Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 5.3 Hopyard Dougherty Rd Traffic Signal (2)
4:17 Dill3CP‘P 62 00-44D AGENDA STATEMENT Meeting Date: December 27, 1982 SUBJECT Traffic Signal Agreement - Hopyard/Dougherty Road at I-580 EXHIBITS ATTACHED : Environmental Negative Declaration; Letter from CalTrans dated 12/1/82; Letter from TJKM dated 12/17/82 & Attachments; Traffic Signal Agreement; Resolution RECOMMENDATION 1 ) Make necessary finding and approve Negative Declaration. 2) Adopt Resolution authorizing Mayor to execute traffic signal agreement with the City of Pleasanton. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Estimated project cost of $175,000 and future modification, maintenance and operation will be borne by the City of Pleasanton. DESCRIPTION : At its meeting of September 13, 1982, the City Council approved in concept the installation of a traffic signal on Dougherty Road and I-580 along with related improvements. The City Council. directed Staff to work out an agreement with the City of Pleasanton • and proceed with the environmental review. The City Council 's approval of this traffic signal was conditioned on the installation of a traffic signal on the south side of I-580 at the same time. Since that meeting, Staff and the City Attorney have developed an agreement with repre- sentatives from the City of Pleasanton (see attached). The significant conditions of that agreement are as follows: 1 . All costs of installation, maintenance, operation and future modifications will be borne by the City of Pleasanton. 1 2. The proposed traffic signal will not be made operational until the traffic signals at the intersection of Hopyard and the I-580 eastbound off ramp are installed and made operational . 3. The proposed signal will be interconnected with the Dublin Dougherty Signal subject to approval by State of California Department of Transportation. 4. Dublin retains the right of final review on the project plans, and the phasing of the proposed signal and the Dublin Boulevard Dougherty Road signals. The attached agreement is mutually acceptable to both the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin Staffs. In addition to the agreement, the Dublin Planning Director has conducted an environmental review of the signal project and has prepared a Negative Declaration which finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Staff has published adequate notice regarding the Negative Declaration, and has received comments from the State of COPIES TO: City of Pleasanton ,.+ TJ KM Trrne nin /1 AGENDA STATEMENT - Traffic Signal Agreement Page 2 California Department of Transportation (see attached) . Mr. Chris Kinzel , TJKM has responded to the comments of CalTrans. Staff believes that Mr. Kinzel 's response adequately addresses the comments of CalTrans. It is Staff's recommendation that the City Council make the necessary findings and approve the Negative Declaration, and further, adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the traffic signal agreement with the City of Pleasanton. t-2 -025 THE CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 (415) 829-4600 • NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: I-580/Dougherty Rd, West-bound Off-Ramp : Traffic Signal (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ) LOCATION AND • PROPONENT: I-580/Dougherty Rd interchange, Dublin CA; City of Dublin, proponent • DESCRIPTION: Installation of traffic . signal; widening of Dougherty Rd. , and the .west-bound off-ramp to two lanes at intersection; installation of interconnect equipment, guard rail, signs and similar improvements. FINDINGS: The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. • INITIAL STUDY: ' The Initial Study is attached with a brief discussion of the following environmental components : Transportation Facilities • MITIGATION MEASURES: None PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916 SIGNATURE: �T DATE: NoV. Ej l I • Laurence L. Tong, P1 ning Director • • • M CITY OF 'UELII1 I, PA No. 82-09_.b ENVIRCIIG' 7IVIIENif',6�,.L ASSESSMENT FORM ' • (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sec.) .. Based on the project information submitted in Section 1 General Data, the Planning Staff • will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether a Negative Declaration or an Environmental' Impact Report is required. ' . . • , • I SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY - - - to be completed by the PLANNING STAFF ' ' 2 -59&/I o%fir-ew Iep• 'WEST IDGI MP OFF- 4?P . . • Name of Project or Applicant: T '(L Sl66NAAL., A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - Description of project site before the project, including • . . information on: topography; soil stability; plants and animals; historical, cultural, and • . scenic aspects; existing structures; and use of structures W.W.13, Off-PA/vie IS •A Sfn16G !Axle ASP Tr CONfREPE RAMP 'VtIi :1-1-T5 lbQ 2- PT TI,�RN �+UP . • 5IN6PE 1-711-gt RN 1E FLAW 8 5T P 576N Description of surrounding properties, including information on: plants and animals; . historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; type and intensity of land, use; and scale or development. 'VVAY I •A. 110t70 'A t% A�- 572E "S - g B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Factual explanations of all answers except "no" are re- . quired on attached sheets. . • ' • TENT IMPACTS SCALE OF IM2AC1' NO QJAL I DI. YES UMKNG �1 • NO 1 • c4 PIN I - . : . • . 1L115 • • 1.0 WATER . • i • 1.1 Hydrologic Balance • Will construction of the project alter the hydro- / I ' • logic balance? t 1.2 Ground Water Will the project affect the quality or quantity of rr ground water supplies? • 1.3 Depth to Water Table Will the rote of water withdrawal change the depth ✓ or gradient of the water table? L 1.4 Drainage and Channel Farm Will construction impede the natural drainage pattern or cause alteration of stream channel Form? 1 1.5 Sedimentation Will construction in on area result in major sediment I I Influx into adjacent water bodies? I s 1.6 Flooding Will there be risk of loss of life or property due 1./ I I I t• . In flonrlinq? �MPOL Iv OPACTS OF IMPACT • NO QUALIFIED YES Ut`T Na • NO T s r IN . 11 to • • • I IIH•• o1MI8I •. 1.7 Water Quality Does drinking water supply foil to meet state and ( ' federal standards? ; . Will sewage be inale�'otcly aecommcrated and 1 •• treated? v/ r I 1 Will receiving waters fail to meet keel, st.-'c and • . , federal standards? - . • , •Will ground water suffer contamination by s•:rfu:e I . • seeps s, intrusion of salt or polluted water from I • • .•. • adjacent water bodies or from another • contaminated , • o•uifer? ! • • 2.0 AIR •• ' Will there be generation and dispersion of pollutants • 2.1 Air Pollution 9- sP F• by project related activities or in pro... it.tr:eta . • • • project which will emceed state es nati:na ate • // quality standards? • 2.2 Wind Alteration Will structure and terrain•impede prevcilirs wind s/ flow ca:ssing channeling along certain torrid s•s or • obstruction of wind movements? • 1 3.0 EARTH - / . > 3.1 Slope Stability Are there potential dangers related M:laps failures? s� ._ • • 3.2 Foundation Support Will there be risk to life or property'`:ore of • excessive deformation of materials? _ •• 3.3 Consolidation Will there be risk to life or property because of ✓ •• excessive consolidation of foundotier mnte•iols? . 3.4 Subsidence Is there risk of major ground subside:nen essnciatcd with the project? 3.5 Seismic Activity Is there risk of damage or loss resulting:rem earth- l-• quake I.e activity? I 3.6 Liquefaction V/ill the project cause or be exposed to liquefaction I of soils in sIcpes or under foundations? I 1 3.7 Erodbility • Will there be substantial loss of soil don to con- I • struction practices? I- I- 3.8 Permeability Will the permeability of sails ossociotsrt with the ✓ . project present adverse conditions to de- velopment of wells? . 3.9 Unique Features • • • Will any unique geological features be dammed • ✓ I • • or destroyed by project activities?• • 3.10 Mineral Resources. Are there geologic deposits of potentinl r,er.ercinl s7 1 1 .;t • value close to the project? _ - 4.0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS •• ' •• 4.1 Plant and Animal Species Are there rare or endangered species present? Are there species present which are po•ticulorly • ••••" susceptible to impact from human activity? _ t Is there vegetation present, the loss of whi;h will . • I i • • •• , . deny food or habitat to important wildafs species?• Are there nuisance species of plant or animals for • which conditions will be improved by the project? • 4.2 Vegetative Community Types Are there any unusual populations of plants that may r/' be of scientific interest? • Are there vegetative community types which ore s. • particularly susceptible to impact frnm humors ectivity? ' Are there major trees or major vegetative that will �/ • be adversely affer.ted by the,project? _ ( 1 I • Are there vegetation rnmmunity ty'e:r-^r•+-t. tl a In:s / . • - of which will deny Erred or ha',ita•tr.i-•�o4ent wi'.dli r ✓ specks, or to o suh:t.ntiol num!se•o`.'ii'•-`.-:::masers'. _ 4.3 Diversity Is there sub:tan:int diversity in the art-n:nor..-`.nit/ ., • as reflected in the nombrr and typo,IF is kat :r aria-.l �/ species p•esent or the three-dimansiner.l erne.-.tier..-nt of plant species present? • . • 1 t I . • A-6 0 - COMPONENT IMPACTS SCALE OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNOWN . NO 1 16 I1 Ir. 011010 . • 0IQi15 . •5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES • 5.1 Educational Facilities • Will projected enrollments adversely affect the ex- • . isting or proposed facilities in terms of spacing for ' • ail activities, including classrooms, recreational / . areas, and staffing needs? Will the project impact the pupil/teacher ratio so { as to impede the learning process? i ff Is the school located such the'it presents a hardship / for a portion of the enrollment in terms of travel time, V . distonce, or safety hazards? • • • 5.2 Commercial Facilities Will there be an inadequate supply of and access to V • • commercial facilities for the project? _ - 1 5.3 Liquid Waste Disposal Are provisions for sewage capacity inadequate for / . the needs of the project without exceeding quality V . • standards? • Will the project be exposed to nuisances and odors ✓ • associated with wastewater treatment plants? 1 • 5.4 Solid Waste Disposal • Is there Inadequate provision for disposal of solid ✓ • 1 wastes generated by the project? 5.5 Water Supply Is there inadequate quantity or quality of water 1/ 1 • • supply to meet the needs of the project? 1 A ' 5.6 Storm Water Drainage Will storm water drainage be inadequate to prevent / . downstream flooding and to meet Federal State and V local standards? 5.7 Police Will the project's additional population, facilities, t/ or other features generate an increase in police service V/ • or create a police hazard? ' t 5.8 Fire Will the project's additional population, facilities, /v or other features generate an increase in fire services ✓ or create a fire hazard? • 5.9 Recreation Will the project have inadequate facilities to meet the recreational needs of the residents? 5.10 Cultural Facilities Will cultural facilities be unavailable to the project / • residents? • 6.0 TRANSPORTATION . 1 6.1 Transportation Facilities Are the traffic demands on adjacent roads currently t • at or above capacity? If not, will the traffic gen= 1 ■ crated by the project cause the adjacent roods to 1 • • ' reach or exceed capacity? I 1_ 1 Are the other transportation Facilities which serve the 1 1 1 + project inadequate to accommodate the project's 1 ( 1 �.� travel demands? 1 1 1 6.2'Circulation Conflicts Will design of the project or conditions in the surround- 1 fli • • • ing area increase accidents due to circulation conflicts? . ' 6.3 Rood Safety and Design Will project residents and users be exposed to increased / •• accident risks dun to roadway and street design or lock • y of traffic controls? • 7.0 HEALTH 0 • ' 7.1 Odors Will the project be exposed to or generate any intense / • odors? 7.2 Crowding and Density Will the residents and users be exposed to crowding or . high density in their physical living environment? 7.3 Nuisances Will the project be exposed to or generate factors that ✓ t may be considered as nuisances? 7.4 Structural Safety Will design and proposed construction techniques fail v„,/ I • to meet state and local building codes? 1 r 8.0 NOISE 8.1 Noise Levels Will the project be exposed to rr generate adverse noise levels? 8.2 Vibrations • Will the project ho exposed to vibrations nnnoying to ✓ 1 1 1 humans? 1 1 1 • I1 1 1 I . I 1 t COMPONENT IMPACTS .SCALE OF IMPACT • • NO QUALIFIED YES UNCNOKI NO 1 r o I0 t I I ! E-+a l 1a • ooI dtQt to L' 't' ' 1" 1 1 S 9.0 COMMUNITY CHARACTER 9.1 Community Organization . Will the project disrupt on existing set of / � organizations or groups within the community? 1 • 9.2 Homogeneity and'Diversity • Will the project change the character of the , . community in terns of distribution or concentration �/ • • • of Income, ethnic, housing, or oge group? • V )- 1_ 1• • 9.3 Community Stobility and Will the project be exposed to or generate on • Physical Conditions area of poor stability anJ physical conditions? r •,•• • • 10.0 VISUAL QUALITY ' 1 . 10.1 Views • Will residents of the surrounding oreo be adversely A • affected by views of or from the project? Will the project residents be adversely affected by V/....• views of or from the surrounding area? ' I } 10.2 Shadows Will the project be exposed to or generate excessive ✓/ shadows? 11.0 HISTORIC AND CULTU.IAL • •• RESOUnCES / _ . 11.1 Historic and Cultural . Will the project involve the destruction or alter- s/ • • • . Resources ation of a historic resource? ' • Will the project result in isolation of a historic • resource from its surrounding environment? . Will the project introduce physical, visual,audible or atmospheric elements that ore not in character with • o historic resource or its setting? I t 1 11.2 Archaeological Sites Will the project involve the destruction or alteration • •and Structures • of on archaeological resource? _ 1 Will the project result in isolation of an archaeological • resource? Will the project introduce physical, visual, audible or atmospheric elements that ore not in character with s/ • an archaeological resource or its setting? • ' 12.0 ENERGY 12.1 Energy Requirements Are there potential problems with the supply of • • / • , energy required for the project? f ' Will the energy requirements exceed the capacity ✓ • • of the service utility company? I I Will there be o not increase in energy used for the project compared to the no project alternative? L 12.2 Conservation Measures Doos the project planning and d:sig s Fait to include ail avable energy conservation measures? a 13.0 LAND USE • . 13.1 Site Hazards . Do conditions of the site proposed site development, •+ • or surrounding area creole potentially hazardous situ- 13.2 Physical Threat. Will the project or the surrounding area create a feeling . of insecurity and physical threat omong the residents • • and users? • t 13.3 Senitcry LondFill Will the project be exposed to structural derange, noise,air, or surface and ground water pollution or other nuisances associarei with a sanitary landfill? 13.4 Waterways Will the project affect on existing wcterway through ji Filling, dredging, draining, culvsrting, waste dis- • charges, loss of visual quality or other land use practices? 4 I 1 t COMPOST -IMPACTS SCALE OF IMPACT • NO QUALIFIED YES UNR4C N NO 1 r 11 I Vi 1 1 H xI I � IF+M loin - O l ` l'4 11i l i i • t 1 1 L i• . � � . . 1 1 . + Other Environmental Components. • -- 111 — ' I I I . - I i I . - . . . . C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE QUALIFIED • NO NO YES UNIZIC 7N (j) Does the project have the potential to degrade the . . quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish cr wildlife species, cause a . fish or wildlife population to drop below self- . • ' • sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant • - . or animal community, reduce the number or restrict . • the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal • or eliminate important examples of the major periods • or California history or prehistory? 1 •. • (2) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- . term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental ✓ • • • '• • goals? • • • ' (3) Does the project have impacts which are individually • • limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project • may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but . where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) (4) Does the project have environmental effects which / . will cause substantial adverse effects on human ' V beings, either directly or indirectly? • • D. MITIGATION MEASURES - Discussion of the ways to mitiga'e the significant effects • identified, if any: • • E. DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation: . • The City of _Dublih 'finds that there will not be an)./significant effect. The par- ticular characteristics of this project and the mitigation :measures incorporated into ' ' • the design of the project provide `hr !actual basis for the finding. A NEGATIVE . DECLARATION IS RE=QUIRED. : . • - El The City of PLblin finds that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED** • • Signature and date: 1.....717 Nov. 8 4 (9 f37-- • • Name and title: • LA(aN2 NC1; L.TD3lc" ► N -DC nita D- FACTUAL EXPLANATION: - 6.1 Transportation Facilities: . ' The project will have no adverse impact on transportation ••• facilities. Pursuant to information .prepared by Chris Kinzel of TJKM Transportation Consultants, present traffic conditions at the . • West-bound off-ramp are at Level of Service (LOS) . "E", (that is, the intersection has reached ultimate capacity, with unstable* flow • • : or operation,• congestion and intolerable delay) . Without the project, but with the full, build out of the • ' North Pleasanton area, the 'intersection will reach LOS "F" , '• (forced flow or operation, operation :below capacity, or jammed flow) • . . • With the project, the conditions will have LOS "A" (very .. • • • slight; or .no delay, .no vehicle waits through more than one red • indication, free flow) •. At..full build out of the North Pleasanton .area., the intersection will. reach LOS "B" (slight delay, stable _- •flow') 1 '... . Dublin Blvd. •intersects with .,Dougherty" Rd. approximately . } : . 800 .ft:',north of:•the proposed traffic signal • The Dublin Blvd.. / • Dougherty Rd. intersection is presently operating at LOS "E" . •,.• There is a possibility that the Dublin Blvd. /Dougherty Rd. • " ,intersection may be impacted by Southbound. traffic waiting to move • • , through the •proposed .•traffic signal. Kinzel 'states that two measures off set that possibility: 1) The proposed traffic signal and the Dublin Blvd. / Dougherty Rd. intersection signal will be interconnected and under -City control; . 2) The project will add a second lane on Dougherty Rd. continued. . **NOTE: Where a project is revised in response to an Initial Study so that pata:Itiol adverse effects are mitigated to a point where no significant environn'ental effects would occur, a • revised Initial Study will be prepared and a Negative Declaration will be required ihs`ead of ' anEIR. • FACTUAL EXPLANATION: (continued) . . .at the proposed traffic . signal. The additional lane will offer more storage capacity than the present roadway. These two measures should allow the Dublin Blvd/Dougherty Rd. intersection to maintain its present LOS and not worsen to LOS "F". The City finds that this project will not have a significant adverse impact on transportation facilities. A-11 PA 61- 028 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX ,,,7310 SAN ANCISCO Wx 9 4120 �'� FR (415) 557-1840 December 1 , 1982 RECEIVED ALA-580-19.86 • DEC 21982 Laurence Tong Planning Director CITY OF DUBLIN City of Dublin P 0 Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Negative Declaration for I-580/Dougherty Road West-bound Off-Ramp Traffic Signal • Dear Mr. Tong, Caltrans will be a responsible agency for this project since a State permit will be necessary. Upon review, the following comments were generated: 1 . We are coordinating the project with the City of Dublin and the City of Pleasanton. We have no objection to the project providing that Caltrans is not responsible for any project construction cost. Our understanding is that this is a locally funded project paid for by the City of Pleasanton. 2. For our Highway Operations Branch review, we would like a plan of the proposed westbound off-ramp/Dougherty Road signalized inter- section, plus TJKM's traffic report. 3. "Factlal Explanation" says the Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Road inter section will remain at Level of Service "E". At this LOS, will there be northbound Dougherty Road back-ups from this intersection through the off-ramp intersection? 4. For our Transportation Planning Branch review we need diagrams showing existing and proposed geometrics and signal locations, also traffic diagrams showing ADT and AM and PM peak hour volumes for the existing and proposed lane configurations and with existing and full build-out volumes of the North Pleasanton Area as analyzed by TJKM, per refer- ence under "Factual Explanation" to item B.6.1 . Our Contact person is listed below: Darnall W. Reynolds District CEQA Coordinator Caltrans District 04 P O Box 7310 San Francisco, CA 94120 • If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Veda Lewis cf my staff at (415) 557-8542. Sincerely, DARNALL W. REYNOLDS District CEQA Coordinator 7 .;,• 7) 4 � 4 nj -453, WALNUT CREEK . , y ,�� s'� SACRAMENTO •ta. ,A TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS December 17, 1982 Mr. Darnall W. Reynolds District CEQA Coordinator CalTrans District 4 P. 0. Box 6310 San Francisco, Ca. 94120 Dear Mr. Reynolds: This is in response to your December 1, 1982, letter to Laurence Tong, Planning Director of the City of Dublin regarding the negative declaration for the I-580/Dougherty Road Westbound 0ff-Ramp Traffic Signal (your file Ala-580-19.86) . Mr. Tong has asked me to respond directly to you concerning your comments. 1. Your understanding that the proposed project is entirely funded by the City of Pleasanton is correct . 2. We have enclosed copies of the draft project report for the proposed improvement , including a plan of the improvements . The report was prepared in September but not forwarded to you until this time pending environmental clearance by the City of Dublin. As has been the case on past projects involving TJKM and your highway operations branch, we are available to respond to any additional technical questions CalTrans may have. 3. The Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection is currently operating at Level of Service E and is projected to remain at that level . The principal point of congestion in the intersection at the present time is back-up from the eastbound to southbound right turn movement . The reverse movement , the northbound to westbound left turn and its associated northbound through and right turn movements have a satisfactory combination of adequate capacity and distance from the proposed signal to preclude back-ups into the new signalized intersection . 4. We have enclosed the a .m . and p .m . peak hour volumes at the intersection along with the 2005 design volumes for the a .m. and p.m. peak hours . Generalized short-term lane configuration changes are shown in the plan included in the project report . Long-term proposals for the area , currently being coordinated with Clarence Yee , are in accordance with lane configurations proposed in the North Pleasanton Traffic Study Volume 3, enclosed. Mr. Yee has received working documents of the proposed improvements to the 675 Ygnacio Valley Road,Suite 211 /Walnut Creek, California 94596 • (415)938-2200 Darnall Reynolds -2- December 17 , 1982 Hopyard Road interchange. We believe that the City of Pleasanton is in general concurrence with the conceptual details of the Hopyard interchange but the City of Dublin has not formally reviewed or approved the proposed interchange modification . It is our understanding that this interchange improvement along with others in the Dublin/Pleasanton area will be the subject of a comprehensive CalTrans prepared EIS. Existing and proposed traffic signal locations in the general area are also indicated in Volume 3. We will be happy to respond to any additional questions that may arise. Very truly yours , (/4,;(1). 610V4? Chris D. Kinzel jt enc. 1330 cc: chard Ambrose , City of Dublin Laurence Tong, City of Dublin Robert Warnick, City of Pleasanton G ) OCT. 82 PREPARED BY LEGEND: AW (640)A.M. 1920 P.M. 0 4. V\ 2 til t• • \ � a 01 0 43()` C3: PRO (.1„, O0)4p0 O CO h r 1 1 ti °\`310 X0\9\0 0 ■- 7 620(3 F O coo 2g0 90,0 o o. o :700°6 l°,6h° �� .f? i��0Q0 0 �� J '� �o .� (I10) 340 `�O „iir 0°�`�0 °� 90 /-I■ i o \2y0 a \_ coo 2�° F60 \ `a�Ol 1ZS0 �00 t I-580 AT DOUGHERTY RD./ HOPYARD RD. YEAR 2005 DESIGN VOLUMES • A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR 0"?9-(7.- Cr' Q � W ' � oN N v- oc i ` • l Q U) G i {v; C z-- !� N r, iEJ` 0 0' f" (am' ` cG u) �� h J) . • o a y r W . . +' 1,. U A;,',�� Vi c i c~n dst' In6i w ! V .t. N Ca a 1 , y D L zy i vJ = a 1•J AU (,) : 00 O 0 L1 - _ . % © ._, ry CC o to ,t. r^ ,— o V o , � - P . .. _�___ ; a a i ca l' . . Z J ma o Za" 3 a a o _ W a ? V Li) # (� w ;, i - Y I o ff H w Q- ` o D-• r a-- r > Z ' w Q �.-. J +` W./A > a ^ . Cg W Q ►- N Ln Q _ ' O _ _ 1. row I� V °z °- o '�� 3z /(J� 1-� a C7 • -% U° Cr o = y ..1 l •I d Q ■■.R a ` w .. W ' Q zi_ UO . ji kg ''''.J ; — 10 • ' ry cr- -1- k3- r-1 L.0 •, z o n U- ...J Li u. a o H� °� r W —+ 0010000 N �- e 0 0 , - 0 ONION3 'n M ?_- ° ti) o cr) as 3W11 - e" - ao 0 • r' ,yl,• r 7 Q� f� 1- _ / Q Q 0 in LA r r- = Zu el t" `� Q O -----. Oa 1 '4 h W .- N T Z o c a t , z k 2 a f V j L R i C5 W , Q W - N _ ti`r., 1aoo Z • o o 2 �a —o Q —7 W Cg) J If) O 0• 0 Q w ce D I W a 6 F—• k kv n vi w W �O U 4-\ M /•• M TrQ > Z J t o CL 2 c E h1 CO ■ 0 W = ` .. ° >- CD Z = v, V O ? p z Q ? C 0` ct v I- z 8 o 2 3 z I' (`� Q L. cc c) =O w Q F., k>C `' i� OG N 0 W Z V �, Z u/ '- �' •r C M co., r T W >O w I li ti. O T LA 1-- w (4:2*v; t r-1 N t' Q O Q = W N # O D t-- f-- w Q ' a c''a. � h- —J N � M tt I. O O O O a W 9NION3 T 8 -- M o � � a YQ Et ~ 3Wil p O .D _ _ - a~ 0 . .' !' �► k E7� L1 a.. N !v ' V) o o I-1 M C . N ;� O - VL c U 0 1 `C"s `f � c L i "`% . � a - o • i- a. ; 1,1 CL i ,. N Q fi, ' ^ O Ch N * "P.' . ki vi a O 3 • N V D ` W 3*t,- -: W J `t rte. cr j �: k i r" Q . Q N.. a 3 _ ? ,,Si sCZ 43 Q i 4- Z M o- "� C" `o �� -9 O Q S # N N N rn M NINO�TT L` i... •- • - W i ■ !n a F' .o . W � � '4 ooa , 0 0 ,;. H m a . _ 3 d W W I� ` . 4 Cn r N v 4(n # 1 _ fr W o Q W .. � b ^ r � UcO n! bo o > z p = 1 4J .p r- Dc oo W a a /` Q } , " z a z o > • V t O o -� W , v o a : '' 2 a O p = v > z i s o r't� M C� p Z O 0 Z Q ❑ 5 O O W Y F' `C, Q lV c I- O = �. 1 4� d e Cr �, z 0. Z i. a — - _f C� O et Z-N M i '^ N nl ;h r`re" r'^ T a- - 'a9 W d W O Q V = N 0 W 3 a o I-` - d� r ;a. >: 0 O O O O W h kJONION3 '� r o V 0 o h a� 2 . 3Wit �► c� - ^ :_. c� N N N a 0 it _ -... en '.;',. ,f, w c0... ...:._ .......N r` N.ICO r"-- 4 40 . a r- Ln co z.7.7 ,) ,, 0- (3,. D- 0 .. , ._o! N o W v # . . . :1: N h CO U • k t::' . a ' ' ° N -N t N ca V m L cs 4v C c- v � t ,. 0 Q Ta N O cc d.a zov . • z kJ 0 ,c) f- 2 / 1 W 2 ° �� a La E o `S' • ,`j` C� v 0Q w o CC ° p ! aac o 4 a a _ W a CN OA ~ M aN- �' > Z W } ., Q.Cr- c �' _ 0 0 ,� W C' Q ° = W k.W _ • = W O W ce z " Q % v Z I p O 1 b i a �► Q j � . a .Z r- ,-- 2 c, o ' z cc z > ,.. o a C7 D. f- o Cc Z M - , N z ±-O _ d- 'V ri T �- -P _ > W t9 ❑ j, • M `v r--- 0^ CJ rv1 r-s :9 .zp F-. G LL. V 1- to k : Z # m T• -- v-- v� !n (n i ) W Q O , ; Q cc = w N O f— w Q a O � � w W —' 0 O p O W —., p„ "bt� JNION3 0 " ° 0 V) No co 2 O 7. O In T a ? - O aQ it C 0. P^ °w c CO Q` o D r co b Q � it! c� ' 00ra 4, r- � M ; — — — 0 ;;,. I 0 ids.< ' ` kn a,• 6 I 1 v° ' cti !. N . L 1.•• Y <= d/ W. O M i .I (� a V V il VI CC ft = j ? ) U u l /C)P141) o ; tom• �:) J �4 irr�.tea' � ~4 Q O* ? Q Q11 NS V 4 ° w 1 . , 2d It p __. 1 _ =1 F) �. U O Q O ~� W CI Ca ° t) Q - c W 3 — ------ �' ~ d- — ,0 a:- G- aO W a ..c.)t'' O n H o M _ „S ry M z O _ `p J Ilu -'' `y' ` `` 2 z = cc z < ;: Y ❑ • � .0 D as �, .: v o a. 0 0 Z tea . _ () F- z , _ u.. a. O � � •� O ^- N 7- ifl F.. � ''.; '� ►Il -o •s? v 'O ,9 T I- w a < po Fad- 3 J W } v Z _ 3 W a; !2 `. C4 O e `p o O N O Ya _ ONIONS rn .-_• .0 a it Q F'� 3W11 I _- wi_ Z , to N t9 f- f°- O re ;;, • • . � • • • • • DRAFT PROJECT •REPORT • FOR TRAFFIC `SIGNAL INSTALLATION : : `', ... ,•. ';:•' �: , .;; AT ::INTERSTATE .580 YESTBOUND OFF-RAMP:�°;• i'ii:r ':l''A . .:. ,,:;,.... •+.-�- •,'.-•,J .... ..... ....a-•. x r�"'' i e s }. ..,.J ;:: .... : . •' .. a. ' .. . :,_: •-.;.;TO DOU6HERTY ROAD � ', ':�: a:, - i _• r + f .;f. �•i:.. ..yi.1 b ♦ if Y 5 Y 'ft �l. y'�• F.. e'}. S :I - ,a. ,, ''', .:gin.a, x ?,•r :.. : r i, IN •THE •`s• ,• i '' :�• : ,4`' ; .. .. ...r. .. .. ..i,' •M c•l'i• ,d• • : .3'i r r Sti t' t . -t.. ..5.ii` r.A: •t,. }, FyeSi;':, .mot 1 : .} q t N!'• t..a _ �• i is.i r f !1:#i7iq� xq r,!1'. 7F FF TJKM ,Transportation Consultants , ;yy .f t R ? N� r�• r '' i,1 ; r 'ter'' )+: .. . . -F-,l .1• " : . .. :. • _ 1.a�.:.• ,f , Z i r � .Y 675 Ygnac�o Palley Road, Suite;•621 #� Yalnut Creek Ca. ,94596 '`� ` ' : ` ' F t f ,p 4 .t -F .A f - Jtr. yr y; �, ., �' ,:S{: 1• R ,r yI t y r is •i: SEPTEMBER ''1982 ��;;;�_ A • • • • • • • F Vii' INTRODUCTION It is proposed to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Interstate 580 westbound off-ramp and Dougherty Road in the City of Dublin. The City will advertise and administer the contract under an encroachment permit. The cost of this project is to be funded 100 percent by private monies. Project Category This is a Category 5 project because the work involved will have minimal economic, social or environmental significance. Background Flo? The City of [ rb-1-i-n requested that the traffic signal be installed and the intersection improved to mitigate existing traffic congestion and provide additional traffic capacity for a recently approved industrial development in the adjoining City of Pleasanton. The signalization and improvements were earlier required by the City of Pleasanton as a condition of approval for the project until it was discovered that the intersection was in the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin . Subsequently, the City of Dublin concurred with the previous mitigation requirements and formally assumed responsibility for administrating the project. 1 The industrial development referred to is the 573 acre Hacienda Business Park which is located between Hopyard road and Santa Rita Road in the City of Pleasanton as shown in Figure 1. The project was approved by the Pleasanton City Council on May 19, 1982, and is described as Planned Unit Development 81-30. -1- The City of Pleasanton required a comprehensive traffic study to be done in conjunction with the approval of the Hacienda Business which analyzed the complete traffic implications of the build-out of North Pleasanton. The traffic study concluded that the existing local transportation system would need upgrading and proposed substantial roadway improvements both in the City of Pleasanton and on State right-of-way. A private assessment district is being formed to fund the street improvements with a total estimated cost of 81 million dollars. Two of the proposed roadway improvements will have direct effects on the Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road interchange to I-580. Hopyard Road will be widened between I-580 and Valley Avenue from four to six lanes, and extensive capacity improvements are proposed for the interchange including a second overpass structure. Construction on Hopyard is already in progress and the conceptual designs for the Hopyard Road interchange modification have been prepared. For these reasons, the proposed traffic signal installation and related roadway widening is considered to be an interim project. Existing Facility At the location of the intersection proposed for signalization , Dougherty Road is a two-lane asphalt concrete roadway which serves as an arterial road. The westbound off-ramp from I-580 that intersects Dougherty Road is a single lane asphalt concrete ramp which splits to allow 2 free flowing right-turn lanes onto northbound Dougherty Road and a single lane regulated by a stop sign for left turns onto southbound Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road toward the City of Pleasanton. North of the intersection, Dougherty Road has five lanes ( three northbound, two southbound) and a raised concrete median. Dublin Boulevard, an arterial street that serves the Dublin central business district intersects with Dougherty approximately 800 feet north of the proposed signalized intersection. The Dublin-Dougherty intersection is regulated by 4-phase traffic signals. -2- South of the intersection Dougherty Road continues as a two-lane road and crosses the freeway overpass into the City of Pleasanton where the road changes names to Hopyard Road. A third element of the intersection is the westbound on-ramp to I-580 from southbound Dougherty Road which begins about 120 feet north of the intersection with the westbound off-ramp. Traffic Data Existing Conditions Twelve hour volume counts were taken at the intersection on August 25, 1982, on all approaches. There were 15,518 vehicles on Dougherty Road in both directions and 1 ,308 vehicles from the off-ramp. From these counts, the highest eight one-hour volumes were collated and compared to the traffic signal warrants as shown on the attached Traffic Signal Evaluation Sheet. As can be seen, the exiting volumes satisfy 97% of Warrant 1 , and they satisfy 100% of Warrant 2 for Interruption of Continuous Traffic. The a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movements were recorded in July 1982. Excessive delays were observed for vehicles on the off-ramp with queues in the morning of 18 to 20 vehicles and 8 to 10 vehicles in the evening peak hour. The delay time for these vehicles in the evening peak hour was as long as 5 minutes . Using a capacity analysis that assumes a two-phase signal operation, the p.m. volume-to-capacity ratio is 1.10 which corresponds to Level of Service F. Apparently, the actual hourly lane volume capacities for the approaches are higher than the assumed capacities (through movement = 1 ,500 vehicles per lane hour, turning movement = 1,250 vehicles per lane hour. The accident history at this intersection for the past 3 years is unavailable at this time. At a later date, these records will be analyzed to determine what, if any, problem accident patterns exist. -3- • Future Conditions A traffic impact study was done as part of the comprehensive environmental impact review for the Hacienda Business Park. The study entitled North Pleasanton Traffic Study, Volume 3, March 1982 by TJKM of Walnut Creek analyzed the traffic consequences of full build-out of the North Pleasanton area. The future build-out daily volumes at this intersection were estimated i to be 26,200 vehicles per day (vpd) on Dougherty Road (an increase of about 2,850 vpd) and 3,025 vpd on the westbound off-ramp (an increase of about 1,800 vpd) . The primary route for traffic bound for the North Pleasanton developments will be from the west on 1-580 to the south on Hopyard Road. Thereby, the interchange ramps serving those moves will have the greatest impacts. Ultimately, the interchange is proposed to be modified to provide a new three-lane overpass on the east side of the existing structure along with widening on several ramps . The ultimate improvements at the intersection of the westbound off-ramp and Dougherty Road in conjunction with the new overpass structure will involve additional widening to the east side of Dougherty Road beyond the improvements proposed for this project. Proposal Description The following measures are proposed to mitigate the excessive delays at the intersection of Dougherty Road and I-580 westbound off-ramp. 1. Widen the Dougherty Road approaches to provide two through lanes on each approach. 2. Widen the westbound off-ramp to provide two left turn lanes with an 8-foot breakdown shoulder. -4- 3. Install complete traffic signal system with multi-phase full traffic actuated controller. The traffic signal will operate in two phases as shown on the preliminary plan. 4. Construct new raised concrete island to serve as a protected area on which to mount traffic signal hardware and to provide direct line-of-sight for optically programed traffic signal equipment for the southbound Phase 2 approach. 5. Install wood post guardrail to protect traffic signal controller and adjacent traffic signal standard. 6. Install cantilever "Prepare to Stop" warning signs south of the intersection to warn northbound vehicles of upcoming traffic signal . The flashing beacon is required because the sight distance is reduced by the freeway overpass structure which begins 400 feet south of the intersection. 7. Install interconnect equipment so that the new signal can be coordinated with the existing Dublin-Dougherty intersection approximately 800 feet to the north. 8. Install pavement markers, signs and lane striping. Project Reviews -5- Right of Way No additional right of way is required . I have reviewed the right-of-way data contained in this project report and find it to be complete, current and accurate. R. A. Speck Deputy District Director Right of Way Utility Relocation No utility relocation is anticipated. Distribution of Maintenance Cost The Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton have entered into an agreement in which the City of Pleasanton agrees to pay for the City' s share of maintenance costs. The City of Pleasanton is establishing a maintenance district to fund the expenses for various maintenance activities, including traffic signals. Environmental Statement The City of Dublin approved a negative declaration of environmental impacts of this Project (No. ) on , 1982. A copy of this document is attached. -6- • Estimate of Cost A detailed estimate is not available at this time. It is estimated that the cost of the project will be approximately $175,000. Financing The cost of the roadway improvements and the complete traffic signal installation will be funded. 100 percent by the developers of the Hacienda Business Park in the City of Pleasanton. Recommendation It is recommended that this project be approved so that its implementation may proceed. The design will be prepared by a private consultant. It is also recommended that after the State approves the final plans, the City be allowed to advertise the project and install the traffic signals by encroachment permit. Attachments 1. Vicinity Map 2. Traffic Signal Evaluation Sheet 3. Conceptual Traffic Signal Design 4. Negative Declaration -7- 0 0 CITY OF DUBLIN o o m z 1 j Z. fr . . 9c F a � v A S,ERRq LN OVB°N ekvo. PROJECT SITE /11L∎ &ETT CT. kip i■limmolimmnisms A� �� .' JOHNSON DR. �a r ---� 0 X i • s 0 .■ l ` 0 - T. I •. 2 v l . I PJ 1 CIEJVDA �`. I . sS�NsGS °R' I .13/J.5./NESS..13/J.5./NESS ` P\o `.`` l • PA Rif 1 i o I •o I '', 1 • I i ""••••• `DE �g I P� A VALLEY AVE. 1 CITY OP PLgASANTON INTERSECTION OF DOUGHERTY RD. AND I-580 WESTBOUND OFF-RAMP VICINITY MAP 411-14/ FIGURE _ Walnut Creek,Ca. ' 9-4 TFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTI Traffic Manual 12-1979 1 Figure 9-1A C TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALL T J\G\-A DATE 9./2°I D1ST CO RTE PM CHIC DATE _ Major St: . 'bm),c)\1=.f-- Critical Approach Speed .. y'2 mph Minor St: w / , U V-1:- 1?1‘.Mi-, 2-S,4+n Critical Approach Speed mph Critical speed of major street traffic > 40 mph - lEr In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. 0 RURAL (R) ❑ . URBAN (U) • WARRANT 1 — Minimum Vehicular Volume MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 100% SATISFIED Yes . ❑ No 0 t." 1 O/C (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) 80% SATISFIED Yes 'g( No ❑ 7 U I R U R / APPROACH 1- /Z-t) c)-IQ 1a-(1 'IAA. 3 y -(, HQUr (` LANES 1 2 or more I\M 1AM /Ann Ann NewN/PM /T'M /PM Both Apprchs. 500 C50O 600 420 Major Street (400) (280) (480► (336) 30� 1022 8`10 952 1201 1551 1153 1213 Highest Apprch 150 5 200 140 Minor Street* (120) (84) (160) (112) ly: 12-1 10(r 121 102 101 111 I 12 •NOTE: Heavier of left turn movement from Major Street included when LT-phasing is proposed ❑ WARRANT 2 — Interruption of Continuous Traffic MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 100%'SATISFIED Yes P, No ❑ (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) 80% SATISFIED Yes ❑ No ❑ U I R U l R APPROACH 1-Ei �_q 9-IO 10-(( Il AM y -6 6-'T LANES 1 2 or more An A; AM /1AM NO�u PM PNN PM Hour Both Apprchs. 750 (251 900 630 Major Street (600) (420) (720) (504) �� 1022 8LIZ ej S2 1201 1551 11q? 12,12. Highest Apprch 75 ® 100 70 Minor Street* (60) (42) (80) (56) 1 tj r -' 121 10 t? I2.1 102 10-1 11 l 112 •NOTE:Heavier of left turn movement from MajorStreet included when LT-phasing is proposed ❑ M WARRANT 3 — Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED Yes ❑ No ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED Yes ❑ No ❑ (80% SHOWN.IN BRACKETS) / • U R / / 1 / / / Hour C Both Apprchs. No Median 600 420 « Major Street (480) (336) Volume Raised 1000 700 • 4'Median (800) (560) Ped's On Highest Volume 150 105 X-Walk Xing Major Street (120) (84)_ IF MIDBLOCK SIGNAL PROPOSED ❑ MIN. REQUIREMENT DISTANCE TO NEAREST ESTABLISHED CRWLK. FULFILLED 150 Feet N/E ft S/W ft Yes ❑ No ❑ WARRANT 4 — School Crossings Not Applicable ❑ See School Crossings Warrant Sheet ❑ TS-10A • n 99 I •i - 1 CO A i , 1 I 1 I o\ o - 1 \ s hl i I I \ \ X ! \ j 4 /Ai1FI \ 5 \ \ cn yi i. itø. Pi •rte m / ,, )11 [ . _........ . / _ 4l \^ � i 1I1 x�!Ska:.i 53 ' e 3 is �mi. gr�r 4'S ., 4:1 ) - j e _ , \\\\ \/ \- fn i _'' --_ �T O o . N *8 —�C — Ei 212 9 r z-!t 0 /4 z v -1 OOOCo £" Fi'sp17 + / / I z AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC -SIGNALS ON HOPYARD/DOUGHERTY ROAD AT I-580 WESTBOUND OFF-RAMP THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1982, by and between the CITY OF DUBLIN (herein- after "Dublin") , a municipal corporation, and the CITY OF PLEASANTON (hereinafter "Pleasanton") , a municipal corporation, • based on the following understandings : W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, on the basis of present traffic conditions and projected short-term traffic growth, it is desirable to in- stall certain roadway improvements and traffic signals as shown on Exhibit "A" , attached hereto, at the intersection of Hopyard/Dougherty Road and the Interstate 580 westbound off-ramp (hereinafter referred to as the "Project") ; WHEREAS, the Project would be located within the corporate limits of Dublin but would be subject to the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for both construction, operation and maintenance; WHEREAS, the Hopyard/Dougherty Road and Interstate 580 westbound off-ramp intersection operation and capacity are important to the efficient flow of traffic entering and leav- ing the major projects under construction in northern ' Pleasanton and entering and leaving Dublin via Dougherty Road, and, as such, the operation of the proposed traffic signals is appropriately coordinated with other traffic signals regulating traffic flows from Dublin Boulevard in Dublin south to Valley Avenue in Pleasanton; WHEREAS, because the proposed traffic signals at Hopyard/Dougherty Road and Interstate 580 westbound off-ramp are integral to a traffic regulating system serving northern Pleasanton, Pleasanton is willing to provide the necessary funding for the Project; WHEREAS, it is expected that Dublin and Caltrans will execute an agreement concerning distribution of maintenance and operation costs; and Pleasanton is willing to assume the cost responsibilities of Dublin pursuant to that agreement . for maintenance and operation of the traffic signals; WHEREAS, in order to integrate the proposed traffic signals with adjacent signals in order to maximize the efficiency of traffic movement along the Hopyard/Dougherty Road route, it is intended that Pleasanton interconnect and operate the proposed traffic signals and adjoining traffic signals as part of its state-of-the-art traffic signal interconnect system; however, if Caltrans does not approve such interconnection and operation, it is intended that the proposed signals be coordinated to the maximum extent possible with the traffic signals at the Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road intersection and with those at the Hopyard Road and Interstate 580 eastbound off-ramp ' intersection; NOW THEREFORE, based on the foregoing mutual understand- ings , Dublin and Pleasanton agree as follows: 1. Responsibilities of Dublin. Dublin agrees to allow Pleasanton to install those certain roadway improvements and -2- 0 0 traffic signals generally in accordance with the conceptual drawing as shown in Exhibit "A" (the "Project") . In furtherance thereof, Dublin agrees to do the following: a. Conduct an appropriate environmental assessment and provide such documents as may be necessary in conformance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act. b. Cooperate with and assist Pleasanton in processing the Project application through the Caltrans review and approval process. c. Review and approve Project plans and specifications . d. Inspect the construction of Project as required, unless this function is delegated to Pleasanton. e. Authorize Pleasanton to enter into an agreement with Caltrans concerning distribution of maintenance and operation costs, or, if the former is infeasible, enter into such an agreement with Caltrans directly, including, if possible, direct billing of Pleasanton for such costs. 2. Responsibilities of Pleasanton. Pleasanton agrees to construct the Project and, in furtherance thereof, agrees to do the following: a. Prepare all engineering plans, specifications and estimates for the Project, including such Project modifications which may be required by Dublin and/or Caltrans as a result of their review thereof. -3- b. Secure all responsible agency approvals , permits, and other requirements. c. Provide all funds required for the planning, design, and construction of the Project, including any required permits, inspection, and other fees. d. Provide all funds for all local agency costs for maintenance and operation pursuant to the anticipated local agency-Caltrans agreement during the lifetime of the traffic signals . installed as part of the Project. e. Provide all funds required for modifications/ improvements to the traffic signals installed as part of the Project. • 3 . Operation of Proposed Traffic Signals. The parties agree that the operation of the traffic signals installed as part of the Project (the proposed traffic signals) shall be in accordance with the following: a. The proposed traffic signals shall be inter- connected to the Pleasanton master signal control network, and, to the extent 'allowed by Caltrans, operated by Pleasanton as part of the Hopyard/Dougherty Road corridor. b. Insofar as it is practical from a traffic engineering standpoint, and if permitted by Caltrans, the Dublin Boulevard-Dougherty Road intersection traffic signals shall be -4- interconnected to the Pleasanton master signal • control network and operated by Pleasanton as part of the Hopyard/Dougherty Road corridor. c. In the event Caltrans does not allow operation of the proposed traffic signals as part of the interconnected Pleasanton network, the Dublin Boulevard-Dougherty Road traffic signals may be coordinated with the proposed traffic signals . d. The proposed traffic signals shall not be made operational until such time as traffic signals at the intersection of Hopyard Road and the Interstate 580 eastbound off-ramp in the City of Pleasanton are installed and made operational. e. Dublin expressly reserves the right to control the phasing of (i) the proposed traffic signals and (ii) the Dublin Boulevard-Dougherty Road intersection traffic signals . f. Plesanton and Dublin shall cooperate in the retiming/phasing of all interconnected/coordinated traffic signals to improve traffic flow at all locations. 4 . Mutual Cooperation. Dublin and Pleasanton shall cooperate to effect the installation of the roadway improvements and traffic signal at Hopyard/Dougherty Road and Interstate 580 westbound off-ramp as soon as reasonably practicable. Such cooperation shall include mutually agreeing to such -5- 0 modifications to the Project as required by Caltrans or as found reasonable and desirable upon completing final plans and undertaking construction. THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF PLEASANTON ATTEST: By Robert E. Butler, Mayor James R. Walker, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter D. MacDonald, City Attorney CITY OF DUBLIN ATTEST: By Peter W. Snyder, Mayor Richard C. Ambrose, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: / Michael R. Nave, City Attorney -6-