNIA 17~~ _ Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse ~'~,, ~ ~' '~' ~ Steve Nissen Gray Davis v~-~'~ - GOVERNOR ~ ~ t, ~ _ ~ ACTING DIRECTO~ Notice of Preparation ~;!i ~ ~ ~ '~B November 14, 2000 U9~.'; ..... To: Reviewing Agenmes Re: Dublin Transit Center (PA 00-13) SCH# 2000112039 Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation ('NOP) for the Dublin Transit Center (PA 00-13) draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Agency. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: Eddie Peabody Jr City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Plan~ing and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613. Sincgrely, ~ /~ ~ Project Analyst, State Clearinghouse -- Attachments cc: Lead Agency ' Document Details Heport State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2000112039 Project Title Dublin Transit Center (PA 00-13) Lead Agency Dublin, City of Type NOP Notice of Preparation Descrfption Approval and construction of a mixed-use transit oriented p.roject consisting of a maximum oftwo million square feat of offices, up to .1,700 dwelling units and 70,000 square feat of retail commedcal development. A multi-level parking garage is also proposed to serve patron of the BART station. Requested entitlements include an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan to add this area to the Specific Plan and rezoning of the site to Planned Development (PD). Lead Agency Contact Name Eddie Peabody Jr Agency City of Dublin Phone 925 83~-6610 Fax emal! Address Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza City Dublin State CA Z./p 94568 Project Location County Alameda City Dublin Region Cross Streets Dublin Boulevard, Arnold Road Parcel No. Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 1-580 Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land Use Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Air Quality; Archaeologic-HiSt°ric; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; G .eologic/Seismic; Toxic/Hazardous; Water Quality; Landuse; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Traffic/Circulation; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Cumulative Effects; Other Issues Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Agencies Fish and Game, Region 3; Native American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission; State Lands Commission; Caltrans, District 4; California Highway Patrol; Air Resources Board, Transportation Projects; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2 Date Received 11/14/2000 Start of Revlew 11/14/2000 End of Review 12/13/2000 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. NOP. Distribution List County:I~. ~~'1 ~ '* SCH# D Colorado River Board [] Dept. of Traneporta~lon [~ State Water Resources Control Resources Aaencv Fish. and Game Gerald R. Zlmmerman Chris Sayre Board - District 10 Greg Fmnlz · Division of Water Quality ,B Resources Agency [~ Dept. of Fish & Game [~ Tahoe Regional Planning [~ Dept. of Traneportatlon Nadell Gayou Joe Vincenty Agency (TRPA) . Leu Saiazar D State Water Resouoes Control [~ Dapt. of Boating & WatenVays Environmental Services Division Lyn Barnett District 11 . , Board Mike Falkenstain Bill Curry [] Dept. of Fish & Game [] Dept. of Transportation .= Division o!Water Rights Donald Koch [] Office of Emergency Services Ailesn Kennedy [] California Coastal Region 1 John Rowden, Manager District 12 .D Dept. of Toxic Substances COntrol Commission CEQA Tracking Center /Elizabeth A. Fuchs i [~ Dept. of Fish & Game Business, Trans &:Housin~ ~Dept. of Conservation Banky Curtis [~] Delta Protection C0mmlssion Regional Water Quality Control i~Region 2 Debby Eddy ~ 'Ken Tmtt - [] H0using & Community Development .Board (RWQCB) - tJ,.IvDept, of Fish & Game Cathy Creswell [~ Dept. of Forestry & Fire Brian Hunter [~ Santa Monica Mounfalns Housing Policy Division []' RWQCB Protection Region 3 ' Conservancy Cathleen Hudson Allen Robertson [~ Oept. of Fish & Game Paul Edelman [~ C.ltrans - DivisiOn of Aeronautics ~ Coast Region (1) [~ Office of Historic - William Laudermllk Sandy Hesnard Presewation ' Region 4 Dept. of Transportation '~Cailfornla Highway Patrol ' I~RWQCB Environmental Document Hans Kreulzberg Lt. Dennis Brunette - Coordinator · Dept of Parks & Recreation [~ Dept. of Fish & Game [~ Dept. of'TranspOrtation Office of Special Projects Sandy Peterson San Francisco Bay Reglon (2) Debra Gilbert Region 51 Habitat Conservation IGR/Plannlng [~ Dept. of Transportation []' RWQCB Resource MgmL Division Program District I Ron Helgeson' Central Coast Region (3) [~PamReClamati°nBruner Board [~] Dept. of Fish & Game [] VlckiDept'Roe°f Transportation Caltrens - Planning [~ RWQCB Gabrtha Gatchel [~ Dept. of General Services · [~ S.F. Bay Conservation & Region 6, Habitat Conservatloil Local, Development Review, Jonathan Bishop Dev't. Comm. Program District 2 EnvironmentaIR°bert Sleppy Services Section Los Angeles Region (4) Steve McAdam [~ Dept. of Fish & Game [] Dept. of Traneportation [~ RWQCB [~ Resources Agency .Tummy Allen Jeff Pulverman Air Resources Board Central Valley Region (5) t District 3 Nadell Gayou Region 6. Inyo/Mono, Habitat [] Airport Projects [] RWQCB Dept. of Water Resources Conservation Program ~'I..~. Dept. of Transportation Rob Rogon Central Valley Region (5) [] Dept. of Fish & Game '¢ 'Jean Finney '[~'Transportatlon Projects Fresno Branch Offiqe Health & Welfare' DeWayne Johnston District 4 Ann Geraghty [~ RWQCB Marine Region [~ Dept. of Transportation ~] Industrial ProJec4s Central Valley Region (5) D Health & Welfare Lawrence Newland Mike Tollstrup ' Reddlng Branch Office Wayne Hubbard . Independent Commissions District 5 [~ RWQCB Dept. of Health/Drinking Water [~ Dept. Of Transportation '[~] California Integrated Waste Lahontan Region (6) Food, & A~lriculture [~ Califomla Energy commission Marc Slmbaum ManagementBoard [~ RWCtCB Environmental Office District 6 Sue O'Leary Lahontan Region (.6) [] Native American Heritage [~ Dept. of Traneportatlon [~ State Water Resources Control Vlctorvllle Branch Office [~ Food & Agriculture. Comm. Stephen J. BusWell Tad Bell Debble Treadway Board Q RWQCB Dept.,of Food and Agriculture 1~ District 7 Diane Edward~ Colorado River Basin Region (?) Public Utilities Commission [] Dept. of Transportation Division of Clean Water Programs Andrew Barnsdale Mike Sim ' Q RWQ~B · State Lands Commission - District 8 Santa Asa Region (8) Betty Silva ' []' Dept. of Traneportaflon [] RWQCB Caroline Yee for Kate.Walton. - San Diego Region (9) District 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governo, ~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~ P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 t~ (510) 286-4444 TDD (510) 286-4454 November 4, 2000 i ALA-580-19.35 File #ALA580671 SCH #2000112039 Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Mr. Peabody: Notice of Preparation - Dublin Transit Center (PA 00-13) Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the early stages of the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. We have examined the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and have the following comments to offer: Our primary concern with the project is the Potentially significant impact it may have to traffic volume and congestion. In order to adequately address our concerns regarding the operation of Interstates 580 (1-580) and 680 (I-680), please ensure the following information is provided in the environmental document: a. Information on the project's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, distribution, and assignment. The assumptions and methodologies used in compiling this information should be addressed. b. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM and PM peak hour volumes on all significantly affected streets and highways, including crossroads and controlling intersections. c. Schematic illustration of the traffic conditions for: 1) existing, 2) existing plus project, and 3) cumulative. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic-generating developments, both existing and future, that would affect the facilities being evaluated. d. Mitigation measures that consider highway and non-highway improvements and services. Special attention should be given to the development of alternative solutions to circulation ,,, problems which do not rely on increased highway construction. e. All mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed, including financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring. RECEIVED ~£C 1 1 2000 DUBLIN PLANNING Peabo~dy/NOP "November 4, 2000 Page 2 We look forward to reviewing the environmental document for this project. We do expect to receive a copy from the State Clearinghouse, but in order to expedite our review, you may send two copies in advance to: Paul Svedersky Office of Transportation Planning B Caltrans, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Paul -- Svedersky of my staff at (510) 622-1639. Sincerely, HARRY Y. YAHATA District Director By ~ JEAN C. R. FINNEY District Branch Chief -- IGR/CEQA c: Katie Shulte ]oung, State Clearinghouse M E T R O P O L I T A N Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter TRANSPORTATION 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607-4700 COMMISSION Tel.: 510.464.7700 TTY/TDD: 510.464.7769 Fax: 510.464. 7848 e-mail: info@mtc.ca.gov Web site: www.mtc.ca.gov j,~ r.s...B~'7""'~,-, co~,cb~ November 15, 2000 RECEIVED Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr., AICP v,a~y. Aw~.~ City of Dublin I}UBLIN PLANNING Cities of Ahmeda Coun~ Planning Depamnent x,~ ~,~ 100 Civic Plaza U.S. D~plr~ment of Housing ,do,b~D~op~ Dublin, CA 94~68 c~co~ofs~ Re: NOP of a DEIR for the Dublin Transit Center ~ Co~ ~o~ Dear Mr. Leonard: ~.s. ~p .... ~o~o~, This letter sets forth thc Metropolitan TransportationCommission's (MTC) staff comments and ~ c~ recommendations on the transportation system impact analysis that will be included in the Draft s~,~oco=? EIR for the Dublin Transit Center. MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing ~ v. rang agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. We are interested in the effects of your Alameda Countyproject on the regiOn's transportation network. Steve ~. co~ty ~a c,,. According to the Notice of Preparation; the Dublin Transit Center project is located immediately s~ ~,,v,,~ north of the existing Dublin-Pleasanton BART station and bounded bY 1,580 to the south, the Iron Cities o[San Marco County Horse Trail to the west, Dublin Boulevard to the north and Arnold Road to the east. The project yo~.~u~,,o~, proPoses to construct a mixed-use transit oriented Project with a maximum of two million square Cities of Santa Clara Cotmty feet of offices, up to 1,700 dwelling units and 70,000 square feet of retail commercial development. c~,,~,,, ~. v~ A multi-level parking garage is also proposed to serve patrons of the BART station. Entitlements requested include an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan and ~ v~,~ rezoning to Planned Development. San Francisco Mayor's Appointee .~,~,~o~. s~,~,~, Our comments and recommendations are as follows: ~,,~v. s~-,~g 1. Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies. MTC's 1998 Regional Transportation Sol*no County and Cides Plan (RTP), required by state and federal law, is a blueprint to guide the region's ~ w~ transportation development over a minimum 20-year period. Please reference the RTP in the DEIR and discuss the consistency of the proposed project with the RTP. If applicable, sb~,,~w,~, please note any major transportation projects identified in the RTP that are in or within close proximity and may impact the proposed project area. /larry Yahata ~.a ~o~.~? 2. Network Assumptions. The RTP is based on projections of growth and travel demand coupled with financial projections. Only major roadway and transit projects that are in the RTP should be included in the modeling or traffic analysis of the transportation network in t.,~-,~ ~). ~>~ the DEIR unless it can be shown that they can be fUlly funded frOm other sources than those assumed in the RTl). Inclusion of projectS' not in the RTP would not provide a s~n,,~m realistic analysis of traffic impacts. For all major roadway and transit projects not D,~.,~ ~=or identified in the RTP, please fully describe the project (project scope, location, implementation schedule, funding levels, and funding sources). 3. Transportation System Impact Analysis. The traffic impact study should be prepared m accordance with Caltrans's Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (October 4, 2000). Contact Tom Persons/Caltrans at (916) 654.4362 to obtain a copy of this guideline. At rain/mum, the transportation system impact analysis should include the following components: · Clearly stated assumptions and methodology · Clearly identified population and employment projections · Description of how traffic data was collected · Description of transportation model used · Existing and projected traffic volumes (including turning movements), facility geometry (including storage lengths), and traffic controls (including signal phasing and multi-signal progression where appropriate) · Project trip generation including references · Project generated trip distribution and assignment · LOS and volume to capacity ratios analyses - existing conditions, cumulative conditions and full build of general plan conditions · Detailed traffic analysis of existing condihons, proposed project only, cumulative conditions (existing conditions plus other approved and pending projects without proposed project), cumulative conditions with proposed project (existing conditions plus other approved and pending projects plus proposed project), and cumulative conditions plus proposed phases (interim years) (these traffic analysis scenarios are applicable to all projects where a specific entitlement is sought) 4. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures must be included in the traffic impact analysis. The impact analysis should discuss the level of service (LOS) and appropriate measures of effectiveness (MOE) quantifies of impacted facilities with and without mitigation, establish a mitigation phasing plan (including dates of proposed mitigation measures), define responsibilities for implementing mitigation measures, and provide cost estimates for m/tigation measures and financing plan. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP for the DEIR. I look forward to receiving the Draft and Final EIR, including responses to our comments. If you have any questions, call me at 510.464.7809. Sincerely, Environmental Review Officer cc: ABAG Clearinghouse, MTC Commissioners R. Appezzato and M. King C:kMy DocumentsXenvironmental review\rlublin-transit-center-nop.doc December 4, 2000 DEC 0 6 2000 DUBLIN pLANNING Mr. Eddie Peabody Director of Co~m~ Developmem Ci~ of Dubl~ 100 Civic Pi~ Dubl~ CA 94568 Dear Mr. Peabody: I recently became aware of a major traffic study being conducted as part of the Dublin Transit Study project. San Joaquin County is experiencing substantial traffic increases and impacts associated with development of employment generating land uses in~ Alameda County and other Bay Area Counties to the west. 'As such, we request that the San Joaquin Community Development Department be notified of any projects that have the potential of creating significant traffic impacts on Interstate 580, especially the Altamont Pass section of the freeway, and other roadways within San Joaquin County. In addition, we would like to be placed upon the mailing list for the Dublin Transit Study project and to receive a copy of the DEIR and subsequent environmental documents. A similar request is also being':~nt to Alameda County. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this request. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, Ben Hulse Director cc: San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors David Baker, County Administrator Terrence R. Dermody, County Counsel Adolf Martinelli, Alameda County Community Development Agency Brian Millar, City of Tracy Community Development Department Eric Teed-Bose, Trimark Communities - ' .... F:Wlountain House\administrationkDublin traffic study.doc THE CITY OF ml - pL£AS, NTON December 6, 2000 Eddy Peabody Jr. -- City of Dublin Planning Department 1 O0 Civic Plaza - Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Notice of Preparation of an EIR for the Dublin transit center (PA 00-13) Dear Mr. Peabody: Thank you for providing the City of Pleasanton with the opportunity to comment on the proposed scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for -- the Dublin transit center (PA 00-13). Staff's comments are below. Traffic City staff requests a detailed traffic analysis in the EIR. Staff requests that this include impacts to the 1-580 and 1-680 freeways as well as all arterials which lead from Dublin into Pleasanton. Phasing and Implementation Various phasing and implementation aspects for this project are required, per court _ order (case v-006477-8 VO, Alameda County Superior Court), to be completed before the project can be approved. Please address in detail the required phasing and ;-~-'~--,~,-*o*;,--' of infrastructure and p,,b!;e improvements. _ how these requirements have been completed thus far and will be completed in the future. - IfI can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me at (925) 931- 5600. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the scope and content of the EIR. -- RECEIVED Singere~y, .. , / ' ' DEC 0 8 2000 DUBLIN PLANNING Director of Planning and Community Development -- P.O. Box 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802 200 Old Bernal Avenue . P,,~ 1 .. Planning & Community Development Building Inspection Utility Billinv .... ~,uusmel~s L~cense (925) 931-5600 (925) 931-5300 (925) 931-5'~ubhn ~'an~(~)'rg'csel-5440 Fax: 931-5483 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5481 Fax: 931-5481 ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 5997 PARKSIDE DRIVE ij PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588-5127 ~ PHONE (925) 484-2600 FAX (925) 462-3914 December 8, 2000 Mr. Eddie Peabody, 3r. City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Notice of Preparation of a DEZR Dublin Transit Center (PAO0-13) Dear Mr. Peabody: in response to your requests for consideration of follow-on permits for this project, please note that Zone 7 Water Agency has treated water supply and conveyance, flood control facilities, and groundwater protection responsibilities in the Tri-Valley. Specific Zone 7 facilities within the project vicinity include the 24-inch Santa Rita Dougherty Pipeline, located on the westerly boundary of the project site along the old Southern Pacific RailrOad right-of-way, and the Line G-5 flood control facility, located adjacent to the west boundary of the project site. Any construction activities in/around/near Zone 7 facilities may require issuance of an encroachment permit by Zone 7. Also, please note our Groundwater Protection Program requires a permit for abandonment of existing wells. Please forward the draft EIR to my attention for circulation to our engineering sections. Please feel free to call me at (925) 484-2600, extension 245, if there are further questions. Very truly yours, Jack Fong Associate Civil Engineer JF:arr Enclosure cc: .~im Horen, Principal Engineer E:~Amanda\WSE~Advance Planning\Fong\ll-22-00 Notice of Preparation of a DEIR Dublin Transit Center. wpd RECE~.VED DEC 1 I 2000 DU~L~ PLANNING UNITED STATES ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 7¢J~, 5~ STREET DUBUN, CALIFORNIA 94568-5201 REPLY TO ATI'ENTION OF December 7, 2000 Environmental Division Mr. Eddie Peabody Jr. City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Mr. Peabody, -- The November 13t~ notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) proposes to construct a mixed-use transit oriented project adjacent to Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA). The Army is required to train units in the defense of our nation and Parks '-- RFTA plays an important role in that mission. Construction of the Dublin Transit Center (PA 00- 13) has the potential to impact the installation. The scope of the EIR should be modified to include an analysis on the probable environmental impacts on Parks RFTA. Probable impacts -- from this project at Parks RFTA include, but are not limited to, traffic circulation, noise, land use, aesthetics, glare, and potential conflicts with the helicopter low level flight path. Parks RFTA should be included in the EIR analysis. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Marshall Marik (925) 803-5638. Sincerely, ~O~~W. Randolph '~ -- Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Commanding Officer RECEIVED ~C ! I 2000 DLfBL~N PLANNING December 7, 2000 EDAW INC 2022, S*~E~T SLrBJECT: Public Hearing for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project Draft Supplemental SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 9 s 8 ~ 4 Interested Parties: On December 1, 2000, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) TE~ 9,6 4,4 ~00 released for public review the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIX) for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project. FAX 916 414 5850 All comments on this Draft Supplemental EIR must be received by close of ..... oaw.com business on January 16, 2001. A public hearing will also be held to receive comments fi:om the public on the Draft Supplemental EIR on January 8, 2001 at the Dublin City Council Chambers, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, commencing at 7:00 p.m. All interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Comments may be made at the public hearing or may be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public comment period. Following the close of the public comment period, responses to substantive comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR will be prepared and a Final Supplemental EIR will be published. The BART Board of Directors will consider the Final Supplemental EIR at a public hearing prior to any action being taken on the project. Written comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR may be sent to: John H. Rennels, Jr. Senior Real Estate Officer San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District P.O. Box 12688 800 Madison Street Oakland, CA 94604-2688 For further information, contact John H. Rennels, Jr. at the address listed above. Sincerely, Do~ ~N~T~O ST^TES Project'Manager RECEIVED E~O~ EDAW, Inc. DF_..C I 1 ~OOO ^~.^,,A DUBL~N PLANNING -' ac ~, December 7, 2000 Director Matt Williams ~,.-.a. co... Mr. Eddie Peabody -- Supe~,~o~ Planning Department Gall Steele Scott}'ag~erty City of Dublin city of~am,a. 100 Civic Plaza ~ Mayor ~ph^ppezzato Dublin, CA 94568 City of Albany Mayor SUBIECT: Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Dra~ Environmental Impact Report ~ ~e~ X~ .... for the Dublin Transit Center in the City of Dublin BART Director ~¢~e S~V~e~ Dear Mr. Peabody: '~ City of Berkeley Gouncilmember ~,Wort~i~to,~ Thank vou for the oppormmty to commem onthe City of Dublin's Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Drai~ Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Dublin Transit Village. The project City of Dublin -- C ..... iimember COnSi~S of construction of mixed-use transit oriented uses for a maximum of 2 million square feet George ^. Z~ of offices, up tO 1,700 dwelling umts and 70,000 square feet of retail commercial development. city o~,,~u, The site is located north of the existing Dublin-Pleasanton BART station and is bounded by 1-580 Gouncilmcmber ~ Nora Davis tO the south, the Iron Horse Trail ~o the west, Dublin Boulevard to the north and Arnold Road to City o£ Fremont the Mayor Gus Morrison The ACCMA respectfully submits the following comments: ~ ~ity of Hayward C~air~e'r$on Mayor ~o~r~ooper · The C~ty of Dublin adopted Resolution 120-92 o~ September 28, ]99~ establishing _ c~ty or~ .... guidelines for revic~ving the impacts of local land use decisions consistent with the ¢o~m~e~er Alameda County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Based on our review · o~Vars~ NOP and the land uses that are being considered~ the proposed project appears to c~ty ors~u generate at least 100 p.m. peak hour trips over existing eonditigns. If this is the case, the Counci) member ~ S~n ~og~ C~P Land Use Analysis Program requires the City to conduct a traffic analysis of the city of O&kt,~a project using the Countywide Transportation Demand Model for Year 2005 conditions. c ..... ilmember Please note the following paragraph as it discusses the responsibility for modeling. Larry Reid City of Piedmon¢ c .... ~tmembe~ · The Countywide Model has been updated to Projections '98 for base years 2005 and 2020. Va~e~ie Ma~ge, The CMA Board amended the CMP on March 26~, 1998 so that local jurisdictions are now City of Pleasanton -~" ~,~.o,.i~-,o,, responsible for conducting the model runs themselves or through a consultant. The Councilmember Countywide model is available to the local jurisdictions for this purpose. The City of Dublin Tom P~co has not yet returned the signed a Countywide Model Agreement to the ACCMA. Before the c~ of S~,,a,o model can be released to you or your consultant, the agreement must be signed by the City ~ Mayor SheliaYoung and the ACCMA and a letter must be submitted to the ACCMA requesting use of the model c~t~ ofU~o, caty and describing the project. A copy of a sample letter agreement is available upon request. A ~ayor copy of the agreement was delivered to you on October 17, 2000. ~ Mark Green RECEIVED F~xecu~ve Director DUBLIN PLANNING 1333 BROADW&¥, SUITE 220, * OA. KLAND, CA 94612 * PHONE: (510) ~3d-25~0 · YAX: (510).83~-21~5 E-M.~[T,: ~,,[aCoCM.~ @aoLcom · WEB SITE: accma.ca.§o~ Mr. Eddie Peabody December 7, 2000 Page 2 · Potential impacts of the project on the Metropohtan Transportation System (MTS) need to be addressed. (See 1999 CMP Figures E-2 and E-3, pages ix and x and Figure 2, pages 10-12). The analysis should address all potential impacts of the project on the MTS roadway and transit systems. These include 1-580, 1-680, Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon Road/Foothill Boulevard, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road, Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, as well as BART and LAVTA. Potential impacts or the project must be addressed for 2005 and 2020 conditions. Please note that the ACCMA does not have a policy for determining a threshold of significance. Rather, it is expected that professional judgment will be applied to determine project level impacts. · The CMA requests that there be a discussion on the proposed funding sources of the transportation mitigation measures identified in the environmental documentation. The CMP estabhshes a Capital Improvement Program (See 1999 CMP, Chapter 7) that assigns priorities for funding roadway and transit projects throughout Alameda County. The improvements called for in the DEIR should be consistent with the CMP CIP. Given the limited resources at the state and federal levels, it would be speculative to assume funding of an improvement unless it is consistent with the project funding priorities established in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) of the CMP, the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), or the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Therefore, we are requesting that the environmental documentation include a financial program for all roadway and transit improvements. · The adequacy of any project mitigation measures should be discussed. On February 25, 1993 the CMA Board adopted three criteria for evaluating the adequacy of DEIR project mitigation measures: · Project mitigation measures must be adequate to sustain CMP service standards for roadways and transit; · Project mitigation measures must be fully funded to be considered adequate; · Project mitigation measures that rely on state or federal funds directed by or influenced by the CMA must be consistent with the project funding priorities established in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) section of the CMP or the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). It would be helpful to indicate in the DEIR the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures relative to these criteria. In particular, the DEIR should detail when proposed roadway or transit route improvements are expected to he completed, how they will be funded, and what would be the effect on LOS if only the funded portions of these projects were assumed to be built prior to project completion. · Potential impacts of the project on CMP transit levels of service must be analyzed. (See 1999 CMP, Chapter 4). Transit service standards are 15-30 minute headways for bus service and 3.75-15 minute headways for BART during peak hours. The analysis should address the issue of transit fimding as a mitigation measure in the context of the CMA's policies as discussed above. Mr. Eddie Peabody December 7, 2000 Page 3 · The analysis should consider demand-related strategies that are designed to reduce the need for new roadway facilities over the long term and to make the most efficient use of existing facilities (see 1999 CMP, Chapter 5). The analysis could consider the use of TDM measures, in conjunction with roadway and transit improvements, as a means of attaining acceptable levels of service. Whenever possible, mechanisms that encourage ridesharing, -- flex-time, transit, bicycling~ telecommuting and other means of reducing peak hour traffic trips should be considered. Street layout and design strategies would foster pedestrian and bicycle connections and transit-friendly site design should also be considered. The Site '-- Design Guidelines Checklist may be useful during the review of the development proposal. A copy of the checklist is enclosed. -- · We have been asked to inform you about the success of the Financial Incentives Program and the Guaranteed Ride Home Program, both of which are supported by the ACCMA. Employee oriented financial incentive programs, such as parking cashout programs, have .-- proven to be successful in encouraging solo drivers to choose other commute alternatives. We would like you to consider applying the Financial Incentive Program as part of the conditions of approval and/or developer agreements as a way to reduce congestion. The _ Guaranteed Ride Home Program, sponsored by the ACCMA, ensures that any carpooler or transit rider' at participating worksites can get home in case of an emergency. _ · For projects adjacent to state roadway facilities, the analysis should address noise impacts of the project. If the amalysis finds an impact, then mitigation measures (i.e., soundwalls) should be incorporated as part of the conditions of approval of the proposed project. It should not be assumed that federal or state funding is available. Once again, thank you for the oppommity to comment on this NOP. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 510/836-2560 ext. 13 if you require additional information. Sincerely, -- Beth Walukas Senior Transportation Planner _ cc: Chron file: CMP - Environmental Review Opinions - Responses - 2000 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gray Davis: Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 653-4082 (916) 657-5390 ~ Fax December 4, 2000 Eddie Peabody Jr. ""(.. ? ~% ~'¢'" City of Dublin ~ Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: SCH # 2000112039- Dublin Transit Center (PA 00-13) Dear Mr. Peabody: The Native American Heritage Commission has reviewed the above mentioned NOP. To adequately assess the project-related impact on archaeological resources, the Commission recommends the following action be required: 1. Contact the appropriate Information Center for a records seamh. The record search will determine: · Whether a part or all of the project area has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. · Whether any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the project area. · Whether the probability is Iow, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located within the project area. · Whether a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. 2. The final stage of the archaeological inventory survey is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. · Required the report containing site significance and mitigation be submitted immediately to the planning department. · Required site forms and final written report be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the Information Center. 3. Contact the Native American Heritage Commission for: · A Sacred Lands File Check. · A list of appropriate Native American Contacts for consultation concerning the project site and assist in the mitigation measures. Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude the existence of archeological resources. Lead agencies should include provisions for accidentally discovered archeological resources dudng construction per Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15064.5 (f). Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and Public Resources Code §5097.98 mandates the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery and shoulcl be included in all environmental documents. If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 653- 4038. RECEIVED si~. ~ [~.F'C 0 5 Z000 Debbic~las-Treadway ~ As~ociato'~mmental Program Analyst cc: State Clearinghouse DUBLIN 7051 Dublin Boulevard -- SA.]~ 1;~/~,,_]~OS Dublin. California 94568 SERVICES ~~.0'~' F~X: 925 829 1 ~80 DISTRICT \~~ff 9258280515 December 14, 2000 -- HAND DELIVERED Mr. Eddie Peabody Jr., AICP -- City of Dublin Planning Department 1 O0 Civic Plaza -- Dublin CA 94568 Subject: Notice of Preparation, Draft EIR for Dublin Transit Center (PA 00-13) Dear Mr. Peabody: _ Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the scope and content of the environmental review for the Dublin Transit Center. Issues of concern to the District include: (1) the provision of wastewater services to the project by the District, (2) the _ provision of potable water services to the project by the District; and, (3) the on and off- site impacts associated with the provision of recycled water services. The EIR should include a complete analysis of the effects on demand for District services resulting from the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, and any impacts associated with necessary service or trunk line extensions. Wastewater Services The District has included the project area in its current master planning for increases to wastewater effluent disposal capacity. However, the portion of the EIR discussing wastewater services should adequately assess the impacts of collecting, treating and disposing of wastewater generated from the project. It will be necessary to carefully -- analyze the demand for wastewater service represented by the proposed land uses. RECEIVED Potable Water Supply and Service L~; 1 ?, 2000 The project area is within the service area of the District. The portion of the EIR DUBLIN PLANNING discussing water services should assess the impacts of providing an adequate water -- supply and storing and distributing it within the area. Recycled Water Service District Ordinance 280 requires that new development located within the potable water service area of the District, which represents landscape irrigation demand for recycled Mr. Eddie Peabody City of Dublin December 14, 2000 Page 2 of 2 water, must provide for and utilize recycled water. Recycled water for landscape irrigation will be a key element of the overall water supply for the project and is m supported by the District's Urban water Management Plan. The EIR must examine the impacts which may be associated with the provision of recycled water service. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 551-7230, ext. 110. BRUCE WEBB, Senior Planner BWW:jg Cc: Dave Requa, DSRSD Stuart Cook, Alameda County G:\ENGDEPTXDept Items~PLANNER~Dublin Transit Center NOP letterl .doc Appendix8.3 Proposed Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Application Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 209 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STAGE 1 PD REZONING, TENTATIVE MAP and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT for the ALAMEDA COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER NOVEMBER, 2000 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STAGE 1 PD REZONING, TENTATIVE MAP and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT for the AI.AMEDA COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Existing Conditions 2 Location and Ownership Land Use Designations Transit Facilities Streets Pedestrian/Bike Trails Utilities Existing Land Use Surrounding Uses III. The Proposed Project 6 Overview 6 Proposed Land Use Designations 8 Residential Development Affordable Housing Public/Semi-Public Uses Campus Office Uses Ancillary Retail Uses Urban Form and Circulation 13 Development Phasing 14 Financing 15 - IV Benefits and Costs to Dublin 16 V. Environmental Review and Mitigation 16 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STAGE 1 PD REZONING, TENTATIVE MAP and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT for the AI,AMEDA COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER TABLES Table 1: Existing Land Use Table 2: Proposed Land Use EXlqlRITS Exhibit 1. Vicinity Map Exhibit 2, Emerald Park Development Exhibit 3. Existing Land Use Exhibit 4. Aerial Photo Exhibit 5. Proposed Land Use Exhibit 6. BART Parking Structure Exhibit 7. Massing Study Exhibit 8. Key Plan for Street Sections 8a. Proposed Street Sections -1 Bb. Proposed Street Sections -2 8c. Proposed Street Sections -3 8d. Proposed Street Sections -4 Exhibit 9. Phasing Plan APPENDICES Appendix 1. Proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Text Appendix 2. Proposed Zoning and Uses DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment Stage I Planned Development Rezoning Tentative Parcel Map and Development Agreement -- L INTRODUCTION The Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA), in cooperation with the Bay Area -- Rapid Transit District (BART), is requesting that the City of Dublin approve entitlements to permit the construction of the Dublin Transit Center, a high-density, mixed-use development directly adjacent to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station on approximately 90.65 acres that -- is currently either vacant or used for BART station surface parking. A General Plan amendment, an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a Stage I Planned Development rezoning, approval of a parcel map, and a development agreement are being requested at this -- time to provide the framework for future specific development proposals. In response to suburban sprawl and traffic gridlock, there has been much enthusiastic discussion -- and many planning efforts conducted in the Bay Area to promote the "transit village" concept; locating new high-density development around transit stations to encourage greater use of BART and other public transit systems. In 1994, recognizing that persons living or working near transit -- stations use transit systems in far greater numbers than does the general public living elsewhere, the California State Legislature approved the Transit Village Development Act (Govt. Code 65460) to encourage higher density, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use development within 1/4 mile of transit stations. Recent East Bay projects near the Pleasant Hill, Hayward and Fmiwale BART stations have all strived to encourage such transit-oriented development, and additional projects have been announced in Richmond and Walnut Creek. Due to consolidated land ownership and relatively few development conslmints, the proposed Dublin Transit Center offers an exceptional opportunity, unique in the Bay Area, to create a large-scale, mixed use transit village that will be primarily oriented towards a BART station. No other BART station has as much vacant, available land under one ownership directly adjacent to it (approximately 61.5 net acres), with major streets and services in place and few development constraints. This provides a unique oppommity to develop a high-density mixed-use project from the ground up that will encourage transit use as a primary means of transportation. The Dublin Transit Center is planned to be a pedestrian-friendly, mit-oriented development that will maximize use of the large public investment represented by the BART sta-tion. The ACSPA proposal will permit the development of up to 1,500 high density housing units and two million square feet of campus office development, as well as with up to 70,000 square feet of ancillary ground-floor retail uses to serve residents, workers and commuters. The high-density transit village will be a vibrant mix residential, office and retail uses, all within convenient ol- walking distance of BART and a major bus hub, significantly decreasing the automobile dependancy of both transit village residents and workers. Most of the existing BART surface parking north of the station will be replaced with a parking garage, to be located adjacent to the station and 1-580, with a net increase of 500 spaces over the existing number of permanent BART parking spaces. These additional spaces will reduce the d' need for an equivalent number of spaces at the proposed West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, significantly reducing the cost of that station. Construction of the new BART garage will serve as a major catalyst for a more pedestrian- friendly development; permitting residential and office development to be brought closer to the BART station entrance, and eliminating a major existing barrier to pedestrians from adjacent areas - the existing large surface parking lot. Development standards for the Transit Center include wide sidewalks, on-street parking, limited building setbacks, short blocks and ground- floor retail uses, all designed to enhance the pedestrian experience. In addition, the Transit Center development will be linked to an extensive pedestrian and bike trail system that will permit direct, dedicated bike and walking access to the emerging Eastern Dublin development area to the east, the Bishop Ranch Business Park to the north in San Ramon, and Hacienda Business Park to the south. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains many goals and policies designed to promote the type of development being proposed as part of the Dublin Transit Center. However, because much of the Transit Center property was owned by the U.S. Army at the time the EDSP was prepared, the BART station and adjacent property were not included in the original Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan/General Plan amendment remedies this situation by modifying the boundaries of the 3,300 acre Specific Plan area to add approximately 90.65 acres that encompasses lands north of 1-580, east of the Iron Horse Trail/Southern Pacific right-of-way, west of Arnold Road, and south of Camp Parks and Dublin Boulevard. These lands will be designated as a new Specific Plan sub-area, the "Transit Village Center Development District", permitting a mix of high-density residential and campus office uses, as well as ancillary retail uses that will provide convenient goods and services to the residents, office users and BART patrons. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS Location and Ownership: The Transit Center Project Area, which is proposed to be added to the area currently included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, is bounded by the former Southern Pacific railroad/Iron Horse Trail right-of-way to the west, Dublin Boulevard and Camp Parks to the north, 1-580 to the south, and Arnold Road and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area to the east. See Exhibit 1 (Vicinity Map) and Exhibit 2 (Emerald Park Development), Most of the Transit Center is within 1/3 mile, or a 9 minute walk, from the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station platform. ^ recent parcel map, (P.M. 7395) subdivided the Project Area into five -2- parcels to permit the completion and dedication of City streets in the area. The existing BART station access and surface parking lot, located on approximately 15 acres, was recently transferred to BART by the ACSPA. An additional 14 acres are taken up by Dublin public streets, either completed or currently under construction. The remaining 61.5 acres are currently vacant and owned by the ACSPA. Table I provides ownership and acreage information by parcel for the Transit Center Area. Land Use Designations: Until recently, the Project Area was owned by thc U.S. Army as part of the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area to the north. Alameda County received approximately 35 acres of the Project Area, and the City of Dublin received the Dublin Boulevard fight-of-way, as part of a land swap with the Army that was completed in the early 1990's. Fifteen acres were then transferred to BART for use as the East Dublin/Pleasanton station. The ACSPA subsequently purchased an additional 43 acres between its Emerald Park -- holdings to the east and the BART station from the Army several years ago. Due to its recent ownership as part of Camp Parks, the Transit Center, like the remainder of Camp Parks, is currently designated as "Public Lands" in the Dublin General Plan, and is zoned for agriculture. -- See Exhibit 3 (Existing Land Use) Transit Facilities: The Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, which opened in 1995, is located in -- the median ofi-580, with access to the station platform from either the north or the south side of the freeway. According to BART, almost 11,000 people currently enter or exit the station each weekday. The station provides 2,612 permanent surface parking spaces, with just over half -- (1,326) located on the north side of the freeway, within the 15 acres recently transferred to BART. The remainder is located in surface lots on the south side of the freeway, in Pleasanton. There is no direct automobile connection between the two sides of the freeway. See Exhibit 4 (Aerial Photo) The majority of the parking (1,051 spaces) on the Dublin side of the BART station is located in -- a 7+ acre chevron-shaped area directly north of the station. Also located within BART's 15 acre parcel is a traction station, located near 1-580, and a large electrical substation in the northwest comer of the site, which supplies electrical power to the BART station. Adjacent to each of these facilities are additional small surface parking lots for BART patrons, with 86 spaces near the substation and 154 spaces adjacent to the traction station. An additional 32 spaces are designated for "kiss-and-ride"(short-term parking). The existing BART parking spaces are generally filled on weekdays prior to 8:00 a.m. Overflow parking onto the adjacent vacant ACSPA lands was occurring on a regular basis. To help provide some additional temporary parking for BART patrons, the City of Dublin has been permitting on-street parking along both Iron Horse Parkway and DeMarcus Boulevard. In addition, ACSPA recently completed an interim parking area, just north of the electrical substation on the west side of DeMarcus Boulevard, that provides 427 spaces. It is the intent of ACSPA to close this interim facility once the planned BART parking garage adjacent to the freeway is completed. -3- The Dublin/Pleasanton BART station also serves as one of two "hubs" for the local bus service, the Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA or Wheels), which provides service between BART and much of the Th-Valley. Currently, 12 fixed bus routes converge on the BART hub, permitting timed transfer between routes, as well as connections with BART. In addition, Wheels operates DART, a midday demand response system for Pleasanton and Dublin that is centered on the BART station. Several bus routes operated by the County Connection, serving eastern Contra Costa County, also converge on the BART station. Buses utilize a covered bus stop area to the northwest of the station entrance that provides 10 separate bus pullouts. Buses, unlike cars, are permitted to travel under the freeway between the Dublin and Pleasanton sides of the station. Streets: Dublin Boulevard, from the Iron Horse Trail right-of-way east, is currently being widened to six lanes and extended due east to Hacienda Drive, as required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Two signalized intersections provide access tO the BART station, via DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway. When Dublin Boulevard is completed in Fall, 2000, the DeMarcus intersection will also serve as the main entrance to Camp Parks to the north. An additional signal is being constructed at Arnold Road, which is being extended from Central Parkway south to Dublin Boulevard. The 2-1ane "Connector Road" that has served as Dublin Boulevard between Iron Horse Parkway and Arnold Road will be abandoned and removed. The City of Dublin is currently preparing to widen the segment of Dublin Boulevard from the Iron Horse Trail west to Dougherty Road to six lanes, as required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. South of Dublin Boulevard, Arnold Road is currently an unimproved gravel road that provides access to a Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) water turnout facility adjacent to 1- 580, where it intersects another unimproved gravel road (Altamirano Drive), which follows the 1-580 frontage west towards the BART station. Neither road is dedicated to or open to the public. Pedestrian/Bike Trails: As part of the Dublin Boulevard improvements, a pedestrian/bike trail is being constructed along the north side of Dublin Boulevard that will connect to an extensive trail system along Tassajara Creek to the east and to the planned Iron Horse Trail along the west side of the Project Area. The Iron Horse Trail, which currently follows the former Southern Pacific right-of-way through portions of Dublin and much of Contra Costa County, is scheduled to be completed adjacent to the west side of the Project Area in Spring, 2001, providing dedicated pedestrian/bike access between the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Walnut Creek. Utilities: All major utilities including sewer, water, re-cycled water, joint trench and storm drainage improvements, are being installed as part of the Dublin Boulevard extension, and have been sized to accommodate development of the Transit Center. Major sewer, water, storm drain, gas and electrical power facilities all run down the Arnold Road corridor between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580. A PG&E natural gas regulator station is located in the middle of the -4- interim BART parking lot, but will no longer be necessary once Dublin Boulevard improvements are complete. Existing Land Use: With the exception of the public street improvements and the BART surface parking lots, the Transit Center area is currently vacant, with fiat topography that gently slopes to the south and west. There are no trees, other than parking lot landscaping, and the vegetation type is predominantly non-native grasses and shrubs. Much of the area has been - highly disturbed by the recent road construction, as well as discing for fire prevention. Several biological surveys have been conducted in the area that included the Transit Center area and concluded that there were no species of special status or of concern within the Transit Center area. Jones and Stokes, as part of a larger study of the entire Camp Parks facility for the U.S. Army, surveyed the area in 1995, prior to the transfer of the property to the ACSPA. As part Of the BART station construction in 1995, a wetlands delineation was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that delineated approximately 2.Sacres of jurisdictional wetlands -- within the Transit Center area, apparently caused by Army heavy equipment operators that created low spots in the flat topography that would seasonally fill with water. Under the Nationwide Permit process, these wetlands were mitigated by BART through the creation of new wetlands on Army property to the north as part of a three-way agreement between BART, the Army and Alameda County, permitting the filling of the existing wetlands on the Transit Center property. Biological surveys conducted as part of the Nationwide Permit process also found no evidence of any sensitive species within the Transit Center area. Surrounding Uses: The Transit Center is relatively isolated from any adjacent uses. To the west, separated by a 100 foot-wide undeveloped area where the Iron Horse Trail will be located, is a commercial/industrial zone, dominated by lumber yards and auto repair and sales. This area is served by Scarlett Court, which dead-ends at the Southern Pacific fight-of-way, adjacent to 1- 580. To the north of Dublin Boulevard is the 2,500+ acre Camp Parks U.S. Army Reserve Training Facility. Structures and storage yards associated with Camp Parks are all located well north of Dublin Boulevard, with the area directly adjacent to Dublin Boulevard currently vacant. The main entrance to Camp Parks will be located at the DeMarcus Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard intersection, once the Dublin Boulevard improvements are completed. The southern edge of the Transit Center area is defined by 1-580. Along the western portion of the Project Area, the freeway is elevated approximately 25 feet where it goes over the former Southern Pacific fight-of-way, forming a major visual barrier. The BART station platform is located in the freeway median, just west of the Transit Center. To the south of the freeway is additional BART patron parking and the Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton. -5- To the east of the Transit Center, separated by Arnold Road, is the County's Emerald Park development, within the existing Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Almost all of the County's holdings within the Specific Plan area have been, or are in the process of being, developed. The properties directly adjacent to Arnold Road are all proposed to be developed for Campus Office uses, with buildings up to six stories and FAlLs of approximately .67 (net). Sybase has begun construction on two six-story buildings on Parcel 15b that will serve as the company's new headquarters. Commerce One is currently making application to the City of Dublin to construct it's corporate headquarters in four six-story buildings on Parcel 16b. Cisco Systems recently announced that it is negotiating with ACSPA to purchase both Parcels 15a and 16a for additional campus office development. With the completion of Dublin Boulevard in Fall, 2000 as a six-lane road between the Iron Horse Trail fight-of-way and Hacienda Drive, all major street improvements currently required in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for this area will be complete. Hacienda Drive will be completed as an eight-lane arterial between Dublin and 1-580, with a three-lane left-turn bay into Site 16. Central Parkway, between Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive will also be complete, and Arnold Road will be completed between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive. As part of the development of Parcels 16a and 16b, a major new roadway will be constructed from Hacienda Drive west to Arnold Road to serve both the new office developments and the Transit Center area. This roadway will provide convenient access from 1-580 to the Transit Center area, without relying solely on Dublin Boulevard. Development on Parcel 16 will also require the extension of Arnold Road as public street from Dublin Boulevard to a terminus at 1- 580 to provide additional access to these parcels. Ill, Tl~E PROPOSED PROJECT OVERVIEW The Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, in cooperation with BART, is proposing an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and relevant portions of the Dublin General Plan to permit the construction of a high density, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development adjacent to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station that will maximize use of the significant investment in public transit represented by the station and associated bus transit hub. Up to 1,500 residential units and up to 2 million square feet of office space are proposed to be arranged around a village green and a series of open space corridors, with ancillary retail uses located in key central locations to serve residents, workers, and BART patrons. Most of this development will be within 1/4 mile of the BART station entrance, with the densest development located closest to BART. Replacement of most of the existing BART surface parking with a garage, reduced parking standards for transit-oriented development, a fine- grained circulation system, wide sidewalks with buildings adjacent to and oriented toward the street, and links to the regional trail system will all help create a pedestrian-friendly environment that will strongly encourage alternative modes of travel and reduced dependance on automobile -6- trips. The 90.65 acre Transit Center area would be added to the existing 3,300 acre Specific Plan area as a new, eleventh, Specific Plan planning subarea, which would also be designated a Transit -- Village Development District in accordance with the Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994 (Govt. Code Section 65460), complete with its own land use concept and community design guidelines. Draft Specific Plan Amendment text can be found in Appendix 1. The proposed General Plan/Specific Plan amendment is supported by current Dublin General Plan policies. Several General Plan policies specifically encourage higher density, mixed-use -- development adjacent to BART. For instance, Amendment 5.2: Transit, Implementing Policy F states that the City should: -- "Encourage higher densities and mixed use developments near major transit lines and transit transfer points as a means of encouraging the use of public transit. This type of transit-oriented development is especially encouraged.., near the Eastern Dublin BART station." Similarly, Amendment l. 4: Primary Planning Area and Extended Planning Area, specifically states that "development patterns will be encouraged that support the use of transit, both on a local and regional level". The Land Use diagram for the Dublin General Plan is also proposed to be amended to reflect the addition of the Transit Center to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and the proposed land use _ designations. In addition to a General Plan/Specific Plan amendment, the ACSPA is also requesting approval _ of a "Stage 1" Planned Development Zoning for the Transit Center, in keeping with the proposed Specific Plan land use designations. A proposed list of permitted and conditional uses can be found in Appendix 2. A parcel map subdividing the Transit Center into several additional parcels as required by the proposed internal circulation system is also proposed to be approved at this time. Finally, a master development agreement for the project is also being requested, in compliance with the City of Dublin's development agreement ordinance. It is anticipated that several of the City's development fee programs, including the Traffic Impact Fee and the Public Facilities Fee programs, will be need to be modified to reflect the proposed development of the Transit Center. The entitlements currently sought by the ACSPA are designed to provide a general framework for the comprehensive development of the area as a successful transit village. No gpecific -- development projects are currently being proposed. Following approval of the proposed entitlements, development projects for each of the sites within the Transit Center will need to be brought before the City to seek specific project approvals, including Stage 11 Planned t-- Development rezoning and Site Development Review. These approvals will deal with project- -7- specific design issues such as building architecture, site access and design, and specific mixes of uses. PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Existing and planned streets divide the Transit Center area into a number of Sites, as illustrated in Exhibit 5 (Proposed Land Use). Dublin Boulevard separates Site F to the north from the remainder of the Transit Center area to the south, while DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway define Sites A, B and C. An extension of the planned street that separates Parcels 16a and 16b to the east, dubbed "Digital Drive", will separate the Transit Center area between Iron Horse Parkway and Arnold Road into two areas. These areas are proposed to be further divided by a new north-south street, dubbed "Campus Drive" that would provide access between Dublin Boulevard and Altamirano Street. Three of the Sites (A, B and C) are proposed to be designated for High Density Residential development. Sites located east of Iron Horse Parkway (D-1, D-2, E-1, E-2 and F) are proposed to be designated for Campus Office uses, at various intensities. Several small areas, including the existing electrical substation, bus transit hub and surrounding BART parking, and the new BART garage site, are proposed to be designated for Public/Semi-Public uses. In addition, ancillary retail uses are proposed to provide convenient goods and services to residents, employees and BART patrons. The proposed land uses and intensities for each of these sites is summarized in Table 2 and described below. In keeping with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan format, all acreages are given as "gross", inclusive of adjacent streets. Residential Development: Approximately 31 acres, directly to the north of the station and west of Iron Horse Parkway, are proposed to be designated for High Density Residential development. Up to 1,500 multi-family units could be built in this area, at an average density of 48 units to the acre. Net densities, once streets and open space are deducted, would range from 64-70 units per acre. Residents would be within a 1/3 mile of the BART station entrance, with some units closer to the station entrance than much of the existing BART surface parking. Residential development in this area would be primarily characterized by apartment, loft and condominium projects up to five stories high, although townhomes could be incorporated into larger projects. Parking would primarily be structured, and would either be podium parking located undemeath the building, or would be separate structures around which the units are wrapped. Due to a relatively high groundwater table in the area, underground parking is probably not feasible. Recent studies by U.C. Berkeley researchers have found that similarly sited multi-family residential development in Pleasant Hill and other East Bay suburban locations within walking distance of a BART station have the following characteristics: Average household size is significantly smaller (1.66 persons per unit) than surrounding development (2.39 persons per -8- household). Over 90% of households have only I-2 occupants, and fewer than 8% have _ children. Car ownership is 1.26 per household, vs. 1.61 per household in the surrounding area, with over 70% having 1 or fewer cars. In Pleasant Hill developments within walking distance of the station, an average of 46.7% of work trips are by BART. Based on this research, the transit-oriented residential development proposed for the Dublin Transit Center should have significantly reduced impacts on City services than would be _ expected of more typical multi-family residential projects found in the surrounding area. Smaller household size and fewer school-age children will result in reduced needs for schools and parks. Lower car-ownership rates indicates that parking ratios should be significantly reduced from the City of Dublin's 2.0 spaces per unit to 1.5 spaces per unit, or less. High transit-ridership rates for these residential projects translate into lower peak-hour automobile rates produced by this type of development than would be anticipated at a similar project farther -- from BART. In addition, the proximity of over 4 million sqdare feet of office development within walking distance (2 million within the Transit Center itself and another 2 million square feet on the adjacent sites within the Emerald Park development) will permit a significant number -- of Transit Center residents to walk to nearby employment. Site A, a 10.92 acre triangular area located in the northwestern comer of the Project Area, -- adjacent to Dublin Boulevard and the Iron Horse Trail, would contain approximately 530 units. Although the gross density would be approximately 49 units per acre, the net density of approximately 64 units per acre, would be slightly lower than other Transit Center residential -- sites, due to the irregular shape of the Site. Site B, a 12.0 acre rectangular area located south of Dublin Boulevard between DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway, would contain approximately 565 units, with a density of 47 units per acre and a net density of approximately 70 units per acre. -- Site C, an 8.6 acre chevron-shaped area, is located on the current site of the bulk of the existing BART surface parking, which would first be relocated to a new garage, as described below. Site C would contain approximately 405 units, with a density of 47 units/acre, and a net density of approximately 70 units per acre. Affordable Housing: Transit Center housing development would be subject to the City of -- Dublin's affordable housing program, which requires that either on-site affordable housing be provided, at the rate of 1% very low, 2% low and 2% moderate income, or that an in-lieu fee be paid. Although the expense of providing on-site affordable housing currently favors paying the in-lieu fee, ACSPA is committed to ensuring that on-site affordable housing that meets the City's requirements is provided. Because the Transit Center could be an ideal location for additional affordable housing, ACSPA will work with the City of Dublin to revise the current -- City program to increase on-site affordable housing requirements, as well as seek other means of funding and providing additional affordable units. -9- It should also be recognized that Transit Center housing, by virtue of its location adjacent to a BART station and major bus hub, will be more affordable than similar housing located further from transit. A 10-year research study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that transit-oriented housing can significantly reduce transportation expenses for residents, which then is available to pay higher relative housing costs as a percentage of income. Based on this study, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) recently initiated the Location Efficient Mortgage program, raising the restriction that a family spend no more than 28 percent of its income on a home mortgage to 39 percent for homes near public transit. Public/Semi-Public Uses: Approximately 8.65 acres of the Transit Center is designated for Public/Semi,Public uses. This designation includes existing BART-related facilities to remain, as well as several new facilities. One of the major components of the proposed Dublin Transit Center is a new five-level, 1,700+ space garage for BART patrons, to be constructed just east of the station entrance, adjacent to 1- 580. As stipulated in an agreement between BART and ACSPA, construction of the garage will replace the 1,051 surface spaces now located in Site C, allowing that Site to be developed for High Density Residential uses, as described above. The garage would include an additional 500 spaces that would permit BART to reduce the total number of spaces being provided at the new West Dublin/Pleasanton station by an equivalent amount. The garage would be designed so that the top level could be expanded by BART in the future, to accommodate an additional 250 parking spaces. The proposed garage would be located on approximately 4.1 acres, approximately 1.42 acres of which is now occupied by BART's traction station, which would be incorporated into the first floor of the garage structure. The remainder of the garage would be on land currently owned by ACSPA to the east of the traction station. Existing handicapped, staff and VIP parking adjacent to the traction station would be preserved, although in a slightly different configuration. See Exhibit 6 (BART Parking Structure). Access to the new garage would be primarily from a new frontage road along 1-580 (Altamirano Road), that would connect up to a southern extension of Arnold Road. The garage could also be reached from DeMarcus Boulevard, Iron Horse Parkway, and Campus Drive. BART patrons using the garage would be much closer to the station entrance than most of the existing surface parking, and would no longer need to cross a street to get to the station. Locating the garage directly adjacent to the elevated freeway could also help shield other areas within the Project Area from excessive freeway noise. With the exception of Site C, the remainder of the existing BART facilities, including the Wheels transit hub and a 2 megawatt electrical substation with 86 adjacent BART parking spaces, would be retained "as is", occupying approximately 3.5 acres. The only modification in this area would be convert the existing one-way access road just north of the station into a two- way street, permitting easier circulation between areas, although the existing one-way bus loop -10- would be retained. Following construction of the garage, and housing on Site C, a diamond- shaped plaza in front of the BART station entrance would be defined, creating a ceremonial space that would formally link the station, the garage and the adjacent development together. Campus Office Uses: The remainder of the Transit Center area, approximately 50.5 gross acres, is proposed to be designated for Campus Office uses at various intensities. If developed at the maximum level proposed, a total of 2 million square feet of office space could be constructed within the Transit Center. Most of this new office development will be located within a 9 minute walk of the BART station entrance (1/3 mile), with the densest development located within 1/4 mile. Locating higher-intensity office uses close to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station will have several positive impacts. Studies by U.C. Berkeley researchers in 1993 of 18 Bay Area rail- served office buildings within IA mile of a suburban train station found that, on average, 17% of those working near a BART station commuted by rail. This is an enormous increase above the overall 1-2 percent of work trips taken on BART in the three BART-served Counties, and represents a significant decrease in potential automobile trips on congested freeways. Because the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is currently an "end-of-the-line" station, with the majority of current users commuting to inner city job sites, increased use of BART by workers coming to the station area will significantly increase the relative amount of "reverse" commute use on this portion of the BART system, representing a more efficient use of the system. As indicated in Exhibit 5 (Proposed Land Use) and Table 2, intensity of office use would generally increase closer to the BART station. Site 1~, north of Dublin Boulevard and the furthest from the station, is proposed to have a maximum development potential of 250,000 square feet (.47 FAR gross), comparable to the nearby existing Sybase and Emerald Pointe developments. Office buildings would be limited to six stories in height, in keeping with current Specific Plan policies, and parking could be provided by primarily surface lots, although the irregular shape of the parcel may require parking structures to achieve the full development potential. Site E, located south of Dublin Boulevard between Iron Horse Parkway and Arnold Road, would be even more intensely developed. The 17.5 acre area would have an average FAR of.98, permitting up to 750,000 square feet of office development. Building height would be limited to 8 stor/es, with primarily structured parking. Campus Drive, providing right-mm access only to and from Dublin Boulevard, would separate Site E into two smaller sites. The 6.3 acre Site E- 1, to the west, would contain up to 260,000 square feet of office development, with an FAR of .95. The larger 11.2 acre Site E-2, to the east, would contain up to 490,000 square feet of office development, with an FAR of 1.0. Site D, located adjacent to 1-580 and closest to the BART station, would be developed the most intensively, with an average FAR of 1.1. Campus Drive separates the larger site into two smaller sites. The 3.5 acre Site D-l, directly north of the proposed BART garage, would contain up to 170,000 square feet of office development, with an FAR of 1.12, and the 17.32 acre Site D-2, to -11- the east, would contain up to 830,000 square feet of office development. Because of the intensity of use, and adjacency to the BART station, building heights up to 10 stories would be permitted on both Sites D-1 and D-2, with primarily structured parking. This increased building height, significantly higher than any existing office buildings in the Tri- Valley, would help foster the image of the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station as a major development focal point in the area. Due to its direct proximity to the proposed BART parking garage, uses that could potentially utilize the BART parking during evening off-hours would be encouraged on Site D-1. Specifically, a hotel development would be encouraged that could effectively share BART parking, increase BART ridership, and provide a synergistic relationship with Transit Center office development. To encourage more housing, current Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies permit up to 50% of the area designated for Campus Office uses to be developed for residential use, if it would decrease potential traffic generation and/or contribute to greater social interaction and a more vital live/work environment. Because all of these conditions would be met in the Transit Center, it is proposed that Sites D-1 and E-l, adjacent to Iron Horse Parkway and closest to the residential portion of the Transit Center, be Considered "flex" sites, permited to be developed for either high density housing or office uses, depending on the market and developer interest. Up to 300 additional residential units could be built on these sites, which would encourage a truly mixed-use development. These additional residential units along Iron Horse Parkway would add to the vitality of the proposed residential area to the west, and due to the proximity to BART, would further the potential to reduce automobile usage for work trips provided by transit-oriented residential development. Ancillary Retail Uses: To further promote a vital live/work environment and reduce potential traffic generation, ancillary ground floor retail and service uses would be strongly encouraged along both sides of Iron Horse Parkway, to create a centralized, convenient, walkable area providing convenient retail and service needs for area residents, employees and BART patrons. Up to 70,000 square feet of ground floor retail and service uses could be incorporated into the residential, office and/or public uses fronting on Iron Horse Parkway, if specific projects demonstrate that the proposed uses would provide convenient goods and services that would reduce automobile trips to other areas. For instance, restaurants, coffee shops, dry cleaning, and banks located in ground floor space fronting on Iron Horse Parkway would provide a centralized convenient pedestrian access to these establishments for the approximately 8,000 office workers, 2,400 residents or 1000's of BART patrons that would live, work and/or pass through the Transit Center, without requiring an additional trip by car. Ancillary retail uses along Iron Horse Parkway would primarily depend on pedestrian traffic from the surrounding development and BART for customers. Parking would generally be limited to on-street parking, supplemented by shared use of adjacent residential or office parking -12- structures along Iron Horse Parkway. In addition, it is possible that retail parking could be -- supplemented by shared use of some BART parking, such as use of designated kiss-and-ride BART parking during non-commute hours. To ensure that these ancillary retail uses would contribute to the pedestrian-friendly vitality of the Transit Center by making Iron Home Parkway a "shopping street", care would need to taken to ensure that such uses are concentrated along portions of the street so that large gaps between -- clusters of retail uses don't develop. In general, pedestrians will not walk more than 200 feet between retail areas separated by non-retail uses. -- At the same time, it needs to be recognized that retail uses in the Transit Center will not be economically viable until much of the development is in place and workers and residents are occupying the new development. Flexibility will need to be provided to allow interim uses that -- can utilize space ultimately designed for groUnd floor retail Use, until much of the Transit Center is completed, and the market has developed sufficiently to support retail uses. For instance, groUnd floor retail space could first be occupied by small professional office uses, such as law, real estate or architectural firms. Once the Transit Center is more fully developed, these uses would be replaced by true retail uses, such as restaurants, that require a larger local pedestrian clientele. A list of proposed permitted uses in the ancillary retail area can be found in Appendix -- 2o -- URBAN FORM AND CIRCULATION To facilitate pedestrian movement, provide adequate automobile circulation, and to foster a more compact, human-scaled development, the sites within the Transit Center would be further divided up into 250-300 foot wide "blocks", as illustrated in Exhibit 7 (Massing Study). These blocks would generally correspond to the size and shape of urban street blocks found in older, pedestrian-oriented cities. Some of the blocks would be defined by streets, either existing or new, while other blocks would be defined by open corridors between building massing, through which pedestrians could pass. The increased choice of routes for pedestrians will encourage BART use by ensuring that large buildings don't block the most direct routes to the station. The corridors between buildings will also help break up building masses, providing view corridors into and out of the Transit Center development. Variation in building design from block to block would be encouraged to provide a more human scale to projects. Recognizing the need to maintain free flow on Dublin Boulevard, no additional full-movement signalized intersections are proposed to access the Transit Center area from Dublin Boulevard. Instead, "Campus Drive", bisecting Sites D and E, would provide fight-in/right-out access from Dublin Boulevard. DeMarcus, Iron Horse and Arnold, extended south to the 1-580 right-of-way, would provide the major vehicular access to Dublin Boulevard, taking advantage of existing full- movement signalized intersections. -13- The major automobile access route for the Transit Center in the east-west direction would be a new "Digital Drive" that would connect Iron Horse Parkway with Hacienda Drive to the east, permitting Transit Center traffic to access 1-580 without utilizing Dublin Boulevard. Additional east-west movement would be enhanced by upgrading Altamirano Road, adjacent to 1-580 between Arnold Road and the proposed BART garage, permitting an alternative route to the garage and surrounding development. Between Iron Horse Parkway and DeMarcus Boulevard, a "Village Green" would be provided to serve as a gathering spot and focal point for the surrounding residential development. The Green would provide an open grassy area enclosed by adjacent buildings, on which local residents could enjoy passive recreational activities. One-way private streets on either side of the Green would provide access to the adjacent apartment projects, which in turn would shelter the Green from freeway noise and the pervasive Dublin winds. A pedestrian corridor would connect the Village Green south to the BART station. Building setbacks and street cross-sections that would further enhance the pedestrian environment within the Transit Center are proposed. A series of proposed cross-sections are referenced in Exhibit 8 that maintain adequate capacity for automobile traffic within the Transit Center, while establishing a more walkable environment than typically found in suburban projects. Where traffic levels permit, existing wide street right-of-ways (such as the 108 foot- wide DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway) would be decreased to make them more inviting to pedestrians. On new streets, the amount of area devoted to traffic lanes would be reduced, and sidewalk widths increased over current City standards. Along DeMarcus, Iron Horse, and the proposed Digital Drive, buildings would have zero setback from the right-of-way, and only minimal setbacks (15 feet) would be used on other streets, although parking garages would be set back to provide landscape screening. Special treatments for the sidewalk areas (pedestrian-scale lighting, tree grates, street furniture and signage) would be developed to create a more inviting pedestrian environment. In addition on-street parking would be encouraged on residential and retail streets within the Transit Center (with the exception of Dublin Boulevard), increasing the amount of short-term parking available for ancillary retail uses and visitors, while buffering pedestrians from adjacent traffic. By reducing apparent street-widths and providing on-street parking, automobile speeds within the Transit Center would be reduced, further enhancing the pedestrian environment. Additional design features, such as 20 foot radii for curbs at intersections, instead of the 40 feet commonly used in other parts of eastern Dublin, would further increase the "walkability" of the area. DEVELOPMENT PHASING Because all major streets and utilities needed to serve them are presently under construction as part of the Dublin Boulevard extension project, all of the Sites proposed for Campus Office development within the Transit Center could be developed in any sequence, as dictated by the market for office space. -14- Development of the Transit Center residential area (Sites A, B and C) would be required to be phased so that existing BART operations and parking arc not disrupted. See Exhibit 9 (Phasing Plan). Site B could be. developed first, utilizing the existing street network. Following the construction of the proposed BART garage adjacent to 1-580, the interim parking lot on Site A and the existing BART surface parking lot on Site C could be abandoned, and these areas developed. FINANCING Because the Transit Center is proposed to be a part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, development within the Transit Center will be subject to the same fees and development exactions as the rest of eastern Dublin. These fees, established by the City of Dublin and other service providers (including DSRSD, Zone 7 and the Dublin Unified School District), are collected from development projects and used to pay for infrastructure improvements required by the entire Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. As has been the case with the ACSPA's Emerald Park development, all internal streets and infrastructure, including the Village Green, will be constructed by individual developers as needed. No special assessments or other financing mechanism is proposed to pay for the construction of these improvements. The new BART garage adjacent to 1-580, estimated to cost approximately $18 million, is proposed to be paid for through a combination of funding mechanisms. Approximately $7 million of the remainder of funds needed for the Transit Center BART garage will come from the sale of Site C to a private developer for residential development. The ACSPA is contributing approximately three acres of land for the garage. Additional funds needed are being sought by ACSPA and BART from State and Federal sources. It is proposed that approximately $5.36 million of the BART garage costs be collected from all new Eastern Dublin development by the City of Dublin through the City's Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). The 1,680 space garage will provide 500 additional spaces above and beyond the number of existing permanent surface spaces that will need to be replaced due to development of the Transit Center. These additional spaces will allow the proposed Western Dublin/Pleasanton BART station to reduce its parking spaces by an equal amount. Because these additional spaces are, in effect, a regional transportation benefit that will permit the construction of a second Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, the cost of providing these 500 spaces, estimated to be $5.36 million, should be added to the City of Dublin's Traffic Impact Fee list of improvements, and be subject to reimbursement through the TIF. It should be noted that, based on preliminary traffic studies commissioned by the ACSPA, traffic from the proposed Transit Center development can be accommodated at acceptable service levels by the existing or planned roadway improvements already required to be provided by Eastern Dublin Specific Plan development and funded by the City's TIF. Only one major additional roadway construction project has been identified - an additional fight-mm lane at the Dougherty/Dublin Boulevard intersection, which eonservatively would cost $2 million to -15- construct. However, the additional development that is being proposed for the Transit Center (2 million square feet of office and 1,500 residential units) would pay over $22.7 million in additional TIF fees, based on the existing TIF. Subtracting out a credit of $5.36 million for the additional 500 BART garage spaces and conservatively assuming $4 million for any needed offsite roadway improvements, the Transit Center could still contribute over $13.3 million in ~ fees above and beyond the cost of additional road improvements required by the development. IV. BENEFITS AND COSTS TO DUBLIN The proposed Transit Center development will provide major benefits to the City of Dublin. Development of a major mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented development at this location will continue Dublin's reputation for high quality, environmentally sensitive development in the area. The prominent location and proximity to BART could also help attract additional large firms to the City from other parts of the Bay Area, further enhancing the City's image. Development of the Transit Area will also help knit together western and eastern Dublin, currently separated by over ½ mile of vacant land once occupied by Camp Parks. Financially, the proposed project should be very beneficial to the City of Dublin. The Dublin Transit Center will allow the private development of approximately 2 million square feet of office space and up to 1,500 residential units, as well as up to 70,000 square feet of ancillary retail space, all located on what is now vacant public land that is not on the tax rolls. The Transit Center development will significantly increase City revenues through property taxes, business taxes, sales taxes, and fee collection. In addition, construction of the proposed BART garage with 500 additional spaces will permit the successful completion of the proposed West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station by reducing parking needed at that station. An additional Dublin BART station will in mm enhance access to the City from other parts of the Bay Area, and could help rejuvenate downtown. While the proposed Transit Center development will increase the need for City services by residents and workers, these increased costs should be more than offset by the significant increase in City revenues from the development. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND MITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 2.65962.5, the Transit Center project is not located on a hazardous waste or substances site. Based on discussions with City of Dublin staff, an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared for the Dublin Transit Center project. A draft initial study, prepared by the applicant, is attached that focuses on potentially significant impacts to the environment that need to be addressed during the CEQA process. -16- It should be recognized that the Transit Center proposal itself, as a high-density mix-use transit- oriented development, meets the criteria of many Bay Area regional agencies for mitigating new urban development projects. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) all have policies encouraging high density, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development adjacent to transit stations as a means of mitigating regional impacts to air, water, housing and transportation quality. The Transit Center will also be subject to existing Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies as well as the City of Dublin's standard review and approval process. This process includes a number of requirements and policies that will mitigate many of the potential environmental impacts of the Transit Center project. The Standard Dublin Public Works Conditions of Approval contain specific conditions that mitigate construction dust, noise and air pollution, flooding, erosion control, and storm water quality. In addition, the Standard Conditions require a Geotechnical Investigation Report and a biological survey for sensitive species prior to grading, as well as a requirement that standardized procedures for evaluating accidental finds of any prehistoric or historic artifacts or human remains be followed as prescribed in Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the California Environmental Quality Act. -17-