HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.5 NegDecDublin BlvdWide CITY CLERK
File #
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 18, 1999
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing: Negative Declaration for Dublin Boulevard
Widening Project between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive,
and Authorization to Solicit Bids for the Dublin Boulevard
Widening, Phase 1, Silvergate Drive to Hansen Drive
Report Prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution adopting Negative Declaration
2) Notice of Public Review of Negative Declaration and Notice of
Public Hearing
3) Negative Declaration
4) Location Map
5) Plans and Specifications for the Phase 1 project will be available
at the meeting
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Open Public Hearing
2) Receive Staff presentation and public testimony
3) Close public hearing and deliberate
4) Adopt Resolution adopting Negative Declaration for Dublin
Boulevard Widening from Silvergate to Hansen Drive
5) Authorize Staffto advertise for bids for Phase 1 project
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
There is no financial impact associated with the adoption of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the entire project.
The estimated construction cost of this widening of Dublin
Boulevard, Phase 1, is $486,000. The project is being funded with
Developer contributions in Western Dublin. Sufficient monies have
been received for this phase of the project.
DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is two-phased and encompasses the widening
of Dublin Boulevard from two to four lanes between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive, and realigning
Dublin/Silvergate to a more conventional "T" intersection. Widening will take place on the south side of
the street where sufficient right-of-way exists. The project also proposes to repair the existing roadway
COPIES TO: Hexcel, DeSilva Gates
ITEM NO. ~
G :hmiscproj\dubhansen\agsmegdec.doc
section, which is creeping due io soil instability. Traffic signals will be installed at the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate, and at Dublin Boulevard and Hansen Drive.
Phase 1 of the project is scheduled to occur from June to August 1999, and Phase 2 work is anticipated
during the Summer of 2000 or 2001. Phase 1 work includes installing a traffic signal at the intersection
of DublirdHansen, widening approximately 520 feet of Dublin Boulevard west of Hansen Drive, and
modifying a driveway south of this intersection to align with Hansen Drive. Phase 2 will extend the
widening of Dublin Boulevard to 400 feet west of Silvergate Drive, and will include the installation of
a signal at this intersection.
The project has been reviewed under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act and the City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and Staff finds that
there will not be a significant adverse effect on the environment because mitigation measures have been
included in the project.
Impacts cited in the environmental document include the traffic impact due to the temporary closure of
Dublin Boulevard during construction. Construction has been slated for the sun'~mer months when school
is out to minimize potential impacts to nearby residents and to the Valley Christian Center school. Traffic
rerouting signs will be placed along Silvergate/Betlen/Hansen to ensure the smooth flow of traffic during
construction. In order to reduce potential impacts from truck traffic during commute hours, large trucks
hauling import/export soils and materials shall be restricted to weekday hours from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The project v~411 also require the removal of some trees along the south and north sides of Dublin
Boulevard. Trees to be removed that are located to the north of Dublin Boulevard v,411 be replaced at a
3:1 ratio with 15-gallon specimens, while trees removed to the south will be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 with
24-inch box trees. Tree planting is included in Phase 2 of the project (no landscaping is included in Phase
1). In addition, a 4.5-£oot-high soundwall is proposed along the north side of Dublin Boulevard to
decrease noise attenuation for adjacent residents.
No comments were received during the public review period of the draft Negative Declaration.
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and approve the resolution
adopting the Negative Declaration for the Dublin Boulevard widening between Silvergate Drive and
Hansen Drive. Staff also recommends that the City Council authorize Staff to advertise for bids for the
Dublin Boulevard Widening Project, Phase 1.
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. -99
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DUBLIN BOULEVARD WIDENING BETWEEN
SILVERGATE DRIVE AND HANSEN DRIVE
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has planned to widen Dublin Boulevard between Silvergate
Drive and Hansen Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Boulevard widening project between Silvergate Drive and Hansen
Drive is included in the 1998-2003 City of Dublin Capital Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act
and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the
project and mitigation measures have been included; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has issued a notice of public review of Negative Declaration
and notice of public hearing regarding the project, and the City of Dublin has conducted the public hearing
on May 18, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has considered the mitigated Negative Declaration and
comments received during the public review period.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby adopt the Negative Declaration for the Dublin Boulevard Widening Project between Silvergate Drive
and Hansen Drive.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1999.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
AB STAIN
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
gAmiscprofidubhan~resonegdec, doc
CITY OF DUBLIN
RO. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 · Ci~,y Offices, 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin. California 9z
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Dublin proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration, and the City Council will hold a public hearing for the
following project:
PROJECT: Dublin Boulevard Widening
LOCATION: Dublin Boulevard between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive
APPLICANT: City of Dublin
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
The proposed project involves improvements to Dublin Boulevard. This is a two phased project
which encompasses the widening of Dublin Boulevard between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive
from two lanes to four lanes; and to realign Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate Drive to a more
conventional ,q-, intersection. Widening would take place on the south side of the street where
sufficient right of way exists. The project also proposes to repair the existing roadway section, which
is creeping due to soil instability. Traffic signals will be installed at the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard and Silvergate, and at Dublin Boulevard and Hansen Drive.
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW: · The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA), State
CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. A Negative Declaration has
been prepared for this project. Mitigation measures have been included in this project.
Copies of the draft Negative Declaration are available for public review at the City of Dublin Planning
Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California, Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
The City will accept comments on the draft Negative Declaration through May 18, 1999.
The public hearing on this item will be held on the following date:
CiTY COUNCIL:
May 18. 1999 at 7:00 P.M. in the Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin
Any interested person(s) may appear and be heard on this matter. If you challenge the above-described action in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Dublin at, or prior to, the public hearing.
If you have any questions regarding this project, contact the Dublin Public Works Department or call (925)833-6630.
Dated: April 27, 1999
'....._~' Lee S. Th~4-'ublic Wot~ks Directo
(g:correspo\caror~public heating notice)
Administration (925)833-6550 - City Council (925)833-6505 * Finance (:
Code Enforcement (925) 833-6620 - Engineering (925) 833-6630 °
Economic Development (925) 833-6650 · Police (925) 833-
Community Development (925) 833-5610 · Fire Pre~.
CITY OF DUBLIN
RO. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568
City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(Prepared pursuant to City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines, Section 1.7(c), 5.5)
Description of Project: The proposed project involves improvements to Dublin
Boulevard. This is a two phased project which encompasses the widening of Dublin
Boulevard between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive from two lanes to four lanes
and, to realign Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate Drive to a more conventional "T"
intersection. Widening would take place on the south side of the street where sufficient
right of way exists. The project also proposes to repair the existing roadway section,
which is creeping due to soil instability. Traffic signals will be installed at the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate and at Dublin Boulevard and Hansen
Drive.
Project Location: Dublin Boulevard, between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive.
Name of Proponents: City of Dublin, Public Works Department; 100 Civic Plaza,
Dublin, CA 94568
I hereby find that the above project will not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment.
Attached is a copy of the Initial Study ("Environmental Information Form" and
"Environmental Checklist") documenting the reasons to support/t~e above finding.
Mitigation Measures have been included'ln--'thL~ project./ /
Dated: April 27, 1999 '--..4,,.ei~ S. Thoml3~O.~, Diredor of Public Works
Attachments
Administr~-tion (925)833-6650- City Council (925)833-6605 · Finance (925)833-6~
Code Enforcement (925) 833-6620 · Engineering (925) 833-6630 · Parks & C:
Economic Development (925)833-6650 · Police (925)833-6670 ° Pu
Community Development (925) 833-6610 · Fire Prevention Bur,
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist Form
Initial Study
1. Project title: Dublin Boulevard Improvements - Silvereate Drive to Hansen Drive; Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) No. 9601
2. Lead agency name and address:
Ci_ty of Dublin, Public Works Department - 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
3. Contact person and phone number: Lee Thompson, Director of Public Works; 925/833-6630
4. Project location: Dublin Boulevard, between Silvereate Drive and Hansen Drive
5. Assessors ParcelNumber(s): N/A
6. Project sponsor's name and address:
City of Dublin~ Public Works Department; 100 Civic Pla:& Dublin, CA 94568
7. GeneralPlan designation: N/A
8. Zoning: N/A
9. Specific Plan designation: N/A
10.
Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
This prqiect, to be completed in two phases, includes widenina of Dublin Boulevard between Silvereate
Drive and Hansen Drive from two to four lanes and to reali~ the Dublin Boulevard/Silvemate
intersection into a standard "T" intersection. Widenina would take place on the south side of the street
where sufficient rizht-of-way to make improvements exists. In addition, the project would repair the
existing: roadway section, which is creeping due to soil instabili _ty. Traffic sisals will be installed at the
intersections of Dublin Boulevard/Silvere_ate Drive and at Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive. Please refer to
page 18 for additional project information.
11. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
Please refer to pa_oe 18.
12. Other pubIic agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation a~eement.)
None.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AF~:ECTED:
The environmental factors checked t~low would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
~'-~ Aesthetics ~--] Agriculture Resources ~-~ Air Quality
~] Biological Resources
~-] Cultural Resources
~-~ Geology/Soils
[~ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ~-~ Hydrology / Water Quality
~Land Use / Planning
~] Mineral Resources
[~ Noise
~ P°pulation / Housing
~--~ Public Services
~-~ Recreation
~] Transportation/Traffic
~-] Utilities / Service Systems
~-~ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETER2dlNATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
~i I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
~-] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
D I find that the proposed project MAY have a si~maificant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIROIN~iENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
2
O I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentiall~
significant unless mitigatedM impac[~on the env~'onment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
'-] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and Co) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECI_,.~L4~TION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
'MSig~atul[e '~ D~tet /
Lee Thompson, Director of Public Works
Printed name
EVALUATION OF ENVIRO~AL IMPACTS:
1)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2)
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3)
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
5)
6)
7)
8)
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has red. uced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact.'.' The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section
XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA proce, ss,
an effect has been a~lequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b)
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c)
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9)
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
4
Environmental Impacts. The source of determination is listed in parenthesis. See listing of source,~
used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist. A full discussion of each item is
found following the checklist
I. AESTIIETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(Source: 1, 3)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1, 3)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: 3)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Source: 9)
IL AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by .the California Dept.
of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Kesources
Agency, to non-agricultural use7 (Source: 9)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Source: 9)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact ,~4th Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
t
X
X
X
X
X
5
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? '
(Source: 9)
III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance
Criteria established by the applicable air quality
Management or air pollution control district may be
Relied upon to make the following determinations. Would
The project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?(Source: 2)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (Source: 2)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
(Source: 2)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?(Source: 2)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number ofpeople?(Source: 9)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department offish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 2)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department offish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 2 )
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (Source: 2)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
(Source: 2)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biolo~cal resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (Source: 2)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan7 (Source: 2)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact ,~ith Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
V. CULTUR,4,L RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
(Source: 9)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.57
(Source: 9)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (Source: 9)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geolog3r Special Publication 42. (Source: 2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Source: 2)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source: 2)
iv) Landslides? (Source: 2)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(Source: 2)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact ,a]th Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
(Source: 2, 3)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property? (Source: 2, 3)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal sD,stems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water? (Source: 9)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials? (Source: 9)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment? (Source: 9)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Source: 9)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment? (Source: 9)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (Source: 9)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? (Source: 9)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (Source: 2)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 9)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requkements? (Source: 9)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)? (Source: 2)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course ora stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
(Source: 2)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 2)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?. (Source: 2)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Source: 2)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
(Source: 9)
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 9)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 9)
j) Expose people or sturcmres to a significant risk of loss, in
involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow7
(Source: 9)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact ~5th Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Sigrdficant Impact
Impact -a4th Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
LAND USE AND PLANhq-NG - Would the project:
IX*
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 9)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (Source: 2)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan? (Source: 2)
X. MIh~ERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a -known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state? (Source: 2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
(Source: 2)
XL NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies? (Source: 2)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
~oundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
(Source: 2)
12
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project? (Source: 2)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project? (Source: 2)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
m/les of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 9)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels7 (Source: 9)
XH. POPULATION AND HOUSING-
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 2)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Source: 9)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
(Source: 9)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Sign/ticant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire Protection? (Source: 9)
Police Protection? (Source: 9)
Schools? (Source: 9)
Parks? (Source: 9)
Other Public Facilities? (Source: 2)
XIV. RECREATION-
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source: 9)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Source: 9)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio
on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source: 2)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
(Source: 2)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks? (Source: 2)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Source: 2)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source: 2)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Source: 9)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks).'? (Source: 2)
XVI. UTIIJTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact ,aSth Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
(Source: 9)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (Source: 9)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (Source: 2)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 9)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments? (Source: 9)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs? (Source: 9)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (Source: 9)
XVII. MAN~DATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNq-FICANCE
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact ~Sth Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
16
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? (Source: 2)
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)? (Source: 2)
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Source: 2)
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Determination based on location of project.
Determination based on staff'office review.
Determination based on field review.
Determination based on the City of Dublin General Plan
Determination based
Determination based
Determination based
Determination based
Not applicable.
on the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
on the San Ramon Road Specific Plan.
on the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan.
on East Dublin Specific Plan.
17
City of Dublin
Explanations for Checklist Form
Project Description1-'
The addition of new residential projects to the west of the Dublin/Silvergate and Dublin/Hansen
intersections requires the widening of Dublin Boulevard from two to four lanes between
Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive. It is anticipated that the addition of traffic will magnify the
pavement distress (discussed further under the explanation for Geology/Soils), requiring repairs
simultaneous with the widening. The developers of the Valley Christian Center, Hansen Hill,
California Highland and Schaefer Ranch projects are obligated to share the costs of this project
based on their proportionate generation of traffic.
Designs for this Capital Improvement Project (CIP No. 9601) show a four-lane roadway
including bike paths, a center median, curb and gutter, and a sidewalk along the north side, with
total roadway widths of between 80 and 91 feet. The new roadway would be constructed at
approximately the same elevation as the existing roadway. Work to date in the project area
includes realignment of the Dublin/Silvergate intersection through restriping and pavement
modifications (1992), and reconstruction of the Silvergate Drive median island nose to conform
to the ultimate alignment of this project (1998).
Tiffs project is proposed to be completed in two separated phases, with Phase I occurring June-
August, 1999, and Phase II work anticipated for Summer 2000 or Summer 2001. Phase I work
includes installation of a traffic signal at the DublinfHansen intersection, widening
approximately 520 feet of Dublin Boulevard west of Hansen Drive, and modification of a private
driveway south of this intersection to align with Hansen Drive. Phase II would extend the
widening of Dublin Boulevard to approximately 400 feet west of Silvergate Drive, and include
installation of a signal at this intersection. Construction has been slated for the summer months in
order to minimize potential impacts to the Valley Christian Center school and nearby residents.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Dublin Boulevard, west of Hansen Drive, is a two-lane street, approximately 42 feet wide and
constructed on a fill embankment, ranging in height from 5 to 25 feet. Properties to the north
include the Briarhill subdivision, which has access to Dublin Boulevard via both Hansen Drive
and Silvergate Drive. Planned Development (PD)-zoned properties exist to the south and include
the following office uses: Hexcel, DeSilva Gates Construction/DeSilva Group and the 580
Executive Center.
Exhibits 1 and 2 indicate the Project Vicinity for the proposed project.
Project Description and setting information was provided by the Public Works Department and the January, 1992
geotechnical investigation prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants.
Dublin Boulevard Improvements- CIP 9601 Page 18
SCALE: 1'= 2000'
J
DR,.
VICINITY MAP
DUBLIN BOULEVARD WIDENING
DUBUN BOULEVARD
DUBUN, CAUFORNIA
FOR
CiTY OF DUBUN
-~A.=- P"3~TIDN O.---P~-..E. ASAN'"r'ON AND",q=II~;,'TY ROAD IV, AP. IS$ -LED~
~t4.1FOi:INIA STA'"fE AUTOMOBI~--c AIi$~'3IATION. DUt~.IN.
~.,UFORNIA. DAT'E~ 11-8[ ATA S .~J~. CF 1KM - 5/B MIL!=
r,~rn I AP A ~'! /'"' I'-/'~lT ~ F L.! k I I/'" A I
i
Explanations
The following section provides narrative 'responses that correspond with the environmental
checklist form.
I. Aesthetics
a, b - West of Hansen Drive, Dublin Boulevard begins a gradual incline (approximately five
percent), with land sloping down to the properties on either side (north and south). Travelling
west along Dublin Boulevard provides unobstructed vistas south to Interstate 580 and to the
foothills beyond and to residential and undeveloped properties to the west and north. Although
aesthetically pleasing pastoral views are afforded, this roadway is not designated by the City as a
scenic route, nor are there any identified scenic resources in the immediate vicinity. Widening of
Dublin Boulevard between Sih,ergate Drive and Hansen Drive is anticipated to have a less than
significant impact on scenic vistas and scenic resources. No mitigation is required.
c - The residences located immediately to the north of Dublin Boulevard are oriented with their
backyards backing up to the roadway. Because of the steep slope from Dublin Boulevard do,am
to these properties, tall and mature vegetation has been planted in order to provide some
screening for the residents. Due to a tack of fight-of-way, the roadway widening will occur on
the south side of Dublin Boulevard. However, in order to stabilize the pavement, soil re-
enzineering will be required (please refer to discussion in Geology/Soils section) and many of
th~ trees planted on the north side of Dublin Boulevard will be required to be removed. Trees
planted to the south in the furore fight-of-way would also be removed. Due to the screening
effects that the trees provide to the residents to the north and the aesthetic quality of the street
trees to the south, removal of them would require mitigation in order to achieve a less than
significant impact.
The following mitigation measures is recommended in order to reduce potential aesthetic
impacts to a level of insignificance:
I-1. All trees proposed for removal shall be shown on construction plans submitted to
the City. Removed street trees located to the south of Dublin Boulevard shall be
replaced at a ratio of 1:1 with 24-inch box trees. Trees removed to the north of
Dublin Boulevard shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with 15-gallon specimen. The
specie type shall be approved by the Director of Public Works. Tree re-plantings
shall take place as part of Phase II of the project (no landscaping is included in
Phase I). In order to reduce potential erosion, exposed slopes shall be hydroseeded
after completion of Phase I work. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works.
d - No new street lights are proposed as part of this roadway project. No new sources of light or
glare would be generated. No impacts are anticipated.
Dublin Boulevard Improvements - CIP 9601 Page 21
II. Agriculture Resources
a-c - The proposed project does~not encompass nor would it affect any properties currently in
agricultural production. No impacts are anticipated.
III. Air Quality
a-e - This project is being constructed in response to approved developments which exist to the
west of Hansen Drive. Therefore, it can be assumed that any increase in traffic-related air quality
has been accounted for and/or has been mitigated through the approval process for those
projects. This project would not be in violation of any applicable air quality standards.
Substantial pollutant concentrations are not anticipated with the roadway widening. Upon
completion of construction, no objectionable odors would be created. 2Vo impacts are
~ticipated.
It should be noted, however, that due to the significant amount of earthwork proposed, short-
term increases in particulate matter (PM~0) concentrations can be expected in the project vicinity
during the grading operations. This could impact the residents and businesses located on either
side of Dublin Boulevard.
The follow#Tg mitigation measures are recommended in order to mitigate potential construction-
related air quality impacts to a level of insigni, ficance.
Twice-daily watering of exposed earth surfaces shall occur throughout the
construction phase. In addition, daily watering and/or sweeping of affected street
surfaces shall take place. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director.
IV. Biolozical Resources
a-f- Several trees on both sides of Dublin Boulevard, west of Hansen Drive, would be removed
for widening of the roadway. Some of the trees include oak species and other mature vegetation.
The City of Dublin does not have a heritage tree ordinance. As provided for by the Zoning
Ordinance (Section g.72.030.A4 - Existing Trees), removal of trees for Public Works projects
such as this are allowed. Given the aesthetic screening quality that the trees to the north provide
the adjacent residents, mitigation has been included (see Section I. above) that would require re-
planting of all trees removed. Given the developed nature of the project vicinity (existing
roadway), and the fact that no biologically sensitive resources are located near or would be
affected by proposed construction, no impacts are anticipated.
V. Cultural Resources
a-b - No known cultural, paleontological, or historical resources exist within the proposed
project area. Therefore, no impacts to lo~own resources are anticipated.
Dublin Boulevard Improvements - C11~ 9601 Page 22
c-d - The soil re-engineering required for the project will expose the substrate during grading
activities. Should previously unknown cultural resources be discovered, the following mitigation
measure is recommended in order to mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance.
V-1. In the event that archaeological resources, prehistoric or historic artifacts are
discovered during any construction or excavation, the following procedures shall
be followed:
· Construction and/or excavation activities shall cease immediately and the
Department of Community Development shall be notified.
A qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether any such
materials are significant prior to resuming ground breaking construction
activities. Standardized procedures for evaluating accidental finds and
discovery of human remains shall be followed as prescribed in Sections
15064.5 and 15126.4 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
VI. Geology and Soils
In January of 1992, a geotechnical investigation was undertaken for the Public Works
Department by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants. (That report is on file with the Public Works
Department and may be reviewed during normal business hours.) The analysis included in this
section is based upon data provided in the Berlogar report. The purpose of the investigation was
to assess the subsurface conditions beneath the existing pavement in order to determine the cause
of pavement distress and to provide recommendations for mitigation and repair as well as
recommendations for the proposed roadway widening.
a, e - The project area is not located within a known earthquake fault zone, and on-site soils are
not susceptible to seismic-related ground failure. No mapped landslides exist in the project area.
The project does not involve the use of septic tanks. 2Vo impacts are anticipated.
b - d - Recommended soil re-engineering for the proposed project will require the import of
approximately 14,000 cubic yards of fill, including 6,700 cubic yards of fill in Phase 1. This
represents a significant amount of earthwork that would be exposed during construction.
Field work performed by Berlogar indicates that the subsurface soils include layers of expansive
silty clay fill, which, with other conditions, have contributed to the distressed pavement
witnessed along this particular length of Dublin Boulevard. In addition, heavy vehicle loads
imposed by construction traffic, particularly travelling uphill with full loads to nearby residential
construction projects to the west, appear to have resulted in localized failure of the upper
portions of the overly steep embankments.
The following mitigation measure is recommended in order to reduce potential geology and soils
impacts to a level of insignificance.
Dublin Boulevard Improvements - CIP 9601 Page 23
VI-1. Recommendations contained in the January 2, 1992 Berlogar report (.pages 6-9)
shall be made conditions of project approval. This shall be accomplished to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a-h - The proposed project includes widening and traffic signal installations to an existing
roadway. The project does not involve the storage or use of hazardous materials. No impacts are
anticipatect '
VIII. Hvdroloev and Water Quality
a, f-j - The proposed project includes widening and traffic signal installations to an existing
roadway and would not affect water quality standards. This portion of Dublin Boulevard is not
located within a floodplain and proposed modifications would not expose people or structures to
flooding. No impacts are cmticipated
b - e - Proposed roadway modifications include relocation of an existing drainage outlet on the
south side of Dublin Boulevard, and placement of a new outlet on the north side. Although
widening of the roadway represents an increase in impervious surfaces in the immediate project
vicinity, the project has been designed so as not to impact the existing drainage system. Impacts
are anticipated to be less than significant.
Due to the significant amount of earth work involved with the proposed project, short-term
construction-related impacts associated with runoff can be expected.
The following mitigation measures are recommended in order to reduce potential construction-
related runoff impacts to a level of insignificance.
Standard City conditions for the use of silt traps, hay bales, etc. shall be
incorporated into construction plans in order to reduce the amount of runoff
during the grading phase. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Dkector.
VIII-2. Exposed dirt stockpiles shall either be covered or planted with hydroseed if they
are to remain longer than 14 days. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction
of the Public Works Director.
IX. Land Use and Planning
a-c - This proposed Capital Improvement Program (CI2P) project is in response to approved
developments located west of the Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive intersections with Dublin
Boulevard. The City's Circulation Element shows this section of Dublin Boulevard ultimately
developed as a four-lane major street. Therefore, the proposed project is in conformance with the
Circulation Element. The project area is not included in any habitat conservation plans or natural
community conservation plans. No land use or planning impacts are anticipated
Dublin Boulevard Improvements - CIP 9601 Page 24
X. Mineral Resources
a-b - The project site is currently developed and is not located in an area identified in the
General Plan as a mineral resource area. No impacts are anticipated
XI. Noise
a - c, e, f- The proposed' project is in response to approved development located to the west of
the Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive intersections. Therefore, it can be assumed that any
increase in traffic-related noise has been accounted for md/or has been mitigated through the
approval process for those projects and this project would not be in violation of any applicable
noise standards. Staff has indicated that a 4 to 4.5-foot high sound wall is proposed along the
north side of Dublin Boulevard (between Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive), which would
decrease noise attenuation for the adjacent residents. Noise impacts are anticipated to be less
thcm significco~t.
d - A significant amount of earthwork is proposed for the proposed project. Local businesses
and residents will be subjected to short-term localized increases in ambient noise levels during
the construction phase.
The follcm'ing mitigation measures are recommended in order to reduce potential short-term
noise impacts to a level of insignificance.
In order to minimize the impact of construction noise, all operations shall comply
with local noise standards relating to construction activities. For construction
which occurs near residential areas, it shall be limited to normal daytime hours to
minimize the impact. Stationary equipment shall be adequately muffled and
located as far away from sensitive receptors as possible.
XII. Population and Housing
a-c - The proposed project includes widening and other modifications to an existing roadway.
No population and housing impacts are anticipated
XIII. Public Services
a -The proposed project includes widening and other modifications to an existing roadway. No
impacts to fire protection, police protection, schools, or parks are anticipated Due to the fact
that the proposed project is a CIP project, any future required maintenance will be accounted
for in the City's yearly budget. Roadway maintenance impacts are anticipated to be less than
significant.
Dublin Boulevard Improvements - CIP 9601 Page 25
XIV. Recreation
a-b - The proposed project includes widening and other modifications to an existing roadway.
No impacts to recreation facilities are anticipated
XV. Transportation/Traffic
a-g - The project is proposed to be completed in two separate phases (Phase I in 1999 and Phase
II in 2000), each lasting approximately two months, and would take place during the summer
school break. Phase I will require the import of approximately 6,700 cubic yards of fill, which
relates to approximately 670 truck loads travelling to and from the project site. In addition, each
phase of construction will require the closure of Dublin Boulevard between Hansen Drive and
Silvergate Drive, with appropriate detours set up. These two factors will hm,e impacts on local
residents and businesses. City transportation consultants, TJKM, has reviewed the proposed
project. Their memorandum with recommendations is attached to this report. Upon completion of
the proposed project, no transportation impacts are anticipated
The following mitigation measures are recommended in order to reduce potential construction-
related transportation impacts to a level of h~significance.
When work is being done at the Dublin/Hansen intersection, the access driveway
which serves the office buildings to the south shall be maintained at least during
weekday commute hours to reduce the impact on these businesses. This shall be
accomplished to the satisfaction of the Public Works Dkector.
Work at the Dublin/Hansen intersection may also result in the prohibition of the
westbound Dublin Boulevard right turn onto northbound Hansen Drive and/or the
southbound Hansen Drive lett turn onto eastbound Dublin Boulevard. At least one
of these movemer~ts shall be maintained at all times. This shall be accomplished
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
In order to reduce potential impacts of truck traffic during commute hours, large
trucks utilized for the import/export of soils and materials shall be restricted to the
weekday hours of 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (work on the weekends must be
approved by the City Engineer). This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of
the Public Works Director.
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
a, b, d-g - The proposed project includes widening and other modifications to an existing
roadway. The proposed project will requke the relocation of a fire hydrant and water valve, to be
accomplished by the Dublin-San Ramon Sanitary District. No impacts to utility'es and service
systems are anticipated
c - Public Works staff has indicated that the proposed drain inlet relocation and installation of a
new inlet in Phase I of the project will serve to off-set any increase in storm water runoff
Dublin Boulevard Improvem~ts - CIP 9601 Page 26
associated with the proposed project. Impacts are considered to be less than sigT~ificant. No
mitigation is required -.
Dublin Boulevard Improvernc'nts - CIP 9601. Page 27
Transportation Consultants
April 12, 1999
To:
From:
Subject:
Ferd Del Rosario
Senior Civil Engineer
City of Dublin
Jeff Lee via Gordon Lum
Detour Traffic Due to the Closure of Dublin Boulevard bem, een Hansen
Drive and Silvergate Drive
Estimated Detoured Traffic
We understand that a detour will need to be established to accommodate the proposed
closure of Dublin Boulevard between Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive due to
construction. As you have requested, TJKM has estimated the amount of detour traffic
that will be using Hansen Drive, Betlen Drive, and Silvergate Drive to bypass the closure
0fDublin Boulevard. We anticipate that the detour will cause traffic along these streets
to increase bY approximately 300 vehicles (100 westbound and 200 eastbound) during the
a.m. peak hour and 880 vehicles (420 westbound and 460 eastbound) during the p.m.
peak hour. With the addition of standard detour signing, the existing STOP signs along
the detour route will provide proper traffic control for this increase in traffic.
These estimated trips are based on a.m. and p.m. peak hour taming movement Counts
conducted at Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive on March 30 and 31, 1999, and a.m. peak
hour turning movement counts conducted at Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate Drive on
January 7, 1998. It is our understanding that the proposed construction will take place
during the summer months when the Valley Christian School will not be in session
between June 11 and August 26. Therefore, the expected detour traffic has excluded any
school-generated trips. An estimate of the school trips was based on a.m. peak hour
turning movement counts conducted on January 5, 1998 on Inspiration Drive at the three
driveways serving Valley Christian.
Closure at the Dublin Boulevard/Itansen Drive Intersection
The south leg of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive consists of a
driveway that serves Hexcel Visitor Parking, DeSilva Gates Construction/The DeSilva
Group, and the 580 Executive Center. When work is being done at the intersection,
access to this driveway should be maintained at .least during weekday commute hours to
reduce the impact on these businesses. The driveway for the main Hexcel parking lot is
located on Dublin Boulevard east of Hansen Drive, while a secondary driveway for the
DeSilva complex and 580 Executive Center is located on Dublin Boulevard west of
4234 Hacienda Drive, Suite 101, Pleasanton, California '94558-2721, (925) 463-0611', Fax (925) 463-3690, email tjkm@tjkm.com
Silvergate Drive. Therefore, these bus-ihesses will have access even when their driveway
at the Dublin Boulevard/H'~sen Drive intersection is closed.
Work at the Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive intersection may also result in the
prohibition of the westbound Dublin Boulevard right turn onto northbound Hansen Drive
and/or the southbound Hansen Drive left turn onto eastbound Dublin Boulevard. At least
one of these movements should be maintained at all times. The prohibition of the
westbound right turn movement will force drivers to access Hansen Drive from the north,
most likely via Silvergate Drive. The prohibition of the southbound left turn movement
will force drivers to use Silvergate Drive to access San Ramon Road.
Please call me if you have any questions.
cc: CDK
>-