HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.3 Attach4 Draft EIR
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dublin Transit Center
City of Dublin File No. P A 00-013
SCH No. 20001120395
Lead Agency
City of Dublin
Prepared by
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
July 2001
ATTACHMENn ~
&,3
Table of Contents
2.0 Introduction 3
2.1 Purpose and Overview of the Environmental Process 3
2.2 Lead Agency 4
2.4 Topics Not Addressed in the EIR 4
2.5 Content and Organization of the Document 6
2.6 Notice of Preparation 5
3.0 Project Characteristics 6
3.2 Site History 7
3.3 Project Description 8
3.3 Project Objectives 26
3.4 Actions Addressed in EIR 27
4.0 Environmental Analysis 28
4.1 Aesthetics and Light and Glare 30
4.2 Air Quality 42
4.3 Biological Resources 54
4.4 Cultural Resources 77
4.5 Geology and Soils 81
4.6 Hazardous Materials 87
4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality 91
4.8 Land Use and Planning 98
4.9 Noise 112
4.10 Population and Housing 119
4.11 Transportation and Circulation 124
4.12 Utilities and Public Services 169
4.13 Recreation 183
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project 188
5.1 No Project 188
5.2 Alternative 2: Same Intensity, Lower Building Height 190
5.3 Alternative 3: Campus Office Development 192
5.4 Alternative 4: Lower Density Transit Center 194
5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative 196
6.0 Analysis of Long-Term Effects 198
6.1 Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 198
6.2 Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project 198
6.3 Cumulative Impacts 198
6.4 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts 201
7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted 202
7.1 Persons and Organizations 202
7.2 References 203
8.0 Appendices 206
Appendix 8.1 Notice of Preparation 207
Appendix 8.2 Responses to NOP 208
Appendix 8.3 GP A/SPA Application 209
Appendix 8.4 Air Quality Analysis 210
,-
Appendix 8.5 Biological Report/Corps Letter 211
Appendix 8.6 Cultural Resources Report 212
Appendix 8.7 Traffic Analysis 213
Appendix 8.8 Photosimulations 214
-- List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Regional Location 18
Exhibit 2. Site Context 19
Exhibit 3. Aerial Photo 20
Exhibit 4. Proposed Land Uses 21
Exhibit 5. Illustrative Site Plan' 23
Exhibit 6. Street Layout 24
Exhibit 7 Relationship to Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 25
Exhibit 8a. View from 1-580 40
Exhibit 8b View From BART Station Platform 41
Exhibit 8c. View From Iron Horse Trail 42
Exhibit 9. Biological Resources 76
Exhibit 10. Earthquake Fault Zone Map 85
Exhibit 11. Existing Land Use 109
Exhibit 12. Existing General Plan designations 110
Exhibit 13. Existing Zoning Designations 111
Exhibit 14. Future Noise Contours 115
Exhibit 15a. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 131
Exhibit 15b. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 132
Exhibit 16a. Existing + Pending+ Approved AM Peak
Hour Traffic 142
Exhibit 16b. Existing + Pending+ Approved PM Peak
Hour Traffic 143
Exhibit 17a. Existing+ Pending+ Approved + Project AM
Peak Hour Traffic 150
Exhibit 17b. Existing+ Pending+ Approved + Project PM
Peak Hour Traffic 151
Exhibit 18a. Cumulative + Project AM Peak Hour Traffic 163
Exhibit 18b. Cumulative + Project PM Peak Hour Traffic 164
Exhibit 19. Existing Water Facilities 172
Exhibit 20. Existing Wastewater Facilities 176
List of Tables
Table 1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1-1
Table 2. Maximum Land Use Development Potential 22
Table 3. Major Pollutant Criteria 45
Table 4. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 44
Table 5. Air Quality Data for Livermore 46
Table 6. Worst Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 50
Table 7. Project Regional Emissions (Pounds Per Day) 52
Table 8a. Special Status Plants 74
Table 8b. Special Status Animal Species 75
Table 9. Eastern Extended Planning Area General
Plan Consistency 104
Table 10. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use
Consistency 105
Table 11. Noise Measurements 112
Table 12. Land Use Compatibility Standards 116
Table 13. Regional Total Population & Household Projection 120
'"'-
Table 14. Local and Subregional Population
and Household Projections 120
Table 15. Regional Employed Residents 121
Table 16. Local and Subregional Employed Residents 122
Table 17. Existing and Projected Jobs-Housing Balance 122
Table 18. Transit Center Employment Projections 124
Table 19. Existing Intersection Level of Service, AM and
PM Peak Hours 134
Table 20. Existing + Future Base Level of Service,
AM and PM Peak Hours 144
Table 21. Future Base Intersection+ Project LOS,
AM and PM Peak Hours 149
Table 22. Projected AM & PM Peak Hour Operation-
Internal Access Intersections 153
Table 23. Cumulative Year 2025 With and
Without Project LOS, AM and PM Peak Hours 160
Table 24. Projected ADT on Selected Roadway Segments 162
Table 25. Year 2025 1-580 Mainline Freeway Operation,
AM & PM Peak 166
Table 26. Projected DSRSD Water Demand (AF /yr) 173
r Table 27. Estimated Transit Center Potable Water Demand 180
Table 28. Estimated Transit Center Wastewater Generation 182
--'
C
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
which are discussed in detail in
'f
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL
Table 1 below summarizes the environmental impacts and mitigations
the remainder of this Draft Environmental Impact Report.
1.0
Impacts and Mitigations
Summary of Environmental
Net Impact
After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Topic/Impact
Impact
Page 1-1
July 2001
No mitigation measures are required.
Change in scale and character of
development: The proposed project would
permit buildings up to 10 stories high, taller
than any existing or planned buildings in the
Livermore/ Amador Valley. However, the
proposed scale and character of
development is an integral part of the
"transit village" concept, a concept which
has been promoted by several local and
regional agencies to assist in resolving
transportation, air quality and jobs-housing
balance issues (less-than-signijicant).
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4.1-1
1
~
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
Mit
of Environmental Impacts and
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Less-than-significant
4.1-1: During the Site Development
Review process for individual
projects within the proposed
Transit Center, encourage the
inclusion of breaks and corridors
between building clusters,
especially along the north-south
axis, so that some views of Mount
Diablo are maintained, taking into
account the need to block freeway
noise and to create a compact
transit-oriented development
Views and Vistas: The proposed project
would reduce existing views of Mount Diablo
and the surrounding ridgelands from some
public viewpoints, including westbound 1-
580, the BART station platform, and the
future Iron Horse Trail (significant)
4.1-2
pattern.
No mitigation measures are required.
Aesthetics: The proposed project could
result in large, highly visible structures that
detract from the image of the City of Dublin,
as viewed from roadways and the
surrounding area (less-than-signijicant).
4.1-3
Page 1-2
July 2001
No mitigation measures are required.
BART station identification: The BART
station could become "lost" among the new,
larger-scale developments, however, the
proposed 10-story office towers would likely
replace the existing BART station roof as the
station landmark (less-than-significant).
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4.1.4
l'
}
r
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
1m
of Environmental
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Less-than-significant
4.1-2: As a condition of Site Development
Review for individual projects, the City of
Dublin shall require submittal of lighting
plans for all non-residential projects along
Iron Horse Parkway to ensure that all
exterior light fixtures will either be
oriented downward or equipped with cut-
off lenses to ensure that no spill-over of
unwanted light onto adjacent residential
areas shall occur.
Light and glare: Implementation of the
proposed project would generate new
sources of light and glare within the Transit
Center project from office building and
parking structure lighting that could
potentially intrude into adjacent residential
units presenting a possible nuisance problem
(significant).
4.1-5
Page 1-3
July 2001
No mitigation measures are required.
Scenic corridor policies: The proposed
project could conflict with adopted City of
Dublin policies contained in the Eastern
Dublin Scenic Corridor Standards and
Policies document (less-than-significant).
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4.1-6
)
1
1
)
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
of Environmental Impacts and Mit
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Less-than-significant
4.2-1: The following measures are
recommended, based on BAAQMD
standards, to reduce construction impacts
to a level that is less-than-significant. The
following construction practices should be
required during all phases of construction
on the project site:
Construction impacts: The effects of project
construction activities would be increased
dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM10
downwind of construction activity.
Construction dust has the potential for
creating a nuisance at nearby properties
(potentially significant)
4.2-1
Page 1-4
July 2001
Water all active construction areas as
needed;
Watering or covering of stockpiles of
debris, soil, sand or other materials
that can be blown by the wind;
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and
other loose materials or require all
trucks to maintain at least two feet of
freeboard;
Pave, apply water three times daily,
or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers
on all unpaved access roads, parking
areas and staging areas at
construction sites;
.
.
.
.
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
1m
of Environmental
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
· Sweep daily (preferably with water
sweepers) all paved access road,
parking areas and staging areas at
construction sites;
· Sweep streets daily (preferably with
water sweepers) if visible soil
material is carried onto adjacent
public streets;
Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil
stabilizers to inactive construction
Page 1-5
July 2001
.
areas
· Enclose, cover, water twice daily or
apply non-toxic soil binders to
exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.);
· Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads
to 15 mph;
· Install sandbags or other erosion
control measures to prevent silt
runoff to public roadways;
· Replant vegetation in disturbed areas
as quickly as possible
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
1
)
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
of Environmental Imoacts and Mit
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
No mitigation measures are required
Local air quality impacts: Incremental
increases in air pollution could be anticipated
with buildout of the proposed project,
however, such increases would be below the
standard of air quality significance through
the year 2025, as established by the
BAAQMD. Necessary permits will be
required for the proposed on-site electrical
generation facility from the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (less-than-
significant).
Significant and
unavoidable.
Page 1-6
July 2001
Mitigation to a less-than-significant level
not feasible.
Regional air quality impacts:
Buildout of the proposed project
would exceed the maximum
BAAQMD air quality standards for
regional impacts (significant and
unavoidable impact).
PA 00-013
mpact Report
Dublin Transit Center
Draft Environmental
City of Dublin
Impact
4.2-2
4.2-3
}
}
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
and Mit
of Environmental Impacts
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Less-than-significant
4.3-1: The following mitigation measures
would mitigate the loss of a population of
Congdon's spikeweed (CNPS List 1B) and
potential loss of four other special-status
plant species and their habitat.
Condon's spikeweed: Loss of a
population of Congdon's spikeweed
(CNPS List 1B) and potential loss of
populations of four other special-
status plant species (significant)
4.3-1
Page 1-7
July 2001
If avoidance of Congdon's spikeweed
is not feasible, a long-term off-site
mitigation program should be
created. The program should include
identification of appropriate area(s),
including shallow bowls or
depressions designed with an
appropriate hydrological regime for
Congdon's spikeweed to be sown
with seed collected from the Dublin
Transit Center site. Seed for
Congdon's spikeweed should be
collected from the transit center site
prior to initiation of construction
activities
a)
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
of Environmental 1m
Measure
.0: Summar
Mitigation
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Page 1-8
July 2001
The details of the off-site mitigation
program should be developed in
conjunction with the Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan for this ElR. The
plan will be submitted to the City of
Dublin for their approval prior to the
first entitlement for the first specific
development project within the
Transit Center.
b)
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
Mit
acts and
1m
of Environmental
Measure
.0: Summar
Mitigation
Section
Page 1-9
July 2001
c) If other special-status species are
found on the site, the Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan should include
measures to avoid, preserve or
mitigate for these plants. Measures
to protect and preserve the plant
populations may include collection
of seeds during the appropriate
developmental stage of the plant,
descriptions of sowing techniques
appropriate to the life cycle of the
plant, development of a maintenance
and monitoring plan (i.e., provide the
environmental conditions necessary
for the survival of the new
population including periodic
disturbance if necessary),
identification of funding sources to
provide for the implementation of
the plan, and management and
maintenance of the mitigation area
Impact Topic/Impact
- -
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
1
Net Impact
After Mitigation
Less than significant
Page 1-10
July 2001
ations
of Environmental Impacts and Mit
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
4.3-2 The following steps shall be taken
to reduce impacts to California red-
legged frogs to a less-than-significant
level.
California red-legged frogs: The development
of the proposed project could adversely affect
California red-legged frogs and/or their
habitat (significant).
4.3-2
In order to determine if red-
legged frogs occur on or
adjacent to the Transit
Center project area, a
preconstruction survey for
red-legged frogs shall be
conducted prior to initiation
of construction activities on
adjacent development sites
(Sites A and F). The survey
will include all drainage
channels and potential
hydration, foraging, or cover
habitat on or immediately
adjacent to the Transit
Center (e.g., pool in the
northwest corner of Site A
drainage channel along Iron
Horse Trail, and flood
control channel along
northern boundary of Site F.
a)
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
)
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
of Environmental 1m
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Page 1-11
July 2001
The survey will be conducted
according to current USFWS
survey protocols by a qualified
biologist. Results of the survey
will be reported to the City of
Dublin.
If red-legged frogs are found on or
adjacent to the Transit Center
project area, the project proponent
will consult with the USFWS to
determine a) the appropriate
course of action to avoid or
mitigate impacts to red-legged
frogs and their habitat, and b) any
necessary permits that must be
obtained. All mitigation measures
and permits will be obtained prior
to initiation of construction
activities
b)
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
Page 1-12
July 2001
No more than 30 days prior to
initiation of grading or construction
activities, a qualified biologist will
conduct a protocol-level,
preconstruction survey for burrowing
owls. Surveys should be conducted
during the periods one hour before to
two hours after sunrise and/ or two
hours before to one hour after sunset.
Surveys should be conducted without
regard to season, as the site provides
both potential breeding and wintering
habitat for burrowing owls. A
preconstruction surveys should be
conducted for each phase or parcel to
be developed. If more than 30 days
passes between the completion of the
survey and the initiation of grading or
construction activities, the
preconstruction survey should be
conducted again.
a)
)
-
Impact Topic/Impact
4.3-3 Burrowing Owls: The proposed project could
result in the loss of potential nesting and
associated foraging habitat for burrowing
owls in the project vicinity (significant).
-
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
of Environmental Impacts and Mit
Measure
4.3-3: The following measures will reduce
potential impacts to burrowing owls to a
less-than-significant level.
.0: Summar
Mitigation
Section
1
Section J .0: Summary of Environmental Impacts and MitIgations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
TopiclImpact
Impact
b) If burrowing owls are found on a
development site within the Transit
Center, the project proponent will
notify the City of Dublin. A qualified
biologist will establish an exclusion
zone around each occupied burrow in
which no construction-related
activity will occur until the burrows
are confirmed to be unoccupied. The
exclusion zone will be 160 feet (50
meters) in diameter during the non-
breeding season (September 1 through
January 31) and 250 feet in diameter
(75 meters) during the breeding
season (February 1 through August
31). The appropriate avoidance (if
during the breeding season) or
passive (if outside the breeding
season) relocation methods in
accordance with established policies,
following consultation with the City
of Dublin.
Page 1-13
July 2001
No mitigation measures are required.
Wildlife migratory corridors: The proposed
project would not interfere substantially with
the movement of any resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species (less-than-significant)
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4.3-4
1
)
atlOns
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
1m
of Environmental
Measure
.0: Summar
Mitigation
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
No mitigation measures are required.
Raptors: Northern harrier, white-tailed kite,
ferruginous hawk, and golden eagle are not
expected to nest on the project site. However,
it is likely that these, and other raptors,
forage here for prey on an occasional basis.
Because of the presence of large areas of
existing open space in the project vicinity,
potential impacts to foraging raptors would
be less than significant (less-than-significant)
4.3-5
Less-than-significant
Page 1-14
July 2001
4.4-1: If, during construction of individua
development projects within the Transit
Center, archeological, discrete historical or
Native American artifacts are
encountered, work on the project shall
cease until compliance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5 is
demonstrated. Project work may be
resumed in compliance with any
applicable resource protection plan. If
human remains are encountered, the
County Coroner shall be contacted
immediately.
Historical, archeological and Native
American resources: Although no significant
historical, archeological or Native American
artifacts were encountered within the project
area, construction of the proposed Transit
Center could disturb unidentified and
unrecorded historical artifacts, including but
not limited to artifacts remaining from
previous military uses on the site, as well as
archeological and/or Native American
resources (potentially significant).
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4.4-1
1
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
1m
of Environmental
Measure
.0: Summar
Mitigation
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Less-than-significant
No mitigation measures are required.
Site grading and excavation: Approval of
the proposed project would cause increased
amounts of site grading and excavation for
construction as the project is built out.
Grading operations would proceed based on
grading and excavation plans approved by
the City of Dublin for individual
development projects within the proposed
Transit Center (less-than-significant impact).
4.5-1
Less-than-significant
Page 1-15
July 2001
4.5-1: Site specific geotechnical
investigations shall be required for each
individual development proposed within
the Transit Center project area. Design
and construction of structures shall be in
accordance with the seismic design
requirements of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC), which includes construction
standards near fault factors. The site-
specific geotechnical investigation should
further investigate the presence of
potentially liquifiable material at the site.
Conventional design and engineering
techniques should be able to mitigate for
minor settlements.
Seismic hazards: During a major earthquake
on a segment of one of the nearby faults,
moderate to strong ground shaking can be
expected to occur at the project site. Strong
shaking during an earthquake could result in
ground failure such as that associated with
soil liquefaction and differential compaction
(significant).
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4.5-2
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
of Environmental 1m
Measure
.0: Summar
Mitigation
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Less-than-significant
4.5-2: For each building, as well as public
streets and other pavement areas
constructed in the project area, the
required site specific geotechnical
investigation shall address expansive soils
and provide appropriate engineering and
construction techniques to reduce
potential damage to buildings and
pavement surfaces.
Expansive soils: The presence of moderately
to highly plastic clay occurring near surface
soils in the project area exhibit a moderate to
high expansion potential. The potential for
shrink-swell of expansive soils can result in
damage to buildings with improperly
designed foundations (potentially significant)
4.5-3
Less-than-significant
Page 1-16
July 2001
be
4.6-1: Phase I and, if required, Phase II
level environmental investigations shall
performed for each individual
development project within the proposed
Transit Center prior to any grading or
construction activity. Individual
developers shall be responsible for
performing any necessary cleanup, as
recommended in the environmental
investigations and as required by
regulatory authorities.
Hazardous materials: Individual project site-
specific hazardous material investigations
may locate hazardous material or polluted
groundwater resulting from past military uses
(potentially significant).
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4.6-1
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
of Environmental 1m
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Less-than-significant
During construction of residential
developments on Sites A and C/ the
adjacent Iron Horse Trail right-of-
way locations shall be flagged to
prevent heavy equipment from
crossing over the petroleum pipeline
and fiber optic cable. Construction
materials and equipment shall not
be stored on top of the right-of-way
4.6-2
a)
Risk of upset: Future residential dwellings
constructed near the proposed Iron Horse
Trail could be subject to fire, explosion
and/ or contamination should the petroleum
pipeline be broken or damaged (potentially
significant)
4.6-2
Page 1-17
July 2001
Future residential development
within the proposed Transit Center
shall maintain a minimum setback
of 50 feet from the petroleum
pipeline to the nearest habitable
residential structure within the
proposed Transit Center.
b)
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
1m
of Environmental
Measure
.0: Summar
Mitigation
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Less-than-significant
Page 1-18
July 2001
4.7-1: Development projects within the
proposed Transit Center are subject to the
City of Dublin's NPDES general
construction permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. The terms of
this permit require that project
development not cause any increase of
sedimentation, turbidity, or hazardous
materials concentrations within
downstream receiving waters. It is
expected that implementation of the
erosion control plan outlined below under
Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 would satisfy
all NPDES erosion and sedimentation
requirements, but additional provisions
are needed for the proper handling and
disposal of fuels and hazardous
construction materials.
Increased stormwater runoff: Development
of the Transit Center would introduce new
impervious surfaces (primarily buildings,
driveways, parking structures, roads and
hardscape elements) onto the now vacant
portions of the site, increasing stormwater
runoff (less-than-signijicant).
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4.7-1
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
Environmental 1m
of
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Less than significant
4.7-2: Each individual development
project within the Transit Center shall
prepare a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that
incorporates Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for construction and post-
construction conditions. The SWPPP shall
be prepared to Regional Water Quality
Control Board standards in effect at the
time SDR permits are requested. The
SWPPP shall include, but is not limited to
incorporation of grassy swales into
landscaped areas, use of fossil filters,
covering of solid waste and recycling
areas and similar features.
Page 1-19
July 2001
No mitigation measures are required.
Flooding: The project would be located
within a SOO-year flood hazard area (Zone
X), which would not result in damage to
improvements during a 100-year storm. A
portion of the project site is included in the
100-year flood hazard area as mapped by
FEMA, however, due to the installation of
storm drain facilities in the area, potential
flood damage to buildings would be unlikely
(less-than-significant) .
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4.7-2
ations
acts and Mit
Net Impact
After Mitigation
Page 1-20
July 2001
Section 1.0: Summar
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures required
Topic/Impact
Non-point source pollution: The quality of
stormwater runoff from the project site
would be expected to decline resulting from
an increase in the production of non-point
source urban pollutants. In commercial areas,
this includes debris, landscaping fertilizers
and pesticides, and heavy metals, oil and gas
residues, tire fragments and debris normally
deposited by vehicular traffic. Stormwater
runoff from developed areas on the site
would carry non-point source pollutants into
surface waters within the City and
ACFC&WCD drainage channels, where they
would cause a cumulative degradation of
water quality in San Francisco Bay
(significant).
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Impact
4.7-3
't
1"
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
1m
of Environmental
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Less than significant
4.7-3: The project sponsors shall prepare
an erosion and sedimentation control
plan for implementation throughout
project construction. The plan should be
prepared in accordance with City of
Dublin and RWQCB design standards. It
is recommended that this plan, at a
minimum, include the following
Soil erosion: During construction, short-term
increases of soil erosion could result as the
project area is stripped of the limited natural
vegetation and exposure to wind and water
erosion (significant).
4.7-4
provisions:
a) Existing vegetated areas should be
left undisturbed until construction of
improvements on each portion of the
development site is actually ready to
commence;
b) All disturbed areas should be
immediately revegetated or
otherwise protected from both wind
and water erosion upon the
completion of grading activities;
c) Stormwater runoff should be
collected into stable drainage
channels, from small drainage
basins, to prevent the buildup of
large, potentially erosive stormwater
flows;
d) Specific measures to control erosion
from stockpiled earth and exposed
soil;
Page 1-21
July 2001
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
J
i
~
r
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
Page 1-22
July 2001
Runoff should be directed away
from all areas disturbed by
construction;
Sediment ponds or siltation basins
should be used to trap eroded soils
before runoff is discharged into on-
site or offsite drainage culverts and
channels.
To the extent possible, project
sponsors should schedule major site
development work involving
excavation and earth moving for
construction during the dry season.
e)
g)
acts and Mit
1m
of Environmental
Measure
f)
r
-
Impact TopiclImpact
- -
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
.0: Summar
Mitigation
Section
i
t
of Environmental
!
.0: Summar
SectIon
[:,
Net Impact
After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Topic/Impact
Impact
Page 1-23
July 2001
No mitigation measures required
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Existing on-site land uses: Implementation
of the project would convert the site from
undeveloped and underdeveloped uses
(vacant land and surface parking lots) to
more intensive urban uses. Generally, no long-
term impacts would result from this
conversion, but there could be potential on-
site short-term land use impacts with regard
to disruption of BART station operations
during construction of the proposed Transit
Center. However, these potential short-term
impacts can be addressed on an individual
basis at the time specific development
projects are submitted to and reviewed by
the City of Dublin (less-than-significant short-
term impact; no long-term land use impacts).
4.8-1
~
),
I
'~"-
~.
\
I
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures required.
No mitigation measures required.
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
of Environmental Imoacts and Mit
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Surrounding land use impacts: The type
and intensity of land uses proposed within
the Transit Center would be generally
consistent with surrounding land uses,
including of maintenance/ support/storage,
communicate facilities and training/ranges to
the north within Camp Parks, light industrial
and service commercial uses to the west
across the planned Iron Horse Trail, planned
and approved campus office uses to the east
within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
offices to the south in the Hacienda Business
within the City of Pleasanton (less-than-
significant) .
4.8-2
Page 1-24
July 2001
Regulatory impacts: Approval and
implementation of the General Plan and
Specific Plan amendments, together with the
proposed Stage 1 rezoning, would render the
proposed project generally consistent with
the goals and policies of the Dublin General
Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance (less-than-
significant impact)
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4.8-3
1
v
J
L
L;
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
Environmental Impacts and Miti
of
Measure
.0: Summar
Mitigation
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Less-than-significant
Page 1-25
July 2001
4.9-1: Individual project developers shall
submit a Construction Noise Management
Plan that identifies measures to be taken
to minimize construction noise on
surrounding developed properties,
particularly residential developments.
Noise Management Plan shall be
approved by the City of Dublin
Community Development and Public
Works departments prior to issuance of
grading permits and shall contain, at a
minimum, a listing of hours of construction
operations, use of mufflers on construction
equipment, limitation on on-site speed
limits, identification of haul routes to
minimize travel through residential areas
and identification of a noise monitor.
Specific noise management measures shall
be included in appropriate contractor
specifica tions.
Construction noise impacts: Future residents
of the Transit Center could be subject to
short-term but potentially significant noise
due to construction of other buildings and
improvements within the Transit Center
(significant).
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4.9-1
}
r
v
I
:$.'
1
I
7
r
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
of Environmental 1m
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Les~-than-significant
Page 1-26
July 2001
4.9-2a: For all residential uses within the
Transit Center, site-specific acoustic
reports shall be prepared by qualified
acoustical consultants for individual
residential projects at the time Site
Development Review applications are
filed with the City of Dublin. The
acoustic reports shall include detailed
identification of noise exposure levels on
the individual project site and a listing of
specific measures to reduce both interior
and exterior noise levels to normally
acceptable levels, including but not
limited to glazing and ventilation
systems, construction of noise barriers
and use of buildings to shield noise.
Permanent noise impacts for residential
uses: Residential dwellings proposed to be
constructed near Dublin Boulevard or, the 1-
580 freeway and the existing BART line
would be exposed to future noise levels
considered "conditionally acceptable" or re
"normally unacceptable." Employees within
campus office buildings, depending on their
location, may also be subject to conditionally
acceptable to normally unacceptable levels of
noise (significant).
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4.9-2
~
\-
}
~.
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
Less than significant
Page 1-27
July 2001
acts and Mit
1m
of Environmental
Measure
4.9-2b: For commercial projects where
noise levels on a majority of the Site is
projected to be Normally Unacceptable
(greater than 75 dB DNL), the individual
developer shall submit to the City of
Dublin, at the time Site Development
Review applications are filed, a site-
specific acoustic report prepared by a
qualified acoustical consultant. The
acoustic reports shall include detailed
identification of noise exposure levels on
the individual project site and a listing of
specific measures to reduce both interior
and exterior noise levels to normally
acceptable levels, including but not
limited to glazing and ventilation
systems, construction of noise barriers
and use of buildings to shield noise.
j- fi r 1
- - - -
Impact TopiclImpact
- -
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
.0: Summar
Mitigation
Section
"
>~
}
r
l
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
of Environmental 1m
Measure
.0: Summar
Mitigation
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Less than significant
at
Mitigation Measure 4.9-2c: For
commercial projects in areas where noise
levels are projected to be Conditionally
Acceptable or Normally Acceptable (ie,
75 db DNL or less) on a majority of the
Site, the individual developer shall
submit evidence to the City of Dublin,
the time of Site Development Review
applications are filed, that noise
reduction features are included in the
building design to ensure acceptable
interior noise levels.
Less-than-significant
Page 1-28
July 2001
Mitigation Measure 4.9-3: Future
residents of dwelling units within the
Transit Center shall be provided with
advance notification of the potential for
helicopter overflights from Camp Parks.
The precise language of the notification
shall be approved by the City of Dublin
Community Development Director.
Helicopter overflight noise: Residentia
dwellings proposed to be constructed within
the Transit Center near Dublin Boulevard
south of Camp Parks RFT A would be subject
to helicopter overflights from Camp Parks
(less-than-significant although mitigation is
recommended) .
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4.9-3
ations
acts and Mit
1m
of Environmental
""
r
f
~,
Net Impact
After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Topic/Impact
Impact
No mitigation measures are required
Housing: Construction of the residential
portion of the Transit Center would add
1,500 dwelling units and approximately 3000
residents to the City of Dublin. Construction
of the dwellings would be consistent with
regional population projections and would
also be a key component to the success of the
proposed mixed-use transit-oriented center
(beneficial impact).
4.10-1
Page 1-29
July 2001
Although prices Qr rental rates of the
proposed dwelling units have not been
established, given the proposed density and
applicant commitment to meeting City
affordable housing requirements within the
residential area, approval of the Transit
Center would also contribute to meeting the
City's fair share allocation of affordable
housing units (beneficial impact).
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
l
1
'\
J
r
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
Page 1-30
July 2001
Jobs-housing balance: Although the
proposed project would contribute to the
ABAG-projected jobs-housing imbalance in
Dublin and eastern Alameda County,
proposed employment growth would be sited
near a major transit hub and would also
contain a significant housing component to
assist in reducing the transportation impacts
associated-with a major employment center
(less- than -significan t).
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
acts and M
of Environmental 1m
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures are required.
No mitigation measures are required.
\
Impact
4.10-2
4.10-3
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Employment: The project site would generate
approximately 7/832 jobs at full built out of
the Transit Center, plus an unknown number
of short-term construction jobs. This amount
of employment growth has been generally
accounted for in ABAG's regional
employment projections. Since this amount of
employment growth is being planned as part
of a mixed use, transit-oriented project which
can draw on the entire Bay Area region, a
less-than-significant impact is expected (less-
than-significant)
1
ations
\
of Environmental Impacts and Mit
1
\
}
1
l
':.
Net Impact
After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Topic/Impact
Impact
Less than significant
4.11-1: The following improvements shall
be undertaken to reduce impacts to
external intersections to a less than
significant level
Page 1-31
July 2001
a) The Scarlett Drive extension
between Dougherty Road and Dublin
Boulevard shall be constructed to
relieve the Dougherty/Dublin
intersection of south and east bound
AM peak hour traffic and west and
north bound PM peak traffic
External intersection impacts: Increa
levels of peak hour traffic associated -
the proposed project would result in
significant and unacceptable levels of service
at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard
(AM and PM) and Hacienda Drive/I-580
westbound off-ramp (AM) intersections
(significant).
4.11-1
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
1
I
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
of Environmental 1m
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Page 1-32
July 2001
b) Dougherty/Dublin intersection. The
eastbound approach of Dublin
Boulevard at this intersection shall
be widened to include an additional
through lane. The eastbound Dublin
Boulevard approach would have one
(1) left-turn lane, three (3) through
lanes, and two (2) right-turn lanes.
The westbound left-turn lanes from
Dublin Boulevard onto Dougherty
Road shall be lengthened to
accommodate additional traffic
demand safely and efficiently. As
part of these intersection
improvements, Dougherty Road
should be four (4) lanes in the
southbound direction between
Dublin Boulevard and the 1-580
westbound on-ramp.
These lanes should be configured so
that the right most lane would lead
exclusively to the 1-580 westbound
on-ramp, with the second right most
lane leading to the overpass or the 1-
580 westbound on-ramp. the PM
peak, LOS would improve from E
(0.99) to LOS D (0.86.
These improvements would require widening
and re-striping the 1-580 westbound diagonal
on-ramp. With improvements, intersection
LOS would improve from E (0.97) to LOS C
(0.74) during the AM peak. During
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
)
,
r
}
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
of Environmental 1m
Measure
.0: Summar
Mitigation
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Page 1-33
July 2001
Hacienda/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp:
The northbound Hacienda Drive
approach (overcrossing) shall be
widened to three (3) northbound
travel lanes. This improvement
would require some alignment
modifications to the 1-580
westbound loop on-ramp. In
addition, the 1-580 westbound off-
ramp approach would need to be
widened to include three (3) left-turn
lanes and two (2) right-turn lanes.
With these improvements,
intersection LOS would improve
from F (1.17) to LOS D (0.89) during
the AM peak hour. During the PM
peak hour, LOS would improve from
B (0.61) to LOS A (0.57).
c)
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
)
'\
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
Page 1-34
July 2001
d) Dougherty/Scarlett intersection: The
southbound Dougherty Road
approach shall be widened and re-
striped to include two (2) left-turn
lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one
(1) free right-turn lane. The two left-
turn lanes on this approach would
be required based on projected AM
peak hour traffic volumes. The
northbound approach should be
widened and re-striped to include
one (1) left-turn lane, two (2)
through lanes, and one (1) free right-
turn lane. The westbound Scarlett
Drive approach should have two (2)
right-turn lanes and one (1) shared
through/left-turn lane. The two
right-turn lanes on this approach
would be required based on
projected PM peak hour traffic
volumes. With these improvements,
intersection LOS is projected to be B
(0.63) during the AM peak hour and
LOS C (0.78) during the PM peak
hour.
}
-
Impact Topic/Impact
- -
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
of Environmental Impacts and Mit
Measure
.0: Summar
Mitigation
Section
y )
Section 1.0: Summary of Environmental Imoacts and MitIgations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Page 1-35
July 2001
Dublin/Scarlett intersection: The
eastbound Dublin Boulevard
approach shall be modified to
include one (1) left-turn lane, three
(3) through lanes, and one (1) right-
turn lane. The westbound Dublin
Boulevard approach should be
widened to include one (1) left-turn
lane, three (3) through lanes, and
two (2) right-turn lanes. The two
right-turn lanes on this approach
would be required based on
projected PM peak hour traffic
volumes. The northbound Scarlett
Drive approach would include one
(1) left-turn lane and one (1) shared
through/ right-turn lane. The
southbound Scarlett Drive approach
would include two (2) left-turn
lanes, one (1) through lane and one
(1) right-turn lane. The two left-turn
lanes on this approach would be
required based on projected AM
peak hour traffic volumes. With
these improvements, intersection
LOS is projected to be B (0.63)
during the AM peak hour and LOS
A (0.59) during the PM peak hour.
e)
Impact Topic/Impact
-
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
\
'r
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
of Environmental 1m
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
No mitigation measures are required.
Internal and perimeter intersection
impacts: Approval and construction of the
proposed Transit Center would increase
traffic on local streets, however, none of the
internal intersections would experience
significant levels of traffic especially during
peak morning and evening hours (less-than-
significant).
4.11-2
Page 1-36
July 2001
No mitigation measures are required.
Public transit impacts: Use of BART and
LA VTA facilities is anticipated to increase,
primarily due to the close proximity of
residential and employment opportunities
adjacent to the eastern Dublin-Pleasanton
BART station, however, the majority of
BART trips are expected to be in reverse
directions. Certain LA VTA bus trips may be
full during peak hours, however, this is
considered less-than-significant in relation to
overall monthly capacity (less-than-
significant)
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4.11-3
~,
I
}
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
of Environmental 1m
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Less than significant
4.11-2: Post all on-street parking within
the Transit Center for short-term (2 or 4
hour) use. Through the Site Development
Review process for individual
development projects, ensure that on-site
parking lots and structures discourage
unauthorized BART patron use through
security, validation or other means.
Parking: Due to anticipated parking
demand, BART patrons could utilize
on-street and nearby private
residential, retail and office parking,
resulting in insufficient parking for
these uses (significant).
4.11-4
Significant and
unavoidable
4.11-3: The southbound Dougherty Road
approach shall be modified to include
two (2) left-turn lanes, three (3) through
lanes and one (1) shared through/right-
turn lane. The northbound Dougherty
Road approach shall be modified to
include three (3) left-turn lanes, three (3)
through lanes and two (2) right-turn
lanes. The westbound Dublin Boulevard
approach shall be modified to include
three (3) left-turn lanes, two (2) through
lanes and one (1) shared through/right
turn lane. With these improvements, the
intersection would operate at LOS E
(0.7) during the AM peak hour and LOS
F (1.06) during the PM peak hour.
Additional improvements are not feasible
given the physical constraints at the
Dougherty /Dublin intersection.
Cumulative traffic impacts: In 2025, the
combination of project-related traffic and
cumulative traffic at the Dougherty
Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would
experience congested conditions during the
AM and PM peak hours. Specifically, this
intersection would be operating at LOS E
(0.97) during the AM peak hour and LOS E
(1.06) during the PM peak hour with
proposed project traffic (significant and
unavoidable impact, full mitigation not feasible)
4.11-5
Page 1-37
July 2001
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
)
t
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
1m
of Environmental
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
It is recommended that the City monitor
the intersection for peak hour volumes on
a periodic basis and continue to obtain
updated volume forecasts for future
horizon years (i.e. Year 2025). In
addition, current and future phases of
the 1-580 Smart Corridor Project would
likely relieve some congestion at the
Dougherty I Dublin intersection through
ITS measures and discourage traffic from
diverting off the freeway due to
congestion or incidents.
Less than significant
4.11-4: The road segment of Hacienda
Drive between Central Parkway and
Gleason Drive should be widened from
three to four travel lanes and the Scarlett
Drive extension between Dublin
Boulevard and Dougherty Road shall be
constructed with four travel lanes prior
to buildout of the proposed Transit
Center.
Roadway segment impacts: All
roadway segments would operate at
satisfactory and less-than-significant
levels within the Transit Center area,
however, the segment of Hacienda
Drive between Central Parkway and
Gleason Drive would exceed the
15,600 ADT volume with existing
plus future base plus project traffic.
The future extension of Scarlett
Drive between Dublin Boulevard and
Dougherty Road would approach
maximum average daily traffic
volumes and would also carry a
significant number of peak hour
turning movements (significant) .
4.11-6
Page 1-38
July 2001
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
I
e
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
of Environmental 1m
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Significant and
unavoidable
mitigation infeasible
Full
Mainline freeway operation
impacts: In 2025/ without the Transit
Center project, 1-580 mainline
conditions will exceed the Alameda
County Congestion Management
Agency's threshold of significance.
The addition of Transit Center traffic
would worsen this condition
(significant and unavoidable impact,
mitigation is not feasible since freeway
improvement is not under the
jurisdiction of the City of Dublin).
4.11-7
Less than Significant
Page 1-39
July 2001
4.12-1 Proposed high rise buildings
(greater than 6 stories feet in height) shall
incorporate augmented fire protection
measures, including but not limited to
caches of fire fighting equipment on
upper floors and other project-specific
measures as identified by the Alameda
County Fire Marshal.
Fire protection: Implementation of
the proposed project would increase
the number of calls for service for fire
protection and emergency medical
response. Construction of office
buildings greater than six stories will
require specialized fire equipment and
fire protection procedures
(significant) .
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4.12-1
1
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
1m
of Environmental
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Less than significant
4.12-2: Individual buildings and/or
complexes of buildings proposed for
construction within the Transit Center
shall submit a safety and security plan
for the approval of the Police Chief.
Safety and Security Plans shall include
but not limited to provision for private
security measures, methods to achieve
coordination with the Dublin Police
Services Department and other items as
deemed important by the Dublin Police
Services Department.
Police protection: Implementation of the
proposed Transit Center project is expected
to increase calls for police services,
specifically regarding traffic control, burglary,
theft and neighborhood and domestic
disturbances from the residential portion of
the project. Coordination of security protocol
between future site users and the Dublin
Police Services Department would also be of
concern (significant).
4.12-2
Less than significant
Page 1-40
July 2001
4.12-3: Prior to issuance of the first
building permit within the Transit Center,
the project proponent shall enter into a
school mitigation program with the
Dublin Unified School District to ensure
that future land uses within the Transit
Center pay a fair share towards off-
setting costs for new school facilities
within the District. Developers of
individual projects within the Transit
Center shall be required to pay mitigation
fees, as specified in the mitigation
agreement, at time of building permit
issuance by the City of Dublin.
Schools: Implementation of the proposed
project would generate an-estimated 90 new
elementary school students, 45 middle school
students and 15 high school students at full
project buildout that would need to be
accommodated by the Dublin Unified School
District. Anticipated students would require
the cumulative construction of new school
facilities. Development of "flex" residential
dwelling units would generate an additional
30 K-12 students (significant).
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4.12-3
t
Section j .0: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
Page 1-41
July 2001
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures are required.
No mitigation measures are required.
Topic/Impact
Impact
Solid Waste: Based on discussions with the
solid waste hauler for the City of Dublin,
approval and construction of the proposed
Transit Center would increase the amount of
solid waste entering the waste stream.
Additional quantities of solid waste,
including construction debris could be
accommodated at the nearest landfill.
Additional capital equipment and personnel
would be funded from user fees and charges
(less- than-significant).
4-12-4
Water Demand: Implementation of the
proposed project would generate an
estimated increase of 447,000 gallons per
day for water services. Extension of tfie
recycled water pipelines through the project
area and adherence to standard water
conservation measures imposed by the City
of Dublin would assist in reducing total
water demand. Since the DSRSD and Zone
7 have long-term water agreements in place
to serve the proposed development at full
build out, increased water demand would
be less-than-significant (less-than-significant).
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4-12-5
1
Section 1.0: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigations
Mitigation Measure Net Impact
After Mitigation
No mitigation measures are required.
No mitigation measures are required.
Page 1-42
July 2001
Topic/Impact
Wastewater and Collection:
Implementation of the proposed
project would generate an estimated
447,000 gallons per day in
wastewater flows. DSRSD has
anticipated this approximate level of
development on the project site and
existing and planned wastewater
collection and treatment facilities can
accommodate the build out of the
project. Impacts to the wastewater
collection and treatment system would
be less-than-significant (less-than-
significant).
Impact
4.12-6
Wastewater Disposal
Implementation of the proposed
project would generate an estimated
increase of 447,000 gallons per day of
treated effluent. Based on discussions
with LA VWMA staff, planned
improvements to the local wastewater
disposal system would be adequate
to accommodate full build out of the
Transit Center project, and disposal
of increased quantities of treated
wastewater would be 1ess-than-
significant (less-than-significant).
4-12-7
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
1m
of Environmental
Measure
.0: Summar
Mitigation
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
Less than significant
4.12.4: Prior to issuing building permits
for individual projects within the Transit
Center, the City of Dublin shall require
that "will serve" letter issued by PG&E
indicating that there is sufficient electric
power and transmission capacity to
serve the proposed project, taking into
account anyon-site generation facility.
Electric Power: Implementation of the
proposed Transit Center would require
additional power supplies. Until State and
local power supply and transmission issues
are resolved, it is uncertain whether PG&E
can provide a reliable supply of electrical
power. While the proposed project includes
an on-site electric power generation facility,
this may not generate sufficient power to
supply the entire Transit Center without
supplemental or back-up power from PG&E
(significant).
4.12-8
Page 1-43
July 2001
No mitigation measures are required.
Telecommunications: Implementation
of the proposed project would
incrementally increase the demand for
telecommunication facilities within
the project area. However, existing
facilities can be extended to serve the
site with no increases anticipated in
staffing so the impact to
telecommunication services would be
less-than-significant (less-than-
significant).
Dublin Transit Center P A 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
4.12-9
)
ations
Net Impact
After Mitigation
acts and Mit
1m
of Environmental
Mitigation Measure
.0: Summar
Section
Topic/Impact
Impact
No mitigation measures are required.
Local and community recreation facilities:
Implementation of the proposed project
would increase the demand for local and
community park and recreation facilities for
future residents within the Transit Center
project; however, since the type of residential
dwellings would not be primarily occupied
by families with small children due to space
constraints and adequate park and
recreation facilities exist to the east, this
impact is deemed less-than-significant (less-
than-significant).
4.13-1
No mitigation measures are required.
Regional recreation facilities:
Implementation of the proposed project
would increase the use of regional recreation
facilities, especially the Iron Horse Trail,
which forms the westerly boundary of the
project site. Use of other regional recreational
facilities, which are owned and maintained
by the East Bay Regional Parks District is
anticipated to increase based on an increase
in the number of residents within the project
area (less-than-significant)
4.13-2
Page 1-44
July 2001
Areas of Known Controversy: Local and regional traffic, electric power provision, air quality, water supply
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Purpose and Overview of the Environmental Review Process
This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (to be known hereafter
in this document as the DEIR), prepared pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended. This DEIR assesses the
potential environmental effects of the proposed Dublin Transit Center project, a
91 acre high-density mixed-use development located directly north and east of
the East Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) station in
Dublin, California. The Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, which
owns or controls the project area, is seeking an amendment to the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, and City of Dublin General Plan, Stage 1 Planned
Development rezoning, a parcel map and a development agreement that will
provide the basis for future project-specific entitlements.
This document describes existing environmental conditions within and adjacent
to the proposed development and assesses the potential environmental affects of
the proposed project. The DEIR also includes measures which could be
incorporated into the project to mitigate (lessen) anticipated environmental
impacts to a level of insignificance or eliminate them entirely, where feasible.
Finally, this DEIR identifies and analyzes feasible alternatives to the proposed
project, cumulative impacts of this and other projects on the environment, and
other mandatory elements as required by CEQA.
This EIR is considered as a Program EIR, pursuant to Section 15168(a) of the
CEQA Guidelines, in that it describes general impacts and mitigation measures
for the proposed Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment and Stage 1 Planned
Development Rezoning, Parcel Map and Development Agreement actions.
Implementation of the Transit Center will require a number of follow-on
actions, such as Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning, Site Development
Review and other entitlements that would be consistent with the amended
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan. It is anticipated that additional
environmental review would occur at each of these stages of the project. It is
further envisioned that this Program EIR will be used as the basis for any further
environmental documentation.
Responses to comments received regarding this DEIR during the public review
period will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
Together, the DEIR and FEIR constitute the full Environmental Impact Report
for the project.
As provided in CEQA and implementing guidelines, public agencies are charged
with the responsibility of avoiding or minimizing environmental damage to the
fullest extent feasible. In fulfilling this responsibility, public agencies must
balance a variety of objectives, including economic, environmental and social
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 3
July 2001
factors. As an informational document to local officials, governmental agencies
and members of the public, the purpose of the EIR is to serve as a disclosure
document, identifying potential impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives.
Approval of the EIR by the lead agency does not constitute approval of the
underlying project, in this instance, the proposed adoption of the proposed
Transit Center project.
2.2 Lead Agency
The City of Dublin is the lead agency for preparation of the EIR, as defined by
Section 21067 of CEQA. This means that the City of Dublin is designated as the
public agency, which has the principal responsibility for approving or carrying
out the proposed project and for assessing likely environmental effects of the
proposal.
Preparation of this ErR is in accord with CEQA, including all amendments
thereto, and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Methodologies used for determining standards of significance for each impact
category analyzed in the EIR are based on CEQA Guidelines and are described in
Section 4 of this DEIR. By applying appropriate significance criteria, impacts
under each environmental topic have been categorized as either "potentially
significant" or "less than significant." Methods used to determine the level of
significance of potential impacts vary depending on the environmental topic, as
described in the individual subsections.
2.4 Topics Not Addressed in the EIR
Based on the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (Appendix 8.1) and
discussions with the City of Dublin, the following environmental topics have
been deemed not to have a potential for significant environmental impacts and
therefore are not addressed in this document.
· Agricultural Resources: The project area)s located in an urbanized area,
has not been used for agricultural production and is not encumbered by a
Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement.
· Mineral Resources: The project area is not underlain by significant
mineral resources and No unusual quantities of mineral resources are
anticipated to be needed in the development of the proposed project.
2.5 Content and Organization of the Document
Sections 15122 through 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines describe the content
requirements of EIRs. EIRs must include:
· a description of the proposed project, including objectives to be achieved
by the project;
· a description of existing environmental conditions;
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 4
July 2001
. an analysis of the anticipated impacts on the environment should the
project be built or carried out as proposed;
. feasible measures which can be taken by the proponent or the City to
lessen or mitigate identified environmental impacts;
. project alternatives, including the "no project" alternative;
. significant irreversible environmental changes;
· growth inducing impacts;
. cumulative impacts, including environmental impacts of the proposed
project viewed over time in conjunction with related past, present and
reasonably foreseeable probable future projects whose potential impacts
may compound or interrelate with the proposed project.
2.6 Notice of Preparation
The City of Dublin has completed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed
project and has circulated the NOP to all Responsible Agencies, other public
agencies and interested citizens as required by CEQA. Copies of the NOP and
responses received by the Lead Agency during the NOP review period are
included within the appendix of this document (Appendices 8.1 and 8.2).
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 5
July 2001
3.0 Project Characteristics
The proposed project area is located within the south-central portion of the City
of Dublin, within Alameda County. More specifically, the boundaries of the
proposed Transit Center site include Dublin Boulevard and Camp Parks Reserve
Forces Training Center to the north, Arnold Road to the east, the 1-580 Freeway
to the south and the planned Iron Horse Recreational Trail to the west.
The project area encompasses approximately 91 acres of land and has a relatively
flat but gradual slope to the southwest. Existing uses within the project include
the East Dublin-Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District station, a
major public bus transfer station, and associated surface parking lots on
approximately 18 acres, located in the southwesterly portion of the area. Other
uses within the BART development area include a Pacific Gas and Electric
(P,G&E) electrical generation substation located northwest of the station entrance
that provides power to the BART system, a BART traction station located
northeast of the BART station entrance and a telecommunication tower owned
by BART and sited north of the traction station. Dublin Boulevard, a six-lane
arterial that parallels 1-580, traverses the northerly portion of the project area.
The four-lane DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway provide signalized
access to the BART parking lots from Dublin Boulevard. Arnold Road, which
forms the easterly boundary of the project area, is an improved street north of
Dublin Boulevard and an unimproved right-of-way between Dublin Boulevard
and 1-580. An unimproved right-of-way for Altimarino Drive parallels the 1-580
freeway, extending from the traction station easterly to Arnold Road. Various
overhead and underground utility installations have also been constructed
within the project areas to serve the BART station facility and/ or development
to the east, including storm drains, gas, power, sewer and water lines.
The remainder of the Transit Center project area is currently vacant and is
characterized by relatively flat land that has been graded or are covered with grass
and scattered shrubs. Limited construction debris, included pipes, woodpiles, soil
stockpiles and broken concrete are sparsely scattered across the vacant lands.
Exhibit 1 shows the location of Dublin in relation to surrounding communities
and other major features. Exhibit 2 depicts the location of the proposed Transit
Center in relationship to major community features and streets.
Directly to the north of the project area is the 2,700 acre U.S Army Camp Parks
Reserve Forces Training Center. Existing Camp Parks facilities are characterized
by one and two story buildings and vehicle storage and maintenance yards. Most
of these facilities are located well north of Dublin Boulevard, with the exception
of vehicle storage near Arnold Road.
Lands directly to the east of the proposed Transit Center, across Arnold Road, are
within the current boundaries of the 3,300 acre Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area,
which was adopted by the City of Dublin in 1994. Several high-technology
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 6
July 2001
campus office developments are either under construction, have been approved,
or are currently under review in the area between Arnold Road and Hacienda
Drive to the east, consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. These include
the six-story Sybase and Commerce One headquarters projects and the three and
five-story Cisco project. Lands east of Hacienda Drive have been developed in
accordance with the Specific Plan with a mix of regional retail, office, and single
and multi-family housing.
To the west of the project area, separated by a 100-foot wide former railroad right-
of-way that will be used as the planned Iron Horse pedestrian/bike trail, is an
area of one-story light industrial, warehousing, auto dealerships and similar uses
served by Scarlett Court off of Dublin Boulevard.
Lands south of the project area, separated by the elevated 1-580 freeway and the
BART station platform are within the jurisdiction of the City of Pleasanton and
have been largely developed with another surface parking lot for the East
Dublin-Pleasanton BART station and four and five-story office buildings within
the Hacienda Business Park.
Exhibit 3 is an aerial photograph of the project site and immediately surrounding
area.
3.2 Site History
Until recently, the entire Transit Center project area was owned by the United
States Army as part of the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area north of the
site. As part of a land exchange between the Army, the East Bay Regional Park
District, and Alameda County, the County received approximately 35 acres and
the City of Dublin received the right-of-way for Dublin Boulevard in 1994. The
County subsequently deeded 15 acres to BART on which the BART station
facilities and parking lot are located.
The new BART station opened in 1995, accessed by two new City streets
connecting the station to Dublin Boulevard; DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron
Horse Parkway. Major storm drainage, sewer, water and utility infrastructure was
constructed to serve both the BART facility and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
area to the east.
In 1997, the Army transferred the balance of the project area, between Iron Horse
Parkway and Arnold Road, to the County in exchange for funding for Camp
Parks improvements. Dublin Boulevard was subsequently relocated as a six-lane
arterial street in a straight alignment between Iron Horse Parkway and Hacienda
Drive to the east. Construction of this alignment was completed in Spring, 2001.
In summer, 2000, additional interim BART parking was constructed just west of
DeMarcus Boulevard on County property. This parking lot will be removed once
permanent parking is provided in a new garage, as described below.
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 7
July 2001
3.3 Project Description
Overview
The proposed Transit Center project will create the planning framework to
permit the approval and construction of a high-density mixed-use, transit and
pedestrian-oriented development directly adjacent to the East Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station. The proposal includes removing most of the existing surface
BART parking lots and constructing new land uses and other improvements on
the 91-acre site. These land uses would includes up to 2 million square feet of
office space, a maximum of 1,500 high density residential dwellings and up to
70,000 square feet of ancillary retail commercial uses. A five-story BART parking
garage containing approximately 1,700 spaces would also be constructed adjacent
to 1-580 and the station entrance to replace most of the surface BART parking
lots. The proposed development plan for the Transit Center project is depicted
on Exhibit 4. This exhibit shows the general location and extent of proposed land
uses within the Transit Center. Exhibit 5 is an illustrative concept plan of the
proposed project.
The proposed project includes an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
and General Plan to add the Transit Center site to the existing Specific Plan, as
well as a Stage I Planned Development Rezoning, Parcel Map and Development
Agreement. The entitlements currently sought are intended to provide a general
framework for the comprehensive development of the area as a transit village.
Precise site development plans have not yet been prepared for individual
properties, but will be included in subsequent submittals to the City of Dublin.
Subsequent submittals will deal with such issues as project-specific land uses, site
layouts, parking, building architecture, landscaping and similar items.
Future environmental reviews will be completed on specific development
applications to ensure compliance with this Program EIR and CEQA.
Proposed land uses
The Dublin Transit Center is being sponsored by the current owner of most of
the project area, the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSP A), in
cooperation with the BART District, which owns the 15 acres just north of the
station entrance. The intent of the project is to create a high intensity, mixed-use
environment that would strongly encourage future residents and employees to
use non-automobile modes of transport, taking advantage of the close proximity
of the project area to the BART station, bus transfer station and the Iron Horse
TraiL The existing BART station platform and entrance would remain in its
present location. However, most of the surface parking lot would be replaced
with a mix of office, residentiat retail and open space uses in an effort to bring
these uses as close as possible to the BART station entrance. Land uses within the
proposed Transit Center would generally get denser the closer to BART, new and
existing streets would be designed to encourage pedestrian activity by narrowing
them in width, providing wide sidewalks, attractive landscaping, lighting and
other street amenities and by encouraging minimal building setbacks and
building entrances directly off of the streets.
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 8
July 2001
Several new streets will be constructed as p[art of adjacent, approved
development projects to serve the Transit Center area. Existing streets would be
modified to enhance pedestrian activity. Arnold Road is planned to be extended
south from Dublin Boulevard to the 1-580 frontage by other development
projects to the east. A new six-lane street parallel to Dublin Boulevard and 1-580
between Arnold and Hacienda Drive, preliminarily identified as "Digital Drive,"
is also planned to be constructed as part of the Commerce One project. Within
the Transit Center area itself, Digital Drive is proposed to be extended as a three
and four-lane street west from Arnold Drive to Iron Horse Parkway. A two-lane
frontage street along 1-580, Altimirano Road, would also be extended west from
Arnold Road to the BART parking garage
North-south access would continue to be provided by DeMarcus Boulevard and
Iron Horse Parkway, although both of these streets would be significantly
modified from their current four-lane configuration to two and three lanes,
respectively. A new north-south street between Iron Horse Parkway and Arnold
Road would also be constructed, providing right-in/right-out access to Dublin
Boulevard and extending south to Altimirano Road as a two and four-lane
street.
The existing and planned street system divides the Transit Center project area
into various planning areas or Sites. These Sites are described below and
illustrated in Exhibit 6. Table 2 is a summary of maximum development
potential within the Transit Center project area by Site. Site areas are described in
"gross acres/' which includes up to the centerline of adjacent streets, in keeping
with Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use descriptions. The term "net acre"
refers to site size after dedication of required rights-of-way, easements and other
dedications to result in a buildable site. Similarly, the term "gross Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)" means the ratio between the of building square footage on a site
prior to dedication of right-of-way, easements and similar dedications. "Net
FAR" refers to the same ratio, but on a building site where required dedications
have been excluded from the calculation.
Office uses
Office uses would be located on the easterly portion of the Transit Center
(Sites D-1, D-2, E-1, E-2 and F), encompassing approximately 50.5 gross acres of
land. In general, office land use intensity would increase closer to the BART
station to encourage use of the station and the adjacent bus transfer station,
with the most intensive uses no more than 1/4 mile from the BART station
platform. Site D-1, located at the southeast corner of Iron Horse Parkway and
Digital Drive, is the closest Office Site to BART. The intensity of office
development on Site D-1 would be 170,000 square feet with a gross FAR of
1.12. This site is proposed to be developed for office and/or hotel uses to take
advantage of the proximity of the planned adjacent BART garage and the
potential to share parking resources. The adjacent Site D-2, east of Campus
Drive and south of Digital Drive, would contain a maximum of 830,000
square feet of floor area with a gross FAR of 1.10. To achieve the target floor
area ratios for Site D while maximizing useable site open space, it is
anticipated that building heights of up to 10 stories would be constructed.
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 9
Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001
City of Dublin
Buildings this high-could provide a major visual focal point for the Transit
Center. Parking within Sites D-1 and D-2 would be primarily structured due to
the intended intensity of land use.
Site E, located south of Dublin Boulevard and north of Digital Drive, between
Iron Horse Parkway and Arnold Road, would also be developed with office
uses. Campus Drive would separate this Site into Sites E-l and E-2, with a
combined-average gross FAR of 0.98 on approximately 17.5 acres of land.
Maximum building heights would be limited to 10 stories along Digital Drive,
and 8 stories along Dublin Boulevard to encourage greatest density nearest to
the BART station. On-site parking would be primarily structured to
accommodate proposed land use intensity.
Site F, a triangular-shaped area of land located north of Dublin Boulevard and
adjacent to Arnold Road, would be the least intensively developed office use.
Site F is envisioned to contain a maximum of 250,000 square feet of office
floor area with a gross FAR of 0.47. Maximum building heights would be
limited to 6 stories, matching the Campus Office development heights and
intensities east of Arnold Road. Parking-would be a mix of structured and
surface lots. A large existing drainage ditch that was recently constructed
along the northern border of Site F would be culverted in an underground
facility to accommodate more useable open space on the Site.
The applicant has also requested that the City of Dublin consider Sites D-l and
E-l as "flex" sites. Here, office uses could be substituted with up to 300 higher
density residential units in the event the real estate market for office uses
weakens. These 300 dwellings would be in addition to other residential uses
within the Transit Center and have been analyzed as part of the traffic and
circulation analysis in this EIR.
Residential uses
Residential uses would occupy approximately 31 acres of the site, generally
located in the central and westerly portions of the Transit Center within Sites
A, Band C, west of Iron Horse Parkway. Residential development would
consist of a maximum of 1,500 dwellings at average densities of 48 dwellings
per gross acre (excluding consideration of the 300 "flex" residential dwellings
described above). Net residential density (deducting streets and open spaces)
would be approximately 64-70 dwellings per acre, with building heights
anticipated to be 4 to 5 stories. It is anticipated that Transit Center residential
development would be primarily apartments and condominiums. Parking
would be primarily located in parking structures rather than surface lots.
The project sponsor has indicated the residential component of the project
will comply with City of Dublin affordable housing requirements by
providing on-site affordable housing at or above the City's required rate,
rather than paying in-lieu fees.
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 10
July 2001
Retail uses
A maximum of 70,000 square feet of ancillary retail floor space would be
constructed within the Transit Center as a ground-floor use for both the office
and residential development along Iron Horse Parkway. Anticipated retail
uses would include convenience-oriented goods and services such as
restaurants, coffee shops, dry cleaners, banks and similar uses. By
concentrating ground-floor retail uses along Iron Horse Parkway, a centrally
located pedestrian oriented environment-could be created to supply-goods
and services to BART patrons, future residents of the Transit Center, as well
as to employees and visitors to the office component.
Public/Semi-Public uses
Approximately 8.65 acres of public and semi-public land uses are planned
within the Transit Center. The primary land use within this designation
would include the existing BART station, bus transfer station and a new five-
levet 1,700 parking garage for BART patrons. This structure would replace
approximately 1,200 surface parking spaces, increasing the total permanent
parking available to BART patrons by approximately 500 spaces. The garage
would be designed and engineered to allow for expansion of the top level to
accommodate another 250 vehicles. The garage would incorporate the
existing BART traction station on the ground level and could include up to
10,000 square feet of retail use facing Iron Horse Parkway. This amount of
retail space is included in the retail land use category described above.
Table 2 summarizes proposed land uses within the Transit Center and includes
both net and gross acres, proposed square footages and dwelling units by land use
type, proposed floor area ratios and densities.
r--
Street system and parking
Primary access to the site would be provided by Dublin Boulevard, which forms
the northern boundary for a majority of the project area. A second east-west
connector roadway has been planned by the City that would extend from
Hacienda Drive to the east to the approximate center of the site. This road has
been tentatively designated as "Digital Drive."
North-south access would be provided by Arnold Road, that forms the easterly
boundary of the site. Additional primary north-south access would be provided
by DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway, both existing roadways. A
secondary north-south access road, tentatively identified as "Campus Drive,"
would be provided to facilitate access to the parking areas of Sites D-1 and D-2.
A more complete discussion of local and regional streets and roads is contained
in the Transportation and Circulation section of the EIR (Section 4.11).
Parking for many of the proposed uses is anticipated to be predominantly
structured parking, rather than surface parking lots. A new parking structure
would be constructed to serve the existing BART station as described in the
previous section under "Public/Semi-Public Uses."
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 11
July 2001
The precise number of parking spaces will be determined during subsequent
stages of project review, once specific projects are proposed The project applicant
is proposing that parking standards be reduced as much as possible to encourage
the use of public transit, It is anticipated that fewer parking spaces than normally
required by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance may be provided, based on the close
proximity of public transit opportunities as well as shared use of parking spaces
based on the mix and variety of uses planned for the site. In addition, street
curbside parking is being proposed on many of the Transit Center streets to serve
short-term visitor and retail customer parking needs.
~
Urban design concept _
The proposed Transit Center has been designed to foster a pedestrian friendly
environment and to encourage maximum use of public transit opportunities.
Using existing and proposed streets and a series of pedestrian corridors, the
project area has been divided into 250 to 300 foot long "blocks", which would
reflect historic street patterns in older, pedestrian-oriented cities. Buildings
adjacent to most streets in the Transit Center would have minimal street
setbacks, ranging from zero (behind public utility easements) to 15 feet and
would orient entrances and uses to the street. Wide (8-18 feet) sidewalks are
proposed to foster pedestrian use, with a high level of street amenities, including
pedestrian scale lighting, ornamental street tree grates and street furniture. On-
street curbside parking would be allowed in most areas to maximize parking
opportunities and to buffer pedestrians from automobile traffic.
Special care would made to enhance Iron Horse Parkway and Digital Drive as the
major pedestrian route through the Transit Center, providing a pleasant walking
experience between the BART station and the bulk of the office and residential
development. The ground floor retail uses along Iron Horse Parkway that would
open onto the street and the reduction in width of the street to a more human
scale are proposed to create a more interesting pedestrian environment. Along
Digital Drive, double rows of street trees along wide sidewalks, together with a
series of plazas and open spaces, would be designed to encourage pedestrian use.
Parking garages would be primarily oriented so that they did not face directly
onto either of these streets.
To shield pedestrian activity areas, outdoor use areas and residential areas from
excessive freeway noise, the five-level BART parking garage and large office
buildings are proposed to be sited as close as possible to the freeway to create
noise buffers for the rest of the Transit Center development. This would permit
useable open space areas and pedestrian corridors within each campus office and
residential site that could be shielded from freeway noise without the use of
unsightly sound walls.
Between Iron Horse Parkway and DeMarcus Boulevard, a Village Green would
be provided to serve as a gathering spot and focal point for project residents. It is
anticipated that the Village Green would be designed with an open, turfed area
enclosed by adjacent buildings to assist in providing noise screening from the 1-
580 freeway. The Village Green would be linked to adjacent areas and the BART
station with pedestrian corridors.
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 12
July 2001
Exhibit 5 is an illustrative concept plan of the proposed Transit Center
development, indicating potential building placement and setbacks, pedestrian
activity corridors and open space and street layout and design.
~
Grading and utilities
The Transit Center development would be required to improve overall site
drainage and to create consistent building pads. The amount of grading is not
known at this time, however, the project sponsor and/or future project
developers would be required to obtain grading permits prior to commencement
of grading.
r~
All major utilities, including water, sewer, recycled water and storm drain
improvements have been extended to the project area as part of the BART
station development and the realignment of Dublin Boulevard through the area.
Major sewer, water, storm drain, natural gas and overhead electrical power lines
currently run down the Arnold Road right-of-way between Dublin Boulevard
and the 1-580 freeway. These utilities have also been provided within the
DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway right-of-ways.
~,'
As a condition of project approvat the City of Dublin will require that the
existing overhead electrical lines within and adjacent to the project site be
undergrounded.
Another City of Dublin condition of project approval would require the project
developer install a drainage splitter structure upstream of the proposed project
near the intersection of Gleason Road and Arnold Road.
On-site electrical power generator
Due to the currently uncertain electric power situation in California in general,
and the Tri-Valley in particular, a small on-site power generation facility (up to
22 megawatts) is proposed to be constructed adjacent to 1-580 and Arnold Road on
Site D-2. This facility could take advantage of an existing natural gas pipeline
along the 1-580 frontage, as well as existing high-voltage power lines, to provide
an additional power source for Transit Center office development, utilizing
natural gas turbines to generate sufficient power that would not be subject to
regional blackouts. The proposed generation facility would consist of four 5.5
megawatt industrial gas turbine generators. The units would run on a
continuous basis powered by high-pressure natural gas and would consume
approximately 200 million BTU pre hour. Exhaust heat would be channeled into
Heat Recovery Steam Generators where some of the heat content would be used
to produce hot water for input into thermal absorption units. Remaining waste
heat will flow through a small exhaust stack and cooling tower on the site. A
Standby Electric Power Platform would be constructed as part of the facility,
consisting of a utility-type electric substation at would connect the proposed
office building on Site D-2 with the existing electric grid.
Electricity from the generator would be sent through four underground feeders
to on-site office buildings, a data center within the office building and the
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 13
Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001
City of Dublin
proposed parking structure on site D-2. Each building on the Site would have
two separate electrical service circuits and the proposed parking structure would
have only one electrical service.
~
Most elements of the proposed facility would be housed in a single building,
approximately eighty feet by ninety feet in area and a height of approximately
sixty feet. Portions of the facility, including a water cooling tower, and other
elements would need to be located outside of the building. The facility would be
ancillary to any office development and would be required to architecturally
blend in with the larger office complex. Air intake baffles, architectural screening
and siting adjacent to the freeway would be required to ensure that the facility
would not significantly increase ambient noise levels, as measured at existing
and planned residential areas. Extensions from existing electrical transmission
lines in Arnold Road would be made to the proposed facility as would an
underground extension from the existing high-pressure natural gas transmission
line within the existing right-of-way of Altimirano Road, south of the proposed
Transit Center.
On-site underground fuel storage tanks would also be installed as a back-up to
natural fuel anticipated to be used to power the generation facility. A back-up
power supply is deemed necessary if natural pressure falls below manufacturer's
specifications.
Prior to final approvat the proposed facility would be required to receive all
necessary permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), the Dublin Fire and Building Departments, as well as meeting all
other applicable health, safety and requirements by locat state and Federal
agencies.
--::>
Phasing
Since all major perimeter streets adjacent to the proposed Transit Center are
either in place or under construction, all of the Campus Office portion of the
project could be developed in any sequence, as dictated by the market for office
space. Proposed internal streets, including Digital Drive, Campus Drive and
Altimirano Road could be constructed without disrupting existing streets or the
existing BART station configuration.
.r-
The Alameda County Surplus Property Authority is currently under contract
with several high-technology firms, including Cisco Systems, Sun and Oracle, for
the sale of campus office Sites within the proposed Transit Center. However, no
formal proposals for these developments have been made to the City of Dublin
at this time, and the timing of development of these projects is subject to the
completion of required project-specific entitlements and the market.
Development of the residential component of the Transit Center project would
be required to be phased so that existing BART operations would not be
disrupted. Site B would be developed first, using the existing street network.
Following the construction of the proposed BART garage, the interim parking lot
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 14
July 2001
on Site A and the existing lot on Site C could be abandoned and these areas
developed for residential uses.
Financing
A variety of funding sources are anticipated to be used to fund the infrastructure
improvements required for the Transit Center.
--....
The project will be subject to impact fees to pay for fire facilities and parks and
community facilities on a city-wide basis. In addition, the project will be subject
to the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee, another city-wide impact fee,
which funds regional traffic improvements. Since an application has been filed
to include the proposed project within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the
traffic fee for that area will also be applicable, with whatever adjustments to it are
required by virtue of the addition of the project area. Other project-specific traffic
improvements would be financed by the project developer(s).
~
--""
First, since the project area has been requested to be added to the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, financing mechanisms used as part of the Specific Plan would
apply to the Transit Center. This would include payment of impact fees for
various community-wide internal streets and infrastructure, including the
proposed Village Green, would be financed by individual developers. No special
assessments are anticipated to pay for proposed improvements.
~
I
The proposed BART parking garage, to be located adjacent to the 1-580 freeway, is
estimated to cost approximately $18-20 million. Partial funding for this structure
would come from the future sale of Site C to a private developer for residential
development. The project proponent, ACSP A, proposes to donate approximately
3 acres of land for the garage, with the remainder of funding to be supplied by a
number of outside sources, including State grants and City of Dublin Traffic
Impact Fees. This funding mechanism must be approved by the City of Dublin.
'-...~
r--
Requested entitlements
The project sponsor has requested several land use entitlements from the City in
order to construct the proposed Transit Center. These include:
~
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment
The proposed Dublin Transit Center lies immediately west of but outside the
boundary of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin in 1994 to regulate land uses,
infrastructure, resources, and urban design for a 3,300-acre area generally lying
east of Arnold Road, north of the 1-580 freeway, south of the Alameda
County /Contra Costa County line and west of Doolan Canyon.
~
The project sponsor has proposed that the Transit Center form the eleventh
planning Subarea of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Recommended
language to be included in the Specific Plan has been submitted as well as a
proposed Land Use Map, consistent with the structure of the existing Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan. The applicant's proposed Specific Plan
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 15
Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001
City of Dublin
...,.'.....
amendment language can be found in Appendix 8.3 of this EIR. This
application includes a request to exceed the maximum building height for
office buildings currently allowed (6 stories) for office buildings located within
transit-oriented developments. The application would also allow for reduced
parking standards for land uses within the proposed Transit Center,
recognizing the close proximity of the Eastern Dublin BART station and other
public transit opportunities.
.-.
--">
A more complete discussion of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the
relationship of the proposed project to the Specific Plan is contained in the
Land Use and Planning Section of this document (Section 4.8). Exhibit 7
shows the relationship between the proposed Transit Center and the adjacent
eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
,Q,
The City of Dublin General Plan will also need to be amended to reflect the
proposed land uses. Currently, the General Plan designates the Project Area as
"Public Lands./1
~"-
Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) rezoning
A Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) rezoning has also been requested. The
PD rezoning would establish specific permitted land uses and development
standards that must be followed as Stage 2 Planned Development (PD)
rezonings and Site Development Reviews (SDRs) to be requested for specific
development projects.
--:0.
Tentative Parcel Map
The project area was recently divided into five separate parcels through the
approval of Parcel Map No. 7395 by the City of Dublin. A tentative parcel map
has been requested to further subdivide Parcel 3 of that map into Sites D-1, D-
2, E-1 and E-2 consistent with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment as well
as provide a separate lot for the proposed BART parking facility. After
approval of the Tentative Parcel Map, a final Parcel Map would be prepared,
approved by the City and recorded. Future tentative subdivision maps to
create individual building lots, if required, would be filed at a later date.
~
I~
Development Agreement
A Development Agreement has been proposed between the City of Dublin
and the existing property owner. The Development Agreement would vest
(or "lock inn) City development approvals related to the project for a specified
period of time.
_Y'",
~
Prior to receiving final approvals for individual development projects within
the Dublin Transit Center site allowed by this General Plan/Specific Plan
Amendment described in this EIR, applicants must submit Stage 2 Planned
Development Rezoning requests to the City of Dublin. Stage 2 Rezoning includes
specific information regarding development proposals and land uses. Site
Development Review (SDR) applications must also be approved by the City of
Dublin, to include precise information regarding building architectural design,
use of exterior materials, a specific site layout, landscaping plans, conceptual
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 16
Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001
City of Dublin
~~
~
signs plans and other design details. Other applications may include parcel maps
to create individual building lots, consideration of grading and building permits,
utility hook-ups by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), granting of
encroachment permits by the City of Dublin, and filing of Notices of Intent with
the State Water Resources Control Board.
--
,...-...
'-'>
,.-i
p..=.
...G
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 17
July 2001
.--'~
r-
---"
c'"
<,-"::'
,,:~
c^'
-'
~
..;
0
0
N
~
:>:
..;
..;
~
'"
~
"--' e:.
,,:It-.
.-'~,
i---'
Exhibit 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
N
!
~
o
I
2
,
4
,
6
,
8
,
10 miles
I
'I I
- -
.----
-----
//
;-
~
311N SPECIFIC
Exhibit 2
PROJECT CONTEXT
WITHIN CITY OF DUBLIN
---..- City Limit
Project Site
},
,.,--,.,--
,.,--,.,--
~-"'--
,.,--~
!)
)
1
1
Hay 2.o/ri'
11
1:
'-'t\.
'B/i,"
PARKS RESERVE FORCES
TRAINING AREA
inn_nnn~hnn'
,..ono .
. .
! FEDERAL! SANTA RITA
: CORRECTIONAL: REHABILITATION
i INSTITUTION i CENTER
PLEASANTON
OF
TY
c
SAN RAMON
F
o
TY
c
':q...o
"9~~00
"O~ i.P.A
-v~~C!
Oc.,..,o",
'1--'$'!~
'"
mile
314
V2
V4
o
N
I
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
L
Exhibit 3
AERIAL PHOTO
~ Project Site
1
t
)
I
N
I
\ r.;
'.BlilC o,\. [37 June 2001
SOURCE: Brian Kang
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Central Pkwy.
~.
~
Dublin Blvd.
High Density
Residential
(A)
High Density
Residential
(B)
Campus
Office
(E-1 )
Campus
Office
(E-2)
'i5"
<1l
"'
o
e-
.eo
-0
a:
."
<5
c::
-<:
,....-
...:
Cl
]i
~
en
~
Campus
Office
(0-2)
Scarlett Ct.
Interstate 580 f Dublin.Pleasanton BART Station
...
o
o
'"
>.
~
:;:
g
~
~
J!
~
SOURCE: Transit Center application.
~
Exhibit 4
'LAND USE PLAN
Site Boundary
,..,..
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
N
t
o
I
240
,
480
,
720
,
980 feet
,
I.
I
t 'i 1 \
J(
Table 2. Maximum Transit Center Development Potential
I
I.
L,
)
Site Area Area Land Max. Max FAR Density FAR Density Retail Add'l
(gr. ac.) (net ac.) Use Sq. Ft. D.U. (gr.) (gr.) (net) (net) Sq. Ft. D.U.
A 10.92 8.29 High Density 530 49 64
Residential
B 12.00 8.10 High Density 565 47 70 10,000
Residential
C 8.58 5.80 High Density 405 47 70 20,000
Residential
D_123 3.50 2.50 Campus Office 170,000 1.12 1.56 15,000
D-2 17.32 12.10 Campus Office 830,000 1.10 1.57
E_12 6.28 4.10 Campus Office 260,000 0.95 1.46 15,000 300
E-2 11.20 7.70 Campus Office 490,000 1.00 1.46
F 12.20 8.73 Campus Office 250,000 0.47 0.66
P/SP 8.65 7.93 Public/Semi-Public
Total 90.65 65.25 2,000,000 1,500 70,000
imited to local-serving uses in ground
Page 22
July 2001
Public use, and would be
Ancillary retail square footage is in addition to proposed Campus Office,
floor space along Iron Horse Parkway.
Sites D-1 and E-1 would be "flex" space and could be developed with up to 300 residential units.
A hotel or mixed hotel/office project is encouraged on Site D-1 that could share off-hour BART parking
Residential or
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Notes
1)
2)
3)
Exhibit 5
IllUSTRATIVE
SITE PLAN
SOURCE: ReId Paoli. 4/200 1
NOTE: This will be an
llx17 page in the final
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
t
"'"~;
\
......""
f,
I
to.
l' t'r
~. ..
ri...
.: , '';{\'
...-.....:./":
" ,'-..
.r .
i
J'
:_;~~
~ltl'~i
.
~
'f-- ...f., .
~,,,. .~.'fI..<<';.d~
"IV C " . ~1'i!lf>'"
\. '~~If1.~-_;.y.-,~~
,
I
"I
'I
)
\
Hay 2001
30
'13[ue Ot
(
I
I
I
I
I
L_
CENTR^L PKWY.
SA
SITE
.
I
L__
,/1
~/ I
/'/ .
.-/ I
.
---- .
SITE F
OFFICE
8.7:f: AC. (NET
CAMP PARKS
RrTA
SITE 1 68
- -
---
Exhibit 6
PROPOSED
STREET LAYOUT
-=-:;,~=====~ ~(I~:~~:=~~-~~~-~~:====
6A
SITE
o
<
o
a:
o
-'
o
Z
a:
<
SITE E-2
OFFiCE
7. HAC. (NET
I SITE 0-2
Iw OFFICE
I~ 2.3:1: AC. (NET
I
I.,
I~
I~
I
~ ^\:.T~MIR^NO _ _,!O^D
1-580
I--
I
~'I
',II:
,".
".
.".
:11:
.~
,"
.~~
.".'
."'
:IL
"
I
I
11
I
I
.- ---- ........---.....-........
.00
t
...
I
JOG
"-
,
,
'50
Il
SOURCE: Brian Kangas Foulk, 5/3/01
inch _ 300
N
I
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
....
o
o
N
~
~
"
.,
r-
N
'.,"-' --- '
---
----
---
" ,,> N ,'I - - --;- '.
CO U ---- ",
OS' A - ;:.--{-< "
, R A ~ - - -Co u ~ J
CO~--~EDi' '
___-- AI-A \v"
j
/
Eastern Dublin".'
Specific Plan Are~ ~
",.,
~',~,f{\~~::~,/
.. ~ /<; i
.' '\ '\ ,.
......J t"
"
./
r,...-;'~'i
/.<-.
.---
-. .,' --c;
"-~........... ~:; f,
"'" .,
...:::::"~:t.~~.....
H
..................~,
.--
~
..,
-.2i
e:<
"- DublinIPleasanton BART Station
SOURCE: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Wallace Roberts & Todd, NOTE: EDSP land use
map has been updated since original Specific Plan adoption.
Exhibit 7
~
TRANSIT CENTER
RELATIONSHIP TO EDSP/GP
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Subareas:
A Tassajara Gateway
B Town Center - Commercial
C Town Center - Residential
D Fallon Gateway
E Fallon Village Center
F Tassajara Village Center
G Foothill Residential
H Industrial Park
I County Center
J Hacienda Gateway
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
N
!
~
o
I
1/4
,
112
3f4
,
1 mile
3.3 Project Objectives
Objectives to be achieved through the approval and development of the project
include:
/-"""
1) Constructing a state-of-the-art, urban-scale, mixed-use employment,
residential and retail center based on close accessibility of inter-modal
transportation opportunities: rapid transit, bus transit, vehicle access and
non-motorized transportation modes.
2) Promoting a pedestrian-friendly environment within the Transit Center
project where employees, residents and visitors are encouraged to walk or
use other non-vehicular modes of transportation.
~
3) Increasing employment opportunities in the community through the
development of office, retail and similar employment-generating land
uses, including a maximum of 2 million square feet of office space and
70,000 square feet of ancillary retail space.
4) Providing up to 1..500 higher density dwelling units for households
desiring to live in a more urban setting, near work and public transit
opportunities.
5) Encouraging use of public transit through construction of relatively
intense amounts of residential and non-residential development within
easy walking distance of various transit modes.
5) Ensuring that operations of the existing Dublin-Pleasanton BART station
are not disrupted during either the construction or operation of the
Transit Center project. This includes construction of a new multi-deck
BART parking garage to accommodate approximately 1,700 vehicles.
6) Incorporating high quality design features as part of site improvements,
including, but not limited to pedestrian-scale streets, landscaping
buildings, plazas, walkways and similar features that enhance the
pedestrian environment.
.-
7) Siting buildings to encourage pedestrian activity by encouraging ground
floor retail uses, entrances directly off of adjacent streets, and screening of
freeway noise.
8) Constructing new and upgraded public and private utilities and related
infrastructure to support the type and amount of proposed development.
9) Responding to planning policies from the City of Dublin General Plan and
other local, regional and state agencies, including but not limited to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Bay Area Air Quality
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 26
July 2001
Management District, Association of Bay Area Governments, State of
California and others, to develop high-density, mixed-use transit villages
adjacent to transportation hubs.
10)-Increasing tax and other revenues to the City of Dublin and Alameda
County.
,.
3.4 Actions Addressed in EIR
Specific actions addressed in this Environmental Impact Report include:
· Certification of the EIR;
,-
· Consideration of an amendment to add the 91-acre Transit Center site to
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which would include adding the land use
designations and circulation diagram proposed as part of the Specific
Plan/ General Plan Amendment;
· Consideration of a Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) rezoning;
· Consideration of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the site into smaller
lots;
,-
· Consideration of a Development Agreement between the Alameda
County Surplus Property Authority and the City of Dublin.
.--'
Although not specifically addressed in this Program EIR, the following actions
are foreseen as future actions to be considered as part of the overall Dublin
Transit Center project subject to subsequent applications and environmental
reviews: Stage 2 Planned Development rezoning, Site Development Review
applications, consideration of grading and building permits, utility hook-ups by
the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSDt granting of encroachment
permits by the City of Dublin, and filing of Notices of Intent with the State Water
Resources Control Board.
~
.,...,..;..;.;.
I
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 27
July 2001
4.0 Environmental Analysis
Topics Addressed in the DEIR
This section of the DEIR identifies specific environmental areas which may be
affected as a result of the implementation of the proposed project. The impact
areas are discussed individually in subsections 4.1 through 4.13:
~
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
Aesthetics and Light and Glare
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards
Water and Hydrology
Land Use
Noise
Population and Housing
Transportation and Circulation
Utilities and Public Services
Recreation
Each topic area is covered in the following manner:
r-
A. Environmental Issues
An overview of issues related to the topic area.
B. Environmental Setting
A discussion of existing conditions, facilities, services and general
environmental conditions on and around the project sites.
C. Environmental Impacts
An identification and evaluation of potential impacts on the
environment, should the project be constructed as proposed. Standards
of environmental significance will also be listed which set forth the
basis on which the identification of environmental impacts will be
made. Standards of significance for this DEIR are based on such
standards listed in the California Environmental Quality Act and
implementing Guidelines.
-:-
Environmental impacts addressed in this document include the following:
· Potentially significant impact, which means that the identified
impact would exceed the environmental standards of significance.
In some instances, impacts may be positive rather than adverse.
Page 28
July 2001
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
.
. Less-than-significant impact, which means that an impact would
not exceed the minimum environmental thresholds of significance.
· No impact, means that no environmental impact would be
expected for a particular environmental topic.
Significant and unavoidable impact, means that no feasible
mitigation measures are available that would reduce the impacts of
the proposed project to a less-than-significant level. Approval of
the project would require specific findings by the City of Dublin that
indicate there are overriding concerns that indicate the project
should be constructed, even if not all impacts can be mitigated.
D. Mitigation Measures and Impacts After Mitigation
An identification of specific efforts and measures which can be
incorporated into the project to reduce identified environmental
impacts to a level of insignificance, where feasible.
"~
r-
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 29
July 2001
4.1 AESTHETICS AND LIGHT AND GLARE
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
This section of the EIR addresses potential visual impacts of the proposed project,
including obstruction of important views or vistas or the creation of an
aesthetically offensive view to the public. The potential effects of new light and
glare sources are also addressed.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Built environment
The project area is partially developed with the East Dublin-Pleasanton BART
station and two surface parking lots, which comprise about 17 acres of the 91-acre
Transit Center. Trees and other landscape features are located along the
perimeter of the permanent BART parking lot, closest to the BART station. The
recently constructed interim parking lot northwest of the BART station is not
landscaped. A canopy along the western boundary of the parking lot provides
shelter to people waiting for buses and there is a retail kiosk, bike racks and
storage lockers at the station entrance. Other structures within the parking lot
area include a PG&E substation (located northwest of the station), a BART
traction station (located northeast of the station) and a telecommunication tower
(north of the traction station). To the north and east of the BART station parking
lots, the remainder of the lands within the project area are largely vacant. Dublin
Boulevard, a recently constructed six-lane arterial street, traverses the northerly
portion of the project area, and DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway,
both four-lane divided streets, connect the BART parking lots to Dublin
Boulevard. None of these streets is currently landscaped. The vacant lands
include areas that have been recently graded or are covered with grass and
scattered shrubs. Limited construction debris (soil stock piles, pipes, wood piles,
broken concrete) are sparsely scattered across the vacant lands.
Lands adjacent to or within the immediate vicinity of the project area are vacant
or are characterized by low-rise, low density development. North of the project
area is the Camp Parks military facility, where most of the buildings are older
(some dating from the 1950's) and are generally one to two stories in height.
Buildings are generally set back several hundred feet from the northerly
boundary of the Transit Center area, separated by vacant fields, although the
easterly portion of Camp Parks is used for storage of military vehicles and
equipment.
West of the project area, within the Scarlett Court industrial area, buildings are
primarily, single-story structures which generally face away from the Transit
Center area. These uses are visually separated from the project area by the 100
foot-wide former railroad corridor which is planned to contain the Iron Horse
Recreational Trail.
,-
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 30
July 2001
Directly south of the project area is the 10-lane Interstate 580 (1-580), which
contains the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station platform and tracks within
the median. Along the eastern portion of the project area frontage (at Arnold
Road), the freeway is at surface level with the project site, but then rises above
the surface grade toward the west to approximately 25 feet above the ground
surface at the BART station. The BART station platform is elevated an additional
10 feet above the freeway and is covered by a sine-curve shaped aluminum roof
that forms a major visual landmark for the surrounding area.
Immediately to the east of the project area, across Arnold Road, the land is
presently vacant and characterized by grass and shrub-covered fields and
construction debris. However, several major office projects, including the six-
story Sybase and Commerce One headquarters, have been approved by the City of
Dublin and are either under construction or are scheduled to begin construction.
Farther to the west, east and south of the Transit Center project area,
development is more extensive. South of 1-580, within the City of Pleasanton, is
Hacienda Business Park, characterized by office buildings ranging in height from
two to five stories and multi-family residential development of two to three
stories. Office development floor area ratios (FAR) are generally 0.5 or less, with
extensive building setbacks and surface parking lots.
To the east, within the existing Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area east of Hacienda
Drive, is the Hacienda Crossings regional retail center, which includes a six-story
hotel, one to two story retail development, and an IMAX movie theater with a
building mass five stories in height. East of Hacienda Drive are severat three-
story multi-family housing developments and a single-family residential
neighborhood, New three and four story office development has been
constructed north of Central Parkway and west of Hacienda Drive.
To the west, along Dublin Boulevard, development is characterized by primarily
one and two story suburban commercial development. Several three-story
multi-family developments along Dougherty Road have recently been
constructed or have been approved by the City of Dublin.
The overall visual impression of the project vicinity is an area rapidly shifting
from a rural character to a more suburban character. Vacant lands are being
developed and existing development is becoming denser, with one and two story
small structures being replaced with mid-'rise buildings of four stories or greater
that cover larger land areas.
r--
Landscape character
The project area and vicinity is on the floor of the Livermore/Amador Valley,
which is defined by the surrounding Diablo Range. The project area is relatively
flat with a gradual slope to the southwest. Trees and other landscaping are
limited to the BART station parking lots. The remainder of the Transit Center
project area has very limited vegetation consisting of grassy areas and scattered
shrubs. Vacant lands within the immediate project vicinity also are flat with few
or no trees.
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 31
Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001
City of Dublin
The regional topography transitions to gentle slopes and ultimately steep slopes
at greater distances from the project vicinity. Approximately 10 miles north of
the project area is 3,800-foot Mount Diablo, the most prominent landform in the
area. A series of lower, but almost continuous ridgelines surround the
Livermore/ Amador Valley and provide a strong visual contrast with the flat
developed areas of the valley floor.
Views and vistas
The contrast of flat valley floor and surrounding hilly areas within the
Livermore/ Amador Valley landscape create panoramic views and vistas.
Throughout the valley floor, panoramic views of the surrounding Diablo Range
are available. From the higher elevations of the ridges, views look out over the
valley, where the predominant view is of suburban development.
The Transit Center area, due to the generally vacant condition and lack of
structures or trees within the project area and immediate surroundings, offers
unobstructed views of Mount Diablo to the north, the Dublin hills to the west
and more distant ridgelines above Livermore and Pleasanton to the south and
east. The elevated 1-580 freeway blocks some views to the south, especially as the
viewer approaches the southern edge of the project area.
--'
Existing views of the project area are available from the surrounding public
roads, the 1-580 freeway and the BART station platform located in the 1-580
median. Due to the flat terrain, there are no publicly accessible ridgelines or
hilltops from which the project area would be viewed, except from distant
locations where it appears as part of the larger suburban fabric of the valley floor.
,-.
Three representative public viewpoints were selected to assess potential visual
impacts of the proposed project because they are places that are accessible to a
large number of people in the vicinity of the project area. These three key public
viewpoints are: 1-580, Iron Horse Trail/Dublin Boulevard and the East Dublin
BART station. Each viewpoint is described below.
r-
Interstate 580
1-580 is a major east-west transportation corridor that forms the southern
boundary of the City of Dublin, carrying more than 150,000 vehicles a day. In
undeveloped portions of the Livermore/Amador Valley, motorists traveling
along 1-580 have panoramic views of the surrounding ridgelines as they
travel on the valley floor. At higher elevations, to the east and west of the
valley floor, distant views from I-580-are available that overlook the valley.
Westbound travelers on 1-580 do not have a view of the project area until
they pass under the Hacienda Drive interchange, approximately 2,500 feet to
the east. The recently approved six-story, four building Commerce One
headquarters project, located on the parcel just to the northwest of the
Hacienda DrivelI-580 interchange, will further block views of much of the
project area for 1-580 westbound travelers.
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 32
July 2001
1-580 is directly adjacent to the project area for approximately 1,500 feet, at
grade at the easterly portion (Arnold Road) and then rising to it's highest
point at the westerly edge, at the BART station platform. Along the
westbound portion of 1-580 fronting the project area itself, motorists have
background views of the ridgelands west of Dublin and Mount Diablo and
middleground views of the BART station parking lot, power poles and wires
and vacant land. Moving west, middleground views at the BART platform
are of the car dealerships and other retail and industrial uses that make up
the Scarlett Court area in Dublin.
Eastbound travelers along 1-580 do not have a clear view of the project area.
The 1-580/1-680 interchange flyover, now under construction, blocks more
distant views of the area, and it is further obstructed by the
Dougherty /Hopyard interchange overpass. As eastbound travelers pass the
project area itself, views to the north and east are obstructed by the BART
station platform, which is constructed on top of a retaining wall, and then by
the BART tracks, located in the freeway median. The tracks east of the
platform are occasionally used by BART to store out-of-service trains, creating
another visual barrier to viewing the project area from eastbound 1-580.
-,'-
Iron Horse Trail/Dublin Boulevard
The Iron Horse Trail right-of-way defines the westerly boundary of the
development plan area. Currently, the right-of-way is undeveloped,
although. construction of the Iron Horse Trail extension from its present
terminus at Dougherty Road to the BART station is anticipated for
completion in early 2002. The existing Iron Horse Trail, which runs for over
20 miles from Dublin to Concord, is a very popular recreational amenity that
is heavily used by the public, and completion of the trail to the Dublin BART
station is anticipated to increase use.
Existing views from the trail right-of-way where it crosses Dublin Boulevard
include the project site, power poles and construction debris in the
foreground, the BART station platform and the Hacienda Crossings shopping
center in the middle ground, and the Diablo Range ridges south of Livermore
in the background.
,'---<-
East Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station Platform
The westbound train platform of the BART station looks out over the
westerly portion of the proposed Transit Center project. BART passengers
waiting for a train have views of Mount Diablo and surrounding ridges in the
background, the BART station parking lot and the low-rise Camp Parks
facilities in the middleground and the westbound lanes of 1-580 in the
foreground. Due to the majority of the platform's location west of the project
area, most views from the platform are looking north and west, across the
built-up portion of Dublin.
Scenic policies
In 1996, as part of the implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the
City of Dublin designated 1-580 as a scenic corridor along the Plan's southern
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 33
Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001
City of Dublin
boundary, extending east from Arnold Road to Doolan Canyon Road to the east.
At the same time, the City adopted the "Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor
Standards and Policies" for the scenic corridor to allow development conforming
with the Specific Plan along the scenic corridor while maintaining the visual
character of the eastern ridgelands, watercourses and distinct landscape features.
A major concern of the Scenic Corridor Standards and Policies is to limit the
blocking of views of the Tassajara Creek corridor and a series of undeveloped
rolling grassy hills located east of Fallon Road in the Specific Plan area that help
define the primarily rural character of that area. The hills are identified as the
"Visually Sensitive Ridgelands" in the Specific Plan. The primary policy of the
Scenic Corridor Standards and Policies to protect views of the Visually Sensitive
Ridgelines from 1-580, Standard 1.2, states that:
j
Structures adjacent to the corridor, generally within 700 feet of the Scenic
Corridor, should be allowed to obstruct views of the Visually Sensitive
Ridgelines from 1-580 for not more that approximately 50% of the
developed frontages.
Light and glare
Existing night lighting within the project area is limited to overhead street and
BART parking lot lighting, as well as security lighting at the BART station itself.
The largely vacant condition of much of the land in the immediate vicinity of
the project area limits potential sources of off-site light or glare that could impact
the proposed project. The elevated nature and straight course of the adjacent 1-
580 freeway limits potential light or glare from vehicles traveling on the freeway,
as seen from the project area.
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following standards of significance are used to assess potential
environmental impacts of the proposed project related to view obstruction,
aesthetics and light and glare:
. Eliminate or substantially alter significant visual features, view corridors
or public vista points, including views from 1-580;
. Result in substantial alteration of natural landforms;
. Be incompatible with the scale or visual character of the surrounding area;
. Create significant new sources light and glare in the vicinity.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Should the proposed project be approved and implemented, the following
environmental impacts are anticipated: change in scale and character from
existing development in the surrounding area; reduction in views from 1-580
and other public viewpoints; and potential impacts from new sources of light
and glare.
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 34
July 2001
Change in scale and character of development
The proposed Transit Center project would result in the construction a mixed
use development that introduces a land use pattern that would be denser and
more intensive than the surrounding suburban development, or than any other
area in the Livermore/Amador Valley. Office buildings with a maximum height
of ten stories are being proposed for Sites D-1, D-2 and along the Digital Drive
frontage of Sites, E-1 and, E-2. Office development heights would decrease as one
moved northerly from the BART station, with a maximum of eight stories
proposed for the northern portions of E-l and E-2, and a maximum of six stories
proposed for Site F, north of Dublin Boulevard. High density residential
development of between four and five stories would be located on Sites A, Band
C. A new five-story BART parking structure would be located south of Site D-l
and adjacent to the BART station entrance and 1-580. Most of the proposed office
and residential development would require structured parking in order to
achieve the proposed densities. In order to create more pleasant and useable
outdoor areas for employees, residents and BART patrons, less noise-sensitive
uses (such as office buildings and the BART parking structure), are proposed to
be located close to the 1-580 freeway to act as noise buffers for the remainder of
the proposed Transit Center.
,-
Ten-story office buildings adjacent to the BART station would be a major change
from the existing development pattern of the surrounding area and the
Livermore/Amador Valley. Currently, the tallest buildings in Pleasanton are
limited to five stories, and Livermore contains no buildings over three stories.
Dublin limits building heights within the existing Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
area to six stories, and has recently approved several projects just to the east of
the proposed Transit Center (the Sybase and Commerce One headquarters) that
include six-story buildings. In downtown Dublin, the recently approved West
Dublin BART Specific Plan permits buildings up to eight stories.
The proposed project would also be denser in character than existing or planned
development in the vicinity. The high floor area ratios (up to 1.5 for office) and
high density residential area (up to 70 units per acre) are intended to create a
more urban transit-village environment than is found in the surrounding area,
where floor area ratios are more typically 0.4 to 0.6, and multi-family residential
projects typically have a density of less than 30 units per acre. The proposed
project would also rely primarily on structured parking, in contrast to the typical
surface parking lots that surround most existing development in the area.
While the proposed project would represent a major change in character from
existing development in the vicinity, the relative isolation of the Transit Center
project area from existing development, as well as the proposed urban design of
the project, limit the potential that this change in character would be construed
as a negative impact. The proposed project would "feather" density down for
sites away from the BART station. Office building maximum heights decrease
from 10 stories to 8 stories to 6 stories at the edge of the project area, matching
planned office development height limits within the existing Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area to the east while emphasizing the BART station itself. The
proposed residential component is for 4-5 story structures, which would also
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 35
Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001
City of Dublin
provide a visual transition to lower density development to the west. The
elevated 1-580 freeway to the south provides another transition to the five-story
office buildings in Pleasanton.
Therefore, while the proposed project would be substantially different from the
scale and visual character of the surrounding area, the relative isolation of the
project area and the emphasis on creating a visual focal point at the BART
station would make this a less-than-significant impact.
Impact 4.1-1 (change in scale and character of development): The proposed
project would permit buildings up to 10 stories high, taller than any existing or
planned buildings in the Livermore/Amador Valley. However, the proposed
scale and character of development is an integral part of the "transit village"
concept, a concept which has been promoted by several local and regional
agencies to assist in resolving transportation, air quality and jobs-housing
balance issues (less-than-significant).
r-
Views and vistas
The impact of new development on views and vistas depends on a number of
factors, including the relative location of the new development to the viewer
and vista (foreground, middleground or background location) and the duration
of the view. In generat new development that occupies a foreground position
relative to the viewer and is located where it will be viewed from a stationary
position (such as a residence) will have a larger impact than new development
occupying a middeground or background location and viewed from an
automobile.
To ascertain the potential impact of the proposed Transit Center project on views
and vistas, two methods were employed. First, a series of photographs were
taken from various locations in the vicinity, including the Dougherty Road/I-580
overpass to the west, Hacienda Drive to the east, as well as several existing
residential neighborhoods in Dublin and Pleasanton. Using computer
simulation technology, wireframe representations of a series of 10 and 8 story
buildings on the Transit Center site were super-imposed on the photographs to
analyze the potential visual impact from these relatively distant viewpoints,
where the proposed project would be in the middle or background. The results of
this analysis are shown on Exhibits 8a-c.
The second method employed was to take photographs from key public views
directly adjacent to the project area, including west-bound 1-580, the westbound
BART station platform in the 1-580 median, and from the future alignment of
the Iron Horse Trail at Dublin Boulevard. Using computer simulation
technology, conceptual simulations of the proposed project were then
superimposed on the photographs to analyze the potential visual impacts from
viewpoints where the proposed project would be in the foreground. These
computer simulations are not supposed to illustrate how the project will actually
appear, but to present a solid massing with enough visual detail so that the
relative scale of the project can be represented.
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 36
July 2001
Exhibit A1 (included in the Appendix) presents the series of wireframe
simulations from various middleground and background viewpoints in the
vicinity. They indicate that even though 10 story buildings are being proposed for
the Transit Center, they would not be visible from existing residential
neighborhoods in Pleasanton and Dublin, due to the relative distance and the
presence of foreground trees and buildings that essentially block views of the
Transit Center area. From closer positions, such as Johnson Drive in Pleasanton,
the Transit Center buildings would be visible, but would not significantly
interrupt the background ridgeline. Prom Hacienda Drive, the 6-story Sybase and
Commerce One projects will be in the viewer's foreground, and will essentially
block views of the Transit Center project. Prom the Dougherty Road overpass,
proposed Transit Center development would extend above a portion of the
background ridgeline, but this would be limited to a small area by the relatively
compact nature of the development.
Exhibit A2 (included in the Appendix) presents the series of existing and
simulated project views from key public viewpoints directly adjacent to the
project area. Prom the westbound BART station platform, located in the 1-580
median, existing background views of Mount Diablo would be reduced, but not
eliminated by the 4 and 5 story high-density residential development proposed to
be constructed on Site A, Band C (the existing BART surface parking lot), due to
the elevated position of the station platform in relation to the project area. Other
ridgeline views, such as towards the ridgeline west of Dublin, would be
unaffected. Although there would be some loss of existing ridgeline views from
the station platform/ the overall effect would minor and the foreground views of
the 1-580 freeway would continue to dominate.
From the future Iron Horse Trail alignment, at Dublin Boulevard, views of the
distant ridgelands south of Livermore would be largely replaced by foreground
views of the proposed high density residential portion of the Transit Center. This
is shown on Exhibit 8c. The proximity of the residential buildings would prevent
most views of the office component of the proposed project/ although office
buildings may be visible adjacent to Dublin Boulevard.
The greatest impact to existing views of the surrounding ridgelands and Mount
Diablo would be from westbound 1-580. Existing views of the project area and the
ridges to the north are largely blocked for eastbound 1-580 travelers by the raised
BART station platform and tracks in the freeway median. Westbound travelers,
once clear of the Hacienda Drive overcrossing, have unobstructed views of
Mount Diablo and the ridgelines west of Dublin along most of the project area
freeway frontage. As illustrated in Exhibit A3 (Appendix), these views would be
largely blocked by office buildings and the proposed BART garage, due to the
proposed location of these structures adjacent to the freeway. However, for
vehicles traveling the speed limit on the freeway, these views would be
obstructed for approximately 15 seconds or less, with views opening up as the
freeway rises in elevation to the BART station platform. Obstruction of distant
ridgeline views would thus be similar to the temporary view obstructions caused
by the existing Office Depot building, the Corovan building, the 1-680 flyover or
the redwood trees lining the freeway in the western portion of Dublin.
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 37
Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001
City of Dublin
Impact 4.1-2 (views and vistas): The proposed project would reduce existing
views of Mount Diablo and the surrounding ridgelands from some public
viewpoints, including westbound 1-580, the BART station platform, and the
future Iron Horse Trail (significant).
Aesthetics
No specific projects or architecture have been formally proposed as part of the
general entitlements sought by the applicant for the proposed Transit Center
project. While the proposed project would increase the maximum building
height to 10 stories that would be visible from 1-580 and other public viewpoints,
any individual project will be subject to the City of Dublin's Site Development
Review (SDR) process, which analyzes proposed building design, material and
color to ensure that all structures will be aesthetically pleasing and compatible
with the surrounding area. This public review process ensures that potential
negative aesthetic impacts are mitigated.
Impact 4.1-3 (aesthetics): The proposed project could result in large, highly visible
structures that detract from the image of the City of Dublin, as viewed from
roadways and the surrounding area (less-than-significant).
BART station identification
The aluminum "sine wave" roof of the BART station platform is a visual
reference point that helps identify the BART station location. Views of this
unique form, from Dublin Boulevard and other points to the north and east,
would be largely obstructed by the proposed Transit Center development. The
proposed 10 story office buildings within the Transit Center would likely replace
the BART station platform roof as a visual landmark identifying the station
location. A less-than-significant impact would therefore result.
Impact 4.1-4 iBART station identification): The BART station could become
lilost" among the new, larger-scale developments, however, the proposed 10-
story office towers would likely replace the existing BART station roof as the
station landmark (less-than-significant).
Light and glare
The proposed Transit Center mixed-use project includes locating high density
residential development directly adjacent to the Iron Horse Parkway from office
buildings and a new five-story BART garage structure. There is a potential for
lighting from non-residential uses to spill over onto residential areas, creating a
nuisance for Transit Center residents. Although no specific development
projects within the Transit Center have been formally presented to the City of
Dublin for review, the actual level of impact from light and glare cannot be
determined at this time.
Impact 4.1-5 (light and glare): Implementation of the proposed project would
generate new sources of light and glare within the Transit Center project from
office building and parking structure lighting that could potentially intrude into
adjacent residential units presenting a possible nuisance problem (significant).
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 38
Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001
City of Dublin
Scenic corridor policies
Unlike properties to the east, 1-580 adjacent to the proposed Transit Center
project has not been designated by the City of Dublin as a scenic corridor, and the
policies contained in the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor document are not
necessarily relevant to the proposed project. As described above, the scenic
corridor policies were adopted primarily to protect views of creek corridors and
the "visually sensitive ridgelands" in eastern Dublin, as seen from 1-580,
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. Due to the existing BART station platform and
tracks in the 1-580 median, the "visually sensitive ridgelands" identified in the
scenic corridor policies are not visible from the portion of I -580 adjacent to the
proposed project, nor are any of the identified creek corridors. Due to the height
and foreground position of the BART platform and tracks in relationship to
eastbound 1-580 travelers, buildings within the proposed Transit Center will
largely be out-of-sight and will not block any views to the east. Westbound
travelers are facing away from the "visually sensitive ridgelands" and therefore
will not be affected. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with the
Eastern Dublin scenic corridor policies.
Impact 4.1-6 (scenic corridor policies): The proposed project could conflict with
adopted City of Dublin policies contained in the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor
Standards and Policies document (less-than-significant ).
MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potential
aesthetic impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation 4.1-1 (views and vistas): During the Site Development Review process
for individual projects within the proposed Transit Center, encourage the
inclusion of breaks and corridors between building clusters, especially along the
north-south axis, so that some views of Mount Diablo are maintained, taking
into account the need to block freeway noise and to create a compact transit-
oriented development pattern
Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 (light and glare): As a condition of Site Development
Review for individual projects, the City of Dublin shall require submittal of
lighting plans for all non-residential projects along Iron Horse Parkway to ensure
that all exterior light fixtures will either be oriented downward or equipped with
cut-off lenses to ensure that no spill-over of unwanted light onto adjacent
residential areas shall occur.
SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
All visual and aesthetic impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 39
July 2001
~
~
~
'"'
. 0
o
N
~
~
'"'
'"'
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit Sa
VISUAL SIMULATION:
VIEW FROM BART STATION
....
o
o
N
,.,
<ll
"
....
....
~
J!
~
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit.8b
VISUAL SIMULATION:
VIEW FROM HIGHWAY 580
,.-
"
o
o
'"
>.
~
:.:
"
"
~
~
...::
~
SOURCE: Environmental Vision, January 2001
Exhibit Bc
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
VISUAL SIMULATION:
VIEW FROM THE CORNER OF
DUBLIN BLVD. & IRON HORSE TRAil
r-
4.2 AIR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
This EIR section describes the impacts of the proposed project on local and
regional air quality.
[Note: The information contained in this section is based on an air quality
analysis prepared by Donald Ballanti, Certified Meteorologist in January, 2001.
The full text of this report is found in the Appendix).
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Air pollution climatology
The project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional
air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The
Livermore sub-air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains.
Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and
the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County.
The terrain of the Amador Valley influences both the climate and air pollution
potential of the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area
has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when
compared to the greater Bay Area.
The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion
conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants
vertically. Inversions can be found during all seasons in the Bay Area, but are
particularly prevalent in the summer months when they are present about 90%
of the time in both morning and afternoon.
According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, air pollution
potential is high in the Livermore-Amador Valley, especially for ozone in the
summer and fall. High temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the
valley not only traps locally generated pollutants but can be the receptor of ozone
and ozone precursors from upwind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport
of pollutants also occurs between the Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin
Valley to the east.
During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results
in frequent surface-based inversions. Under these conditions pollutants such as
carbon monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by
fireplaces and agricultural burning can become concentrated.
Ambient air quality standards
Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air
Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 43
July 2001
pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants which
represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with
each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria"
pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in
criteria documents. Table 3 (next page) identifies the major criteria pollutants,
characteristics, health effects and typical sources.
The federal and California ambient air quality standards are summarized in
Table 4 for important pollutants. The federal and state ambient standards were
developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both
federal and state standards are intended to avoid health-related effects. As a
result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the
California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone
and PM10,
Table 4. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Federal State
Time Primary Standard
Standard
Ozone 1- Hour 0.12 PPM 0.09 PPM
8- Hour 0.08 PPM --
Carbon Monoxide 8- Hour 9PPM 9.0 PPM
1- Hour 35 PPM 20.0 PPM
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM --
1- Hour -- 0.25 PPM
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM --
24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.05 PPM
1- Hour -- 0.25 PPM
PMlO Annual Average 50 _g/m3 30 _g/m3
24- Hour 150 g/m3 50 g/m3
PM2.5 Annual 15 ~/m3 --
24- Hour 65 _g/m3 --
PPM = Parts per Million
_g/m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter
Source: Donald Ballanti
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 44
July 2001
1
Major Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Characteristics Health Effects Major Sources
Ozone A highly reactive photochemical pollutant Eye Irritation The major sources ozone precursors are
created by the action of sunshine on ozone Respiratory function impairment. combustion sources such as factories and
precursors (primarily reactive hydrocarbons and automobiles, and evaporation of solvents and
oxides of nitrogen. Often called photochemical fuels.
smog.
Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless gas that Impairment of oxygen transport in the bloodstream. Automobile exhaust, combustion of fuels,
is highly toxic. It is formed by the incomplete Aggravation of cardiovascular disease. combustion of wood in woodstoves and
combustion of fuels. Fatigue, headache, confusion, dizziness. fireplaces.
Can be fatal in the case of very high
concentrations.
Nitrogen Dioxide Reddish-brown gas that discolors the air, formed Increased risk of acute and chronic respiratory Automobile and diesel truck exhaust,
during combustion. disease. industrial processes, fossil-fueled power
nlants.
Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas with a pungent, Aggravation of chronic obstruction lung disease. Diesel vehicle exhaust, oil-powered power
irritating odor. Increased risk of acute and chronic respiratory plants, industrial processes.
disease.
Particulate Solid and liquid particles of dust, soot, aerosols Aggravation of chronic disease and heart/lung Combustion, automobiles, field burning,
Matter and other matter which are small enough to disease symptoms. factories and unpaved roads. Also a result of
(PMIO/PM2s) remain suspended in the air for a long period of photochemical processes.
time.. I
Table 1:
Page 45
July 2001
Source: Donald.Ballant
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
The U.s. Environmental Protection Agency in 1997 adopted new national air
quality standards for ground-level ozone and for fine Particulate Matter. The
existing 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 PPM will be phased out and replaced by an
8-hour standard of 0.08 PPM. New national standards for fine Particulate Matter
(diameter 2.5 microns or less) have also been established for 24-hour and annual
averaging periods. The current PMlO standards were retained, but the method
and form for determining compliance with the standards were revised.
Implementation of the new ozone and Particulate Matter standards has been
complicated by a lawsuit. On May 14, 1999 the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued a decision ruling that the Clean Air Act as applied in
setting the new public health standards for ozone and particulate matter, was
unconstitutional as an improper delegation of legislative authority to the
Environmental Protection Agency. The decision has been appealed, but the legal
status of the new standards will probably remain uncertain for some time.
Ambient Air Quality
The project is within the nine-county Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) operates a network of air quality
monitoring sites in the region, including one in central Livermore on Old First
Street. Table 5 shows a summary of air quality data for this monitoring site for
the period 1995-1999. Data are shown for ozone, carbon monoxide, PMlO and
nitrogen dioxide. The number of days exceeding each standard are shown for
each year.
Table 5. Air Quality Data for Livermore, 1995-1999
Pollutant Standard Days Exceeding Standard In:
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Ozone Federal I-Hour 7 8 0 6 2
Ozone State I-Hour 20 22 3 21 14
Ozone Federal 8-Hour 11 10 0 10 5
Carbon State/Federal 0 0 0 0 0
Monoxide 8-Hour
PMlO State 24-Hour 6 6 12 12 18
PMlO Federal 24-Hour 1 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrogen State I-Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Dioxide
(1) Measurements of PM-10 are made every sixth day, Data is the estimate number of days that the
standard would have been exceeded had measurements been collected every day.
Source: Air Resources Board Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System (ADAM)
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 46
July 2001
Table 5 shows that concentrations of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide at
the Livermore monitoring site meet state/federal standards. Ozone
concentrations exceed both the state and federal standards, and exhibit wide
variations from year-to-year related to meteorological conditions. Years where
the summer months tend to be warmer than average tend to have higher
average ozone concentrations while years with cooler than average temperatures
tend to have lower average ozone concentrations.
Levels of PMlO at Livermore meet the federal ambient standards but exceed the
more stringent state standard.
Attainment status
The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that
the State Air Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate air
basins within the state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards
are not met as "nonattainment areas." Because of the differences between the
federal and state standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is different
under the federal and state legislation.
The Bay Area is currently a nonattainment area for the federal1-hour ozone
standard. Under the California Clean Air Act the Bay Area is a nonattainment
area for ozone and PMlO.
To meet federal Clean Air Act requirements, the District has adopted an Ozone
Attainment Demonstration Plan. In addition, to meet California Clean Air Act
requirements, the District has also adopted and updated a Clean Air Plan
addressing the California ozone standard. The control strategy contained in these
plans include new limits on emissions from industry, prohibitions on sources of
hydrocarbons, regional transit and HOV programs, buy back programs for older
vehicles and educational programs.
The California Legislature, when it passed the California Clean Air Act in 1988,
recognized the relative intractability of the PMlO problem with respect to the state
ambient standard and excluded it from the basic planning requirements of the
Act. The Act did require the CARB to prepare a report to the Legislature
regarding the prospect of achieving the State ambient air quality standard for
PMlO. This report recommended a menu of actions, but did not recommend
imposing a planning process similar to that for ozone or other pollutants for
achievement of the standard within a certain period of time.
Sensitive Receptors
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District defines sensitive receptors as
facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the
acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to located. These land uses include
residences, schools playgrounds, child-care centers, retirement homes,
convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. There are no such sensitive
receptors in the project vicinity.
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 47
July 2001
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's document BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines (BAAQMD, June, 1999) establishes thresholds of significance for
construction and operation phases of projects.
The BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impacts is based on
the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PMlOo
If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant
emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-significant.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's document BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines establishes the following significance criteria for the operation of
projects:
· A project contributing to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding
the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm)
averaged over 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour would be considered to have a
significant impact.
· A project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the
BAAQMD annual or daily thresholds would be considered to have a
significant air quality impact, both singularly and cumulatively. The
current thresholds are 15 tons/year or 80 pounds/ day for Reactive Organic
Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) or PMlO.
· Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public
to objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact.
· Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general
public to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to
have a significant impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Three potential air quality impacts are identified: short term construction
impacts, long term operational impacts and cumulative regional impacts.
Short term construction impacts
Construction dust would affect local and regional air quality at various times
during the build-out period of the Project. The dry, windy climate of the area
during the summer months combined with the fine, silty soils of the region
create a high potential for dust generation. Emissions during the grading phase
of construction are primarily associated with the exhaust of large earth moving
equipment and the dust which is generated through grading activities. Emissions
in later stages of construction are primarily associated with construction
employee commute vehicles, asphalt pavingJ mobile equipment, stationary
equipment, and architectural coatings.
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 48
Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001
City of Dublin
The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally
elevated levels of PMlO near the construction activity. Depending on the weather,
soil conditions, the amount of activity taking place, and nature of dust control
efforts, these impacts could affect existing or future residential areas within or
near the project.
Impact 4.2-1 (construction impacts): The effects of project construction activities
would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM10 downwind of
construction activity. Construction dust has the potential for creating a nuisance
at nearby properties (potentially significant).
Local impacts from carbon monoxide
The project would generate onsite and offsite traffic volumes, increasing local
levels of carbon monoxide. To assess the magnitude of impact on local carbon
monoxide levels, a screening form of the CALINE-4 computer simulation model
was used. The screening procedure was applied to six selected intersections in the
project vicinity to estimate future carbon monoxide levels in the area.
The assessment of local impacts is conducted through dispersion modeling to
evaluate the concentration of particular pollutants on nearby receptors. This
approach is used for carbon monoxide, which unlike other criteria pollutants,
does not disperse readily over wide areas and is therefore more appropriately
examined nearer the source. For this report, carbon monoxide concentrations
are modeled at selected intersections (where two separate roadway sources come
together, resulting in the highest localized concentrations) and compared against
the state standard for one-hour and eight-hour periods of 20 parts per million
(ppm) and 9 ppm, respectively.
~...
The CALINE-4 screening procedure provides estimates of maximum one- and
eight-hour concentrations, corresponding to the one- and eight-hour averaging
times specified in the state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon
monoxide. Table 4 lists the results of the CALINE-4 analysis for the peak one-
hour and eight-hour traffic periods in parts per million (ppm) for existing
conditions and in 2005 with and without the proposed project. A cumulative run
was also made with the assumption of construction of the project and other
cumulative development in 2025, based on the traffic impact analysis conducted
by Omni-Means for this EIR.
;'<.."'-
i,..:.;.:;J
The predicted future one-hour concentration values in Table 6 are to be
compared to the federal one-hour standard of 35 ppm and the state standard of 20
ppm. The predicted eight-hour concentration values in Table 6 are to be
compared to the state and federal standard of 9.0 ppm.
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 49
July 2001
Table 6. Worst Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near Selected
Intersections, in PPM
--'
Intersection Existing (2001) Background Proj ect Cumulative +
1-Hr 8-Hr (2005) (2005) Project (2025)
1-Hr 8-Hr 1-Hr 8-Hr 1Hr 8-Hr
Tassajara/ 6.5 3.3 6.7 4.0 6.7 4.1 5.9 3.5
Dublin
Hacienda/ 6.2 3.7 7.0 4.3 7.8 4.9 6.2 3.8
WB 1-580 Ramps
Dublin/ 6.4 3.8 6.5 3.9 6.9 4.2 5.7 3.4
Hacienda
Dublin/ 6.3 3.7 6.1 3.7 6.3 3.8 5.2 3.1
Arnold
Iron Horse / 6.1 3.6 6.1 3.6 6.3 3.8 5.5 3.3
Dub lin
Dublin/ 8.2 5.1 7.4 4.6 7.8 4.8 6.3 3.9
Dougherty
Most Stringent 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0
Standard
Source: Donald Ballanti
-'
Concentrations for existing conditions at the intersections studied are below the
state/federal standards. With the addition of traffic from approved ang pending
development in the year 2005 concentrations are in some cases above and some
cases below existing concentrations, but in all cases are well below the
state / federal standards.
:~';
Table 6 indicates that the project would increase local carbon monoxide
concentrations by up to 0.8 ppm for the one-hour averaging time and up to 0.6
ppm for the eight-hour averaging time, but levels would remain below the state
and federal standards. The project impact on long-term local air quality is
therefore considered less than significant.
Table 6 also shows concentrations in the year 2025 with project and cumulative
traffic increases. Year 2025 concentrations are projected to be below current
concentrations, despite increased traffic volumes and congestion, due to the
--~
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 50
July 2001
-
-
-
Table 1: Existing Land Use
-
Site Area Ownershill General Plan Zonina Existina Use
Desianation
PM 7395 Parcel 1 8.29 ACSPA Public Lands I Aariculture Vacant/Interim Parkinc
PM 7395 Parcel 2 8.96 ACSPA Public Lands Aariculture Vacant
PM 7395 Parcel 3 8.73 ACSPA Public Lands Aariculture Vacant
PM 7395 Parcel 4 35.83 ACSPA Public Lands Aariculture Vacant
PM 7395 Parcel A 15.01 BART Public Lands Aariculture BART Parkina
Street Riaht of wav~ 13.83 Dublin NA NA Streets
Total 90.65
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11/2212000
-
..
Proposed Land Use
Site Area Area Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed1 Additional
I (ar. ae.) I (net ae.) S.P. Land Use Sa.Ft. Units FAR (ar) Density (ar FAR (net) Density-(n' Retail Sa.Ft Units
A 10.92 8.29 Hiah Density Res. 530 - 49 64
B 12.00 8.10 Hiah Density Res. 565 47 70 10000
C 8.58 5.80 Hiah Density Res. 405 47 70 20 000
D-12.3 3.50 2.50 Campus Office 170 000 1.12 1.56 15.000
D-2 17.32 12.10 Camous Office 830 000 1.10 1.57
E-12 6.28 4.10 Campus Office 260.000 0.95 1.46 15000 300
E-2 11.20 7.70 Campus Office 490.000 1.00 1.46
F 12.20 8.73 Camous Office 250.000 0.47 0.66
PISP 8.65 7.93 Public/Semi-Public 10000
Total 90.65 65.25 2,000.000 1,500 70,000 300
Summary
90.65 65.25
albIc 31.50 22.19 Hiah Density Res. 1.500 48 68 30.000
d/elf 50.50 35.13 Camous Office 2 000 000 0.91 1.31 30,000 300
plsp 8.65 7.93 Public/Semi-Public NA 10.000
Notes
1. Ancillarv retail sauare footaae is in addition to proposed Campus Office. Residential or Public Use. and would be limited to
local-servina uses in around floor soace alona Iron Horse Parkwav. "
2. Sites D-1 and E-1 would be "flex" parcels. and could be developed with UP to a total of 300 units of residential development.
3. A hotel or mixed-use hotel/office proiect is encouraaed on Site D-1' that could share off-hour BART oarkina.
11/22/2000
Table 2:
APPENDIX 1
PROPOSED TEXT FOR DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan currently is divided into 10 subareas, each with its own
land use concept and community design guidelines. The proposed Dublin Transit Center
amendment to the Specific Plan will add the 90 acre Transit Village Center as an 11th
subarea, with its own guidelines. The following text follows the format of the Specific
Plan:
Chapter 4: Land Use (page 43)
4.9.10 TRANSIT VILLAGE CENTER
LOCATION
The Transit Village Center subarea comprises the southwesternmost comer of the
planning area, directly adjacent to the East Dublin!Pleasanton BART station, in the area
north ofI-580, west of Arnold Road, south of Camp Parks and east of the Southern
Pacific right-of-way.
LAND USE CONCEPT
The Transit Village Center subarea is intended to maximize the transit opportunities
presented by the BART station and the associated bus hub by creating a vibrant,
pedestrian-friendly and high-density mix of office, residential and retail uses all within
easy walking distance of the BART station. Densities within the subarea are the highest
planned for the Specific Plan, with residential densities averaging 50 units to the acre,
and office densities proposed to be over 1.0 FAR. To accommodate these densities,
office buildings of up to 10 stories will be permitted, helping to make the BART station
area a visual focal point for the entire Tri. Valley area. Parking will be primarily
accommodated by garages, including a new BART parking garage to replace much of the
existing surface parking lots.
,-
Because of the area's high visibility, architectural elements within the subarea should
present a high-profile, quality image. To encourage transit use, standards in the subarea
should be pedestrian-friendly by requiring short blocks, reduced parking requirements, .
minimal building setbacks, on-street parking, and wide sidewalks. Ancillary retail and
service uses that will offer convenient goods and services to subarea residents,-employees
and commuters are encouraged as a ground-floor use in the center of the subarea to add
vitality to the street.
..
.
-
Densi
.91
48
-
-
Chapter 7: Community Design
-
7.6 TRANSIT VILLAGE CENTER
The guiding design concept for the Transit Village Center subarea is to maximize use of
regional transit opportunities and minimize reliance on the auto by creating a vibrant,
high-density, compact, pedestrian-friendly environment that serves the daily needs of
subarea residents, employees and commuters, As a regional transit hub and geographic
center of the Livermore/Amador Valley, the subarea should provide a visual focal point
for the surrounding area,
-
..
-
FORM
Development should be urban and compact, with a highly interconnected pattern of
streets that accommodates the movement of vehicles while enhancing opportunities for
pedestrian and bicycle circulation,
-
-
BUILDING SITING
Buildings should be located adjacent to the sidewalks, with no street setbacks, and be
oriented toward the street to create a well-defined, pedestrian-scaled and more intimate
street space, Building massing should be broken up so that there are opportunities for
pedestrian movement between larger street blocks and to create visual interest. Ancillary
retail and service uses, such as restaurants, cafes, and banks should be encouraged as a
ground-floor use along and near Iron Horse Parkway.
-
..
..
Due to high levels of traffic noise from 1-580 and, to a lesser extent, Dublin Boulevard,
buildings adjacent to these roads should be sited and designed to act as noise shields for
the rest of the subarea. It is especially important to shield open spaces and gathering
places by placing buildings between these areas and the freeway.
.
..
.
2
..
.
. Building landscape setbacks from the sidewalk/street right-of-way along
Digital Drive, DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway are discouraged.
. Landscape setbacks for parking garages and along Arnold, Campus and
Dublin Boulevard are permitted.
. Public utility easements should be located within the street or sidewalk area to
limit the need for building setbacks.
. Sideyard setbacks are not required.
. Residential and commercial development may be set back from Dublin
Boulevard due to the high volume of traffic on the street.
BUILDING HEIGHT
Buildings should be of a height to enclose the street space, giving it a more intimate
scale. In general, buildings adjacent to 1-580 and closer to the BART station should be
higher to emphasize the transit center as a major regional focal point and to maximize
densities as close to the station as possible.
. Maximum building heights:
High Density Residential: 5 stories over parking
Campus Office: 6 stories north of Dublin Boulevard (Site F)
8 stories south of Dublin Boulevard (Sites E-1 and E-2)
10 stories adjacent to 1-580 (Sites D-1 and D-2)
BUILDING TYPES
Mixed use buildings are strongly encouraged, especially along Iron Horse Parkway. Both
residential and office buildings along this street should accommodate ground-floor
ancillary retail and service uses that provide convenient goods and services to employees,
residents, and BART commuters. A hotel, or mixed-use hotel/office development on Site
D-1 is encouraged that would provide ground-floor service uses and could share parking
facilities with the adjacent BART garage.
Residential and commercial architecture should be varied in form and style to provide
visual interest and to avoid long, monotonous facades along pedestrian-orientid streets.
ENTRIES
Building entries should be sited to promote sidewalk activity and to maximize pedestrian
use of adjacent streets.
3
-
-
· Locate ground-floor retail and service uses so that they front on Iron Horse
Parkway and are clustered so that long stretches of "dead" street frontage are
avoided. Encourage uses, such as cafes, that can "spill out" onto the adjacent
sidewalks.
-
· Site major building entries and lobbies so that they are visible and accessible
from the street, not just parking areas.
..
· Design residential units with balconies and windows affording views of the
street to create the security of "eyes on the street".
..
PARKING
..
Parking standards should be reduced as much as possible to encourage the use of public
transit. Most parking should be provided in garages and located so that street frontages
are not dominated by it.
-
· Require 1.5 parking spaces per unit for residential uses, and 3 parking spaces
per 1,000 square feet for office uses. Utilize parking studies from other
transit-oriented developments to encourage developments with lower ratios.
..
..
· Reduce the site area needed for off-street parking by allowing curbside
parking space around the project perimeter to count toward the project's
parking requirements.
..
· Establish a means of discouraging BART patrons from utilizing on-street and
nearby residential and office parking by enforcing on-street parking
limitations and providing secure parking garages.
..
· Encourage the use of parking garages and minimize on-site surface parking.
Locate and design garages so that they do not distract from the pedestrian
experience by "wrapping" residential units around them, fronting them with
retail uses, or other means.
..
..
· Encourage shared-use of residential and office parking facilities with ground-
floor retail and service users to provide adequate parking to encourage retail
development along Iron Horse Parkway.
..
· Encourage shared-use of BART garage parking with hotellconfere~ce/evening
entertainment venues
-
CIRCULATION
-
The internal street system should be designed so that it accommodates the movement of
vehicles, at relatively slow speeds and high congestion, while enhancing the pedestrian
expenence.
-
4
..
.
. Utilize street and intersection standards that minimize the width of streets
(curb-to-curb), and the distance between intersections. Permit a lower Level
of Service (LOS) for intersections if it will limit street widths. Limit corner
radii to reduce the distance pedestrians must travel to cross intersections.
. Develop wide sidewalks along Iron Horse Parkway to accommodate
pedestrian circulation, window shopping, outdoor merchandising and cafes.
Encourage the development of sidewalk cafes and indoor/outdoor restaurants
as ground-floor uses that "spill out" onto the sidewalk along this street.
. Provide wide sidewalks, pedestrian-scale lighting, seating and other amenities
on all Transit Center streets to encourage and accommodate pedestrian
circulation from the office blocks to the retail area and to BART.
. Create a logical, well-marked bicycle lane system that provides access to the
BART station, the Iron Horse Trail, the East-West Trail located along the
north side of Dublin Boulevard, and development within the subarea.
OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
Because of the relatively small size of the subarea and the desire to maximize densities
within the subarea to encourage transit use, large public open space areas are
discouraged. Instead, a series of public and/or private plazas, greens, and corridors
should be developed that provide recreational amenities and social gathering spots for
residents, workers and commuters. A pedestrian and bike trail system will provide safe
and convenient access to nearby parks and schools within Eastern Dublin.
. Provide a central "village green" for the residential area that provides a
common meeting and gathering place for area residents that is shielded from
freeway noise and wind by intervening buildings. Connect the village green
to the BART station via pedestrian corridors through adjacent residential
development.
. Provide pedestrian corridors and open plazas within large office developments
to break up building masses and to provide convenient walking access to all
parts of the subarea and adjacent areas.
. Create a small public "square", through building placement and landscaping,
near the entrance to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station that can serve
as a meeting or gathering place. Utilize water or other features to reduce the
negative impact of freeway noise.
:5
...
APPENDIX 2
-
DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER
PROPOSED WNING AND USES
..
Zoning: The Transit Center is proposed to be rezoned from "Agriculture" to a Stage I PDITC (planned
DevelopmentlTransit Cener) Zoning District. This is a mixed-use zoning district which provides for transit-
oriented campus office, multi-family residential, and public/semi-public uses. Some ground floor district-
serving retail and service uses are envisioned occupying ground-floor space in key areas. (General/
Specific Plan land use designations are as follows: Campus Office, High Density Residential, Public/Semi-
Public)
..
..
Permitted and Conditional Uses:
-
L Permitted Uses: The following are permitted for this PDITC (planned Development Transit Center)
zoning district:
..
1) Campus Office uses on Sites 0-1, D-2, E-l, E-2 and F; including:
Administrative headquarters
Ancillary retail and service uses, as described below
Business and commercial services
Business, professional and
administrative offices
Hotel
Laboratory
Light manufacturing that is ancillary to office uses and
conducted without off site noise or odor impacts
Research and development
..
..
..
-
2) High Density Residential uses on Sites A, B, C, including:
Accessory structures and uses
Ancillary retail and service uses, as described below
Community care facility/small
Home occupations (per Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance)
Multi-family dwelling
Parking garage
Private recreation facility (for homeowners' association and/or
tenants use only)
Small family day care home
3) Public/Semi-Public uses on P/SP sites, including:
Community Center
Performing Arts Center
Transit Support Facilities
Parking (Structured and Non-structured)
Ancillary retail and service uses, as described below
..
-
-
..
..
..
..
..
4) Ancillary Retail and Service Uses: Mixed use developments including local-
serving dining, retail and service uses as a ground-floor use may be permitted at a
Stage 2 Planned Development if the following conditions are met:
a) The retail and service uses are primarily oriented towards, and provide
convenient goods and services within easy walking distance for transit center
residents, employees and commuters that they would otherwise have to travel
elsewhere for.
b) The development is designed to enhance the pedestrian environment by
orienting entrances and windows towards the street.
c) The project is consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan and does not result
in adverse environmental or service impacts.
d) Permitted uses include, but are not limited to:
Eating, drinking and entertainment establishments, such as:
Bagel shop
Cafe
Coffee house
Delicatessen
Ice cream/yogurt)
Micro-brewery
Outdoor seating
Restaurant (serving alcohol permitted) (no drive-through allowed)
Theater - indoor (Dinner, Movie, Live Play, etc.)
r--
Local-serving retail uses including but not limited to:
Art gallery/supply store
Auto parts
Bakery
Bicycle shop
Book store
Clothing store
Computers/electronic equipment
Drug store
Florist/plant shop
Gift shop
Hardware Hobby shop
Home appliances
Jewelry store
Liquor store
Music store
Newspapers and magazines
Paint, glass and wallpaper store
Parking lot/garage - commercial
Party supplies
Pet store and supplies
Photographic supply store
Picture framing shop
?
-
Shoe store
Specialty food store/grocery/supermarket including meat, fish, wine,
candy, health food, etc.
Specialty goods including cooking supplies, housewares, linen, window
coverings, china/glassware, etc.
Sporting goods
Stationary/office supplies
Toy store
Variety store
Video Store
\lIIIliI
..
..
..
Local-serving service uses including but not limited to:
Automatic Teller Machines (ATM)
Bank, savings and loan and other financial institutions
Barber/beauty shop/nail salon
Copying and printing
Dry cleaner (no plant on premises)
Laundromat
Locksmith
Medical Clinic
Photographic studio
Professional offices including; accounting, architectural, dental,
engineering, legal, medical, optometry, etc.
Photographic studio
Real estate/title office
Shoe repair
Tailor
Travel Agency
Watch and clock repair
..
..
-
..
.
-
II. Conditional Uses: The following uses would need to be approved by the Planning Commission:
Bar
Community care facility/large
Day care center
Hospitallmedical center
Nightclub
Religious facility
Schoollprivate
..
-
..
..
ill. Temporary Uses: The following uses are permitted on a temporary basis:
Sales office/model home complex/rental office
. Temporary construction trailer
-
..
1
-
-
Appendix 8.4
Air Quality Analysis
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 210
July 2001
AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE
PROPOSED DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER, CITY OF DUBLIN
Prepared for:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
2029 University Avenue
Berkeley, CA. 94704
January 2001
Donald Ballanti Certified Consulting Meteorologist
1424 Scott Street / El Cerrito, California 94530 / (510) 234-6087 / Fax: (510) 232-7752
I. SETTING
AIR POLLUTION CLIMATOLOGY
The project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional air basin
distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub-air basin is
surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills
surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends
. northward into Contra Costa County.
The terrain of the Amador Valley influences both the climate and air pollution potential of
the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area has generally lighter
winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared to the greater Bay Area.
The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion conditions,
severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically. I nversions can
be found during all seasons in the Bay Area, but are particularly prevalent in the summer
months when they are present about 90% of the time in both morning and afternoon.
According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, air pollution potential is high
in the Livermore-Amador Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fal1.1 High
temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally
generated pollutants but can be the receptor of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind
portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also occurs between the
Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east.
-~~
During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in frequent
surface-based inversions. Under these conditions pollutants such as carbon monoxide
from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and agricultural burning
can become concentrated.
AIR POLLUTANTS AND AMBIENT STANDARDS
Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board
have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air
quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific
adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards
cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of each
pollutant are described in criteria documents. Table 1 identifies the major criteria
IBay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April
1996 (Revised 1999).
1
pollutants, characteristics, health effects and typical sources.
The federal and California ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 2 for
important pollutants. The federal and state ambient standards were developed
independently with differing purposes and methods, although both federal and state
standards are intended to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the federal and state
standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more
stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and PMlOo
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1997 adopted new national air quality
standards for ground-level ozone and for fine Particulate Matter. The existing 1-hour
ozone standard of 0.12 PPM will be phased out and replaced by an 8-hour standard of
0.08 PPM. New national standards for fine Particulate Matter (diameter 2.5 microns or
less) have also been established for 24-hour and annual averaging periods. The current
PMlO standards were retained, but the method and form for determining compliance with
the standards were revised.
Implementation ofthe new ozone and Particulate Matter standards has been complicated
by a lawsuit. On May 14, 1999 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
issued a decision ruled that the Clean Air Act as applied in setting the new public health
standards for ozone and particulate matter, was unconstitutional as an improper delegation
of legislative authority to the Environmental Protection Agency. The decision has been
appealed, but the legal status of the new standards will probably remain uncertain for some
time.
CURRENT AIR QUALITY
The project is within the nine-county Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) operates a network of air quality monitoring sites in the
region, including one in central Livermore on Old First Street. Table 3 shows a summary
of air quality data for this monitoring site for the period 1995-1999. Data are shown for
ozone, carbon monoxide, PM10 and nitrogen dioxide. The number of days exceeding each
standard are shown for each year.
Table 3 shows that concentrations of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide at the
Livermore monitoring site meet state/federal standards. Ozone concentrations exceed
both the state and federal standards, and exhibit wide variations from year-to-year related
to meteorological conditions. Years where the summer months tend to be warmer than
average tend to have higher average ozone concentrations while years with cooler than
average temperatures tend to have lower average ozone concentrations.
Levels of PM10 at Livermore meet the federal ambient standards but exceed the more
2
-
-
-
.
-
-
..
-
-
-
p
-
\
...
~
..
-
-
-
..
"
I
~ .1
.
i
3
,1
t:
Pollutant Characteristics Health Effects Major Sources
Ozone A highly reactive photochemical pollutant eEye Irritation The major sources ozone precursors are
created by the action of sunshine on ozone .Respiratory function impairment. combustion sources such as factories and
precursors (primarily reactive hydrocarbons and automobiles, and evaporation of solvents and
oxides of nitrogen. Often called photochemical fuels.
smog.
Carbon Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless gas elmpairment of oxygen transport In the Automobile exhaust, combustion of fuels,
Monoxide that is highly toxic. It is formed by the incomplete bloodstream. combustion of wood in woodstoves and
combustion of fuels. eAggravation of cardiovascular disease. fireplaces.
.Fatigue, headache, confusion, dizziness.
eCan be fatal in the case of very high
concentrations.
Nitrogen Dioxide Reddish-brown gas that discolors the air, formed .Increased risk of acute and chronic respiratory Automobile and diesel truck exhaust,
during combustion. disease. industrial processes, fossil.fueled power
plants.
Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas with a pungent, eAggravation of chronic obstruction lung disease. Diesel vehicle exhaust, oil-powered power
irritating odor. elncreased risk of acute and chronic respiratory plants, industrial processes.
disease.
Particulate Solid and liquid particles of dust, soot, aerosols eAggravation of chronic disease and heart/lung Combustion, automobiles, field burning,
Matter and other matter which are small enough to disease symptoms. factories and unpaved roads. Also a result of
(PM1JPM25) remain suspended in the air for a long period of photochemical processes.
time.
Table
1
Major
Criteria Pollutants
-
Table 2: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
-
Pollutant Averaging Federal State
Time Primary Standard
Standard
Ozone 1-Hour 0.12 PPM 0.09 PPM
8-Hour 0.08 PPM --
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9PPM 9.0 PPM
1-Hour 35 PPM 20.0 PPM
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM --
1-Hour -- 0.25 PPM
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM --
24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.05 PPM
1-Hour -- 0.25 PPM
PM10 Annual Average 50 ~g/m3 30 ~g/m3
24-Hour 150 ~g/m3 50 ~g/m3
PM2.5 Annual 15 ~g/m3 --
24-Hour 65 ua/m3 --
-
-
..
..
-
-
'.
..
PPM = Parts per Million
~g/m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter
SIlIIi
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
.
Table 3: Air Quality Data for Livermore, 1995-1999
Days Exceeding Standard In:
Pollutant Standard 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Ozone Federal 1-Hour 7 8 0 6 2
Ozone State 1-Hour 20 22 3 21 14
Ozone Federal 8-Hour 11 10 0 10 5
Carbon State/Federal 0 0 0 0 0
Monoxide 8-Hour
PM1Q State 24-Hour1 6 6 12 12 18
PM10 Federal 24-Hour1 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrogen State 1-Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Dioxide
Source: Air Resources Board Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System (ADAM)
IMeasurements of PM10 are made every sixth day. Data is the estimate number of
days that the standard would have been exceeded had measurements been collected
every day.
5
stringent state standard.
ATTAINMENT STATUS
The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State
Air Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate air basins within the
state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as
"nonattainment areas". Because of the differences between the federal and state
standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is different under the federal and state
legislation.
The Bay Area is currently a "nonattainment area" for the federal 1-hour ozone standard.
Under the California Clean Air Act the Bay Area is a nonattainment area for ozone and
PM1o.
To meet federal Clean Air Act requirements, the District has adopted an Ozone Attainment
Demonstration Plan.1 In addition, to meet California Clean Air Act requirements, the
District has also adopted and updated a Clean Air Plan addressing the California ozone
standard.2 The control strategy contained in these plans include new limits on emissions
from industry, prohibitions on sources of hydrocarbons, regional transit and HOV programs,
buy back programs for older vehicles and educational programs.
The California Legislature, when it passed the California Clean Air Act in 1988, recognized
the relative intractability of the PM10 problem with respect to the state ambient standard and
excluded it from the basic planning requirements of the Act. The Act did require the CARB
to prepare a report to the Legislature regarding the prospect of achieving the State ambient
air quality standard for PMlO. This report recommended a menu of actions, but did not
recommend imposing a planning process similar to that for ozone or other pollutants for
achievement of the standard within a certain period of time.
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
-
-
..
\
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'fill'
-
..
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District defines sensitive receptors as facilities
where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the
chronically ill) are likely to located. These land uses include residences, schools -
playgrounds, child care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and
IBay Area Air Quality Management District et. aI., San Francisco Bay Ozone
Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard, June 1999.
2Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Proposed Final Bay Area 2000 Clean
Air Plan, December 6, 2000.
6
,
-
..
-
..
.
medical clinics. There are no such sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.
II. IMPACTS
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's document BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines1
establishes thresholds of significance for construction and operation phases of projects;
The BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impacts is based on the
appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide
feasible control measures for construction emission of PM1O. If the appropriate construction
controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities
would be considered less-than-significant.
-
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's document BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
establishes the following significance criteria for the operation of projects:
. A project contributing to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State.
Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours or
20 ppm for 1 hour would be considered to have a significant impact.
. A project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQMD
annual or daily thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact,
:-'" both singularly and cumulatively. The current thresholds are 15 tons/year or 80
pounds/day for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) or PM1O.
. Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to
objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact.
. Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public to
substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a significant
impact.
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS
Construction dust would affect local and regional air quality at various times during the
build-out period of the Project. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer
IBay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April
1996 (Revised 1999).
7
months combined with the fine, silty soils of the region create a high potential for dust
generation. Emissions during the grading phase of construction are primarily associated
with the exhaust of large earth moving equipment and the dust which is generated through
grading activities. Emissions in later stages of construction are primarily associated with
construction employee commute vehicles, asphalt paving, mobile equipment, stationary
equipment, and architectural coatings.
The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels
of PM10 near the construction activity. Depending on the weather, soil conditions, the
amount of activity taking place, and nature of dust control efforts, these impacts could
affect existing or future residential areas within or nearthe project. Consequently, project
construction dust generation is considered to be a potentially significant adverse impact.
LONG-TERM LOCAL AIR QUALITY EFFECTS
The project would generate on site and offsite traffic volumes, increasing local levels of
carbon monoxide. To assess the magnitude of impact on local carbon monoxide levels,
a screening form of the CALlNE-4 computer simulation model was used. The screening
procedure was applied to six selected intersections in the project vicinity to estimate future
carbon monoxide levels in the area. A discussion of the methodology used in the
CALlNE-4 modeling is provided in Attachment 1.
The CALlNE-4 screening procedure provides estimates of maximum one- and eight-hour
concentrations, corresponding to the one- and eight-hour averaging times specified in the
state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. Table 4 lists the
results of the CALlNE-4 analysis for the peak one-hour and eight-hour traffic periods in
parts per million (ppm) for existing conditions and in 2005 with and without the proposed
project. A cumulative run was also made with the assumption of construction ofthe project
and other cumulative development in 2025.
The predicted future one-hour concentration values in Table 4 are to be compared to the
federal one-hour standard of 35 ppm and the state standard of 20 ppm. The predicted
eight-hour concentration values in Table 4 are to be compared to the state and federal
standard of 9.0 ppm.
Concentrations for existing conditions at the intersections studied are below the
state/federal standards. With the addition of traffic from approved an pending development
in the year 2005 concentrations are in some cases above and some cases below existing
concentrations, but in all cases are well below the state/federal standards.
Table 4 indicates that the project would increase local carbon monoxide concentrations.
by up to 0.8 ppm for the one-hour averaging time and up to 0.6 ppm for the eight-hour
averaging time, but levels would remain below the state and federal standards. The project
8
r..
..
11!1!'
..
-
.,.,
-
-
-
..
I.'
..
-
'"
..
JIll
-
-
11II
,-.
Table 4: Worst Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near Selected Intersections, in
PPM
.-.;
Intersection Existing Background1 Project Cumulative +
(2001 ) (2005) (2005) Project
1-Hr 8-Hr 1-Hr 8-Hr 1-Hr 8- (2025)
Hr 1Hr 8-Hr
Tassajara/ 6.5 3.3 6.7 4.0 6.7 4.1 5.9 3.5
Dublin
Hacienda/ 6.2 3.7 7.0 4.3 7.8 4.9 6.2 3.8
WB 1-580 Ramps
Dublin/ 6.4 3.8 6.5 3.9 6.9 4.2 5.7 3.4
Hacienda
Dublin/ 6.3 3.7 6.1 3.7 6.3 3.8 5.2 3.1
Arnold
Iron Horse/ 6.1 3.6 6.1 3.6 6.3 3.8 5.5 3.3
Dublin
Dublin/ 8.2 5.1 7.4 4.6 7.8 4.8 6.3 3.9
Dougherty
Most Stringent 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0
Standard
,.,...,0",
-"-
".,..::"
Ilncludes approved and pending projects.
9
impact on long-term local air quality is therefore considered less than significant.
Table 4 also shows concentrations in the year 2025 with project and cumulative traffic
increases. Year 2025 concentrations are projected to be below current concentrations,
despite increased traffic volumes and congestion, due to the gradual decline in emission
rates from vehicles as older, more polluting, cars are retired and replaced with new,
cleaner, cars. This trend of reduced emissions from vehicles has resulted in continual
reductions in measured concentrations of this pollutant in the Bay Area for the past 20
years, and this trend is expected to continue. The project's cumulative impact on carbon
monoxide concentrations is considered to be less than significant.
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY EFFECTS
Vehicle trips generated by project land uses would result in air pollutant emissions affecting
the entire San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Estimates of regional air emissions
generated by project traffic were made using the URBEMIS-7G computer program. Table
5 indicates the estimated incremental daily emissions associated with project-related traffic
for reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen (two precursors of ozone) and PM10,
Commercial and residential uses also contain a number of intermittent area sources of air
pollution. The term "area" source relates to the dispersed nature of these sources.
Aerosol products, household paints and solvents, gardening equipment, space/water
heating and residential wood burning are examples of area sources. These sources are
typically very small compared to transportation emissions. BAAQMD CEQA guidelines do
not recommend quantification of these emissions sources, and the significance of project
impacts is to be based on transportation emissions alone.
Guidelines for the evaluation of project impacts issued by the BAAQMD consider emission
increases of ROG, NOx or PMlO to be significant if they exceed 80 pounds per day.
Because project emissions listed in Table 5 would exceed this criterion for all three
pollutants the project would have a significant adverse impact on regional air quality.
BAAQMD guidance for CEQA documents provides that any project found to have a
significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative
impact. The proposed project would therefore have a significant cumulative impact on
regional air quality.
Because of the general west-to-east transport of pollutants that occurs in the project area,
the effects of project-related emissions would also effect the adjacent San Joaquin Valley
air basin. Transport of pollutants from the Bay Area air basin to the San Joaquin air basin
is a contributor to problems in that air basin.
10
I.
-
.
-
--
..
.
,.
-
..
.
..
...
@
-
~
.,
-
.
Table 5: Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day
~,
Reactive Nitrogen PM10
Organic Oxides
Gases
Project Emissions 305.9 474.0 184.0
BAAQMD Significance 80.0 80.0 80.0
Threshold
,....0;-;.
~;...:
11
III. MITIGATION MEASURES
Construction Dust
For all construction sites the following dust control measures will be implemented by
construction contractors during all construction phases.
· Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
.
Pave, apply water as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at
construction sites.
.
Sweep as needed to control dust (with water sweepers) all paved access roads,
parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
.
Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent public streets.
.
Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas
(previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more.
.
Enclose, cover, water as needed or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed
stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.)
.
Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads 15 mph.
.
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
· Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Implementation of the measures would reduce the impact of the project to a less than
significant level.
Regional Impacts
The proposed project is a mixed-use, infill, high-density development with pedestrian and
transit orientation. The project site is also at the southern terminus of the Iron Horse
regional bicycle trail. These characteristics provide for much higher internal and non-auto
travel mode percentages compared to typical suburban residential or commercial
development. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (together with five other
regional agencies) has recently embarked on a program to encourage compact, infill
12
'.
.,
..
..
..
-
-
..
.
1IllJ
.
..
,.
..
-
..
-,
-
..
development near public transit.
Development within the project should utilize the following strategies:
.
Connect with and add to regional bikeways and trail systems.
-"'""-
· Plan for future bus stops and transit facilities.
· Utilize street patterns that provide multiple and parallel routes between
destinations.
· Provide sidewalks and bikeways along urban arterials and collector streets.
. Where possible, provide pedestrian and bicycle connections between residential
areas and nearby transit stations/stops, commercial areas, centers of
employment, parks and schools.
".-
· At commercial sites coordinate building placement, orientation and design in
order to create pedestrian-oriented spaces and pathways.
· At commercial sites orient buildings and main entrances towards streets with
transit facilities.
.
Minimize large setbacks for commercial and multi-family land uses, particularly
on streets with transit facilities.
1""".;.,;.,
· At transit stops provide attractive shelters, benches, landscaping and lighting to
protect riders from the weather, buffer them from abutting streets, and promote
safety.
· Provide secure and conveniently located bicycle parking and storage in
commercial, public and multi-family residential developments.
~
The above mitigation program would reduce project impacts on regional air quality. The
above measures could reduce projected regional air quality impacts by 20 percent or more
compared to a more typical suburban development. There is, however, currently no
practical way to reduce the project emissions by the more than 80 percent increment that
would be necessary to bring project impacts below BAAQMD significance thresholds.
Therefore, the project's impacts on regional air quality are singularly and cumulatively
considered significant and unavoidable.
-"
13
ATTACHMENT 1: CARBON MONOXIDE MODELING
The CALlNE-4 model is a fourth-generation line source air quality model that is based on
the Gaussian diffusion equation and employs a mixing zone concept to characterize
pollutant dispersion over the roadway. Given source strength, meteorology, site geometry
and site characteristics, the model predicts pollutant concentrations for receptors located
within 150 meters ofthe roadway. The CALI N E-4 model allows roadways to be broken into
multiple links that can vary in traffic volume, emission rates, height, width, etc..
A screening-level form of the CALlNE-4 program was used to predict concentrations.1
Normalized concentrations for each roadway size (2 lanes, 4 lanes, etc.) are adjusted for
the two-way traffic volume and emission factor. Calculations were made for a curbside
receptor at a corner of the intersection.
The screening form of the CALlNE-4 model calculates the local contribution of nearby
roads to the total concentration. The other contribution is the background level attributed
to more distant traffic. For 2001 , the 1-hour background level in was taken as 5.1 PPM,
while the 8-hour background concentration was taken as 2.9 PPM. For 2005, the 1-hour
background level in was taken as 4.6 PPM, while the 8-hour background concentration
was taken as 2.6 PPM. For 2025, the 1-hour background level was taken as 4.1 PPM,
while the 8-hour background concentration was taken as 2.3 PPM. These backgrounds
were estimated using isopleth maps and correction factors developed by the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District.
Eight-hour concentrations were obtained from the 1-hour output of the CALlNE-4 model
using a persistence factor of 0.7.
I Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996.
14
..
...
..
-
till!
..
-
-
-
M
..
..
-
...
-
..
..
-
-
ATTACHMENT 2: URBEMIS-7G
~,
Estimates of regional emissions generated by project traffic and on-site area sources were
made using a program called URBEMIS-7G.1 URBEMIS-7G is a program that estimates
the emissions that result from various land use development projects. Land use project
can include residential uses such as single-family dwelling units, apartments and
condominiums, and nonresidential uses such as shopping centers, office buildings, and
industrial parks. URBEMIS-7G contains default values for much of the information needed
to calculate emissions. However, project-specific, user-supplied information can also be
used when it is available.
Inputstothe URBEMIS-7G program include trip generation rates, vehicle mix, average trip
length by trip type and average speed. The Bay Area default values for average trip
lengths, average speeds and vehicle mix were used. The run included a correction for
pass-by trips and for internal trips within the mixed uses proposed for the project site.
The URBEMIS-7G runs assumed summertime conditions with an ambient temperature of
85 degrees F. Analysis year was 2005.
~'
1 San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, URBEMIS-7G User's
Guide, May 1998.
...-
15
~
Corps
Appendix 8.5
Biological Report
of Engineers Letter
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 211
July 2001
DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER EIR
June 22, 2001
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes: 1) the methods used to assess biological resources on the Dublin
Transit Center property; 2) regulatory requirements and agency jurisdictions; 3) plant and
wildlife resources on the site; 4) the presence or potential presence of special-status species;
and 5) potential impacts to biological resources on the site and measures to mitigate these
impacts.
SETTING
Project Site Background
Previous studies and documentation for the Dublin Transit Center project site and adjacent
properties include the following: Inventory of Special-Status Plants and Wildlife Species at
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Jones & Stokes 1995); BART DublinlPleasanton
Extension, Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination: Maps 1 and 1A (Reynolds, 1994);
Preliminary Wetland Assessment: Iron Horse Trail Extension, Alameda County, California
(Harding Lawson Associates, 2000); Iron Horse Trial Extension California red-legged frog
and California tiger salamander site assessment (H.T. Harvey & Associates, 2000); and
Santa Rita Property Aerial Photo (Kangas Foulk, 1998).
r-
The proposed Dublin Transit Center lies at the southern end of the study area covered in the
1995 Jones and Stokes species inventory report. The surveys conducted for the 1995 report
found no special-status plants; however, five special-status wildlife species were documented
in the Camp Parks study area during the 1995 surveys and potential habitat for six special-
status wildlife species was found on the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. None of those
special-status wildlife species found were located on the Dublin Transit Center project site
however (Jones & Stokes 1995).
In 1995, BART was issued a Nationwide permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to
fill 2.8 acres of wetlands on the Dublin Transit Center project site. The wetland! water
features that were permitted to be filled were shown on the Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination: Maps 1, 1A (Reynolds, 1994). These wetlands were filled in 1997, with
some additional grading in 1998. These impacts were mitigated by BART through the
creation of new wetlands on the adjacent Army property to the north. Most of the project site
has been a construction site almost continuously since 1995, and most of the site has been
disced twice a year since 1997 (Stuart Cook, pers. comm.). Since 1995, BART constructed
the Iron Horse Parkway, DeMarcus Boulevard, and the Dublin BART parking lot. Alameda
County made drainage improvements on the remaining portion of the site. The road and
parking improvements were constructed approximately a foot above existing grade. This
work was completed in 1997 (Stuart Cook, pers. comm.). Site conditions following these
activity are documented on the 1998 Santa Rita Property Aerial Photo (Kangas Foulk, 1998).
2/9/0 1 (Final Bio Section)
~-:..
In April and July of 2000, H.T. Harvey & Associates staff produced two reports: Iron Horse
Trial Extension California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander site assessment
and Iron Horse Trial Extension California red-leggedfrogprotocol-level survey (H.T.
Harvey & Associates, 2000). These reports identify three pools along the Iron Horse Trail
Extension project, which could potentially support foraging and dispersing habitat for
California red-legged frogs. Only one of the pools is located within the Dublin Transit Center
project site. One of the off-site pools located on the southwest end of the trail and west of the
BART station parking lot could provide breeding habitat for California tiger salamanders,
however no upland estivation habitat for California tiger salamanders occurs at or near this
site.
Methods
Prior to conducting a survey of biological resources on the Dublin Transit Center property,
the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFG 2000) and the California Native Plant
Society Electronic Inventory (CNPS 2000) were consulted to identify sensitive habitats and
special-status species known to occur in the vicinity of the City of Dublin.
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of biological resources
on the Dublin Transit Center site on November 29,2000. LSA wildlife biologist Hope
Kingma and botanist Rebecca Sherry walked transects in a random pattern over the entire
site. The purpose of the field survey was to 1) identify plant and wildlife species present; 2)
identify sensitive habitats; 3) identify special-status species and/or habitats that could support
special-status species; and 4) identify potentially jurisdictional wetland and watercourse
features. No species-specific surveys or formal wetland delineation were completed at this
time. All sensitive habitats and special-status species observed were recorded in field notes
and mapped on a site diagram at a 1 inch = 250 feet scale (Figure I). Lists of plant and
animal species observed are presented in Appendices A and B, respectively.
Regulatory Context
-
..
..
-
.
-
..
-
-
..
..
The project site is located within the general geographic range of several sensitive plant _
communities and special-status plant and wildlife species, including federally protected
species such as the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), the large-flowered
fiddleneck (Amsinkia grandiflora), and Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens). _
Biological resources on the site may fall under agency jurisdictions and be subject to
regulations, as described below.
US. Fish and Wildlife Service
.
-
Federal Endangered Species Act - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has
jurisdiction over species that are formally listed as threatened or endangered under the
Federal Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act protects listed wildlife -
species from harm or "take". The term "take" is broadly defined as to "harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct".
2/9/01(FinaJ Bio Section) ..
..
.
An activity is defmed as a "take" even if it is unintentional or accidental.
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act and its applicable regulations restrict certain
activities with respect to endangered and threatened plants. However, these restrictions are
less stringent than those applicable to fish and wildlife species. The provisions prohibit the
removal of, malicious damage to, or destruction of any listed plant species "from areas under
federal jurisdiction." Listed plants may not be cut, dug up, damaged or destroyed, or
removed from any other area (including private lands) in knowing violation of a state law or
regulation.
!-
An endangered plant or wildlife species is one that is considered in danger of becoming
extinct throughout all, or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. The Fish and Wildlife Service
also maintains a list of species proposed for listing. Proposed species are those species for
which a proposed rule to list as endangered or threatened has been published in the Federal
Register.
In addition to endangered, threatened, and proposed species, the Service maintains a list of
candidate species. Candidate (formerly category 1 candidate) species are those species for
which the Service has on file sufficient information to support issuance of a proposed listing
rule.
Any activities that could result in take of a federally listed species will require an Section 10
take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before allowing take activities to
commence. Should another federal agency, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) under the Clean Water Act, acting as the lead agency be involved with permitting the
project, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires the federal lead agency to consult
with the Service before permitting any activities that may take listed species.
-
Migratory Bird Treaty Act - The Migratory Bird Treaty Act provides for protection for
migratory bird species, birds in danger of extinction, and their active nests (including their
eggs and young). Habitat features (e.g., trees, shrubs, burrows, and man-made structures
(power poles)) along proposed routes provide suitable nesting sites for migratory birds.
Contractors/civilians are required to obtain a depredation permit from U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to disturb nesting migratory birds.
~
California Department of Fish and Game
California Endangered Species Act - The California Department ofFish and Game has
jurisdiction over threatened or endangered species that are formally listed by the State under
the California Endangered Species Act. The California Endangered Species Act is similar to
the federal Endangered Species Act both in process and substance; it is intended to provide
additional protection to threatened and endangered species in California. The California
Endangered Species Act does not supersede the federal Act, but operates in conjunction with
it. Species may be listed as threatened or endangered under both acts (in which case the
provisions of both state and federal laws would apply) or under only one act.
Under Fish and Game Code 2050 -2068, the California Endangered Species Act policy is to
2/9/0 1 (Final Bio Section)
conserve, protect, restore, and enhance any threatened or endangered species and its habitat
(including acquiring lands for habitat). Compliance with the California Endangered Species
Act is required because the project area is within habitats historically or currently occupied
by $tate-listed species. If project field assessments indicate that there is a likelihood of "take"
of these species, consultation with the California Department ofFish and Game is required to
be in compliance with Fish and Game Code 2050 and 2091.
..
-
-
The California endangered species laws prohibit the take of any plant listed as threatened,
endangered, or rare. In California an activity on private lands (such as development) will
violate Section 9 of the federal Endangered Species Act if a plant species, listed under both
state and federal endangered species laws, is intentionally removed, damaged, or destroyed.
-
The Department of Fish and Game maintains informal lists of species of special concern.
These species are broadly defined as plants and wildlife that are of concern to the
Department because of population declines and restricted distributions, and/or they are
associated with habitats that are declining in California. These species are inventoried in the
California Natural Diversity Data Base.
-
-
Streambed Alteration Agreement - The California Department of Fish and Game requires
that a proponent of a project notify the Department if project activities would substantially
divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any
river, stream, or lake designated as such by the Department under Fish and Game Code
Section 1600, a streambed alteration agreement could be required from the Department to
conduct steam line construction activities (pouring concrete in augured holes and installing
pipe supports) adjacent to and in creeks, channels, sloughs crossed by the linear elements of
the project. Ifproject activities are likely to affect areas under California Department ofFish
and Game jurisdiction, a streambed alteration agreement is required.
-
..
-
-
California Native Plant Society
-
The California Native Plant Society has developed lists of plants of special concern in
California (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). A List IA plant is a species, subspecies, or variety that
is considered to be extinct. A List 1 B plant is considered rare, threatened, or endangered in ..
California and elsewhere. A List 2 plant is considered rare, threatened, or endangered in
California but is more common elsewhere. A List 3 plant is a species for which the
California Native Plant Society lacks necessary information to determine if it should be ..
assigned to a list or not. A List 4 plant has a limited distribution in California.
All of the plant species on List 1 and List 2 meet the requirements of Section 1901, Chapter ..-
10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species
Act) of the California Department ofFish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing.
Therefore, List 1 and 2 species should be considered under CEQA. Some List 3 plant species .-
also meet the requirements of these portions of the Fish and Game Code and are eligible for
state listing. Very few List 4 plants are eligible for listing but may be locally important and
their listing status could be elevated if conditions change. ..
2/9/01(Final Bio Section) ..
..
.
us. Army Corps of Engineers
Clean Water Act - The Clean Water Act addresses water pollution through permitting to
control and eventually eliminate water pollution. The Clean Water Act establishes
regulations and permitting requirements regarding construction activities that affect storm
water, dredge and fill material operations, and water quality standards. This regulatory
program requires that discharges to surface waters be controlled under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permitting requirements. The permitting requirements apply
to sources of water runoff, industrial and public facilities.
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible
for regulating the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. Jurisdiction falls
within the San Francisco District of the Corps. Waters of the United States and their lateral
limits are defined in 33 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 328.3 (a). The term
. "waters"includes wetlands and non-wetland bodies of water that meet specific criteria as
defmed in the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR). The definition of "waters of the U.S."
includes ".. .intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams)... the use,
degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce..." and
tributaries of water defined as "waters of the United States." Areas that meet the definition of
"waters of the U.S." or the definition of wetlands would be under U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers jurisdiction. Wetlands that are not adjacent to waters of the United States are
termed "isolated wetlands" and may be subject to Corps jurisdiction.
In addition, under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act if project activities affect "waters of
the U.S.", a water quality certification waiver is also required from the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
In general, a Corps permit must be obtained before placing fill in wetlands or other waters of
the U.S. The type of permit depends on the amount of acreage and the purpose of the
proposed fill and is subject to discretion from the Corps. There are two categories of Corps
permits: individual and nationwide (general) permits. Where specified activities would have
minimal adverse impacts, nationwide permits may be used. Eligibility for a nationwide
permit simplifies the permit review process. Nationwide permits cover construction and fill
of waters of the U.S. for a variety of routine activities such as minor road crossings, utility
line crossings, streambank protection, recreational facilities and outfall structures.
To qualify for a nationwide permit, a project must demonstrate that it has no more than a
minimal adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem. The San Francisco District of the Corps
typically interprets this condition to mean that there will be no net loss of either habitat
acreage or habitat value. This usually results in the need to provide mitigation for the fill of
any creek or wetland which will occur.
An individual permit is required where a nationwide is not applicable. The consideration of
an individual permit includes, but is not limited to, factors such as significant acreage of
wetlands or waters of the U.S., areas of high biological or unique value, or length of
watercourse affected. To clearly demonstrate compliance with the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) 404(b)(l) guidelines and applicant must clearly demonstrate that the
2/9/0 1 (Final Bio Section)
proposed discharge in unavoidable and is the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative that will achieve the overall project purpose. The guidelines also establish a
regulatory presumption that there is a practicable alternative that would have less impact on
the aquatic ecosystem. If this presumption is not rebutted, a permit may not be issued. The
1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and Corps concerning the Determination
of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines summarizes the
hierarchal approach to assessing mitigation under the guidelines. The first priority is to avoid
impacts, second to minimize and third is to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable
impacts.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, projects that apply for a Corps permit for
discharge of dredge or fill material, and projects that qualify for a Nationwide Permit, must
obtain water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
that the project will uphold state water quality standards. Alternatively, the RWQCB may
elect to notify an applicant that the State may issue Waste Discharge Charge Requirements in
lieu of a Section 401 certification for a project.
Existing Conditions
The 91 acre site covers roughly seven city blocks, bordered on the southwest by the Iron
Horse Trail, on the south by Interstate 580 (1-580), and on the east by Arnold Drive (under
construction). Dublin Boulevard forms the northern boundary for about two-thirds of the site,
between the Iron Horse trail and the Iron Horse Parkway. A triangular-shaped parcel lies to
the north of Dublin Boulevard at the corner of Arnold drive. Existing streets divide the site
into four parcels (Figure I). Parcel 1 is the triangular piece of land between the Iron Horse
Trail and DeMarcus Boulevard. Parcel 2 is the rectangle between DeMarcus Boulevard and
the Iron Horse Parkway. Parcel 3 is the rectangular parcel to the north of Dublin Boulevard
Parcel 4 is the rectangle between the Iron Horse Parkway and Arnold Road.
Currently, approximately 29 acres of the site are in use or paved for a utility substation, a
BART parking lot, public streets, and a traction station. An easement for a fiber optic cable
and a high-pressure petroleum pipeline lies immediately adjacent to the northeast side of the
Iron Horse Trail. The remainder of the site has been either disced or graded recently. As a
result, the site has a flat topography that gently slopes to the south and west. An artificial
berm was recently constructed between the BART parking lot and the open land in Parcell.
The north side of this berm has been spread with fill material for a distance of approximately
forty feet to the north and storm drains are evenly spaced along the north side of the berm.
Piles of soil have been placed near the comer of Altamirano Road and the Iron Horse
Parkway in Parcel 4. Parcel 3 is currently being used as a construction staging area, holding
piles of soil and pipes, and a construction trailer.
The soil on the site is a very dark brown Clear Lake clay composed of fine textured alluvium
from sedimentary rock (SCS 1966). Clear Lake clays have slow runoff, moderately good
drainage, high water holding capacity, little erosion, and are very permeable. Historically, the
site was drained and used for irrigated pasture or grain farming (SCS 1966). Without
2/9/01(Final Bio Section)
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
..
.
.
-
..
drainage, the water table can reach to within 5 feet of the surface in this soil type (SCS 1966).
Vegetation
Vegetation on the site consists primarily of weedy annual species. The site visit was
conducted at the beginning of the growing season and many plants were still in the seedling
stage. Because the land had recently been disced and/or graded, much oflast year's
vegetation had been turned under or was unidentifiable. Consequently, it was difficult to
identify many of the plants to species.
Typical plants on the flat portions of the site include tumbleweed (Salsola tragus), mustard
(Brassica sp.), vetch (Vicia sp.), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), common knotweed
(Polygonum arenastrum.), lupine (Lupinus sp.), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), prickly
lettuce (Lactuca serriola), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), common mallow
(Malva neglecta), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), ruby sand spurrey (Spergularia rubra),
hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum hyssopifolium), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), and the
recently introduced exotic weed skunkwort (Dittrichia graveolens).
At the northwestern comer of the site is a deep pool that supported water plantain (Alisma
plantago-aquatica) and panicled willow herb (Epilobium brachycarpum). A planted date
palm tree (Phoenix canariensis) grows on the edge of this basin. This and other moist areas
on the site additionally support alkali heath (Frankenia salina), swamp timothy (Crypsis
schoenoides), rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), and cocklebur (Xanthium
stromarium ).
Potentially Jurisdictional Features
The County has received an updated verification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
verifying that there are no jurisdictional waters of the U.S. on the site (letter dated June 5,
2001, Corps File # 25892S).
A number of areas exist on and off-site that may provide habitat for sensitive plants and
animals and may be affected by on-site construction. These features include ditches
previously documented on the maps 1 and 1A of the Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination (Reynolds, 1994). These features are also noted on Figure 1. Shallow, 30-
foot wide swales/ditches occur on either side of the Iron Horse Trail that borders the western
edge of the project site. The bottom of the northeast ditch is dominated by salt grass
(Distich lis spicata)and also supports bristly ox-tongue, prickly lettuce, and common mallow.
The southwest ditch also contains large patches of creeping wild rye (Leymus triticoides) and
a small patch of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). The uplands were dominated by the species
listed above for the flat portions of the site, and additionally included wild oats (Avenafatua)
and coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis).
The large drainage channel along the northern boundary of Parcel 3 (Figure 1) was
constructed in uplands in 1997 as part of Zone 7's drainage system (Stuart Cook, pers.
comm.). The deep channel contains a concrete V-ditch at the bottom, and would likely not
qualify as a jurisdictional feature. Red willows (Salix laevigata) and a large patch of cattails
2/9/01(Final Bio Section)
(Typha latifolia) and red-root cyperus (Cyperus erthrorhizos) grow near the southern end of
the channel, where the channel ends at a 2,000+ foot box culvert which flows under Dublin
Boulevard. The uplands on either side of the drainage channel were seeded with blue wild
rye (Elymus gluacus), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), and rose clover (Trifolium hirtum).
White sweet clover (Melilotus alba) was also common on the banks.
Wildlife
Wildlife species present on the Dublin Transit Center project site are those species adapted to
annual grasslands and ruderal uplands. Most of these species are known as urban-adapted
species that are commensal with humans and tolerant of human disturbance. Wildlife species
observed, or evidence of their presence observed (i.e., droppings, burrows, and tracks) on the
project site were birds and mammals.
Birds observed in the disturbed, ruderal portions of the project site, or flying over the project
site, include ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos),
rock dove (Columba livia), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and western meadowlark
(Sturnella neglecta). Mammals in this community include Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys
bottae), gopher mounds were observed throughout the project site, and California ground
squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi). Ground squirrel burrows were observed in the rubble and
fill piles located on Parcel 4, between Iron Horse Parkway and Arnold Road.
The drainage features, including the flood control channel along the northern portion of the
site, and the drainage swales along the Iron Horse Trail, support wildlife species adapted to
seasonal aquatic habitats, or species associated with wetland and riparian vegetation. Pacific
tree frogs (Hyla regilla) were heard chorusing in the wetter sections ofthe drainages. Birds
observed in the willows include American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) and western scrub-jay
(Aphelocoma californica). Dense patches of cattail support red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius
phoeniceus). Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) (scat) use these drainage
features as movement corridors and foraging areas.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Special-status species are defined as follows:
Species that are listed, or designated as candidates for listing, as threatened or
endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act;
Species that are listed, or designated as candidates for listing as rare (plants),
threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act;
Plant species on List lA, List IB, and List 2 in the California Native Plant Society=s
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2000);
Wildlife species listed by the California Department of Fish & Game as species of
2/9/01(Final Bio Section)
..
..
..
..
..
..
-
..
..
..
..
..
.
..
..
..
..
..
WI
special concern or fully protected species;
Species that meet the definition of rare or endangered under the California
Environmental Quality Act. (Under Section 15380 ofCEQA, a species not included
on any formal list Ashall nevertheless be considered rare or endangered if the species
can be shown to meet the criteria@ for listing);
r"'-
Species considered to be of special concern by local agencies.
Plants
;----
The site was surveyed for eight special-status plant species in 1994 by Jones & Stokes
Associates, Inc (Jones & Stokes 1995). No special-status plant species were found at that
time. Since that time, several new species have become listed and the listing status has
changed for other plant species. A 1999 survey by H.T. Harvey & Associates, on the Pao
Yeh Lin property, about one mile away off of Tassajara Road, focused on 21 species,
including CNPS List 3 and List 4 plants. They presumed the existence of two special status
plant species in the area - Congdon's Spikeweed (Hemizonia parryi ssp. congdonii) and San
Joaquin spearscale (A triplex joaquiniana). A survey for ten spring-blooming species with the
potential to occur on site was conducted by Davis Environmental Consulting on April 5,
2001 (Davis Environmental Consulting 200la). No special- status plant species were found
on that date. Surveys for late summer and fall-blooming plants have not yet been conducted.
A search of the California Natural Diversity Data Base and the CNPS Electronic Inventory
for grassland and freshwater wetland plants that could occur in the nine quadrangle area
around the City of Dublin revealed 18 special-status plant species known from the region
surrounding Dublin (Table 1). The search excluded species strictly confined to scrub,
chaparral, forests, or woodlands, and serpentine or rocky soils, as these habitat types do not
occur on the Dublin Transit Center site~ One of these special-status plants, Congdon's
spikeweed (Hemizona parryi ssp. congdonii), was observed during the November 2000 site
visit (discussed below). No other special-status plants were observed during this site visit.
However, the site inspection was not conducted during the blooming period for most of these
plant species.
In addition to Congdon's spikeweed, observed during the reconnaissance survey, the site is
suitable habitat for fem three other plant species, all of which are listed in Table!. Although
repeated disking degrades the habitat for these plants, it is unknown what level of disturbance
these plants can tolerate. The site is also suitable for ten other species that could occur on
site, however, these species are unlikely to occur because they do not tolerate high
disturbance or because the site is outside of the typical range of the plant. Three of the plants
in Table 1 prefer drier or sandy soils and so are not expected to occur on site at all.
The single special-status species found on site and the fear three other species most likely to
be found on the Dublin site are discussed in more detail below. Spikeweeds and tarplants
tolerate disturbance well, and so are more likely than other species to found on site. Because
2/9/0 I (Final Bio Section)
the alkaline-tolerant plants salt grass and alkali heath occur on the site, the soil may be mildly -
alkaline or saline. Therefore, special-status plants of alkaline soils may possibly be found on
the site.
Congdon's Spikeweed. Hemizonia parryi ssp. congdon ii, a CNPS List 1 B plant, was found
on the southeast side of the comer of the Iron Horse Parkway and Dublin Boulevard and
along Altamirano Road in Parcel 4 (Figure 1). A copy ofthe CNDDB field survey form is in
Appendix A. The full extent of this population was not discernable because the site had
recently been disked. Congdon's spikeweed thrives on disturbance. By the early summer, a
survey should be able to determine the size and physical extent of the population. Dublin is
near the center of distribution for this plant. Preston (1999) reports that this species occurs in
large numbers on the south end of Camp Parks RFT A from Dougherty Road to Hacienda
Drive.
Brittlescale. Atriplex depressa, a CNPS lB plant, is an annual herb of alkaline habitats. It
typically grows with saltgrass, alkali heath, Italian ryegrass, and other Atriplex species. It is
known to occur in the Livermore-Altamont area.
San Joaquin Spearscale. Atriplexjoaquiniana, also on the CNPS lB List, is an another
annual herb that prefers alkaline habitats. This plant also tolerates some disturbance. It is
known from populations in the Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon area.
Big Tarplant. Blepharizonia plumosa ssp. plumosa, another CNPS 1 B plant, has been found
near Byron, Walnut Creek, and the Altamont Pass, as well as just south of the Briones
Valley. Although big tarplant usually prefers relatively dry slopes, it has potential to be
present on site. Plants of the genus Blepharizonia were found during the April 2001 survey of
the Dublin Transit Center site (Davis Environmental Consulting 2001a). Because they were
not blooming, they could not be identified to species and subspecies. Doveweed,
(Eremocarpus setigerus), often found in association with big tarplant, was also found on that
visit (Davis Environmental Consulting 200la).
The Dublin Transit Center is only marginal habitat for nine other special-status species. They
are discussed briefly below.
e Alkaline Milk-vetch. Astragalus tener var. tener, CNPS List IB, can tolerate mild
disturbance. It is known to occur in the vicinity of Hayward. However, it was not found
during the April 2001 survey (Davis Environmental Consulting 200la).
· The large-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinkia grandiflora) is known from only three natural
occurrences on undisturbed native grassland, two near Livermore and one near Los
Vaqueros Reservoir. It was not found during the April 2001 survey (Davis Environmental
Consulting 200la).
Big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis) is more likely found
on rocky land with other native plants such as Helianthella. It was not found during the
April 2001 survey (Davis Environmental Consulting 2001a).
2/9/01(Final Bio Section)
*
-
..
-
,.
-
-
-
.
..
-
..
-
..
-
..
..
-
.
* Palmate-bracted Bird's Beak (Cordylanthus palmatus), a federally and state listed
endangered plant, typically grows in alkaline clay wetlands with saltgrass and alkali
heath. Though these conditions are found on the Dublin Transit Center site, the degree
of disturbance makes it unlikely that palmate-bracted bird's beak occurs here. The
nearest known location ofpalmate-bracted bird's beak is in the Springtown wetlands,
north of Livermore. It was not found during the April 2001 survey (Davis
Environmental Consulting 2001a).
* Recurved larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum) is found in degraded sites, but the nearest
populations are on the other side of the Altamont Pass. It was not found during the
April 2001 survey (Davis Environmental Consulting 200la).
* The diamond-petaled California poppy (Eschscholzia rhombipetala) was thought to be
extinct until it was discovered growing on Site 300 of the Livermore National
Laboratory in 1997. It was not found during the April 2001 survey (Davis
Environmental Consulting 2001a).
· Although the Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macrodenia) likes disturbance, its
known historical range lies closer to the coast than the City of Dublin.
· Contra Costa Goldfields. Lasthenia conjugens is Federally and State Listed as
endangered. The species is found in wet areas in the spring and can tolerate mild
disturbance. In Alameda County, it has been found near Newark and Fremont. It is
often considered a vernal pool plant, though it is not limited to that habitat. The
presence of coyote thistle on site indicated that suitable habitat for Contra Costa
goldfields is present on the Dublin Transfer Center site. However, it was not found on
the April 2001 survey (Davis Environmental Consulting 200la).
00 The hairless popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys glaber) and the caper-fruited
tropidocarpum (Tropidocarpum capparideum) are believed to be extinct in California
and are not likely to found in a disturbed area. They were not found during the April
2001 survey (Davis Environmental Consulting 2001a).
To determine whether any of the remaining late blooming special-status plant species from
Table 1 are present on the property, an additional rare plant survey following U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and California Department ofFish and Game guidelines needs to be
conducted during the peak blooming periods of each species. Additional surveys for the fe.w:
three other species most likely to occur on the site would be required to determine presence
or absence of these species onsite.
Animals
Information derived from the California Natural Diversity Data Base lists 29 special-status
wildlife species that occur in the region or within the project vicinity. None of these species
was observed during the November 2000 site inspection. Nineteen of the wildlife species
2/9/01(Final Bio Section)
,-
reported in the Natural Diversity Data Base occur in salt and freshwater marshes, salt ponds,
coastal habitats, coastal and central valley streams and creeks, chaparral, wooded habitats,
vernal pools, or freshwater ponds. None of these habitats types occur onsite, therefore the
species dependent on these habitats would not occur. The wetland features, including the
drainages and depressions, on the project site do not provide vernal pool habitat values, due
to the recent grading and disturbance. The flood control channel along the northern edge of
the project site appears to convey a significant volume of water during winter rain events,
and would not provide habitat for vernal pools species, such as California tiger salamanders.
Species that were determined to be unlikely to occur on the project site due to the absence of
suitable habitat include monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi), California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense),
foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata),
Alameda whip snake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter
striatus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), western snowy plover (Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus), salt-marsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa),
California black rail (Laterallusjamaicensis coturniculus), California clapper rail (Rallus
longirostris obsoletus), California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni), bank swallow
(Riparia riparia), salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris raviventris), and
salt marsh wandering shrew (Sorex vagrans halicoetes). Table 2 summarizes those special-
status wildlife species that potentially occur on the project site. The scientific names and
state and federal status are provided.
-
.
-
..
..
-
-
..
.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. conducted standardized survey procedures for special-status
species on the entire Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. The proposed Dublin Transit
Center site was included as a small portion of that larger study area. Surveys were conducted ..
for curve-footed hygrotus diving beetle (Hygrotus curvipes), San Francisco forktail
damselfly (Ischnura gemina), vernal pool fairy shrimp, California red-legged frog, California
tiger salamander, western pond turtle, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma ..
fuscipes annectens), and several bat species (Jones & Stokes 1995). Special-status species
observed on the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area include California red-legged frogs,
western pond turtle, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), and tricolored ..
blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). None of special-status species observed during the 1995
surveys were found on the Dublin Transit Center project site itself.
In April 2000, H.T. Harvey & Associates staff conducted a site assessment of the Iron Horse
Trial Extension for California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander, and in July of
2000, a protocol-level survey was conducted for California red-legged frog (H.T. Harvey &
Associates, 2000). One of the pools off-site located on the southwest end of the trail and west
of the BART station parking lot could provide breeding habitat for California tiger
salamanders, however, no upland estivation habitat for California tiger salamanders occurs at
or near this site.
Species that are known to occur in the DublinIPleasanton/San Ramon region for which
suitable habitat occurs on the proposed project site are listed below as well as a brief
description of their habitat requirements and likelihood of occurrence onsite.
2/9/01(Final Bio Section)
..
-
..
..
.
..
..
California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). The California red-legged frog is listed
as a federally threatened species. It is a California species of special concern
This species is found in marshes, streams, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, and other permanent or
seasonal sources of water. It is chiefly a pond frog that inhabits humid woodlands,
grasslands, and stream sides. It is generally found in or near water, but disperses after rains
and may appear in damp meadows far from water. The breeding period is from January
through April, depending on locality (Stebbins 1985).. The proposed project site is located
outside of and west of the boundaries of the East Bay-Diablo Range critical habitat unit (Unit
15) (USFWS 2001).
Jones & Stokes Associates biologists observed California red-legged frogs in two drainages
north of the project site on the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Jones & Stokes 1995).
Other observational records for California red-legged frogs within five miles of the site
include Chabot Canal, located south and west of the project site. Red-legged frogs were also
observed at the Tassajara Creek subdivision in East Dublin about 1.5 miles northeast of the
Transit Center site (Zentner and Zentner 2000). Red-legged frogs have also been observed in
Chabot Canal approximately 2 miles upstream of the Transit Center site (H.T. Harvey &
Associates 2000).
H.T. Harvey & Associates identified three pools located along the Iron Horse Trail Extension
project that could potentially support foraging and dispersing habitat for California red-
legged frogs (H.T. Harvey & Associates, 2000). One of the pools is located within the
Dublin Transit Center project site.
The large drainage features that border the project site, as shown in Figure 1, could
potentially support dispersing California red-legged frogs, or could provide potential
foraging, cover, and hydration habitat for California red-legged frog. No breeding habitat for
this species occurs onsite.
Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). The golden eagle is a California species of concern. This
species has no federal status. However, the golden eagle is protected under the federal Bald
Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Act.
The golden eagle occurs throughout much of California, particularly in hilly regions
dominated by grassland and oak savannah. The golden eagle is a large, wide ranging
predator of open grassland and savanna habitats in hilly country. Golden eagles nest on cliff
faces and in large trees. Nests are large structures that are used for many years, by the same
pair and often subsequently by other eagles (Palmer 1988). The breeding territories of the
golden eagle can range from 20 to 60 square miles (Mallette and Gould 1976). The species
feeds primarily on medium sized mammals.
No golden eagles were observed on the project site and no large trees that could support nests
typical of golden eagles occur on the site. There are records of golden eagles nesting on the
northeast side of San Antonio Reservoir (south southeast of Pleasant on), and at the southwest
end ofWalpert Ridge, 2.5 miles southeast of California State University Hayward (CDFG
2000). Golden eagles have also been observed nesting at Dublin Ranch in the Tassajara
Macintosh G3:Desktop Folder:Final Bio Section
Valley (LSA field notes). Golden eagles nest in the project vicinity and may include the
project site as part of their foraging range.
Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis). The ferruginous hawk is a California species of special
concern. It has no federal status. The ferruginous hawk does not nest in California (Mallett
and Gould 1976). However, the Department ofFish and Game has concerns about the loss of
ferruginous hawk winter foraging habitat.
In California, ferruginous hawks winter in the arid plains and open rangeland along the
western edge of the Central Valley, in open valleys in the inner Coast Ranges, and in the
deserts of southern California. The species is not known to breed in California. The species
primarily feeds on small to medium-sized mammals (Mallette and Gould 1976).
Ferruginous hawks were not observed on the project site. However, ferruginous hawks have
been observed on the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Jones & Stokes 1995). The open
grassland on and adjacent to the site provides suitable foraging habitat for ferruginous hawks.
However, because of the limited California ground squirrel population on the project site, the
hawks primary prey species, ferruginous hawks may not forage regularly on the project site.
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicutaria). The burrowing owl is a California species of special
concern. It has no federal status.
The burrowing owl occurs in open grasslands, agricultural, and urban areas that support
populations of California ground squirrels. The burrowing owl nests in ground squirrel
burrows and feeds on insects and small mammals (Mallette and Gould 1976).
Burrowing owls were not observed on the project site, however, several burrowing owls were
observed on the Parks Reserved Forces Training Area less than 0.5 miles from the Dublin
Transit Center site (Jones & Stokes 1995). The presence of California ground squirrel
burrows on the project site, specifically in the rubble and fill piles located on the parcel
between Iron Horse Parkway and Arnold Road, provide potential burrows for burrowing
owls on the project site that could be used by both wintering and breeding birds.
Additionally, the grasslands onsite could provide foraging habitat for this species.
Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus). The northern harrier is a California species of special
concern. It has no federal status. The Department ofFish and Game has concerns about the
decline of northern harrier nesting habitat.
Northern harriers breed in fresh and saltwater emergent wetlands, and grasslands, in the
Central Valley, and coastal valleys, from Oregon, southward. Nests are located on the
ground in areas of tall dense grasses or shrubs, usually near marsh edges. They nest from
April to September (Zeiner et at., 1990).
No northern harriers were observed foraging on the project site. Because of the extent of
disturbance to the site, they are not likely to nest onsite. However, northern harriers
wintering, or nesting, in the general area could include the project site as part of their
foraging range.
Macintosh G3:Desktop Folder:FinaI Bio Section
..
..
..
..
..
-
..
-
..
..
..
..
..
..
..,
..
..
..
..
White-tailed Kite (Elan us leucurus). The white tailed kite has no state or federal status,
however, it is listed as a fully protected species in the state Fish and Game Code. White-
tailed kites are year-round residents, and nest and roost in large groves of dense, broad-leafed
trees, located near suitable foraging habitat (Zeiner et al., 1990). They forage for small
rodents in grassland and other open habitats. No trees or shrubs onsite could provide nesting
habitat for white-tailed kites. The open grassland provides suitable foraging habitat for white-
tailed kites that nest in the project vicinity.
Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). The tricolored blackbird is a California species of
special concern. It has no federal status.
Tricolored blackbirds are highly colonial and nomadic and are largely endemic to the
lowlands of California. Breeding is highly synchronized, with most pairs in a colony
initiating nesting within a few days of each other. The synchronization and colonial breeding
may have evolved as an adaptation to a rapidly changing environment where the locations of
secure nesting habitat and food supplies were likely to change each year (Beedy et al., 1991).
They prefer to nest in freshwater marshes with dense growths of emergent vegetation, but
will nest in upland locations that support dense stands of herbaceous vegetation, especially
plant species that are armed with thorns or spines (Beedy et al., 1991). They nest from mid-
April through mid-July. They will travel up to four miles to forage (Zeiner et al., 1990).
Tricolored blackbirds were not observed on the project site. There is no breeding habitat on
the site for this species and tricolored blackbirds are not expected to nest on the project site.
Tricolored blackbirds were observed on the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, north ofthe
project site (Jones & Stokes 1995). Additional records of nesting tricolored blackbird are
known from the Niles, Livermore, and Dublin. The project site could potentially provide
suitable foraging habitat for tricolored blackbirds that may nest in the vicinity of the site.
California Homed Lark (Eremophila alpestris actia). The California horned lark is a
California species of special concern.
The California homed lark is found in coastal regions from San Diego to Sonoma County
and in the central San Joaquin Valley to the Sierra Nevada foothills. It nests and forages in
grasslands, bald hills, and alkali flats. They have recently been observed breeding in the
Tassajara Valley, north of the site.
San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macro tis mutica). The San Joaquin kit fox is a federally
endangered and state threatened species.
The San Joaquin kit fox lives in grasslands that typically have scattered shrubby vegetation.
They typically need loose-textured soil for building their dens. The highly disturbed
condition of the site, its urban location, and limited prey base makes it unlikely that kit foxes
occur on this site or use it even occasionally. This species was not found on the Parks
Reserve Forces Training Area during surveys conducted by Jones & Stokes (1995).
Additional surveys in the Dougherty Valley, which included the northern portion of Camp
Parks, conducted during the 1 990s, also did not demonstrate the presence of this species in
Macintosh G3:Desktop Folder:Final Bio Section
the vicinity of the site (WESCO 1991a, 1991b; LSA 1994). Kit fox surveys were conducted
on the Dublin Ranch site located approximately 2 miles east ofthe Transit Center site in
1997 (Harvey 1997), but no kit foxes were found.
-
..
-
WIllI
..
..
..
-
-
.
.
-
-
..
.'
-
Macintosh G3:Desktop Folder:Final Bio Section
..
-
.
IMPACTS & MITIGATION
Significance Criteria
The determination of significance of impacts to biological resources involves an evaluation
of the context in which the potential impact may occur and the intensity and extent of the
impact's effect. Potential impacts are assessed as significant (S) or not significant (NS) in
site-specific, general location, and regional contexts.
Project effects on biological resources would be considered significant if it results in any of
the following:
· a substantial 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 the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
· a substantial effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
· substantial effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means.
· substantially interfere with movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridor, or
impeded use of native wildlife nursery sites.
· conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
· conflicts with the provisions of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
Potential impacts of the proposed project include those to potentially jurisdictional wetlands
and special-status plant and wildlife species. The mitigation measures proposed in this EIR
would reduce impacts to all these resources to less-than-significant levels.
Impact - 1:
Loss of a population of Congdon's spikeweed (CNPS List 1 B) and potential loss of three
other special-status plant species and their habitat. (S)
Macintosh G3:Desktop Folder:Final Bio Section
A population of Congdon's spikeweed was observed on the site during the November 2000
survey. The size of this population could not be determined due to the timing of the survey.
In order to quantify the size of this population and to identify other rare plants that may occur
onsite, rare plant surveys should be conducted on each parcel (or development phase) prior to
ground disturbing activities. Rare plant surveys should be appropriately-timed during the
growing season and conducted according to resource agency protocols (conducting surveys
during the growing season may necessitate initiation of surveys months before construction
activities are scheduled). The four special-status plant species with the greatest potential to
occur on the property are all late-blooming species. One additional survey late season
surveys is recommended (in August) to ascertain whether any of these species are actually
present on the site. The locations of special-status plant populations that are detected should
mapped and a report detailing the findings of the surveys should be forwarded to the City.
Mitigation - 1:
1) If feasible, the areas where Congdon's spikeweed grows should be avoided so as not to
disturbed the special-status plants and be designated for on-site preservation. In this case the
population would be flagged and/or fenced for avoidance during development activities. If
the populations are located in areas where human impact is likely to be high, they should be
fenced permanently.
2) If avoidance of Congdon's spikeweed is not feasible, a long-term off-site mitigation area
should be created. Shallow bowls or depressions, designed with an appropriate hydrological
regime for Congdon's spikeweed, should be sown with seed collected from the Dublin
Transit Center site. Seed for Congdon's spikeweed should be collected from the transit
center site prior to initiation of construction activities.
3) The details of either plan (on-site preservation or off-site mitigation) should be developed
in a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The plan will be submitted to the City of Dublin for
their approval prior to fmal map approval.
4) If other special-status species are found on the site, the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
should include measures to avoid, preserve or mitigate for these plants. Measures to protect
and preserve the plant populations may include collection of seeds during the appropriate
developmental stage of the plant, descriptions of sowing techniques appropriate to the life
cycle of the plant, development of a maintenance and monitoring plan (i. e., provide the
environmental conditions necessary for the survival of the new population including periodic
disturbance if necessary), identification of funding sources to provide for the implementation
of the plan, and management and maintenance of the mitigation area.
Impact - 2:
The development of the site could adversely affect California red-legged frogs and/or their
habitat. (8)
Macintosh G3:Desktop Folder:FinaI Bio Section
-
..
..
..
-
..
-
..
.,
..
..
.
-
..
..
.
11III
-
.
The pool in the northwest comer of Parcell, and the off-site drainage features bordering the
project site provide potential foraging, cover, and hydration habitat for California red-legged
frog. No breeding habitat for red-legged frogs occurs onsite. Red-legged frogs were not
observed onsite during the reconnaissance survey, and the likelihood of this species
occurring onsite is low. A protocol level site assessment of the potential red-legged frog
habitats on the site has been completed [Davis Environmental Consulting 200lb]. However,
California red-legged frogs have been reported to occur within 1.5 miles of the proposed
transit center site (Jones and Stokes, 1995 and H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2000; Zentner
and Zentner 2000) and could occur in the Parcell pool or in the off-site drainage features.
Mitigation - 2:
1) In order to determine if red-legged frogs occur on or adjacent to the project site, a
protocol-level pre-construction survey for red-legged frogs shall be conducted prior to
initiation of construction activities onsite. The survey will include all drainage channels
and potential hydration, foraging, or cover habitat on or immediately adjacent to the
transit center site (e.g., pool in the northwest comer of Parcel 1, drainage channel along
Iron Horse Trail, flood control channel adjacent to Parcel 3). The survey will be
conducted according to current USFWS survey protocols by a qualified biologist.
Results of the survey will be reported to the City.
2) If red-legged frogs or their habitat are found on or adjacent to the transit center site, the
project proponent will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine a) the
appropriate course of action to avoid or mitigate impacts to red-legged frogs and their
habitat, and b) any necessary permits that must be obtained. All mitigation measures and
permits will be obtained prior to initiation of construction activities.
Impact -3:
The proposed project will result in the loss of potential nesting and associated foraging
habitat for burrowing owls in the project vicinity. (S)
Burrowing owls were not observed on the project site, however, a species-specific survey
was not conducted during the November 2000 reconnaissance. Burrowing owls have been
observed on the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area within 0.5-miles of the Transit Center
site (Jones and Stokes, 1995) and are known to occur in the open grasslands in the vicinity
(LSA personal observations). Suitable burrowing, nesting, and foraging habitat occurs onsite
and this species could use the site as breeding or wintering habitat in the future. The loss of
potential nesting and associated foraging habitat would be a significant impact.
Mitigation - 3:
1) At least 30 days prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist will
conduct a protocol-level, preconstruction survey for burrowing owls. Four separate surveys
should be conducted. Surveys should be conducted during the periods one hour before to
two hours after sunrise and/or two hours before to one hour after sunset. Surveys should be
conducted without regard to season, as the site provides both potential breeding and
Macintosh G3:Desktop Folder:Final Bio Section
wintering habitat for burrowing owls. A preconstruction surveys should be conducted for
each phase or parcel to be developed. If more than 30 days passes between the completion of
the survey and the initiation of the ground disturbing activities, the preconstruction survey
should be conducted again.
2) Ifburrowing owls are found on the site, the project proponent will notify the City and the
California Department of Fish and Game. A qualified biologist will establish an exclusion
zone around each occupied burrow in which no construction-related activity will occur until
the burrows are confirmed to be unoccupied. The exclusion zone will be 160 feet (50
meters) in diameter during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31) and
250 feet in diameter (75 meters) during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31).
The project proponent (or their biological consultant) will then consult with the California
Department of Fish and Game regarding implementation of avoidance or passive relocation
methods. All activities will be approved by and coordinated with the California Department
ofFish and Game prior to disturbance of the burrows. The project proponent will also
negotiate an appropriate mitigation plan consistent with California Department of Fish and
Game policies at that time (i.e., preservation of foraging habitat). Mitigation may include
permanent protection of foraging habitat around the burrow of each pair or unpaired
burrowing owl; or the permanent protection of habitat at a nearby off-site location acceptable
to the Department.
Less-tkan-significant Impacts:
The proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species.
Northern harrier, white-tailed kite, ferruginous hawk, and golden eagle are not expected to
nest on the project site. However, it is likely that these, and other raptors, forage here for
prey on an occasional basis. Because of the presence of large areas of existing open space in
the project vicinity, potential impacts to foraging raptors would be less than significant.
The project site provides marginal habitat for other special-status wildlife species potentially
present in the area not specifically discussed above, and potential impacts to these species are
expected to be less-than-significant.
Significance after Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts would remain after the implementation of the recommended
mitigation measures.
Macintosh G3:Desktop Folder:Final Bio Section
..
.
-
.
..
-
-
..
..
-
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
REFERENCES
Literature Cited
Beedy, E. c., S. D. Sanders, and D. A. Bloom. 1991. Breeding status, distribution, and
habitat associations of the tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), 1850-1989. June 21, 1991.
Jones & Stokes Associated, Inc. (JSA 88-187.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA.
California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). 2000. Natural Diversity Data Base
(CNDDB): special-status species occurrences report for the following U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute
quads: Niles, Dublin, Livermore, Hayward, Newark, Las Trampas Ridge, Diablo, Tassajara,
and La Costa Valley. California Department ofFish and Game, Natural Resources Division,
Sacramento, California.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS).2000. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of
California (sixth edition, electronic version). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee,
David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. Sacramento, CA.
Davis Environmental Consulting. 2001a. Spring Botanical Survey Results for Dublin Transit
Center Site. Letter to Mr. S. Cook, Alameda County Community Development Agency,
Hayward, CA. April 19, 2001.
_' 2001 b. Red-legged Frog Site Assessment at the Proposed Dublin Transit Center Site.
Letter to Mr. S. Cook, Alameda County Community Development Agency, Hayward, CA.
April 18, 2001.
Grinnell, 1. and A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacif. Coast
Avif. 27: 608.
Harding Lawson Associates. 2000. Preliminary Wetland Assessment: Iron Horse Trail
Extension, Alameda County, California. Prepared for Alameda County Public Works
Agency.
H.T. Harvey & Associates, Inc. 1997. Dublin Ranch San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey. Prepared
for Ted Faifield, Pleasanton, CA.
_' 1999. Dublin Ranch Areas F, G, and H (Pao Yeh Lin Property) Ecological Impacts
and Mitigation. Prepared for Ted C. Fairfield, consulting civil engineer, Pleasanton, CA.
H.T. Harvey & Associates, Inc. 2000. Iron Horse Trial Extension California red-legged frog
and California tiger salamander site assessment. Prepared for Alameda County Public Works
Agency.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1995. Inventory of special-status plant and wildlife species at
Parks Rese'rveForces Training Area. June 21, 1995. (JSA 93-240.) Sacramento, CA.
Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Sacramento, CA.
Macintosh G3:Desktop Folder:Final Bio Section
Kangas Foulk, Brian. 1998. Santa Rita Property Aerial Photo, Alameda County.
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 1994. San Joaquin Kit Fox Assessment, Gale Ranch, Contra
Costa County, California. Prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, CA Prepared
for Shapell Industries, Milpitas, CA. 20 pp. + appendices.
Mallette, R D. and G. Gould. 1976. Raptors of California. California Department ofFish
and Game, Sacramento, California. 85 pp.
Palmer, R S. (Ed.). 1988. Handbook of North American birds: diurnal raptors (Vols. 4 and
5). Yale Univ. Press, New Haven and London.
Preston, RE. 1999. Preliminary report on the conservation status of Congdon's spikeweed
(Hemizonia parryi subsp. congdonii) in the south and east San Francisco Bay area and
Monterey County, California. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, February 23,
1999.
Reynolds, V. 1994. BART DublinIPleasanton Extension; County of Alameda; U.S. Army,
Camp Parks; Joint Project Site, Dublin, California. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
Pursuant To Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. (Maps 1 and lA)
Skinner, M. W. and B. M. Pavlik. 1994. Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of
California. Special Publication #1, 5th Ed. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
338 pp.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1966. Soil Survey Alameda Area, California. United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with California
Agricultural Extension Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Second edition,
revised. Houghton Mifflin Book Co., Boston. 336 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. Jurisdictional Determination and Map for the Dublin
Transit Center. Letter addresses to Mr. Stuart Cook. Letter dated June 5, 2001. Corps File
Number 25892S.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Final Determinations of Critical Habitat for
the California Red-legged Frog; Final Rule. March 13,2001. Federal Register 66(49):
14626-14758.
WESCO. 1991 a. Final Results of Surveys for San Joaquin Kit Fox and Burrowing Owl in
the Dougherty Valley, Contra Costa County. Prepared by Western Ecological Services
Company, Inc., Novato, CA. Prepared for City of San Ramon, San Ramon, CA. 20 pp. +
appendices.
WESCO. 1991 b. Results of Supplemental Surveys for San Joaquin Kit Fox on the
Macintosh G3:Desktop Folder:Final Bio Section
-
..
..
-
..
..
..
..
.
.
-
.
..
..
-
..
-
..
..
Dougherty Valley Project Site. Prepared by Western Ecological Services Company, Inc.,
Novato, CA. Prepared for Contra Costa Community Development Department, Martinez,
CA. 7 -page letter report.
Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. Eds. 1990. California's
Wildlife. Volume II: Birds. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System.
California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 731 pp.
Zentner and Zenter. 2000. Tassajara Creek Subdivision Red-legged Frog Cumulative
Impacts Analysis. February 2, 2000.
PersonalCommunkatwns
Cook, Stuart. Alameda County Surplus Property Authority.
Appendix A
Plant Species Observed November 29, 2000
Dublin Transit Center, Alameda County
Scientific Name
Alisma plantago-aquatica
Atriplex triangularis
Avenafatua
Baccharis pilular is
Brassica sp.
Bromus diandrus
Centaurea solstitialis
Cirsium vulgare
Convolvulus arvensis
Conyza canadensis
Cortaderia sellona
Crypsis schoenoides
Cynodon dactylon
Cyperus erthrorhizos
Distichlis spicata
Dittrichia graveolens
Common Name
water plantain
spearscale
wild oats
coyote bush
wild mustard
ripgut brome
yellow star thistle
bull thistle
field bindweed
horseweed
pampus grass
swamp timothy
Bermuda grass
red-root cyperus
salt grass
skunkwort
Macintosh G3:Desktop Folder:Final Bio Section
Elymus gluacus blue wild rye ..
Epilobium densiflorum dense-flowered willow herb
Epilobium brachycarpum panic1ed willow herb .-
Eryngium sp. coyote thistle
Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue ..
Foeniculum vulgare fennel
Frankenia salina alkali heath ..
Geranium moUe dove's foot geraniu..'11
Hemizonia parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon's spikeweed .,
Hirschfeldia incana hirshfeldia
Kickxia sp. fluellin -
Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce
Leymus triticoides creeping wild rye .
Lolium multiflorum Italian ryegrass
Lupinus sp. lupine ..
Lythrum hyssopifolium hyssop loosestrife
Malva neglecta common mallow ..
Meli/otus alba white sweet clover
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm ..
Picris echioides bristly ox-tongue
Plantago lanceolata English plantain ..
Polygonum arenastrum common knotweed .
Polypogon monspeliensis rabbit's foot grass ..
Rumex crispus curly dock
Rumex sp. dock ..
Salix laevigata red willow
Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow ..
Salsola tragus tumbleweed
Scirpus acutus var. occidentalis hardstem bulrush ..
Silybum marianum milk thistle
Spergularia rubra ruby sand spurrey ..
Trifolium hirtum rose clover
Macintosh G3:Desktop Folder:Final Bio Section .
..
..
Typha latifolia
Vicia [aba
Vicia sp.
Xanthium stromarium
broad-leaved cattail
fava bean
vetch
cocklebur
Appendix B
Wildlife Species (and sign) Observed November 29, 2000
Dublin Transit Center, Alameda County
Common Name
Scientific Name
Amphibians
Pacific tree frogs
Birds
Ring-billed gull
American crow
Hyla regilla
Rock dove
Mourning dove
Western meadowlark
American goldfinch
Western scrub-jay
Red-winged blackbirds
Mammals
Botta's pocket gopher
California ground squirrel
Black-tailed deer
Larus delawarensis
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Columba livia
Zenaida macroura
Sturnella neglecta
Carduelis tristis
Aphelocoma californica
Agelaius phoeniceus
Thomomys bottae
Spermophilus beecheyi
Odocoi/eus hemionus columbianus
Macintosh G3:Desktop Folder:Final Bio Section
FRQM C0M11UNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY-ADMIN.
(THU) 6. 7' 01 14:49/ST. 14:49/NO. 4862230122 P 2
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, c:oRPS OF ENGINEERS
333 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. CAWFORNlA 94105-2197
JU It If 5 . 2fXl1
~Pt YTO
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: File Number 258928
Mr. Stuart Cook
Alameda County Comm:wlity Development Agency
224 W_ Wmton Avenue~ Room 110
Hayward, CA 94544-1215
Dear Mr. Cook:
Thank you for your letter dated January 31, 2001 requesting a re-examination of
Department of the Army jurisdiction on the Dublin Transit Center Site in the City of Dublin.
Alameda County~ California. The site was orig:j'rwlly delineated in conjunction with the
constnlction of the Bay Area Rapid Transit Station and parking lot (Corps' File Numbers 21292
E75 and 18529 E75). Subsequently, a permit was issued authorizing the fill of all 2.8 acres of
jurisdictional waters delineated on the 75-acre site.
Based upon our site visit of April 21" 2001 and the information you submitted to this
office, we have determined that the 75-acre does not contain any jurisdictional waters of the US.
A small O.03-acre wetland exists in the western comer of the property, however~ this wetland is
an isolated, non-navigable~ interstate water and therefore not subject to regulation under Section
404 of the Clean. Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). A revised jurisdictional map reflecting these
changes is included with thi~ letter. This determination will expire in five years from the date of
this letter unless new information warrants revi,sion of the determination before the expiration
date.
This determination does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal.. State or local
approvals required by law, including compliance with the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). In particular, the State of Califomia's Regional Water Quality Control Board may
still regulate any proposed activities that impact the small O.03-acre wetland. Therefore" in
addition to contacting other Federal and local agencies, you should also contact state regulatory
authprlties to determine whether .any future activities may require other authorizations or pennits.
-
.
.
-
..
-
-
..
..
..
-
-
-
-
..
..
-
-
..
FROM COM1JUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY-ADMIN.
(THU) 6. 7' 01 14:50/ST. 14:49/NO. 4862230122 P 3
If you have any questions. please call Phelicia Gomes of our Regulatory Branch at
telephone 415-917-8452. All correspondence should reference the file number at the head of this
letter.
Copy furnished:
US EP A, San FIa11cisco, CA
Lucy MacMillan! Mill Valley, CA
Sincerely,
Qdvin C. .Fong
CIUct: Regulatory Branch
z
~.
:::;;;;
Cl
<x::
I
>-
C)
Z
f-I.l
e}
-<<::
E-<
Z
rx.l
::?
fl.
o
~
J:.Ll
:>
rx.l
Cl
>-
[-c1
~.
Z
P
~
o
C)
;:::.;
o
cc:
J:x...
"".
Cl"t
C'-J
~~
..-0
<::>
m
C'-J
C'-J
~
CO
'<;j-'
d
~
'.
0'1
"<;t'
'<;j-'
~
U2
",
o
LC'>
"".
~
~~
C;,
t--
o
S.
:::r::
E-..
..........--.
I
1
I
GRAPHIC SCALE
... ...
~
,... . ~oo It
...
CAMP PARKS
RFTA
I
I
I
I I I I I I I I
- - - - - ~
I
"1
l .
~ -
~
1 I
~ ~ I!
?l J
~ !If
~ ., ~ j
~ '_ - I
~
..
_ - e
::'! 2-
ii i!
!i'J
r )1
- ? .'
; - ) ~
/ .
- -. ,j,~
- ~
r
'" (.'~ ,
~~ -t (
"If '" Rl .. \1 '"
I C I
~ J)
~ ' ,
\ ( ,'~
d ~ r )
h: 1/ _ i
~ ~.,
~ = ~ E. ~
... ":I; D ~
~ - - - - ~
Dublin 'f~ Center Si~ (Corps rDe No. 258928)
I
Appendix 8.6
Cultural Resources
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 212
July 2001
boLmamASSOC'ATES
Auchaeological Consultants
"SINCE THE BEGINNING"
. 361S FOLSOM ST. SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA 94110 41~/~SO-7.2B<5"
r";"';'"
Jerry Haag
2029 University Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94704
December 6, 2000
Dear Mr. Haag:
~
RE: ARCHIVAL RESEARCH AND FIELD INSPECTION OF THE PROPOSED DUBLIN
TRANSIT CENTER EIR PROJECT AREA, DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
At your request I have completed an archaeological field inspection of the proposed
project located just north of Highway 580 in Dublin, Alameda County. While no archaeological
materials were seen on the surface of the project area, archival research suggests that there is a
high potential that the area could contain buried prehistoric deposits. This report contains a
summary of findings to date along with recommendations for further site evaluation.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project (Transit Center) consists of an approximately 91 acre parcel ofland
located directly north of the existing Dublin- Pleasanton Bart station. Located on the Dublin
U.S.G.S. map ofthe area, the borders of the property are defined by 1-580 to the south, Iron
Horse Trail to the west, Dublin Boulevard on the north and Arnold Road on the east. Currently
the property is vacant with the exception of the Bart station parking lot. A small triangle of land
is also included above Dublin Boulevard west of its intersection with Arnold Road; this property
is covered with imported fill and is being used to store construction equipment currently. Plans
call for the construction of two million square feet of office development, 1500 dwelling units,
70,000 feet of retail commercial development and a multi-level parking lot to serve the Bart
station.
ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Archival research was conducted personally by this author at the Northwest Information
Center located at Sonoma State University to obtain information regarding recorded
archaeological sites in and around the Transit Center, and information about previous
archaeological field studies of the project area. In addition, Dr. Richard Ambro of Holman &
Associates conducted research at the Map Library located at the University of California at
Berkeley to trace historical settlement and/or use inside the project area.
The Northwest Information Center (file no. 00-929) contains no recorded archaeological
=-
sites, either historic or prehistoric in nature inside the current project area. The nearest
archaeological sites were recorded in the 1970 and 80s inside the Hacienda Business Park: Ala-
413 and 467 were two prehistoric sites recorded and excavated by Holman & Associates; a third
historic site, the Abijah Baker house site, was also excavated by Holman & Associates in the
1980s; no report for this work has been produced to date.
There have been 4 archaeological field inspections done in the immediate area, one of
which covered part of the Transit Center, and one of which apparently also covered an
undetermined portion of it and another which may have covered the entire area. In 1986 Rogers,
Rogers and Hylkema surveyed a 400 acre portion of Camp Parks for a new cemetery area;
unfortunately their report contains no map of the area covered by them. In their report they cite a
1981 report by Roop and Flynn which also covered the entire Camp Parks area, but which did
not cover the current project area according to the maps on file at the Northwest Information
Center: in that report Roop and Flynn recorded 4 historic sites and 26 prehistoric sites to the
north of the present project area in the foothills. Research done for other projects in the past 15
years has demonstrated that perhaps none of the prehistoric site locations should have been
recorded in the first place: work by this author and others has failed to find traces of the
prehistoric artifacts first noted by Roop and Flynn in many of the areas first inspected by them.
In 1989 Suzanne Baker completed an archaeological field and archival study of a project
area which covered a portion of the Transit Center: the 35 acre parcel slated for construction of
parking lot was inspected by Baker, who also noted that the area had been surveyed in 1981 by
Roop and Flynn with negative findings. While Baker noted that survey conditions were less than
perfect, she did report on the discovery of the several historic north-south running depressions
containing burned metal, glass, bone and ash. At the time of her field inspection (1989) the area
contained only a single metal shed from the period when this area contained numerous buildings
associated with Camp Parks, along with standing fire hydrants which marked former street
locations.
Baker dismissed the potential significance of the historic deposits seen by her based upon
their age, which at the time of her survey, was less than 50 years in age:
"Camp Parks, as discussed above in the historical section of this report, was constructed
in the early 1940s during the World War II era. It is consequently less than 50 years of
age. It is also considered to be of less importance than other similar bases. The artifactual
materials in this location are less than 50 years of age, have been widely dispersed, and
there is no structural integrity. For all these reasons, therefore, these materials cannot be
considered eligible for the National Register of historic Places (King 1987). Because the
materials in this area are not over 50 years of age, they have not been recorded as an
archaeological site. (Baker and Shoup pp.27).
It should be noted that 11 years have passed since the Baker and Shoup report, making
the materials noted by them (and by this author during the most recent field inspection) over 50
years in age, and thus potentially significant both under current CEQA guidelines and federal
law.
2
-
..
..
~
-
..
.-.
..
-
.
-
..
..
-
..
..
..
.
-
III
Finally a portion of the old Southern Pacific right of way through the property (now
known as Iron Horse Trail) was surveyed by Alison Macdougall in 1994 with negative results.
In addition to the archival research undertaken at the Northwest Information Center, Dr.
Richard Ambro of Holman & Associates conducted research at the Map Library located at D.C.
Berkeley to chart the historic development ofthe Transit Center in the 20th century.
The earliest map consulted (1906) revealed no evidence of occupation, suggesting that
the general area was open, being used either to graze cattle or for agriculture (D.S.G.S. 1906).
There was a nearby late 19th century/early 20th century homesite immediately outside and some
400 feet/122 meters northwest of the northwest comer of the project area, connected by a north-
south trending road to the old Livermore-Hayward Road (now Highway 580). The D.S.G.S.
maps of the following two decades were reprints of the 1906 maps and offer no new information.
(:~
The D.S.G.S. Survey map of 1940 reveals that by that date the old (off project) homesite
had been removed, and that the northwest trending Southern Pacific railroad line had been
constructed, the alignment of which now forms the western border of the Transit Center property.
The only structures present on this map are one in the extreme southeast comer and the other in
the extreme southwest corner of the current project area. Their use or affiliation are uncertain.
The map of 1947 reveals no changes inside the Transit Center.. By 1953, the U.S.G.S. map
shows the area of Camp Parks had been heavily built up into a gridwork of streets and buildings,
and that a railroad spur had been built along the northern boundary of the project area, with a
smaller spur cutting southwest across the narrow portion of the northwest comer of the current
project area. The project parcel was otherwise devoid of structures, as the buildings previously
cited in the southern corners of the project parcel were gone. By 1953 Camp Parks had been
labeled "Parks Air Force Base" and six tanks set in two rows were located in the extreme
northwest comer of the project parcel (U.S.G.S.196l). The revised maps of 1968 and 1970 show
no additional changes to the project area. An air photo of the area in 1970 reveals that the tanks
had apparently been removed leaving a pad (noted by Baker in 1989). Of interest is evidence of a
disturbed area in the center of the project parcel that might have been a dump served by several
dirt roads crossing the parcel. The age of this dump, presumably serving Camp Parks, is
uncertain.
~
The map evidence suggests that the age of the buildings (now all removed) from the
Transit Center may post date World War II. The dump however, noted by Baker and Shoup from
their field investigation, and apparently visible on maps by 1953, may in fact be more than 50
years old.
DESCRIPTION OF FIELD INSPECTION
The visual inspection of the project area was conducted by this author during the last
week of November, 2000. With the exception of the parking lot and the small triangle ofland
north of Dublin Boulevard, the entire Transit Center parcel was inspected by walking 20 meter
transects throughout to inspect it for evidence of either historic or prehistoric cultural resources.
3
,..~
It is abundantly evident that the entire parcel has been altered historically in one form or
another: a portion of the project area (mostly along its northern edge) has been filled several feet
with imported fill and construction debris. Throughout the remainder of the parcel, which was
devoid of grass covering at the time of the field inspection, the soils consisted of a brown to
black clay soil containing large amounts of gravels and evidence of construction debris
throughout: it appears that in the process of leveling the former military buildings in this area the
debris from the demolition and removal of the streets was incorporated into the native soils.
In the approximate center of the parcel near Highway 580 is an area of darker than
surrounding soils which contains visible amounts of historic debris. At the time of the field
inspection this area had been staked off, marking the perimeter of the darker soils for most of its
aerial extent. The stakes were marked "JRA anomaly: historic debris, including several1950s
vintage ketchup bottles, were piled next to one of the stakes. An inquiry with Mr. Stuart Cook of
the Alameda County Planning Department revealed that the stakes marked an area which had
been the subject of magnetometer sweeps to locate buried heating ducts for future removal.
FINDINGS/RECOMMENDA TIONS
No evidence of prehistoric cultural resources was seen anywhere inside the Transit Center
project area. Historic debris, mostly in the form of debris from demolished buildings, is seen
throughout the project area. Historic artifacts noted by this author included the cache of ketchup
bottles (50 years or less in age) and other implements which are undatable, such as a steel file
and other pieces of metal debris. Porcelain and glass fragments are seen throughout the area.
In summary, it is apparent that the Transit Center parcel contains abundant historic
artifactual material, which mayor may not be considered significant under current CEQA
guidelines. The dumps noted by Baker and Shoup and which appear on the 1950s topographic
maps may no longer be discrete entities; while concentrations may exist inside the area of the
"anomaly", the historic dumping and grading of the parcel has effectively masked the exact
location of the actual dump deposits.
The question of the potential significance of any such deposits remains open. While
Baker and Shoup dismissed historical artifactual materials noted by them based upon their
relative age (less than 50 years) and based upon their findings that Camp Parks was considered
an unimportant military facility based upon federal environmental guidelines, the passage of time
(11 years) may have changed that view. As of2000 the historical material may in fact qualify as
significant under CEQA guidelines, being over 50 years in age. Likewise the military base,
which has played an active role in wars beginning with W orId II and continuing through the Gulf
War, may be considered historically significant. Ifthis were the case, then any concentrations of
historical archaeological material which might aid in an historical appreciation of the base
through time would also be considered significant.
There is also still a high potential that the Transit Center may contain buried prehistoric
archaeological materials similar to those found to the south inside the Hacienda Business Park,
which have been obscured either by historic activities on the property, or which exist under the
4
-
.
..
(IlII!
,-
-
.
-
...
-
.
..
Wi
'.
-
-
..
..
,.
-
.,...r~
flood-born silts which cover the shorelines of the former Willow Marsh which existed in the
general area of the Hacienda Business Park. Aboriginal habitation sites situated on the edges of
the marsh and its tributaries were buried under silts beginning approximately 2300 years ago:
two archaeological sites, Ala-413 and 394, situated along the Arroyo Mocho south of Highway
580, were discovered in the 1970s under as much as 10 feet of silt. A combination of ground
subsidence, erosion from the nearby hills and flooding episodes conspired to bury these village
locations which were not re-occupied by the ancestors of the Ohlone nation until some time after
300 A.D.
~
It is the recommendation of this report that further mechanical subsurface testing for the
presence or absence of historic and prehistoric cultural resources be done on a project by project
basis inside the Transit Center borders for those development plans which will result in the
removal or disturbance of soils below the first 24 inches of the existing surface. It is understood
that much of the area will have to be elevated by the importation of fill to make it buildable, but
that utility trenching and different types of foundation treatments may in fact penetrate into the
layers of soil which may contain historic dump deposits and/or prehistoric remains.
,,..,,,,~
In the event that future subsurface testing identify areas of concentrated historical
materials or prehistoric remains, further research should be done to determine the significance of
the materials under current CEQA guidelines. For prehistoric materials this may include limited
test excavations of cultural deposits and analysis of the materials and information removed. For
historic deposits, removal and analysis of samples of materials encountered should be done to
determine the age and research potential of the deposits. In the event that either historic and/or
prehistoric deposits are determined to be significant, then a program of mitigation of impacts to
the resource(s) should be developed to insure that significant data and materials are retrieved for
analysis from areas of additional project related impacts.
Sincerely,
4~
Miley Paul Holman
Holman & Associates
""".'~
-:.:...
5
.,--'::::'
-
REFERENCES CITED
.,
Baker, Suzanne and Laurence Shoup
1989 TECHNICAL REPORT: CULTURAL RESOURCES BART
DUBLIN/PLEASANTON EXTENSION PROJECT. On file, Northwest
Information Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University
..
.,
Macdougall, Alison
1994
Cultural Resource Investigation ofPG&E's Proposed Willow Pass
Substation Addition, Willow Pass Tap, East Dublin BART Dedicated
Substation, and Castro Valley Substation Addition. On file, NWI C
-
.
Rodgers, Rodgers and Hylkema
1986 A CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
NATIONAL CEMETERY SITES AT SANTA NELLA AND CAMP
PARKS. On file, NWIC.
~
-
Roop, William and Katherine Flynn
1981 Cultural Resources Literature Search and Field Reconnaissance of Camp
Parks, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. On file, NWI C.
..
United States Geological Survey
1906 Livermore Calif. Quad., 15' series. Washington, D.C.
.
1940
Livermore Calif. Quad., IS' series. Washington, D.C.
,.
1947
Livermore Calif. Quad., IS' series. Washington, D. C.
-
1953
Dublin, Calif. Quad., 7.5' series. Washington, D.C.
..
1961
Dublin, Calif. Quad., 7.5' series. Washington, D. C.
1968
Dublin, Calif. Quad., 7.5' series. Washington, D. C.
''@Ill
1970
Dublin, Calif. Quad., Orthophoto quad. 7.5' series. Washington, D.C.
.,
1973
Dublin, Calif. Quad., 7.5' series, 1969 photorevised 1973. Washington,
D.C.
..
-
-
6
.
DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER PROJECT AREA
DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
r~
DUBLIN U.S.G.S. MAP photorevised 1980
--"'"
-~
I
. I
; I
I
,: / '~",,; I
..;'c.; , '~u.e~ I ~
Fi7:'~~~7~~lt:::~ ~
~t:f' "'.~?&L!!!nlll!'..
~~/II('~.~~7 ·
~. -j -/"'<:;!.~~~~\.
!Il;'''-:::'':/- ../ - ~ '010 _. .
· " 1-'''7'~ . ~
,.11, PROJECT AREA-----------
"~i , I -GT>A';:;Y~' '''-ne'.e
~ ~ ~~/
. .~ \\ ~__ \p<BM
} :1 ,,,,*'if,. ~ I \1~ " '.; 325
.,A: ,~"-'-..~ \ I ~ ;)
, ' ,. ~:":--i'~ 1 ~ \~\ · ~l
\".......".,.>1 -;; 1\\ :..t.\
").' .-~l ';d -m \ I
.. \( I -<
\ '. J'
..... ~ I ~ '
.\ \ ":.~\ ~--~ \~
;80 '.'~;~"'.'. - I ~ \'
\ \ I .... 'I
~\ \ I :!:.
1> \ I 0"\
~~\ :t.,. I
o ,I\,~ ,~/~9~~j:~,~~~:f.~~!~1
J):, '.(\:i;:; \ '":;::-.::~:~~, 0 ]
>~\i " ~)>
" oc:x:! ~
:'~i c-
hi'
:tli
I, 1/
-((\ ~i >"'-j)
'\ ,j! .
"} .a
\ 1_/'-1
~ -1r~:t~'-
------If- ~d
II'''~
.I
,-----,
'.580.;
~.:
'"
~
i;:
'i~ I
-1\1;'
"Cy' ...J\~ :
. CyLi..i' . .
Cy"> (I)!!: 1 00
"" h"(],~ /
c:,- ~t.. ';
~Cy ~il / ,\
'f~.2 ....'
~.
~L
./~o ;!
,<">7' I
~ ~ ~,:.,
,\"..\. .,
, ,'\Wells
~"
MIL RES t
'~,
...-"';",
C)
~
1Il
o
...
..J
~
<(
u
~
'-6
v
v
T A
~
l-
I-
'"
~~
~
,"0
~oc,.
.--/ "' ~'- ').,:,
~ ,)'\,
,..,..,<'~.f
..
DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER PROJECT AREA
DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
-'
\II!I
DUBLIN U.S.G.S. MAP 1968 photorevised 1973
.,
-
@
.
IIIIIi
. ;:t ::,-r
.' \ i'
~.~.-
1. ,
:\.:;
. /!~
;.
ell
DUBLIN U.S.G.S. MAP 1953
..
..
..
..
~\,
..............;.............;;.....;...;.....'~.\
>1.' ~,
r\ . .; .' ~\\
'.
~\
Windmill
is
-
..
-
-
.~~
,.....If"""'.
Appendix 8.7
Traffic Report
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 213
July 2001
,.....,
/'
f._____
Consultant I S Report:
Transportation Impacts
For the Proposed
DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER
Prepared For:
THE CITY OF DUBLIN
Draft Report
April 27, 2001
.
O. .. mnl.~. r:;;:\!~iR'I@.
. I U U U\9~.J u'C::::.
ENGINEERS.PLANNERS
-
..
..
Consultant's Report On The
Transportation hnpacts
For The Proposed
..
.
Wi
-
..
-
-
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~1rFt()I)IJ<:1rI()~............................................................................ 1
S;~1r1L~(;...................................................................................... 1
~
Street Network........................................................................
Existing Transit Service.............................................................
Existing Traffic Flow Conditions.... ...... ........ ... ..... ..... ......... ..... .....
Interim Roadway and Intersection Circulation Improvements..............
Transportation and Parking Policies...............................................
1
5
7
9
13
Jf(J~~ IJll~~ <:()~I1rI()~~.......................................................... 16
Future Base Circulation Assumptions............. ................................ 16
Approved and Pending Projects.. ................................................. 18
Intersection LOS: Future Base Conditions...................................... 20
J>FtOJrECT ~~]JOFtTATION J1v.ll>>ACT~......................................... 24
Significance Criteria............................................................ ...... 24
Proposed Project Description....................................................... 25
Proposed Project Trip Generation................................................. 26
Proposed Project Trip Distribution............... ................................ 28
Effects of Proposed Project on Intersection LOS.............................. 29
Effects of Proposed Project on Transit Operation............................... 41
Effects of Proposed Project on Parking.......................................... 43
<:~~1LJl\T~ 1rFt~~<: ~~<:1L~.................................................. ~
Year 2025 Base Year Methodology............................................... 44
Year 2025 Street Network Improvements....... ... .. ...... . .... .... .......... .. 45
Year 2025 Without Project Intersection LOS.................................... 48
Year 2025 With Project Intersection LOS....................................... 50
Average Daily Traffic Analysis. ......................... .... ..... ....... ......... 54
1-580 Mainline Freeway Operation...... ............... ................... ........ 56
Operational LOS: Dublin/Dougherty & Hacienda/I-580 EB Off........... 56
TRANSPORTATION MI1rIGA TION ................................................... 61
Existing Traffic Conditions...... ........................... ........................ 61
Exist Plus Future Base Traffic Conditions....................................... 61
Exist Plus Future Base Plus Project Traffic Conditions....................... 61
Cumulative Year 2025 Without Project Traffic Conditions.................. 64
Cumulative Year 2025 With Project Traffic Conditions...................... 65
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: Existing Intersection LOS, AM and PM Peak Hour....................
TABLE 2: Existing + Future Base Intersection LOS..................................
TABLE 3: Proposed Dublin Transit Center Trip Generation........................
TABLE 4: Exist + Future Base + Project Intersection LOS.......................
TABLE 5: Internal Intersection Operation, AM and PM Peak Hour...............
TABLE 6: Year 2025 No Project Intersection LOS...................................
TABLE 7: Year 2025 With Project Intersection LOS................................
TABLE 8: Projected Average Daily Traffic.... .......... ....... ........... .... ..... ....
TABLE 9: Year 2025 1-580 Mainline Freeway LOS..................................
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Project Vicinity Map........... ..............................................
FIGURE 2: Transit Map....................................................................
FIGURE 3: Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes..........................................
FIGURE 4: Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes...........................................
FIGURE 5: Existing + Future Base AM Peak Hour Volumes......................
FIGURE 6: Existing + Future Base PM Peak Hour Volumes......................
FIGURE 7: Exist + Future Base + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes............
FIGURE 8: Exist + Future Base + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes.............
FIGURE 9: Internal Study Intersection AM Peak Hour Volumes...................
FIGURE 10: Internal Study Intersection PM Peak Hour Volumes...................
FIGURE 11: Recommended Internal Roadway & Intersection Geometries........
FIGURE 12: Year 2025 No Project AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes.............
FIGURE 13: Year 2025 No Project PM and PM Peak Hour Volumes.............
FIGURE 14: Year 2025 With Project AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes..........
FIGURE 15: Year 2025 With Project PM and PM Peak Hour Volumes..........
..
..
12
23
27
32
40
49
53
55
57
..
..
..
..
2
6
10
11
21
22
30
31
34
35
37
46
47
51
52
~
..
..
-
..
-
.
-
-
-
~
-
..
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
The following section describes the transportation and parking characteristics for the proposed
Dublin Transit Center. This section includes the evaluation of key intersections in the study area,
points of congestion, transit service, planned circulation improvements, overall parking
characteristics, and City transportation and parking policies. In evaluating the Specific Plan
areas, special consideration was given to the transportation opportunities and constraints unique
to the area and surrounding street network.
A. SETTING
1. Street Network
The proposed Dublin Transit Center would be located in East Dublin south and north of Dublin
Boulevard. Specifically, the project site would be located both east and west of the existing
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station bordered by Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive, and Interstate
580 (see Figure 1). Streets that provide access into and around the project study area include
Dougherty Road, Hopyard Road, Dublin Boulevard, Scarlett Drive, DeMarcus Boulevard, Iron
Horse Parkway, Arnold Road, Hacienda Drive, Central Parkway, Gleason Drive, Tassajara
Road, Pimlico Drive, Santa Rita Road, The Boulevard (future), Campus Drive (future), and
Altamirano Road (future).
"'-
The local circulation system serving the planning area vicinities is diagrammed in Figure 1. To
preface, many of the study intersections and streets are currently under construction. This would
include intersection improvements, street extensions, and street widening. For these reasons, the
following descriptions of existing roadways and intersections are subject to change. A brief
description of each roadway follows:
Dougherty Road. Dougherty Road extends in a north-south direction west of the project site.
A major arterial street, Dougherty Road has four travel lanes north of Dublin Boulevard. South
of Dublin Boulevard, the roadway widens to six travel lanes as it passes over Interstate 580. A
full-access interchange for eastbound/westbound traffic is located at Dougherty/I-580. In the
study area, Dougherty Road provides access primarily to commercial-retail areas. North of
Dublin Boulevard, the roadway provides access to residential areas as it approaches Amador
Valley Boulevard. Dougherty Road is designated as a Metropolitan Transportation System
(MTS) roadway by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) Congestion
Management Program (CMP).'
"""-
Hopyard Road. Hopyard Road extends south from Dougherty Road on the south side of
lAlameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA), Congestion Management ProlZram,
1999.
,-
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
1
I tfUIOIHIN
J IIJlItJJlDWl
ItlAIlUlOflOW'/
'SllIIAI00.l1lT.
5 tI1IS1UWr.
, WOOOBIN(IIY
i,Q'
r
I
I
'ell" " !
',: ('
,,:~
:lfttllUNAt
'. '1
'j
, ~ \l1~\
,)
.,~
vi
,
~"
BLYD
i
I;
AP"WltA.NO
o
"
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
AREA
,
,
I
SANTA RITA
REHABILITATION CENTER
"""",,,CC<.MY
. SN{1'AM'A"""-
DEft ---oiVii:'" - - _h~r:
!l,"
~~10H CII".:I
IAMIEIl.GUIfC
2 IOUtlOODu.
~
I
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
11.5-
I "'.
m
li!
TRAINING
FEDERAL
CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION
,g
.
..
"
GlBRAllAR
o
"
PROJECT
SITE
PARKS)
ST.
~
~
~
o
.' 'ntt. ,~J~! ~~.-r
t,""I~"'-'l'I""'\
-.-.,\1...." .
,
,
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
"""
HO
fl:o.e
"
!>
(CAMP
&TII
I
usLw.,
IfESERVf
~I.~~
!5
II
Pl-EASANTON
+
North
I
figure 1
.
.
I
I
I
,j
Project Site Location Map
I
I
t
I
.
I
.
~
c
@1Jili)[fUOClmeans
- - -
- -
. I J I .
Interstate 580. A six lane roadway, Hopyard Road provides access to commercial and office
development in the City of Pleasanton. Hopyard Road is designated as an MTS roadway in the
ACCMA's CMP.
.........-.-
Dublin Boulevard. Dublin Boulevard is in various stages of improvement and widening between
Scarlett Drive and Hacienda Drive in the project study area. Currently, the roadway has two
travel lanes open to traffic in this segment. However, with ongoing widening the roadway will
provide six travel lanes in each direction. In addition, new or upgraded signals are also being
installed at the Demarcus Boulevard, Iron Horse Parkway and Arnold Road intersections. An
east-west roadway, Dublin Boulevard provides access to commercial office and residential areas.
Between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road Dublin Boulevard has been completely improved
with three travel lanes in each direction and raised landscaped medians. Dublin Boulevard is
designated as an MTS roadway in the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency's CMP.
Scarlett Drive. Scarlett Drive is located west of the project site. Extending south from Dublin
Boulevard, Scarlett Drive has two travel lanes and provides access to automobile dealerships as
well as light-industrial areas between Dublin Boulevard and Interstate 580.
DeMarcus Boulevard. DeMarcus Boulevard extends in a southerly direction from Dublin
Boulevard and provides direct access to the East Dublin BART Station and parking areas. It
consists of a four-lane roadway with raised landscaped medians. The directional flow of traffic
to the BART station is generally inbound via DeMarcus Boulevard and outbound on Iron Horse
Parkway (to the east).
Iron Horse Parkway. Iron Horse Parkway extends in a southerly direction from Dublin
Boulevard and provides access to the East Dublin BART Station. Similar to DeMarcus
Boulevard, Iron Horse Parkway has four travel lanes with raised landscaped medians. Iron
Horse Parkway primarily provides access to BART parking lots. Through-vehicle access to the
BART station is prohibited from Iron Horse Parkway. All vehicles must access the BART
surface parking lots or turn-around via a traffic circle.
Arnold Road. Arnold Road extends in a northerly direction from Dublin Boulevard. A wide,
two-lane roadway, Arnold Road provides access to existing office and high-tech businesses on
the east side of the roadway. Currently, Arnold Road does not extend south of Dublin
Boulevard.
Hacienda Drive. Hacienda Drive is a north-south arterial street extending from Gleason Drive
to south of 1-580. South of 1-580 Hacienda Drive has six travel lanes. North of 1-580 the
roadway has four travel lanes to Dublin Boulevard and then three travel lanes continuing north
to Gleason Drive. Hacienda Drive provides access to retail, office, and residential areas east of
the project site.
Central Parkway. Central Parkway extends between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road. A
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
3
two lane roadway, the street is closed to through-traffic at the Tassajara Creek vvercrossing due
to ongoing construction of adjacent residential development. With raised landscaped medians,
Central Parkway provides access to residential development in the study area.
Gleason Drive. Gleason Drive is an east-west roadway that extends between Arnold Road and
Tassajara Road. This roadway has four travel lanes with raised landscaped medians and provides
access to commercial and office development north of the project site.
Tassajara Road. Tassajara Road extends north from Interstate 580. A two-lane roadway,
Tassajara Road primarily provides access to residential areas east of the project site. It is noted
that Tassajara Road is currently being widened to provide four travel lanes between 1-580 to
north of Gleason Drive. Tassajara Road is designated as an MTS roadway in the ACCMA's
CMP.
Pimlico Drive. Pimlico Drive extends east from Santa Rita Road opposite the Interstate 580
eastbound off-ramp. A two lane roadway, Pimlico Drive provides access to commercial-retail
areas.
..
.,
-
-
-
..
..
111I1
Santa Rita Road. Santa Rita Road is a six lane roadway that extends south from Interstate 580.
Opposite Tassajara Road, Santa Rita Road has raised landscaped medians and provides access
to residential and office development in the City of Pleasanton. Santa Rita Road is designated .'
as an MTS roadway in the ACCMA's CMP.
The Boulevard (future roadway). The Boulevard would provide direct access to the Dublin ..
Transit Center. This roadway would be located south of Dublin Boulevard and extend between
Hacienda Drive and DeMarcus Boulevard with varying numbers of travel lanes.
Campus Drive (future roadway). Campus Drive would extend south from Dublin Boulevard
into the project site. Located between Iron Horse Parkway and Arnold Road, Campus Drive
would provide access to office development.
Altamirano Drive (future roadway). Altamirano Drive would extend between Arnold Road
and the proposed BART parking structure. Paralleling Interstate 580, Altamirano Road would
also intersect Campus Drive before continuing west towards the parking structure.
On a regional basis, main access to the project site would be provided by Interstate 580 (1-580).
This is a multi-lane east-west freeway that provides access to the adjoining cities of Pleasanton
and Livermore. Regionally, the freeway provides access east to Tracy and west to Hayward and
Oakland. 1-580 full-access interchanges are located at Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, Hacienda
Drive, and Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road in the project study area. Interstate 680 (1-680) is
a six-lane, north-south freeway that provides access north through Contra Costa County to south
of Santa Clara County. On a regional basis, 1-680 provides access to San Jose to the south and
1-80 (Cordelia) to the north. Interchanges are located at Alcosta Boulevard, 1-580, and
Transponarion Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
-
.
..
'8
..
.
.
4
-
.
Stoneridge Drive. Both freeways are designated as MTS routes in the ACCMA's CMP.
2. Existing Transit Service
(a) Bus Service
The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority or "Wheels" provides the primary bus transit
service through the Dublin area. Figure 2 illustrates existing transit routes serving the project
study area. Wheels routes that currently serve the project study area include lA, lB, 3, 4, 10,
lOA, l2x, ACE. These bus routes provide access to both west and east Dublin as well as
numerous outlying areas. Wheels bus routes are described in more detail below:
Wheels Route lA and lB: This route serves the project study area both north, south, and east
of the project site. From the Dublin BART station, route lA accesses Dublin Boulevard east to
Hacienda Drive. The route then extends north to Gleason Drive and Broder Boulevard before
returning south to Dublin Boulevard. From Dublin Boulevard the route access Tassajara Road,
Santa Rita Road, Rosewood Drive until returning to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Route
lB travels in the opposite direction on the same streets. Headways are every 30 minutes during
the weekdays. There is no operation on weekends. Current monthly ridership averages
approximately 3,098 passengers.
Wheels Route 3: This route serves the Dublin Boulevard corridor as well as areas to the north.
In the study area, route 3 accesses the Dublin BART station, Dublin Boulevard, and Dougherty
Road before continuing on to Wildwood Road, Stagecoach Road, Alcosta Boulevard, Davona
Drive, Village Parkway, Amador Valley Boulevard, Regional Street, and back to Dublin
Boulevard. During peak weekday service, headways are every hour. There is no operation on
weekends. Current monthly ridership averages approximately 2,852 passengers.
Wheels Route 4: This route serves the Dublin Boulevard corridor and areas west of San Ramon
Road before extending south into Pleasanton. In the study area, route 4 accesses the Dublin
BART Station and Dublin Boulevard west all the way to Silvergate Drive. From there, the route
accesses Peppertree Road, Shannon Avenue, and San Ramon Road before extending to
Pleasanton and back to the BART station (via Owens Drive). During peak weekday service
hours, headways are every 30 minutes. There is no operation on weekends. Current monthly
ridership averages approximately 3,809 passengers.
-
Wheels Route 10: This route serves the Dublin Boulevard corridor before extending south into
Pleasanton. In the study area, route 10 accesses the Dublin BART Station and Dublin Boulevard
in a westerly direction before turning south on San Ramon Road. During peak weekday service,
headways are every 15 minutes. On Saturdays and Sundays, headways are every 30 minutes.
It is noted that on Sundays route lOA serves the Santa Rita Jail. From the Dublin BART station,
route lOA accesses Dublin Boulevard, Arnold Road, and Broder Boulevard to the jail. Current
monthly ridership averages approximately 90,869 passengers.
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
5
-:-,;.
-.-.-.---.. 10A Dublin/Pleasanton/BART
,. 3 Dublin/Pleasanton BART
,. 4, 10 Dublin/Pleasanton BART
9 Hacienda Business Park
..Im..
.
......eD..
I ~ Transit Routes Serving Project Area -+ North
~ource: ~oute Ma~ and SC~dule for ~HEEL~a s:rviC.:. of the Livermore ~mador V~"ey Tra~it AuthO~ty) _
I @lIlJUlJil~omea!lS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ flguI!>> 2
I . " '. t I . I . I t. -. I j I j j I i
I y I I
ci
a::
~
<(
~
(/)
~
DR
---.
......... I
: I
: I
: I
: I
: I
.
.
";i 'GLEASON
o
~
z
w
()
:f. CENTRAL PKWY.
.
"
"
I
"
"
I
"
"
I
"
"
.
"
." .~.;.~""
..*';...... .U W --, t"
.... "i.IjU'- - .:
. .
.".
lI) . ".
n ..1"
0: 0.".
<{ ~."
il'i III .1"
o ...1-1-1
'.-
" :"J
',," "
ci
a::
~
W
I
(!)
::>
o
o
,"-
Wheels Route 12X: This route provides service to/from the City of Livermore to the East Dublin
BART Station. Route l2X serves the BART Station from Livermore via 1-580, Tassajara Road,
and Dublin Boulevard Monday through Saturday. Headways are every half hour. On Saturday
service, head ways are every 40 minutes to 1 hour. There is no Sunday service. Current
monthly ridership averages approximately 17,539 passengers.
Ace/Santa Rita/BART Shuttle: The ACE (Altamont Commuter Express) route serves the project
study area from the Dublin BART station via Dublin Boulevard, Arnold Road, Broder
Boulevard, Gleason Drive, and Tassajara Road before travelling south into Pleasanton.
(b) BART System
The East Dublin BART Station is accessed via DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway
from Dublin Boulevard. From DeMarcus Boulevard, through-vehicle access is provided to the
BART station and related parking areas with vehicles continuing in an outbound direction on Iron
Horse Parkway. During the AM and PM commute periods, BART headways are every 15
minutes. Currently, peak ridership at the Dublin BART station occurs during the AM and PM
peak hours. Specifically, during the AM peak hour of 7:30-8:30 AM 1,388 riders access the
BART system (1,063 entries, 325 exits). During the PM peak hour of 5:30-6:30 PM there are
1,266 riders at the station (399 entries, 867 exits).2 Based on conversations with BART staff,
there is excess ridership capacity on the BART system at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. 3
All Wheels routes listed above connect with the Dublin BART station. In addition to Wheels bus
routes, the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) or "County Connection" routes
121,259, and 970 serve the Dublin BART station. These County Connection routes serve areas
to the north in Contra Costa County.
3. Existing Traffic Flow Conditions
The key concern raised by the proposed Dublin Transit Center is the related traffic increases that
would occur on the surrounding street network. The following sections describe the project
study intersections, Level-of-Service concepts, and existing intersection capacity on the
surrounding street network.
(a) Critical Intersections
Intersection operation is usually considered the key factor in determining the traffic handling
capacity of a local roadway system. Based on discussions with City of Dublin Engineering staff,
the following 20 intersections were selected for evaluation of operational characteristics:
2Pam Herhold, BART Financial Planning, DublinlPleasanton BART Station, Daily station
exits/entries, 1999.
3Pamela Herhold, BART Financial Planning, Ibid.....
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
7
Key Project Study Area Intersections:
Intersection Control
.
Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive (future)
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard
Dougherty Road/I-580 Westbound off-ramp
Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound off-ramp
Dublin Boulevard/Scarlett Drive
Dublin Boulevard/DeMarcus Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard/Iron Horse Parkway
Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road
Arnold Road/Central Parkway (future)
Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive
Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway
Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard
Hacienda Drive/The Boulevard (future)
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound off-ramp
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound off-ramp
Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive
Tassajara Road/Central Parkway
Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard
Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound off-ramp
Tassajara Road/I-580 Eastbound off-ramp/Pimlico
Signal (assumed)
Signal
Signal
Signal
Stop-sign (Scarlett Dr.)
Signal
Signal
Stop-sign (Arnold Rd.)
Signal (assumed)
Stop-sign (Hacienda Dr.)
Signal
Signal
Signal (assumed)
Signal
Signal
Stop-sign (Gleason Dr.)
Stop-sign (Central Parkway)
Signal
Signal
Signal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(b) Intersection Levels of Service Methodology
In order to measure and describe the operational status of local roadway networks, traffic
engineers and planners commonly use a grading system called Level-of Service (LOS). The LOS
grading system typically involves a rating scale from LOS A, indicating relatively free-flowing
conditions with minimal delays (zero to five seconds) at intersections, to LOS E, representing
unstable flow conditions with traffic volumes at or near intersection design capacity.
Intersections operating at LOS E or F will have major peak hour delays for vehicles crossing the
intersection (40-60 seconds), resulting in long peak hour queues extending back on all
intersection approaches (please see Appendices for the LOS definitions used by the City and
applied in this analysis for local intersections).
At signalized intersections, LOS is determined by calculating the volumes of conflicting vehicle
turning movements during a one-hour period and dividing that total by the intersection's design
capacity to accommodate such turning movements. The resulting calculation yields a
volume/capacity (v/c) ratio that indicates the Level of Service rating (see Table 1). Intersection
LOS computations have been made for proposed Dublin Transit Center traffic analysis following
the accepted City of Dublin practice; peak hour LOS has been calculated using the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (CCTA) methodology for signalized intersections. This methodology
uses a variation of the Transportation Research Board's "Circular 212 Planning Method" with
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
-
-
..
-
..
-
..
..
-
..
..
..
-
..
-
..
.
8
-
,.
operational capacities. It is acknowledged that the City of Dublin is in Alameda County.
However, the City has consistently used the CCTA methodology to be compatible with other
surrounding cities (Pleasanton and San Ramon).
For un signalized intersections, peak hour LOS has been calculated using the Transportation
Research Board, Highwav Cavacitv Manual--Special Revort 209, 3rd Edition, Chapter 10,
Unsignalized Intersections (Part A), 1998. Vehicle delays at unsignalized intersections represent
the delays experienced by the stop-sign controlled minor street traffic.
(c) Existing Intersection Levels-of-Service
Both AM (7:00-9:00) and PM (4:00-6:00) peak period turning movement counts were either
obtained from the recent transportation analyses in the study area or counted by Omni-Means
Engineers and Planners. ~ 5 From these counts, existing peak hour intersection turning
movement counts were identified and are presented in Figure 3 and 4.
Existing AM and PM peak hour intersection LOS results are presented in Table 1. As shown,
the 15 signalized project study intersections are operating at LOS D or better during both the AM
and PM peak hours. At the Dougherty/Dublin intersection, the calculated LOS is D (0.81)
during the PM peak hour. This intersection experiences heavy northbound and eastbound traffic
volumes coming to/from 1-580. Three of the five unsignalized intersections are operating at LOS
E-F during the PM peak hour. Specifically, the Dublin/Scarlett, Dublin/Arnold, and
Tassajara/Gleason locations are operating at LOS F, E, and E respectively for the minor street
outbound left-turn movements. These three locations have been assumed to be signalized under
the existing plus approved plus pending project scenario.
4. Interim Roadway and Intersection Circulation Improvements
Local roadway and intersection conditions in the project study area are in a state of change due
to ongoing roadway construction. This is evidenced by current widening of Dublin Boulevard
between DeMarcus Boulevard and Hacienda Drive and the widening of Tassajara Road between
the 1-580 westbound off-ramp to beyond Gleason Drive. In addition, signals are being installed
at the Dublin/Arnold and TassajaralGleason intersections. For these reasons, the description of
existing traffic flow conditions is dynamic. All approved and pending roadway and intersection
improvements will be described in detail in Section B: Future Base Conditions.
4'fJKM Transportation Consultants, A Traffic Study For the Prooosed Marriott Hotel, City of
Dublin, Final, October 25, 2000.
sOmni-Means Engineers and Planners, AM and PM peak period intersection counts,
(DeMarcus/Dublin, Iron Horse/Dublin, Arnold/Dublin, Hacienda/Gleason, and Hacienda/Central
Parkway, City of Dublin, November 2000.
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
9
6'
::1;1; a; 0 ~ 0
10 +0
~Jl' l~ T 0
11 ~ ~hf'~'
o .. MCOO
10....
36 .. .... ('\I
17,
-01'-0 ~ 0
~ +0
~..J..~ T 0
o j' ~ihr'~'
o .. 0;':0
0,. M
18, ...
hI'- M 0 't:.- 0
Mg + 0
~"~TO
15 ~ ~":f[ii=
0"f:l1R0
75 ,. .... M
~ 190
T 737
+~
1'-<0
VM
('\I CO
2Qj
~N~ ~415
('\ICO....
~ .. ~ f""177
95 ~ + ~
103" ~~
562,. <0 10
!Q
+94
.. T79
107 +\ ~ ~
60,. ~ ~
III
.-0....('\1 ~ 7
~ + 0
~ " ~ T 119
.....0.....]' ~l -+ r~
o .. 01'-10
o ,. ~('\I
!1l
('\IVO ~ 32
O)~.... + 182
~f .. ~ f"" 189
64 ~ ~ -+ ~
46 .. I'- 0) <0
84 ,. g}:g v
!1l ~
+
~..:t.l~ T
]' ~i"r';,'
+
,.
~ 165
~J" T 704
~+
vO)
....1'-
('\1('\1
~ -
~~
I'-
~"
144 ~ -+ ~
1169,. ~~
M...-
9
8
. ~ 25
~o~ +546
..I"~T 0
77 ~j~ + ~
209 "j 000
o ..1
+ 584
T 0
246 +f ~
28,. 0 ~
7
.. 262
T 332
262 +,1 ~
428,. Cb ~
6
i
\ + 270
\T 17
670 11 ~
15,. ~ ~
....
~
~
en
en
~
;\............
BLVD.
,.............
..'
BLVD.
CENTRAL PKWY
DUBLIN
~!.EASON
~
~
Z
W
(3
:f
d
a:
9
o
Z
0::
<J:
"
"
, "OIl
/(i) ..<"m.,. ': !
,',,8 ; .15 ~ I I
,v g > :t ~ :
\.,,)~ :.J ".% Q; ,',
t:E Cll .,0 ,'I > iBOUlEVARD
":g.,, 0: f.....................
'\ ' THE - ........ ~, :
"~ .....,...... ~ x:o> I
\; PROJECT SI1'E;: !
", :Zi;~,~~~-~~~~i.~~:i.~t~~LU
........
"
..........
'.
".
".
",
d
0::
t
~
w
J:
Cl
:J
o
o
M
I'-
I'-
....
.. .......-...
+
....
,0)
10
- -
- -
1
::.10) ~ I'- ~ 143
v ..,. ~ + 211
~J ; I.. T 176
49 ~ ~-+~
290.. 10 0 <X>
458 ,. co ~ ~
~OM
:g ~ I~ 687
~ T 517
-+~
01'-
1'-('\1
0..,.
....
-
tJ 0) <0 -
v....
10M
....
~ -+~
616 ..+ ....10
1028 ,. ~n::j
I
-+ North
qUA! 3
: .
I
I
I
I
I
VOlumes
I
AM Existing Peak Hour
I
I
I
.
I
I
~
@lJi1i)lliltl",means
- -
I . I I
I
16'
-<O....O-t..O
(')~ +0
~...~ TO
79 ..J. ~..+..~
0-. 0)<00
155 ,. ~:2
!1l
0.....0 -t.. 0
.... +0
..,.
~...~ TO
......0...]. ~..f.ii>=.
o -. o~o
0,. <0
~
(00)0 -t.. 0
N~ + 0
~"'~TO
94 ..J. ~":f~
0-. ~C1;0
675,. .... 10
!2l
010 -t.. 181
.....(')
0)
~... T 590
+~
0..,.
0....
'<1".....
~
~o;;~ -t..347
.....10.....
~...~ T151
74..J. +~
210 ..- (').....
(')0
158,. 0);:
I + N...
fiaure 4
Qj
+ 30
- T 71
72 -.\ ~ ~
112,. g~
11
0<00 -t.. 5
.......... + 0
<0
~J'" ~ T 41
........0...]. ~I + ~
o -. 0 0) 0)
o .......,.
,. N
~ ION<O -t.. 12
10 ~ <0 + 122
~ ... I... T 98
79 .~ ~+~
706 -. l:; ~ ~
252 ,. N N (')
W -t..
..
~...!...~- f.............
..J. ~+~
-.
,.
!.1J
0)<0 -t.. 70
00
..... (')
~... T 212
~+
N<O
010
(')0
.....
-
Isl -
~~
.... (')
~ +~
68..J.
289 ,. 0(')
0).....
NO)
.....
+ 656
h~ ~o
-. 0 0)
,. :!
~LEASON
Ii
o
13
z
w
~
CENTRAL PKWY.
BLVD.
VOlumes
00..._____...._
~
4;
~
~
.\...
8
"(000) -t.. 14
~ ..,. + 370
~J ... ~ T 0
25 ..J.i~ + ~
989 -'1 0 0 0
0,.:
BLVD.
..............
,.
.,'
9
ci
tr
o
-l
o
Z
tr
4;
PM Existing Peak Hour
865
1
I
.. 578
T 78
802 -.r1 ~
99,. C1; ~
N
6
\ ... 882
\T 12
1023~~ ~
33,. ~ ~
'.
"
'.
".
"
",
"
"
"
"
'.
5
ci
tr
~
w
:r
Cl
:>
o
o
......:;:..
..,.
......
10
.....
1
-<0 0) ~ -t.. 357
<0 l8 (') ~- 374
~J ... I... T 319
103 ..J. ~ + ~
545 -... 0) 0) 0)
783,. ~ ~ 0)
-t.. 551
T 324
+~
(00)
N.....
..,.N
.........
+~
ON
c;;~
N
~
@Iillillliltl",means
(')
"It
N
.....
...
.....0
0.....
.....N
.....
~...
4J<oO)
00)
..,......
.....
~...
394..J.
625 ,.
'.
Table 1
Existing Intersection Level-of-Service (LOS)
Dublin Transit Center Study Area
AM and PM Peak Houri
..
..
Intersection
LOS-V/C
AM
LOS-V/C
PM
..
1. Dougherty /Scarlete
2. Dougherty!Dublin B 0.65 D 0.81
3. Dougherty/I-580 WB off A 0.58 A 0.52
4. Hopyard/I-580 EB off A 0.56 B 0.62
5. Dublin/Scarlett C 20.4 F 50+
6. Dublin/DeMarcus A 0.55 B 0.64
7. Dublin/Iron Horse A 0.29 B 0.61
8. Dublin/ Arnold C 18.1 E 39.5
9. Amold/Central1
10. Hacienda/Gleason B 10.7 A9.8
11. Hacienda/ Central A 0.27 AO.38
12. Hacienda/Dublin A 0.37 A 0.42
13. HaciendalThe Boulevard1
14. Hacienda/I-580 WE off A 0.27 A 0.15
15. Hacienda/I-580 EB off A 0.50 AO.33
16. Tassajara/Gleason C 24.9 E 44.2
17. Tassajara/Central2
18. Tassajara/Dublin A 0.42 B 0.69
19. Tassajara/I-580 WB off AO.30 A 0.35
20. TassajaralI-580 EB off/Pimlico A 0.60 B 0.70
..
..
..
-
..
..
.
(1)
Signalized intersection LOS is based on Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) methodology. LOS
for unsignalized intersections is based on the 1998 Highway Capacity Manual and represents average
vehicle delay in seconds for stop-sign controlled minor street traffic.
-
(2)
The Dougherty/Scarlett, Arnold/Central, and Hacienda/The Boulevard intersections currently do not exist.
Central Parkway is currently closed off between Tassajara Road and Tassajara Creek. These intersections
will be analyzed in future base scenarios with approved and pending development and/or Year 2025
cumulative development.
.
..
-
..
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
..
12
-
..
Other current local and regional roadway and intersection circulation improvements have been
based on discussions with City Engineering staff as well as the City's Transportation Element of
the General Plan.6 7 Circulation improvements can be categorized as short-term (within two
years) or long-term improvements and are as follows:
(a) Short-Term Circulation Improvements
· 1-680/1-580 Interchange: As part of the overall interchange improvements, the new
northbound 1-680 on-ramp from Village Parkway (south of Dublin Boulevard) and
southbound off-ramp from 1-680 to Amador Plaza Road were recently completed and
opened to traffic.
· Dublin Boulevard Widening: Dublin Boulevard has currently been widened to three
travel lanes in each direction between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway. Widening
the roadway to six lanes between Village Parkway and Sierra Court is scheduled to begin
in 2001.
(b) Long-Term Circulation Improvements
· Dublin Boulevard Widening: Dublin Boulevard would be widened to three travel lanes
in each direction between Sierra Court and Dougherty Road.
· 1-680/I-580 Interchange: As part of the overall interchange improvements, a new
southbound 1-680 on-ramp from Amador Plaza Road/St. Patrick Way (south of Dublin
Boulevard) and a southbound "flyover connector" from 1-680 to 1-580 are under
construction.
5. Transportation and Parking Policies
The City of Dublin I s transportation goals, policies, and programs can be found in Section 5 of
the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan.8 While the majority of these
goals and policies would apply to the proposed Dublin Transit Center, some of the key goals and
policies have been highlighted below:
6Ray Kuzbari, Traffic Engineer, City of Dublin, Personal communication, December 11, 2000.
7TJKM Transportation Consultants, City of Dublin General Plan, Section 5, Circulation and Scenic
Highways, Revised July 7, 1998.
8TJKM Associates, City of Dublin General Plan, Section 5, Circulation and Scenic Highways,
Revised July 7, 1998.
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
13
C.
D.
Roadways:
Guiding Policy
A.
Design non-residential streets to (1) accommodate forecasted average daily traffic demand
on segments between intersections, (2) minimize congested conditions during peak hours
of operation at intersections and serve a balance of vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and
transit.
B.
Design residential collector streets, residential streets and cul-de-sacs to serve a balance
of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic and to prevent misuse of residential areas by
through vehicle traffic.
Additional Design Criteria
A. Reserve right-of-way and construct improvements necessary to allow streets to
accommodate projected vehicular traffic with least friction.
B.
For streets defmed as Routes of Regional Significance in the Tri-Valley Transportation
Council's Tri- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance
(hereinafter referred to as "the TVTC Action Plan"), the City of Dublin is required to
make a "good faith effort" to maintain LOS D (v/c < 0.91) on arterial segments and at
intersections. If this Transportation Service Objective (TSO) is violated, the City can
implement transportation improvements or other measures to improve LOS. If such
improvements are not possible or are not sufficient, the City may refer the problem to the
TVTC for joint resolution. In the event the TVTC cannot resolve the violation to the
mutual satisfaction of all members, Dublin may modify the LOS standard, but only if
other jurisdictions are not physically impacted.
The Routes of Regional Significance within the project study area are as follows: Dublin
Boulevard, Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road, Hopyard Road, Santa Rita Road and 1-580.
For streets that are not defined as Routes of Regional Significance in the TVTC Action
Plan, strive to phase development and road improvements so that the operating LOS for
intersections in Dublin shall not be worse than LOS D.
E. Use the TVTC Action Plan as a guideline for making transportation policy decisions.
Freeway Access:
A. Improve freeway access.
Transit:
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
.
-
-
-
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
.
-
.
.
-
14
-
-
A. Support downtown West Dublin BART station.
B. Support improved local transit as essential to a quality urban environment, particularly
for residents who do not drive.
Southern Pacific Railroad Transportation Corridor:
A. Support preservation along the Southern Pacific right-of-way between East Dublin BART
station and Dougherty Road and along the east side of Dougherty Road from the Southern
Pacific right-of-way to the northern City limit as a potential transportation corridor.
B. Consider potential recreational use in conjunction with transportation use.
Bikeways:
A. Provide safe bikeways along arterials.
Truck Routes:
A. Designate and accommodate truck routes to minimize noise nuisance on residential arterial
streets.
Scenic Highways:
A. Incorporate County-designated scenic routes, and the proposed Fallon Road extension in
the General Plan as adopted City-designated scenic routes, and work to enhance a positive
image of Dublin as seen by through travelers.
Financing Improvements:
A. Continue the City's program of requmng developers to contribute fees andlor
improvements to help fund off-site improvements related to their projects.
For the City 1 s other goals, guiding policies, and implementation policies regarding transportation,
please refer to the Circulation and Scenic Highway element.
The City of Dublin I s Off-Street Parking and Loading regulations can be found in Chapter 8.76
of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (City of Dublin, September 1997). Off-street parking
requirements range from one space per 50 to one space per 1,000 square feet for commercial and
industrial type uses. Please refer to the Off-Street Parking and Loading regulations for specific
regulations.
Some of the general off-street parking requirements that may apply to the Dublin Transit Center
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
15
study area include the following:
.
Multiple Use Projects. Where a project contains more than one use type (and typically
multiple tenant spaces) such as offices, restaurants, and retail sales, the amount of parking
to be provided shall be the total of that required by Section 8.76.080, Parking
Requirements by Use Type, for each use type, except as otherwise provided by Section
8.76.050 (rounding to higher space).
.
New Buildings or Development Project Without Known Tenants. If the type of tenants
that will occupy a non residential building is not known at the time of the development
entitlement or building permit approval, the amount of parking to be provided shall be
the minimum number of parking spaces required by Section 8.76.080 for a mix of use
types typical of comparable buildings or development projects in that zoning district as
determined by the Director of Community Development. The intent of this section is to
ensure sufficient parking by anticipating a typical use type mix which is appropriate to
the design and nature of the building or development project.
.
Off-Street Parking and Loading Plan Required. All uses which require a building permit,
site development review or conditional use permit shall be accompanied by an Off-Street
Parking and Loading Plan (which may be included in the Site Plan for those permits)
unless waived by the Director. The contents of the Off-Street Parking and Loading Plan
shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The Off-Street
Parking and Loading Plan may be incorporated into the Site Plan for the Site
Development Review or Conditional Use Permit. No building permit, site development
review or conditional use permit will be approved unless its Off-Street and Loading Plan
complies with the requirements of this Chapter.
B. FUTURE BASE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section describes the anticipated future operation (Year 2005) of the "study" intersections
under approved and pending conditions. These conditions represent existing traffic plus
anticipated traffic generated by approved and pending projects (reasonably foreseeable
development in the area). Future base traffic conditions do not include traffic volumes generated
by the proposed Dublin Transit Center. In addition, future base traffic conditions assume
currently planned or funded roadway modifications would be in place.
1. Future Base Circulation Improvements
Current and planned roadway and intersection improvements for the project study area include
the following:
Roadways:
TransportaTion Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
.
-
.
-
..
-
..
..
..
..
-
WI!
.
-
..
..
..
16
..
...
Dublin Boulevard Widening: Dublin Boulevard is currently being widened to six travel lanes
between Scarlett Drive and Hacienda Drive. The roadway is also planned to be widened to six
lanes between Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive.
Tassajara Road Widening: Tassajara Road is currently being widened to four travel lanes
between 1-580 and north of Gleason Drive. Ultimately, Tassajara Road will be eight lanes
between 1-580 and Central Parkway, and six lanes north of Central Parkway.
Central Parkway Extension: Central Parkway is currently being extended between Arnold Road
and Hacienda Drive. In the interim, Central Parkway would have two through lanes.
Ultimately, this street would consist of four through lanes. Central Parkway is currently closed
to through traffic at Tassajara Creek.
Arnold Road Extension: Arnold Road would be extended in a southerly direction from Dublin
Boulevard to just north of 1-580. The roadway width will vary from four travel lanes to two
travel lanes depending on the segment.
The Boulevard: The Boulevard would be a new east-west street constructed between Dublin
Boulevard and 1-580. The Boulevard roadway segment between the southerly extension of
Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive would be constructed as part of approved and pending
development.
Intersections:
Dublin/DeMarcus: The northbound approach of DeMarcus Boulevard would be improved to
include one (1) left-turn lane and one (1) right-turn lane.
Dublin/Iron Horse: The northbound approach of Iron Horse Parkway would be improved to
include one (1) left-turn lane and one (1) right-turn lane.
Hacienda/Central: The northbound approach of Hacienda Drive would be improved in the
interim to include one (1) left-turn lane, two (2) through lanes, and one right-turn lane (two left-
turn lanes are currently in place but not being used). The eastbound and westbound Central
Parkway approaches would each have one (1) left-turn lane, one (1) through lane, and one (1)
right-turn lane for the interim condition. Ultimately, these approaches would be improved to
include an additional through lane.
Hacienda/Dublin: The northbound approach of Hacienda Drive would be improved in the
interim to include three (3) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane.
The westbound approach of Dublin Boulevard would be improved to include two (2) left-turn
lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. (The additional through-lane is in place
but not being used). Ultimately, these two approaches would be widened to include an additional
northbound and westbound through lane.
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
17
Hacienda/I-580 Eastbound off-ramp: The eastbound off-ramp approach would be improved to
include two (2) left-turn lanes and two (2) right-turn lanes.
Tassajara/I-580 Westbound off-ramp: The westbound off-ramp approach would be improved to
include two (2) left-turn lanes and two (2) right-turn lanes.
Tassajara/I-580 Eastbound off-ramp/Pimlico: The eastbound off-ramp approach would be
widened and re-striped to include two (2) left-turn lanes, one (1) through lane, and a free right-
turn lane. The westbound Pimlico Drive approach would be improved to include two (2) left-
turn lanes and two (2) right-turn lanes. The northbound Santa Rita Road approach would be
improved to include four (4) lanes, with the two left most lanes leading to the overpass, the
second right most lane leading to the overpass or 1-580 eastbound on-ramp, and the right most
lane leading to Pimlico Drive or the 1-580 eastbound on-ramp.
2. Approved and Pending Projects
Based on discussions with City Transportation staff, the following projects were assumed for the
future base conditions. Approved projects are developments that are under construction, built
but not fully occupied, or unbuilt but have final development approval. Pending projects would
be developments that are currently proposed or are in the approval process at the time of this
study.
a. Approved Projects:
· Hacienda Crossings (Opus): 469,000 square foot retail center (partially occupied)
· Villas at Santa Rita: 324 apartments
· Santa Rita Property Sites l1A and lIB (Summerhill and Jefferson Residential
Development): 368 apartments and 341 single family homes
· Casterson: 106 single family homes
· Creekside Business Park III (Opus): 590,000 square feet office development
· General Motors: 75,660 square feet of new automobiles and service
· Dublin Ranch Phase 1 Residential Development: 847 single family homes
· Tassajara Meadows Residential Development: 96 single family homes
· Emerald Glen Residential Development: 143 single family homes and 152 townhomes
· Koll Dublin Corporate Center: 590,000 square feet of office space, 100,000 square feet
of hotel and 7,000 square feet of retail
· Yarra Yarra Residential Development: 251 single family homes
· Dublin Ranch Area G Development: 1,426 apartments and 230,000 square feet of
commercial development
· Dublin Ranch Area A Residential Development: 562 single family homes and 18 hole
golf course
· Emerald Glen Village Apartments Development: 390 apartments and 132,235 square feet
of commercial development
· Sybase Dublin Headquarters: 420,000 square feet of office space
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transir Center
MIl
..
.
.
..
.
..
-
-
..
-
..
.
..
..
..
..
18
-
..
· Marriott Hotel Project: 214 hotel rooms
· Commerce One Office Project: 760,000 square feet office of space
· Downtown Dublin Specific Plans: Multiple use project with commercial, residential, and
transit uses (please see referenced document below).
In addition to specific approved projects in the City of Dublin, City of Pleasanton approved
development was also considered. Based on the City of Pleasanton travel demand forecasting
model, approved projects are expected to generate 9,661 AM peak hour trips and 10,584 PM
peak hour trips. AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes from the above projects in Dublin and
Pleasanton were taken from a recent traffic study conducted by TJKM Transponation
Consultants. For a complete description of the approved project location and trip generation,
please refer to the following transportation study:
TJKM Transportation Consultants, Final: A Traffic Study for the Proposed Marriott
Hotel, City of Dublin, October 25, 2000.
b. Pending Projects
· Silveria Residential Project: 214 single family homes
· Cisco Systems Office Project: 862,000 square feet office of space
For a complete description of the location and AM and PM peak hour trips of the pending
Silveria residential project and Marriott hotel project, please refer to the following transportation
study:
TJKM Transportation Consultants, Final: A Traffic Study for the Proposed Marriott
Hotel, City of Dublin, October 25, 2000.
For a description of the location and AM and PM peak hour trips of the pending Commerce One
and Cisco Systems, please refer to the following traffic study:
Omni-Means Engineers & Planners, SURPlemental Traffic Circulation Analysis for the
Proposed Commerce One Project, City of Dublin, Final Report, December 22, 2000.
For a description of the location and AM and PM peak hour trips of the pending Dublin Specific
Plans project, please refer to the following traffic study:
Omni-Means Engineers & Planners, Consultants Report of the Transportation Impacts for
the Proposed Village Parkway. Downtown Core. and West BART Station Specific Plans,
City of Dublin, Final Draft Report, September 25, 2000.
The re-Iocation of the Camp Parks main gate would also occur within the next five years. Based
on discussions with Camp Parks staff, it is anticipated that a new roadway/gate connection will
occur at the Dublin/DeMarcus intersection to form the north leg of the intersection (the roadway
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center .
19
is currently under construction). Various military activities related to the facility are expected
to be most concentrated on the weekends when reservists report for training duties. In addition,
Summer weekends would be most active with possible convoys coming to/from the Camp Parks
area. 9
With weekend Camp Parks activity expected to generate the most intense traffic volumes, existing
and future base peak hour weekday volumes would experience lesser increases in traffic volumes
related to the re-location of the Camp Parks main gate. However, peak period vehicle counts
were conducted at the Camp Parks gates to quantify weekday traffic that would transfer to the
Dublin/DeMarcus intersection.lO Peak hour volumes related to Camp Parks have been added
to the Dublin/DeMarcus intersection to account for increased traffic volumes at this location.
Approved and pending project trips were added to existing AM and PM intersection volumes to
create a future base Year 2005 scenario.
AM and PM peak hour exisfing plus future base traffic has been shown in Figures 5 and 6.
3. Intersection Level of Service--Future Base Conditions
With future base traffic added to existing volumes, AM and PM intersection LOS have been re-
calculated and are shown in Table 2. With future base volumes, calculated intersection LOS
contain the planned circulation improvements for roadways and intersections in the study area
listed in Section B-1. (Future Base Circulation Improvements). With these circulation
improvements, one study intersection would still experience significant congestion during the AM
and PM peak hours with the planned improvements in place. In response, the following
mitigation measures are recommended with existing, approved, and pending traffic volumes:
.Dougherty/Dublin: Northbound Dougherty Road would need to be widened to provide three
(3) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, one (1) shared through/right-turn lane, and one (1)
right-turn lane. The southbound Dougherty Road approach would need to be widened to provide
two (2) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The westbound
Dublin Boulevard approach should be widened to provide three (3) left-turn lanes, two (2)
through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach would
need to be widened to provide one (1) left-turn lane, two (2) through lanes, and two (2) right-
turn lanes. With these measures, intersection LOS would improve from LOS E (0.94) to LOS
C (0.73) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, LOS would improve from LOS
F (1.03) to LOS D (0.85).
~egan Chen, Camp Parks Reserve, Personal communication on January 24, 2001.
100mni-Means Engineers & Planners, Peak period counts at the 5th Street and 8th Street Camp
Parks Gates at Dougherty Road, January 24, 2001.
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
.
-
.
-
-
-
....
..
..
.
'.
..
..
..
-
.,
-
20
..
-
16'
~~O ~ 0
..- 10 ... 0
....
..I"~TO
61 .1- ~"f'ii>'
o + MIOO
co 10
36 .. ..- 10
7'
~:g ~ 10 ~ 32
10 ... 20
~.J..~. T 110
7 .J. :;fj'l"~'
4+100)10
18.. ~....
~COMIO ~ 5
NM
N "t ... 169
~ + ~ T 292
87 .J. ::tj"+"iii=
35 + ~ ~ f6
319 .. I'-- co
.. 94
T 258
107 +rJr~
106.. ~~
..-
I
-VNN ~ 7
..- ~ ... 0
~ .. l., T 384
...._...1...~. -4J ... I~
o .... I'-- V CIO
70 0) I'-- 10
.. N CIO
12
-I'--MCO ~ 154
~ :g ~ ... 591
-.J .. l., T 559
67 .J. -4J ... ~
293.... ~~~
208 to)O)"-
9
8
- I'-- N V ~ 25
N N M .. 740
..J .. ~ T 30
357 -~!"1 ... ~
536 +1 0 0 N
327 ,.1 M
_GLEASON
Ii
o
;3
m
~
... 871
T 116
1195 +'''1 l~
28,. ~ ~
t. 77
MM .. 690
..I ~ T 216
77 .J."I I~
1211 + N N
428,. (") ..-
6
)
\
i
\ .. 673
\T 17
1619 :J"l ~
15 -t ~~
2l!1 I'-- N ~
;b N... ~ 451
...
.,.J .. ~ T 187
548.J. + ~
112+ NCIO
611,. ~ ~
+ North
figure 5
~ 642
T 737
+~
~*
1-
~ ~ ,~ 756
~.. T 1456
-4J+
;!<O
co~
...
+~
....co
~~
...
f:::~
...1'--
..-
~..
1091 .J.
1818 t
15
ION
N..-
CION
...
~..
19
I~O) (") 0 ~ 2
(")0)
..- ~ ... 0
~...!...~. f 73
6 .J. ~"+"iJ'='
0.... 1'--0(")
... CIO M
47 ,. I'-- ~ N
.................
~
<(
~
(J)
(J)
j:5
BLVD.
.........',..................
BLVD.
AM Existing + Approved + Pending
Peal< Hour Volumes
CENTRAL PKWY.
ci
n::
o
...J
o
z
n::
<(
".
'.
~"'"''''
'.
............
".
........
ci
n::
t
~
~
Cl
::>
o
o
CIO
...
N
N
.. r
r'
.0)
.1'--
- -
- -
~
"-'0) CIO (") t 262
'tCOIO -
~ co ... 388
~"l., T 283
49 .J. -4J"'~
575+ MI'--CIO
569 ,.~g~
:!J01O
va ~865
1'--10
..-
..J .. T 517
+~
1'--1'--
(,,)N
vv
..-
il ... (0
101'--
(0(")
...
..J ..
891 .1- +~
..-10
1028 ,. CION
o)N
1
-
~
@[JU\)lKltlcmeans
6
-(l)"OtO ~ 0
(l) 8l .. 0
~+~.O
184 .J. ~'''+-''~'
o -. (l)<OO
155 . ~lO
,...
I'--C;g-l. 15
o .. 10
~r~T44
"4'''J':;fj''f'~'
20 -. 0 (l) (Y')
10.""~tO
7
I~I'-- CO to .l
<01'-- ~ 5
~ .. 80
~ " ~ . 139
521 .J. :;fj"+"~
178 -. ~ ~ ffi
752 -. "Ot ~ N
121 (Y') ,...
:g ~ J-l. 637
~ " .611
+-~
~~
"Otl'--
.....
20
~to (Y') CIO .
(Y')(l)(Y')"-
"Ot CIO..... ~ 365
~J " ~ . 161
784 .J. +- ~
230 -. I::: m
245 -. ~ t::
I
+- North
flaure 6
.
I
Qj
.. 30
- .130
72 -.\ ~ ~
122. 12 ~
ill ~ 5
NOO
~,... .. 0
~+~ . 91
......1.3".-J- ~I +- ~
O-';bN(Y')
287. ~ ~
~!O 18 fO ~ 12
,... ~ (Y') .. 550
~...~ . 291
237 .J. ~l +- ~
1210 -. ~ CIO 0
0,...
625 -. "Ot co
!l/(l)1'--0~ 11
N
to .. 0
,...
~...~ T 579
''''77''J- ~"f';':'
0-. (Y')(l)(Y')
544 . CIO ~ ~
!1/ ~;t ~ 340
,..."Ot
,...,...
~J ... . 310
~I +-
to(l)
NI'--
"Ot"Ot
,...,...
-
51 -
ffi~
CIO(l)
~
930 ~ +-~
310 -. ,...to
,...(l)
ON
N...-
9
8
. (l) N CIO ~ 14
~ "Ot.. 944
~J" ~T 4
65 ~ ~1 +- ~
1426 .. (Y') <0 <0
36 .i ~""N
7
.. 1688
~~ ~28
1378 -. I'-- (l)
1. ~~
~ 50
:g Ut; .. 1707
~ ~T 50
50 .J. ~ ~
1315" I'-- (Y')
99. ~ <0
6
5
\
\ .. 1942
\. 12
1627 iF ~
33. 8l ~
ci
0::
I
I
I.
I
PM Existing + Approved + Pending
Peak Hour Volumes
I
I
_Of
.--.-1-
__On _.____
.----
BLVD.
...."..".............-
BLVD.
.
-,
0
,...
co
,...
... f"
!..
......
. ,...
C\/
- -
- -
~ g !D ~ 683
Oto .. 725
,...
~...~ T 702
103 .J. ~+-~
749.. (l),...1O
939. 8l ~ ~
1.1 co 0
om ~ 689
,...(Y')
,...,...
~J ... 'f 324
+~
COClO
CO I'--
I'--C\/
........
4
,... CIO
00
COM
,...
~J ...
641 .J. +~
625. MC\/
~~
C\/
~
~
-
- -
I -
10 lr
I. I
PKWY.
DUBLIN
CENTRAL
_ GLEASON
~
~
z
w
~
ci
0::
9
o
Z
0::
~
".
"
"
",
""""
"
",
",
"
"
ci
0::
f
~
w
:r:
Cl
:J
o
o
I
Table 2
Existing Plus Future Base Intersection Level-or-Service (LOS)
AM and PM Peak Hour Z
Existing Existing + FB Mitigated
Intersection Exist + FB
AM PM AM PM AM PM
l. Dougherty /Scarletr3
2. Dougherty/Dublin B 0.65 D 0.81 E 0.94 F 1.03 C 0.73 D 0.85
3. Dougherty/I-580 WB off A 0.58 A 0.52 B 0.68 A 0.60 ,
4. Hopyard/I-580 EB off A 0.56 B 0.62 A 0.57 B 0.64
5. Dublin/Scarlett C 20.4 F50+ A 0.36 A 0.43
6. Dublin/DeMarcus A 0.55 B 0.64 A 0.50 A 0.51
7. Dublin/Iron Horse A 0.29 B 0.61 A 0.32 A 0.41
8. Dublin/Arnold C 18.1 E39.5 A 0.42 B 0.66
9. Arnold/Central A 0.22 A 0.38
10. Hacienda/Gleason B 10.7 A 9.80 A 0.25 A 0.15
11. Hacienda/Central A 0.27 A 0.38 C 0.71 C 0.79
12. Hacienda/Dublin A 0.37 A 0.42 A 0.60 C 0.73
13. Hacienda/The Boulevard A 0.40 A 0.57
14. Hacienda/I-580 WB off A 0.27 A 0.15 D 0.89 A 0.49
15. Hacienda/I-580 EB off A 0.50 A 0.33 D 0.89 B 0.66
16. Tassajara/Gleason C 24.9 E44.2 A 0.59 B 0.64
17. Tassajara/Central A 0.51 B 0.62
18. Tassajara/Dublin A 0.42 B 0.69 A 0.54 B 0.66
19. Tassajara/I-580 WB off A 0.30 A 0.35 A 0.49 A 0.60
20. Santa Rita/I-580 EB off/Pimlico A 0.60 B 0.70 B 0.66 D 0.87
(1) Signalized intersection LOS is based on Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCT A) methodology. LOS
for unsignalized intersections is based on 1998 Highway Capacity Manual and represents average delay in
seconds for stop-sign controlled minor street traffic.
(2) Due to planned roadway improvements, some study intersections' LOS may improve from existing
conditions. This is particularly true along Dublin Boulevard where the roadway would be widened from
two to six travel lanes between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive.
(3) The Dougherty IScarlett intersection is not expected to exist under existing plus future base conditions. This
intersection will be analyzed in future base scenarios with Year 2025 cumulative development.
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
23
C. DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
The following section describes the transportation impacts for the proposed Dublin Transit
Center. The overall section includes a description of significance criteria, evaluation of project
trip generation, trip distributions, intersection, and implications for future congestion and delay
on the surrounding roadway network.
1. Significance Criteria
(a) Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency has established significance criteria
guidelines for proposed projects within the County that have the potential to impact the CMP
roadway network. Specifically, the County has identified a specific Congestion Management
Plan (CMP) system of freeways and roadways that must conform to the agency's LOS standards.
These roadways are designated as "key routes" which include highways and principal arterials.
For arterials, the following criteria must be met:
.Must carry 30,000 vehicles per day for at least one mile;
.Must be a four lane (or more) roadway;
· Must be a major cross-town connector;
.Must connect at both ends to another eMP route.
As stated in the Setting Section, in the project study area these MTS routes have been identified
as 1-580, Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road, Hopyard Road and Santa Rita
Road. The County's LOS standard is E, except where F was the level of service originally
measured, in which case the standard shall be F.1l
In addition to LOS roadway standards, CMA guidelines also specify that any proposed project
generating 100 PM peak hour trips over existing conditions must conduct a traffic analysis of the
project using the Countywide Transportation Demand Model for the base years 2005 and 2020.
However, the guidelines also allow for other transportation models/projections to be used for this
process. For this process to occur, transportation volume projections used for the proposed
Dublin Transit Center and Year 2025 must be compared to the Countywide Transportation Model
to ensure that the more conservative of the two traffic projections are used for CEQA purposes.
Discussions with Alameda CMA staff indicate that the Tri-Valley Transportation Model would
be appropriate for Year 2025 analyses. 12
llAlameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA), Congestion Management Pro~ram
1999, July 22, 1999.
12Beth Waluka, Senior Transportation Planner, Alameda County CMA, Personal communication on
November 28, 2000.
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
-
..
..
-
..
-
..
..
..
..
11III
..
11III
-
..
.
..
24
-
-
(b) City of Dublin
Based on the City of Dublin's General Plan circulation element, the following criteria would
apply to City roadways and intersections:
· For streets defined as Routes of Regional Significance (see below) in the Tri-Valley
Transportation Council's Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of
Regional Significance (referred to as "the TVTC Action Plan"), the City of Dublin is
required to make a "good faith effort" to maintain LOS D (v/c < 0.91) on arterial
segments and intersections. If this Transportation Service Objective (TSO) is violated,
the City can implement transportation improvements or other measures to improve LOS.
If such improvements are not possible or are not sufficient, the City may refer the
problem to the TVTC for joint resolution. In the event that the TVTC cannot resolve the
violation to the mutual satisfaction of all members, Dublin may modify the LOS standard,
but only if other jurisdictions are not physically impacted.13
· The Routes of Regional Significance within the City of Dublin are as follows: Dublin
Boulevard, Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road, and San Ramon Road;
· For streets that are not defined as Routes of Regional Significance in the TVTC Action
Plan, strive to phase development and road improvements so that the operating LOS for
intersections in Dublin shall not be worse than LOS D.
Roadways are defined as Routes of Regional Significance if:
They connect to two or more "regions" of the county;
They connect across county boundaries;
They serve significant amounts of through-traffic;
They provide access to a regional highway or transit facility (e.g. a BART station or freeway
interchange) .
2. Proposed Project Description
The proposed Dublin Transit Center would consist of 1,500 high density residential units
(apartments), 2,000,000 square feet of office space, and 70,000 square feet of ancillary retail
space. In addition, a new BART parking structure would be constructed to replace existing
surface lot spaces now in existence. This parking structure would have 1,680 parking spaces.
This total of 1,680 parking spaces would match the existing surface spaces now provided for
BART patrons parking north of 1-580. Therefore, there would be no increase in parking
13City of Dublin, General Plan, Land Use and Circulation: Circulation and Scenic Highways
Element, Revised July 7, 1998.
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
25
-
provided for BART patrons off DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway.
.,
Access to the Dublin Transit Center would be gained from Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive _
via existing and proposed roadways. This would include the existing streets of DeMarcus
Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway. Future proposed roadways in the study area include a new
east-west roadway (The Boulevard) that would extend between DeMarcus Boulevard and _
Hacienda Drive. (It is noted that a segment of The Boulevard and the southerly extension of
Arnold Road are included as part of approved and pending circulation improvements). Campus
Drive, a new north-south roadway would be located between Iron Horse Parkway and the _
southerly extension of Arnold Road. Campus Drive would extend south from Dublin Boulevard
to provide access to proposed office development. Finally, Altamirano Road would extend from
Arnold Road west to the new BART parking structure. Between the new BART parking _
structure and the southerly extension of Arnold Road, Altamirano Road would intersect Campus
Drive. For a schematic diagram of the proposed Dublin Transit Center, please refer to Section
5 (Internal Intersections), Figure 9. _
3. Project Trip Generation
Daily and peak hour trip generation for the proposed Dublin Transit Center has been based on
three different sources: 1) The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) research on office,
residential, and retail development, 2) discussions with Dublin Transportation and Alameda .
County staff, and 3) peak period counts conducted at the existing Dublin BART station.14 15 16
For proposed office development, a 15 percent discount was applied to trip generation rates to
account for residential/employment interaction and increased use of transit due to the proximity _
to the East Dublin BART Station. Residential development trips were also discounted by 25
percent due to the proximity to the East Dublin BART Station. Retail uses have been described
as "ancillary" to the office development and are intended to serve the internal office populations. all
..
Project trip generation has been shown in Table 3. As calculated, the proposed Dublin Transit
Center would generate 29,252 daily trips with 4,155 AM peak hour trips and 3,970 PM peak _
hour trips.
-
14Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Corporate Headquarters
Office (#714), Apartment (#220), and Specialty Retail (#814), 1997
.,
15Ray Kuzbari, Associate Traffic Engineer, City of Dublin, Memo to Stuart Cook, Project Planner,
Alameda County Community Development Agency, "Trip Generation Rates for Transit Center and
Commerce One Traffic Studies, November 3, 2000."
-
160mni-Means Engineers and Planners, Peak period counts at the DeMarcus/Dublin and Iron Horse
Parkway/Dublin intersections, November 2000.
..
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
-
26
..
11II
Table 3
Proposed Dublin Transit Center Trip Generation
Daily, AM and PM Peak Hour
A. Project Components:
Corporate Office:
Residential:
BART Parking Structure:
Retail:
2,000,000 square feet
1,500 apartments
1,680 parking spaces
70,000 square feet
B. Project Trip Generation:1.2.3.4
Corporate Headquarters Office:
2,000,000 s.f. x 6.56 trips/l,OOO ksf
2,000,000 s.f. x 1.25 trips/l,OOO ksf
2,000,000 s.f. x 1.18 trips/l,OOO ksf
Residential Apartments:
1,500 D.D.'s x 4.97 trips/D.D.
1,500 D.D.'s x 0.38 trips/D.D.
1,500 D.D.'s x 0.47 trips/D.D.
BART Parking Structure:
1,680 spaces x 3.47 trips/space
1,680 spaces x 0.54 trips/space
1,680 spaces x 0.43 trips/space
Retail:
70,000 s.f. x 40.67 trips/1,OOO ksf
70,000 s.f. x 2.59 trips/1,OOO ksf
70,000 s.f. x 2.59 trips/1,OOO ksf
C. Total Project Trips:
Daily Trips:
AM Peak Hour Trips:
PM Peak Hour Trips:
= 13,120 daily trips
= 2,500 (2,325 in, 175 out) AM peak
= 2,360 (260 in, 2,100 out) PM peak
= 7,455 daily trips
= 570 (91 in, 479 out) AM peak
= 705 (472 in, 233 out) PM peak
= 5,830 daily trips
= 904 (788 in, 116 out) AM peak
= 724 (222 in, 502 out) PM peak
= 2,847 daily trips
= 181 (78 in, 103 out) AM peak
= 181 (87 in, 94 out) PM peak
= 29,252
= 4,155 (3,282 in, 873 out)
= 3,970 (1,041 in, 2,929 out)
(1) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Corporate Headquarters Office,
Apartment, and Specialty Retail land uses, 1997. Some rounding may have occurred during trip generation
calculations.
(2) 15 percent discount was applied to the office trips to account for residential/employment interaction and
increased use of transit due to the proximity to the East Dublin BART Station.
(3) Residential development trips were discounted 25 % due to proximity to the East Dublin BART Station.
(4) Trip rates for the planned BART parking structure have been based on peak period counts conducted at the
East Dublin BART Station (Omni-Means, November 2(00).
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
27
4. Proposed Project Trip Distribution
Peak hour vehicle distribution has been based on previous studies conducted for the Peoplesoft
development and residential development contained in Dublin Ranch Areas F-H.17 18 For
office and the BART parking structure, vehicle distribution is estimated as follows:
Hacienda Drive to/from the south:
Hacienda Drive to/from the north:
Dublin Boulevard to/from the east:
Dublin Boulevard to/from the west:
Arnold Drive to/from the north:
Total:
55%
3%
10%
30%
2%
100%
For residential land use, peak hour vehicle distribution would be estimated as follows:
Hacienda Drive tolfrom the south:
Hacienda Drive to/from the north:
Dublin Boulevard to/from the east:
Dublin Boulevard to/from the west:
Arnold Drive to/from the north:
Total:
45%
3%
10%
40%
2%
100%
As stated previously, the retail component of the proposed project would be considered
"ancillary" uses to the proposed office space. For this reason, retail uses are provided to serve
the needs of the adjacent office workers and is not expected to generate external vehicle trips.
The proposed BART parking structure would not add any additional parking spaces to the
existing East Dublin BART station. Currently, there are 1,680 existing surface parking lot
spaces for the BART station in the City of Dublin. These surface spaces would be replaced by
the proposed 1,680 space BART parking structure. Therefore, proposed BART trips shown in
Table 3 are merely existing vehicle trips that have been re-distributed based on the proposed
street network serving the BART parking structure and the proposed Dublin Transit Center.
Proposed BART parking structure vehicle trips would not result in additional traffic volumes on
the surrounding street network.
17TJKM Transportation Consultants, A Traffic Study for the Proposed Peoolesoft Development,
Ibid.....
18TJKM Transportation Consultants, A Traffic Study for Proposed Dublin Ranch Areas F-H
Development, City of Dublin, Final, March 21, 2000.
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
..
..
..
..
..
-
..
..
.
..
-
..
-
.
-
..
-
28
--
.
Based on the expected vehicle distributions, AM and PM peak hour project trips have been added
to existing plus future base volumes and have been shown in Figures 7 and 8.
5. Effects of Dublin Transit Center Traffic on Intersection LOS with Existing and
Approved and Pending Traffic (Future Base) Volumes
External Intersections:
With proposed Dublin Transit Center traffic added to existing plus future base traffic volumes,
study intersection LOS have been re-calculated and are shown in Table 4. With proposed
project traffic, two of the study intersections would be operating at unacceptable levels of service
during the AM or PM peak hour. These include the Dougherty/Dublin and Hacienda/I-580
Westbound off-ramp intersections. The following mitigation measures are suggested for impacted
study intersections:
eDougherty/Dublin: In addition to the mitigation measures discussed in the Future Base Scenario
(Exist + Approved + Pending), the Scarlett Drive extension between Dougherty Road and
Dublin Boulevard should be constructed. The eastbound approach of Dublin Boulevard should
be widened to include an additional through lane. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach
would have one (1) left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and two (2) right-turn lanes. The
westbound triple left-turn lanes (recommended for the existing + Approved + Pending scenario)
would need to be lengthened to accommodate additional traffic from the Transit Center
development. As part of these intersection improvements, Dougherty Road should be four (4)
lanes in the southbound direction between Dublin Boulevard and the 1-580 westbound on-ramp.
These lanes should be configured so that the right most lane would lead exclusively to the 1-580
westbound on-ramp, with the second right most lane leading to the overpass or the 1-580
westbound on-ramp. These improvements would require widening and restriping the 1-580
westbound diagonal on-ramp. With these improvements, intersection LOS would improve from
E (0.97) to LOS C (0.74) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, LOS would
improve from E (0.99) to LOS D (0.86).
eHacienda/I-580 Westbound off-ramp: The northbound Hacienda Drive approach (overcrossing)
would need to be widened to three (3) northbound travel lanes. This improvement would require
some alignment modifications to the 1-580 westbound loop on-ramp. In addition, the 1-580
westbound off-ramp approach would need to be widened to include three (3) left-turn lanes and
two (2) right-turn lanes. With these improvements, intersection LOS would improve from F
(1.17) to LOS D (0.89) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, LOS would
improve from B (0.61) to LOS A (0.57).
With the recommendation of the Scarlett Drive extension between Dougherty Road and Dublin
Boulevard, the Dougherty/Scarlett intersection would be created and the Dublin/Scarlett
intersection would require circulation modifications.
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
29
1~1O 0) "-
alN "t:.. 0
N~ +0
~+~TO
99 ~ ~"'+ r'"
o .. MalO
tOtO
36 ~ ..... 10
7,
'-':g g 10 ~ 32
10 + 20
~ ;- I~ T 110
....-24...]. ~j..+..;.:.
4 .. IONIO
18 y m.....
+ 178
T 305
128 ..~r'"
106 ~ ~~
......
o
~~g~~ ,~ 10
+ ~ f..~.~~...
+r'"
10M
to-.;t
N......
9
o M -.;t 25
~ al M + 796
+ T 388
378 ~ + r'"
743" 010......
327 ~o M .....
8
7
+ 674
T 127
2020 "I~ r'"
170 ~ ~a
.....
............ ~ 77
M M + 744
~I ~ T 19
77 .J ~ r'"
2231" N-.;t
57 ~ ~ to
6
I
I
i
\ + 885
oT 17
2555 ~I~ ~
15 ~ ~~
I
--.;tON ~ 7
.....~ + 0
~ + ~ T 432
........r:i ~ + r'"
o .. ............N
70 0) 0) 0)
~ Nal
~al M 10 t.. 5
al M
N -.;t + 231
~ ;- ~ T 292
1 00 ~ :;fj":r~
48" ~~~
332 ~ ...... <D
12
- M M to t.. 154
N~~ + 899
~ + ~ T 559
102 ~ ~ + r'"
377" co ~ ~
306 ~ 0) 0) ......
IO<D
0)......
Nal
....
~+
1711 ~
1818 y
t.. 685
T 737
+r'"
"tM
Si~
2~1O
~N~ ~ 451
~ .. ~ T 187
548 ~ + r'"
112.. ....~
611~ ~tO
1010
~~
.....
~+
19
3
:;.J~ ~ 0 t.. 2
......~ + 0
.~...tm~ T 73
6 j' :;;j.'r';,:'
o .. ~~~
298 Y N:! N
~~ ,~ 1299
~ + T 1456
~+
N<D
allO
re-.;t
14
15
BLVD.
c:i
0::
~--
if
~
en
~
.\..n________
................
--
.0-
BLVD.
CENTRAL PKWY.
DUBLIN
..QlEASON
0:
o
;3
z
w
~
I
c:i
0::
9
o
Z
0::
of:
".
'.
'.
'.
~"""'"
".."...."..
..".......
c:i
0::
t
~
w
1:
(9
::J
o
o
al
......
~
+ ..............
+
0)
'en
.......
- -
- -
~O) al al t.. 319
"<t~g + 445
~ +\. T 381
49 ~ ~+r'"
858.. M t-- (!;
569 ~ m g ;:
~~~ I
~ ~ t.. 865
I + T 517
~-
+r'"
~~
al"<t
..-
-
!l ..- (() -
lOal
<DM
......
~ +r'"
1231 ~ O)~
1028 .. :gN
....
+r'"
g}~
-.;tN
......
I
+- North
figure 7
.
.
I
I
Center
I
Existing + Approved + Pending + Dublin Transit
AM Peak Hour\lolumes
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
~
@lJi)i)llil~omeans
. -
-
I. I I I
I
.~eol'--O -t..
(')0 0
.--~ "0
~...~..O
258 .1- =4j'l"~
.... mOlo
155 ,. ~ ~
.--
I'--~g-t.. 15
o .. 10
~...+ ~ .. 44
"4"]: ~.l'.~'
20 .... 0 m (')
10 ,. ..... ~ 10
17
~~IeIO-t.. 5
~ .. 98
~ ... l~ .. 139
571 .1- ~":r~
228.... ~ ~ m
802,. ~~N
-t.. 650
.. 611
...~
~~
~I'--
.....
20'
"~~~ ~ 365
.....
~ ... ~ .. 161
784 -+ ... ~
230.... ~ f8
245,. ~ t::
19: (') .--
100
<OOl
.....
~...
!Q
.. 56
- .. 84
123 +\ ~ ~
122,. ~ ~
.--
uJ ~ 5
N~O
Ol..... .. 0
~J... ~ .. 104
....--1.3..~ ~...~
o .... <1; 10 <0
287,. ~ ~
!lI1O 10 I'-- -t. 12
Ol<OIO
....0(') ..- 643
.....
-.J...~ .. 291
293 .1- ~...~
1545 + Ol eo 0
....0....
850 ,. 10 ~ <0
~OlC'\IO~ 11
10
I'-- .. 0
.--
,~...!.--~- .. 579
77.1- ~i'l"~'
0+ eo~(')
1728 ,. ~ 0; ~
11 I'-- 0
.....<0 -t. 490
~~
~... .. 310
~...
~~
.........
- -
~(')<O -
(') (')
(')C'\I
.........
~ ...~
1101 .1-
310 ,. 1'--10
....m
....C'\I
C'\I.....
00
~""I-t. 15
... ~ .. 233
....+..~..
00
Ol(,)
9
8
(')C'\Ieo 14
~ ~.. 1057
... .. 67
99 I~'" f~
1738 +, (') (') ....
36 10 N eo
,., (') .....
.. 1739
r;;~ :2
1524 + m ~
40,. ~ N
7
10 ~ -t. 50
10 10 .. 2484
~J ~.. 101
50 -+... ~
1481 + I'-- (')
147,. ~ <0
6
\
i
\ .. 2768
I.. 12
1930 ~... "
33 ,. m ~
BLVD,
......#...........
BLVD,
CENTRAL PKWY.
DUBLIN
..f2!-Et\SON
Ii
Q
~
Z
W
~
:I:
c:i
0::
9
o
Z
0::
<t
i ".9.~f!Y.@P.
,;PROJECT SI1E~\11
;~tf~~I;ii~;i~J~n;~tcj
'~.,....
"
......,
"
"
'-...........
"
.......
ci
0::
~
W
:I:
C)
:J
o
o
0
.....
(!)
....
... ...........
...
~
'....
. ....
C'\I
- -
- -
2
"-J~g~ t. 910
O(!) .. 952
....
~J ... I~ .. 1075
1 03 .1- "1 ... ~
834.... Ol.... Ol
939,. m~~
:UI'--C'\I
~ ~ I-t.. 689
;- ; .. 324
--
+~
oeo
01'--
OlC'\I
.........
-
i..!....o -
O(!)
(!)('t)
....
~ +~
747 -+
625 ,. COC'\l
~~
C'\I
+ North
flaure 8
Center
Existing + Approved + Pending -:I" Dublin Transit
PM Peak Hou(Volumes
~
@lliJi)llilncmeans
..
..
Table 4
Exist + Future Base Vs. Exist + Future Base + Dublin Transit Center
Level-of-Service (LOS) AM and PM Peak Hour:! -
Exist + F. Base E+FB+ Mitigated
Intersection Project E + FB + Project
AM PM AM PM AM PM ..
1. Dougherty/Scarlett B 0.63 C 0.78 ..
2. Dougherty/Dublin C 0.73 D 0.85 E 0.97 E 0.99 C 0.74 D 0.86
3. Dougherty/I-580 WE off B 0.68 A 0.60 B 0.69 B 0.61
4. Hopyard/I-580 EB off A 0.57 B 0.64 B 0.63 B 0.68
5. Dublin/Scarlett A 0.36 A 0.43 A 0.54 A 0.59 B 0.63 A 0.59 ..
6. DublinlDeMarcus A 0.50 A 0.51 A 0.60 B 0.66
7. Dublin/Iron Horse A 0.32 A 0.41 A 0.51 C 0.74
8. Dublin/Arnold A 0.42 B 0.66 A 0.52 C 0.75 .
9. Arnold/Central A 0.22 A 0.38 A 0.24 A 0.39
10. Hacienda/Gleason A 0.25 A 0.15 A 0.29 A 0.18
11. Hacienda/Central C 0.71 C 0.79 C 0.77 D 0.81
12. Hacienda/Dublin A 0.60 C 0.73 B 0.67 C 0.80 ..
13. Hacienda/The Boulevard A 0.40 A 0.57 C 0.74 D 0.88
14. Hacienda/I-580 WE off D 0.89 A 0.49 F 1.17 B 0.61 D 0.89 A 0.57
15. Hacienda/I-580 EB off D 0.89 B 0.66 D 0.90 C 0.73 ..
16. Tassajara/Gleason A 0.59 B 0.64 B 0.63 B 0.70
17. Tassajara/Central A 0.51 B 0.62 A 0.53 B 0.64
18. TassajaralDubIin A 0.54 B 0.66 A 0.57 B 0.68 ..
19. Tassajara/I-580 WE off A 0.49 A 0.60 A 0..50 B 0.61
20. Santa Rita/I-580 EB off/Pimlico B 0.66 D 0.87 B 0.66 D 0.87
..
(1)
Signalized intersection LOS is based on Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCT A) methodology. LOS
for unsignalized intersections is based on 1998 Highway Capacity Manual and represents average delay in
seconds for stop-sign controlled minor street traffic.
Due to planned roadway improvements, some study intersections' LOS may improve from existing
conditions. This is particularly true along Dublin Boulevard where the roadway would be widened from
two to six travel lanes between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive.
-
(2)
..
.
..
..
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
-
32
-
-
Dougherty/Scarlett: The southbound Dougherty Road approach should be widened and re-striped
to include two (2) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) free right-turn lane. The
northbound approach should be widened and re-striped to include one (1) left-turn lane, two (2)
through lanes, and one (1) free right-turn lane. The westbound Scarlett Drive approach should
have two (2) right-turn lanes and one (1) shared through/left-turn lane. With these
improvements, intersection LOS is projected to be B (0.63) during the AM peak hour and LOS
C (0.78) during the PM peak hour.
Dublin/Scarlett: The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach should be modified to include one
(1) left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The westbound Dublin
Boulevard approach should be widened to include one (1) left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes,
and two (2) right-turn lanes. The northbound Scarlett Drive approach would include one (1) left-
turn lane and one (1) shared through/right-turn lane. The southbound Scarlett Drive approach
would include two (2) left-turn lanes, one (1) through lane and one (1) right-turn lane. With
these improvements, intersection LOS is projected to be B (0.63) during the AM peak hour and
LOS A (0.59) during the PM peak hour.
Internal Intersections
In addition to impact analysis for 20 external study intersections adjacent to the project site, nine
internal intersections have also been evaluated for peak hour operation. A schematic diagram
showing the proposed internal street network, internal study intersections, and existing plus future
base plus project volumes have been shown in Figures 9 and 10. Internal intersections included
in the analysis include the following:
a. DeMarcus Boulevard/The Boulevard
b. Iron Horse Parkway/The Boulevard
c. Campus Drive/The Boulevard
d. Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard
e. Arnold Road/The Boulevard
f. Commerce One Access/The Boulevard
g. Hacienda Drive/The Boulevard
h. Commerce One Access/Arnold Road
i. Arnold Road/Altamirano Road
Roadway lane geometries have also been assessed. Specifically, the future roadways of Arnold
Drive (southerly extension), The Boulevard (between DeMarcus Boulevard and Hacienda Drive),
Campus Drive, Altamirano Road and the existing roadways of DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron
Horse Parkway have been analyzed for minimum lane requirements.
The predominant land uses would be corporate office development and BART related traffic.
These land uses tend to have highly directional peak hour flows for inbound/outbound traffic.
For office development, 88-93 % of the peak hour traffic would be inbouqd during the AM peak
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
33
C D E F G
- t. 478 - t. 25 - 19 - t. 2 - O'l O'l 10 t. 2
O......M OMv cor-.O'l Mr-. 5
N co......... 26 v co (") ... 796 co M 0 922 10 10 O'l... 3 ...... M ....
V N V N ...... 73
-4J t L." 506 .J t L." 388 -4J t L 696 .J t : .J t
51 J ~ t ~ 378 J ~ t ~ 7 - t ~ 62 6
5 CO COM
142 r-. N N 743 0 10 r-. 170 - 10 r-. M 278 0 co M
5 -. N N 327 + M...... 5 -. ...... r-. 61 1- 298 -. N ~ N
- -
B ~
- t. 47 GLEASON DR. -L 18
r-.co...... O'lCOCO
M 10 ... 26 )> 0 10 co ""'"- 5
N ;U vvN ",--
.J tL." 5 ~ .J tL.t 5
r
47 J ~ t r+ 0 37 J ~ t r+
;U
142 10 ro 10 ~ CENTRAL PKWY. 5 10 ~ 10
5+ 5 +
I
A t. ~ I
124 Z~.Ir.
0> N 10 0 r-....... L 10
...... M N'" 5 I . )> DUBLIN BLVD. g ~ 5
~ t L." 5 - ...!,. b!: ~ - ~ L. +- _
102 _1' ~ t r+ ..... ....'.! ~! 25 J
i ... 8:
5 10 0 10. ..: .. r 0 5 -+
....... .. l"l. ;0
5 -, . T.'.L.: 14,040 AOT: 16,105 .
" . ..,. 1IIIl ~:.--
I ,Q.:.'............ j~~ILB._____ _
I ". T
l ~: .
. .
_ r ;.
.,1
~:O-
.....
- - I ~_
I - Internal Study Intersection AM Peak Hour Volumes - ..
North
- - - - - - - - - - -
t:I
@[Jili)OUOClmeans
i i i i ~ i i I I I Iii I
I
C D E F G t.
- t. 55 - t. 14 - 226 - - 11
O'lNIO
~ ~ :g... 142 ~ N ~ ... 1057 coco..... r-.IOIO 10 5
r-.o> 259 10 0 r-. ....
N .... V N N .... .J ~ L. t 579
..J t L. +- 70 67 .J t ~ 98
..J t L." - ~ t
5j.lt~J 99 J -41 t r+ 70 J t~ 7 77J~t~
70 ~ ~ ~ 1738 MM...... 428 -l 100'l1O 1491 MIO 5 CO'<tM
IONCO .-- ............N
M ...... NIO VO'lCO
5 M N NCO ...... 1728 -.
+ 36 -. 5 -.\ 14 1-
B t. 549 ~
- GLEASON DR.
~ CD ~ ... 142 ~IO"'"
)> ON
;0 .--
~ t L." 5 z .J ... L
0
r-
17 J ~ t r+ 0
435 -
70 10.....10 ;u 5 -
v !=' CENTRAL PKWY.
5 + l")
5 -
:I:
A )> r-
0
t. 73 ffi
......NIO Z -L 127
~N~ ... 5 ~ O'lID
co......
5 DUBLIN BLVD. +- 5
~ t L." ~ L.
49 J ~ t r+ 105 J
5 10010 5-+
10
5-.
- ~ .
I Internal Study Intersection PM Peak Hour Volumes =n~
t:I figure 10
@lJililouoClmeans
-
hour. During the PM peak hour, the traffic flows are directly the opposite of those in the AM
peak hour. These peak hour traffic flows place a large burden on inbound/outbound turn lanes
at project study intersections.
.
-
Based on projected daily and peak hour volumes at these study intersections and on roadway
segments, recommended lane configurations have been shown in Figure 11. These lane
recommendations have been based on the carrying capacity of the roadways and peak hour
turning movement volumes at the nine study intersections. While average daily traffic (ADT)
is a good indicator of roadway lane requirements, intersection operation is usually considered the
major factor in determining the traffic handling capacity of a local circulation system. With the
cumulative traffic that would be generated by the proposed Dublin Transit Center and approved
and pending development, intersection operation would especially dictate the number of lanes
necessary on the surrounding street network.
-
..
-
Based on the traffic analyses and discussions with City Engineering staff, the following lane
configurations are recommended at cumulative roadway segments and intersections along Arnold
Drive, The Boulevard, Campus Drive and Altamirano Road:
-
A. Roadway Segments:
-
Arnold Drive Between:
-
Dublin Boulevard and The Boulevard (future): Four (4) travel lanes [two in each
direction] ;
The Boulevard and Commerce One Mid-Block Access (future): Four (4) travel lanes
[two in each direction];
Commerce One Mid-Block Access and Altamirano Road (future): Two (2) travel lanes
[one in each direction].
.
-
The Boulevard Between:
-
DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway (future): Two (2) travel lanes [one in each
direction] ;
Iron Horse Parkway and Campus Drive (future): Three (3) travel lanes [two in the
westbound direction and one in the eastbound direction];
Campus Drive and Arnold Road (future): Four (4) travel lanes [two in each direction];
Arnold Road and Commerce One Mid-Block Access (future): Six (6) travel lanes [three
in the westbound direction and three in the eastbound direction];
Commerce One Mid-Block Access and Hacienda Drive (future): Six (6) travel lanes
[three in each direction].
-
-
.
Campus Drive Between:
-
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Cen.ter
..
36
.
-
..L
r
r
G
1!!!l~l
iiiiiii
~
T
..
..
L
1-
~L ~
~ i~
T
F
L
+--
+--
r
r
iiri
! I.
E
~
~
~
T
L
+--
+--
~L F
--
=i: 111iri
-~
T
D
L
j!L ~
r
- -
41ir
c
~
r
11!l
II
GLEASON DR.
*
L
T
+
8
ir
J.~
-4
~
T
CENTRAL PKWY.
DUBLIN BLVD.
$
n
ffi
z
~
o
;0
.
ii ! ~ i
+-- . +--
+-- I 1-
1-:1-
fr-~~.--=r
+
* FREE RIGHT-TURN
~
+\ +
+
A
+
North
figure 11
Center
Dublin Transit
Recommended Intersection Geometries and Lane Configurations For
@1JUi)!JU~CJmeans
Dublin Boulevard and The Boulevard (future): Two (2) travel lanes with a two-way left-
turn lane [one in each direction with two-way left-turn lane];
The Boulevard and First Mid-Block Office Access (future): Four (4) travel lanes [two
in each direction];
First Mid-Block Office Access and Altamirano Road (future): Two (2) travel lanes with
a two-way left-turn lane [one lane in each direction with a two-way left-turn lane].
Altamirano Road Between:
-
-
-
-
Iron Horse Parkway and Arnold Road (future): Two (2) travel lanes [one in each
direction].
11III
B. Study Intersections:
-
a. DeMarcus Boulevard/The Boulevard
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Northbound approach:
Southbound approach:
II!IIIl
1 combination left-through-right-turn lane;
1 combination left-through-right-turn lane;
1 combination left-through-right-turn lane;
1 combination left-through-right-turn lane;
..
b. Iron Horse Parkway/The Boulevard
..
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Northbound approach:
Southbound approach:
1 combination left-through-right-turn lane;
1 through/left-turn lane, 1 free right-turn lane;
1 combination left-through-right-turn lane;
1 combination left-through-right-turn lane.
-
-
c. Campus Drive/The Boulevard
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Northbound approach:
Southbound approach:
-
1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane;
2 left-turn lanes, I through lane, 1 right-turn lane;
1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane;
1 left-turn lane, 1 through lane, and 1 right-turn lane.
-
d. Arnold Drive/Dublin Boulevard:
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Northbound approach:
Southbound approach:
..
1 left-turn lane, 3 through lanes, 1 right-turn lane;
2 left-turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 right-turn lane;
2 left-turn lanes, 1 through/right-turn lane, and 1 right-turn
lane;
lleft-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane.
-
-
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
-
38
..
.
e. Arnold Drive/The Boulevard:
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Northbound approach:
Southbound approach:
1 left-turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane;
2 left-turn lanes, 2 through lanes, 1 right-turn lane; .
1 left-turn lane, 1 through lane, I through/right-turn lane,
and 1 right-turn lane;
1 left-turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane.
f. Commerce One Access/The Boulevard:
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Northbound approach:
Southbound approach:
1 left-turn lane, 2 through lanes, 1 through/right-turn lane;
1 left-turn lane, 3 through lanes, 1 right-turn lane;
1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane;
1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane.
g. The Boulevard/Hacienda Drive:
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Northbound approach:
Southbound approach:
1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane, 2 right-turn lanes;
2 left-turn lanes, 1 through/right-turn lane;
3 left-turn lanes, 3 through lanes; 1 right-turn lane;
2 left-turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 shared through/right-
turn lane.
h. Commerce One Access/Arnold Drive:
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Northbound approach:
Southbound approach:
1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane;
1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane;
1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane;
1 left-turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 right-turn lane.
i. Arnold Drive/Altamirano Road:
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Southbound approach:
.Future Internal Intersection Operation
1 shared left/through lane;
1 shared through/right-turn lane;
1 shared left/right-turn lane.
With recommended circulation improvements, key project study intersections along Arnold Road
and The Boulevard have been analyzed for peak hour operation. Specifically, the intersections
of DeMarcus/The Boulevard, Iron Horse/The Boulevard, Campus/The Boulevard, Arnold/The
Boulevard, Commerce One Access/The Boulevard, Commerce One Access/Arnold, and
Arnold/Altamirano have been analyzed for peak hour operation. As outlined in Table 5, the
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
39
-
Table 5
Projected AM and PM Peak Hour Operation of Internal Access Intersections
-
..
Internal Intersection
AM Peak Operation PM Peak Operation
-
The Arnold/Dublin and Hacienda/The Boulevard intersections' LOS have been analyzed
as part of the external intersection and street network. Please refer to Section 5 (External
Intersections) for analysis of intersection LOS and recommended mitigation measures.
-
-
-
..
-
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
-
40
-
..
seven internal access ir.tersections would operate at LOS B or better, representing very stable
conditions. (Please refer to Table 4 for AM and PM peak hour operation of the Dublin/Arnold
and Hacienda/The Boulevard intersections.)
6. Effects of Dublin Transit Center on Transit Operation
BART
The effects of the proposed project have been quantified in terms of potential increases in daily
ridership. Discussions with BART staff indicate that BART has not performed detailed analyses
regarding the impacts of adjacent office and/or residential development adjacent to existing BART
stations. 19 However, other independent studies have been conducted which attempt to quantify
the impact of adjacent development in and around existing BART stations. Specifically, a study
conducted by the University of California Berkeley has evaluated the effects on increased
ridership of development immediately adjacent to existing BART stations.::O Proportional BART
ridership data for both residential and office uses could be quantified as follows:
Residential:
1,500 households (units) x 1 Adult/household x 32.1 % x 2 trips per day*
(481 out during the AM peak and 481 in during the PM peak).
= 963 riders
Office:
2,000,000 s.f. office / 200 s.f per employee x 17.1 % x 2 trips per day*
(1,710 in during the AM peak and 1,710 out during the PM peak).
= 3,420 riders
*The above calculations assume a minimum of 250 working days per year.
As shown above, during the peak commute hours the proposed project has the potential to
generate 481 riders from proposed residential development and 1,710 riders from proposed office
development (one-way trips). The office generated BART riders would be in the reverse
commute direction (eastbound) coming to the proposed project. Based on current BART
ridership data, 1,388 riders enter/exit the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station during the AM peak
hour (1,063 entering [westbound] and 325 exiting [eastbound]). Currently, BART provides four
8-car trains to/from the station during the peak hours. Each train has a capacity of 560 seats
which would equate to 2,240 seats (560 seats/train x 4 trains) during the peak hour.
However, BART assumes a ridership load capacity of 1.35 per train during peak commute
19pam Herhold, BART Financial Planning, Personal communication on December 8, 2000.
~obert Cervero, University of California Berkeley, Development Ridership Data For BART,
November 1993.
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
41
periods. This load factor allows for riders in the seats as well as standing in the aisles. For this
reason, total peak hour capacity would increase to 3,024 seats for the four peak hour BART
trains. In the eastbound or reverse commute direction, the addition of 1,710 riders to the
existing 325 riders would total 2,035 BART riders. This would be well within the carrying
capacity of the current system in the Dublin/Pleasanton area which BART serves. In addition,
in the westbound AM peak commute direction, the proposed project would be adding 481 new
riders for a total of 1,544 riders during the AM peak hour. Again, this is well within the
carrying capacity of the current Dublin/P1easanton BART system. During the PM peak hour
BART, existing BART ridership is lower with 1,266 passengers. Therefore, project impacts
would be less during the PM peak hour.
It is noted that the calculations used for the proposed project to quantify BART impacts are likely
to be conservative. These calculations assume that all potential riders from the proposed project
would use BART during the AM or PM peak hour. BART studies indicate that there are AM
and PM peak periods where BART riders access the system. These hours are between 6:30-9:30
AM and 4:30-7:30 PM. It is likely that riders from the proposed project would not all access
the BART system during just the AM and PM peak hours and would be dispersed throughout
the AM and PM peak periods. In addition, the BART percentage splits for residential and office
BART use may be high. This is based on overall Bay Area transit usage, which rarely exceeds
over 10 percent of all travel mode splits.
LAVTA
The effects of the proposed project have been quantified in terms of potential increases in
monthly ridership. Based on discussions with LA VTA staff, Wheels routes lA and IE, 3, and
4 have ample capacity and could absorb increases as high as 20-30 percent in monthly
ridership. 21 Wheels routes 10 and 12 are nearing capacity. Projected monthly ridership data
assumes 2-3 percent mode split for bus ridership. Based on proposed residential and office uses,
monthly ridership data could be quantified as follows:
Residential:
1,500 households (units) / 1 Adult/household x 2-3 % transit ridership x 2 trips per day x 20
working days per month = 1,200-1,800 monthly riders
Office:
2,000,000 s.f. office / 200 s.f per employee x 2-3% x 2 trips per day x 20 working days per
month = 8,000-12,000 monthly riders
ZISteven Spiedowski, Transit Planner, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Personal
communication on January 24, 2001.
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
.'
-
-
-
..
-
..
..
..
'.
..
..
..
.,
..
..
-
42
..
.
Ridership calculations for proposed residential and office uses indicate that there could be an
increase of 9,200-13,800 monthly riders on LA VTA bus routes in the project study area. Based
on an overall monthly ridership of 118,167 passengers on Wheels routes lA and 1B, 3,4,10, and
12, this would equate to an 8-11 percent increase in monthly ridership. This increase would not
be considered significant for the subject Wheels routes with the exception of routes 10 and 12.
LA VT A is in the process of updating their Transit Plan and will be re-timing routes 10 and 12
to allow for more monthly capacity. 22 With projected increases from the proposed project, there
may be standing (seats and aisles full) on routes 10 and 12 but this would not be considered
significant with respect to overall monthly capacity.
7. Parking
The proposed Transit Center project would replace the existing surface parking lots for the East
Dublin BART Station with a five level parking garage that would contain approximately 1,680-
1,700 spaces. The parking structure would be located south of Iron Horse Parkway on 4.1 acres
of land on the site of the existing BART Traction Station. The BART Traction Station would
incorporated into the ground floor of the parking garage. Based on information supplied by the
project applicant, the BART parking structure would be designed to accommodate ari additional
floor of parking (in the future). This additional floor would be able to accommodate 250 parking
spaces. The proposed parking structure would include a mixture of standard and handicap-
accessible spaces as well as parking for BART staff.
With the proposed Dublin Transit Center comprised of office, residential, and retail land uses,
the need for on-site parking would be requisite for orderly development. With the proposed
project's proximity to the BART Station and likely interaction between the three land uses,
parking demand in the area would be dynamic depending on the time of day. However, since
precise development plans have not been formulated and the number and location of future
parking structures/spaces is not known at this time. With respect to the BART parking structure
it is anticipated that BART patronage will continue to increase community residents from outside
the project area. (Future residents of the proposed Transit Center would be able to walk to/from
the BART Station). With increased parking demand for the East Dublin BART Station, there
is a potential for this excess demand to spill out onto the local streets. Currently, on-street
parking is expected to be allowed along DeMarcus Boulevard, Main Street, Iron Horse Parkway,
Campus Drive, and The Boulevard (as far as Arnold Road). It is anticipated the City will restrict
these on-street spaces by time limitations and/or residential permit programs to discourage BART
patrons from parking in these areas.
With respect to on-site parking, there is a potential for future development in the proposed
Transit Center to require less parking than stipulated in the City's parking codes. As a "Transit
Center", the proximity to BART, LA VT A, and County Connection would allow future
::Steven Spiedowski, Ibid..........
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
43
..
employees and residents to readily access transit options. Since proposed project trip generation
rates have been reduced for both office and residential uses, parking demand rates could also be
reduced slightly for increased transit usage. For proposed residential uses, it would be difficult ...
to reduce the parking code requirement. Although the residents may not drive their car to work,
they would still need a space to park their car when not in use. This would be similar to any
other residential development. However, to the extent that residents living in the Transit Center ..
could work in the adjacent office development, the office parking code requirements could be
reduced. The office parking code requirements would also be affected by employees of the
Transit Center using BART, LA VTA, and County Connection. Based on a 15% reduction in .,
the parking code rates for office development (same as office trip generation discount), this
would equate to reduction of 858 parking spaces (based on proposed 2,000,000 square feet office
space and a City code requirement of I space/350 square feet). ..
..
It is possible that future developers could request some reductions in the on-site parking code
requirements based on the close proximity to public transit. This would be allowed by the _
Dublin Zoning Ordinance and would likely be considered during review of Stage 2 Planned
Development rezoning and Site Development Review applications. It is noted that current
development occurring immediately east of the proposed Transit Center (which includes ..
Commerce One, Sybase, and Cisco Systems) either match or exceed the City's requirements for
on-site parking.
D. CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACTS
-
Cumulative traffic conditions with and without the proposed Dublin Transit Center have been ..
evaluated for the horizon Year 2025. This is consistent with Caltrans guidelines for future
roadway improvements and is also consistent with Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency guidelines for MTS street network evaluation. ..
1. Methodology For Year 2025 Base Year Traffic Projections
Cumulative year 2025 traffic volumes have been based on the Tri- Valley Transportation
Model.:3 Specifically, the Tri- Valley transportation model's land use assumptions were updated
using the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 98 land use data. Since
ABAG projections only extend to the horizon year 2020, a trendline was developed starting at
the Year 2000 and extended every five years to 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 to determine land
use trends and growth patterns. A five year average growth rate was determined by land use
type and applied to Year 2020 land use data to generate Year 2025 land use growth
projections. ~4
..
..
11II
..
:3Dowling Associates, Tri-Valley Model Update Final Report, 1996.
~4WiIlis Cheng, Transportation Modeler, Dowling Associates, Inc, "Dublin Transit 2025 Land Use
Projections 98', November 15, 2000.
..
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
..
44
..
..
In addition to generating Year 2025 land use projections, the Tri-Valley Transportation Model's
street network was updated using the recent Alamo Creek Transportation Model developed by
Dowling Associates. The updated street network reflects the extensions of Dublin Boulevard to
Hacienda Drive as well as the Scarlett Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road.
Base Year 2025 model projections for the AM and PM peak hour were also "furnessed" to
reflect existing and base model traffic volumes. This involved manually adjusting specific
turning movement volumes to be consistent with other future base traffic studies conducted in
the area.2S Lastly, specific future year 2025 base model volumes for the Dublin/Dougherty and
Santa Rita/l-580 Eastbound off-ramp/Pimlico intersections were reviewed by Dublin
Transportation staff prior to inclusion in this study.26
~
Year 2025 AM and PM peak hour base volumes without the proposed Dublin Transit Center
have been shown in Figures 12 and 13, respectively.
2. Year 2025 Street Network Improvements
Circulation improvements for the Year 2025 would be beyond those improvements currently
planned or recommended with existing plus future base plus project impacts. At this time, there
are specific roadway and intersection circulation improvements which would affect the project
study area:
Roadways:
Tassajara Road: Tassajara Road would be widened from four to eight travel lanes from 1-580
to Central Parkway, and from four to six lanes north of Central Parkway.
1-580: 1-580 would have one eastbound and one westbound auxiliary lane added between the
Tassajara Road/Santa Rita interchange and the Fallon Road interchange.
Central Parkway: Central Parkway would be widened from two through lanes to four through
lanes.
Hacienda Drive: Hacienda Drive would be widened from three to four through lanes north of
Central Parkway, pending traffic growth.
2SMeeting at Dowling Associates, Inc., George Nickelson and Peter Galloway (Omni-Means) and
Rick Dowling and Willis Cheng (Dowling Associates), Dublin Transit Center Year 2025 Base Model
volume adjustments, November 15, 2000.
26Ray Kuzbari, Associate Traffic Engineer, City of Dublin, Year 2025 intersection review for
Dougherty/Dublin, Hacienda/I-580 Westbound off-ramp, and Santa RitalI-580 Eastbound off-
ramp/Pimlico, December 10, 2000.
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
45
.. 94
of" 258
107 ..~rJ"
106,. ~~
......
o
CO 101'"
~...... '1:.. 10
... ~ f...~~,~
+ ~'
~~
N......
9
8
. r-. N v ~ 25
N NM .. 2040
~I ... ~ of" 30
357 --+i-41 + rt-
1036..100N
327 "li M
7
.. 2182
of" 116
1791 ..~
28,.1 ~~
~ 77
~~ ..1921
~ ~ of" 216
77 ..J..l rt-
1770.. NN
428"l M......
6
It) 0 10\ ~ 440
N ~\.. 1533
-41 ... ~Iof" 17
5..J.~+rJ"
1480.. -.t 0 0
15 Ilh- N
"l
UIO 0 10 ~ 440
.....vr-.
cor-... 2
N
~ ... l.- of" 25
19 --+ :;j;":r;.='
11 .. NOO
78 00 .... N
"l . 0>
I
-v N N ~ 7
......~ .. 0
-41 ... l.- of" 384
"".'''1---]' ~ + rJ"
o .. r-.vCO
70 "l g} to 10
g~:g -l 146
...... gj N .. 865
.' ... ~ of" 634
48 --+ ~ + rt-
623.. 0 ~ O'l
770"l ~ O'l a;
13
"'~ ~ 0 ~ 2
......~ .. 0
~..J..~ f'" 73
6 j" ~"r'iii='
0" r-.OM
......COM
47 "l ...... ~ N
?
cor-. (") co ~ 154
~ :g ~ .. 591
.' ... l.- of" 559
267 -+ ~ t rJ"
493.. ~ ~ ~
208"l 0> 0> ......
J:::~
....r-.
......
~...
1091 -+
1818 ,.
14
~ ~ ,~ 756
~... f'" 1456
~+
v(o
r-.IO
COv
......
15
ci
lr
...........-----
~
~
l/)
l/)
~
::I.....
BLVD.
....".,,,..............
BLVD.
CENTRAL PKWY,
DUBLIN
ci
0::
9
o
Z
lr
<(
", '.l ~; tiJ i:.~' ~
(/)1 fI) I
::J . 0:: 'I :
~ ~ . ~ ~. I
'<l:;.j ZOO I
~C ~ ~ . .t!~.Q~~~Y.~BP.
I'I.lI: - ....l...~ .
.~' l~~~1"." " I :
'iP~~~~C,I ~!P: .!
. :.1~'~~~<~~ ~~9~_~~1..~j
'..-.....
",
".
".
'.
.........
'.
"
ci
n:
.
~
W
J:
Cl
::l
o
o
-l 867
f'" 722
trt-
or-.
CON
IOv
......
01'-
0>0
'<tCO
............
~...
+rJ"
r-.r-.
00>
.....N
.....
O'lN
;1):g
......
-41 ...
824..J.
1133 "l
4
t~
......co
~~
......
I
I
I
I
AM Cumulative (Year 2025)
Peak Hour Volumes
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
@llifilllil~omeans
. -
- -
I I I I
I
16
- co 0> co t..36
M~~ "16
~+~ ,9
284 ~ ~"r'~
144 .. MO>IO
350 , re;b 'I;f'
......
!1l1O 10 N t.. 54
'l;f'COO 6
M........
~ r ~ ,142
";'52"]' ~"r';,:'
32 .. ~...... M
COM
395 , ...... ~
~ ~ ~ ~ t.. 402
CO 0> .. 520
~ + ~, 92
457 A- :;ej":r~
1039" om~
1440, IO;! 10
!2l~r:: t.. 394
......t"')
............
~+ ,600
+~
O>v
N~
......r-.
N
M!lococo
~ g ~ t.. 365
...... ,161
~+~
784~ +~
344.. g m
246, ~ t::
I + N,,"
figure 13
Q.
.. 30
- ,130
72 +\ ~ ~
122, f2~
1J
NOO t.. 5
~...... .. 20
-4' + ~ , 91
......13...]' ~1 + ~
15 + ~ N M
00
287, v ......
~r-. 10 r-. t.. 12
co co 10
...... 0 M .. 325
~ .. ~ , 291
237 A- ~+~
1210" ~~~
625 , v v co
:tl 0> r-. 0 t.. 11
N
10 .. 0
......
~+~ , 579
....7.:;..J. :;fj'lhfi'=.
0.. MO'lM
544 , co~~
11 ~~ t.. 340
~v
............
~, + , 310
~+
100>
Nr-.
vv
............
- -
- -
ffi~
co 0>
~ +~
930 ~
310 ,. ......10
......O'l
ON
N......
~ ~ It.. 15
+ ~ f 233
"."jj;'
0>0
MM
ci
0::
..",...,............
9
8
- (l) N CO t. 14
~ v.. 411
~+~, 9
65 ~l~ + ~
1826 -~I M co co
36 ,.1 ~"""N
BLVD.
CENTRAL PKWY.
.. 1155
f" 28
1935+~
1,.1 ~~
............
_GLEASON
ci
o
~
z
w
~
I
ci
0::
9
o
Z
0::
~
t. 50
:8 ~ .. 1202
~ ~, 50
50~~ ~
1824" r-. M
99, ::t co
6
5 I
'1O~~\t.. 383
~ .. 1009
~ + ~, 12
5~~+~
1396 + 0> 10 co
33,. O'lN'I;f'
",
"
'"
"
"
'"''''
"
"
",
"
ci
0::
~
W
I
C>
::l
o
o
~ :g c;; t.. 383
MIO.. 11
~ r ~ f... 20
10 .J. ~ .fit"'
5.. ONIO
36 , ~~~
N
U ~ ~n::: t.. 128
............ -4- 464
......
~I + ~ .. 457
130 ~ -41 + ~
950.. NO~
1298,. ~~v
......N
ll......co
coco t. 732
~IO
..........
-4' + .. 462
+~
lOCO
cor-.
.....N
M......
-
!l~~ -
vr-.
.....
~ +~
1250.J.
833, CON
or-.
rev
BLVD.
PM Cumulative (Year 2025)
Peak Hour Volumes
DUBLIN
,~
" I ~
III III I . i
:1 0::. :
u ' 0 ~ .
~ g :r: ~ .:
<( '-' Z 11. .
~I~, :, ~, ",.,I....j~Q~~~Y.~BP.
o mi - ..~~.., .
Pf{~~CT 's~l!' I
.-t~~tI ..~~##,,~t._ I :
. J'. :~..,..........1
~
@1Ji1i)1Jl)~C1means
Intersections :
-Dougherty/Scarlett: The northbound Dougherty Road approach would be widened to include
one (1) left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes and one (1) free right-turn lane. The southbound
Dougherty Road approach would be widened and restriped to include two (2) left-turn lanes,
three (3) through lanes, and one (1) free right-turn lane.
- Dublin/Scarlett: The southbound Scarlett Drive approach would be constructed to include two
(2) left-turn lanes, one (1) through lane, and one (1) right-turn lane. The eastbound Dublin
Boulevard approach would be widened and restriped to include one (1) left-turn lane, three (3)
through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The westbound Dublin Boulevard approach would
be widened and restriped to include one (1) left-turn lane, two (2) through lanes, and one (1)
shared through/right-turn lane. It is noted that these improvements are a part of what is being
recommended for existing plus future base plus project conditions with the recommended
construction of the Scarlett Drive extension.
-TassajaralGleason: The northbound Tassajara Road approach would be widened and restriped
to include two (2) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The
southbound Tassajara Road approach would be widened and restriped to include one (1) left-turn
lane, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The eastbound Gleason Drive approach
would be restriped to include two (2) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn
lane. The westbound Gleason Drive approach would be constructed to include two (2) left-turn
lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane.
-TassajaralCentral Parkway: The northbound Tassajara Road approach would be widened and
restriped to include two (2) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane.
The southbound Tassajara Road approach would be widened and restriped to include two (2) left-
turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The eastbound Central Parkway
approach would be restriped to include one (1) left-turn lane, one (1) through lane, and one (1)
right-turn lane. The westbound Central Parkway approach would be constructed to include two
(2) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane.
-TassajaralDublin: The southbound Tassajara Road approach would be widened to include two
(2) left-turn lanes, four (4) through lanes, and one (2) right-turn lanes. The northbound
Tassajara Road approach would be widened to include three (3) left-turn lanes, four (4) through
lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach would be widened
to include two (2) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and two (2) right-turn lanes. The
westbound Dublin Boulevard approach would be widened to include three (3) left-turn lanes,
three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane.
3. Base Year 2025 Without Project Intersection Operation
Year 2025 without project study intersection LOS have been calculated in Table 6. As
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
-
.,
..
-
.
.,
.
..
-
.
-
-
-
-
..
-
..
48
-
.
Table 6
Cumulative Year 2025 No Project Level-of-Service (LOS)
Dublin Transit Center Study Area
AM and PM Peak Hour!
Intersection
Year 2025 No Project
LOS- v IC LOS- V /C
AM PM
Mitigated LOS
LOS-V/C LOS-V/C
AM PM
1. Dougherty/Scarlett
2. Dougherty/Dublin
3. Dougherty/I-580 WB off
4. Hopyard/I-580 EB off
5. Dublin/Scarlett
6. DublinlDeMarcus
7. Dublin/Iron Horse
8. Dublin/Arnold
9. Arnold/Central
10. Hacienda/Gleason
11. Hacienda/Central
12. HaciendaIDublin
13. Hacienda/The Boulevard
14. Hacienda/I-580 WE off
15. Hacienda/I-580 EB off
16. Tassajara/Gleason
17. Tassajara/Central
18. Tassajara/Dublin
19. Tassajara/I-580 WE off
20. Tassajara/I-580 EB off/PimIico
B 0.62 C 0.71
F 1.01 E 0.94 D 0.89 D 0.90
C 0.77 D 0,81
B 0.69 D 0.88
A 0.59 A 0.51
A 0.46 A 0.49
A 0.44 A 0.47
B 0.69 C 0.74
A 0.18 A 0.10
A 0.22 A 0.15
A 0.50 A 0.51
B 0.65 C 0.73
A 0.40 B 0.62
C 0.75 A 0.38
D 0.89 B 0.66
A 0.57 A 0.60
A 0.60 B 0.61
C 0.74 D 0.81
A 0.58 C 0.78
D 0.83 D 0.87
(1) Signalized intersection LOS is based on Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) methodology.
(2) Year 2025 no project base year volumes based on the Tri- Valley Transportation Model updated with ABAG
Projections 98'. Five year growth factor applied to Year 2020 land use projections to obtain Year 2025
volumes. Assumes Alamo Creek Transportation Model street network (Dowling Associates, Inc. Dublin
Transit 2025 Land Use P'98, November 15,2000).
Transponarion Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
49
calculated, one project study intersection would experience significant congestion during the AM
and/or PM peak hour. This would include the Dougherty/Dublin study intersection. In addition
to mitigation recommended for existing plus future base plus project conditions, the following
mitigation measures are suggested for impacted study locations:
-Dougherty/Dublin: The southbound Dougherty Road approach should be modified to include
two (2) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) shared through/right-turn lane. The
northbound Dougherty Road approach should be widened and re-striped to include three (3) left-
turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and two (2) right-turn lanes. The westbound Dublin
Boulevard approach should be modified to include three (3) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes,
and one (1) shared through/right-turn lane. With these improvements, intersection LOS would
improve from LOS F (1.01) to D (0.89) during the AM peak hour and from LOS E (0.94) to
D (0.90) during the PM peak hour. In addition, the section of southbound Dougherty Road
between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580 would need to be modified to accommodate four (4) travel
lanes. These lanes should be configured so that the right most lane would lead exclusively to
the 1-580 westbound on-ramp, with the second right most lane leading to the overpass or the 1-
580 westbound on-ramp. These improvements would require widening and restriping the 1-580
westbound diagonal on-ramp.
4. Base Year 2025 With Project Intersection Operation
AM and PM peak hour Dublin Transit Center project trips were manually added into base Year
2025 transportation model volumes to ensure the most conservative analysis and are shown in
Figures 14 and 15.
With proposed project traffic, study intersection LOS have been calculated and are shown in
Table 7. Calculated intersection LOS reflects planned and recommended circulation
improvements (mitigation measures) used for Year 2025 base volumes without the proposed
project. As shown in Table 7, with proposed project traffic the Dougherty/Dublin intersection
would experience congested conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. Specifically,
Dougherty/Dublin intersection would be operating at LOS E (0.97) during the AM peak hour and
LOS F (1.06) during the PM peak hour. In response, the following measures are recommended:
-Dougherty/Dublin: With Year 2025 plus project volumes, both the Dougherty Road northbound
left-turn movement and southbound through movement would require additional mitigation
measures. Specifically, the southbound Dougherty Road approach would require five (5) through
lanes and the northbound approach would require four (4) left-turn lanes. These improvements
are not feasible given the physical constraints at the Dougherty/Dublin intersection. It is
recommended that the City monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis
and continue to obtain updated volume forecasts for future horizon years (i.e. Year 2025). In
addition, current and future phases of the 1-580 Smart Corridor Project would likely relieve some
congestion at the Dougherty/Dublin intersection through ITS measures and discourage traffic
from diverting off the freeway due to congestion or incidents.
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
-
..
-
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
..
..
..
..
-
..
..
50
..
..
16'
=:3~~ ~ 151
NCO + 129
~ +" ~.- 87
99 ~ ~i"r'r;;:
9 .... COMIO
CON
131 t MM
11Iv 0 0 ~ 78
......O>~
......~ + 30
~-.J..~. .- 443
20 ~ ~i'l"~'
3....0NCO
......co......
111 tMCO......
!!IN CO 0 ~ 257
..........0
vM..... +1193
N
~...~ .- 345
300 ~ :;e;":r~
181 .... ~~~
434 t M r-.
!21
M..--
100 ~ 685
vr-.
............ f" 737
~...
+1'"
0<0
COM
NCO
.....
~OOO
ro ~ ~ ~ 451
..... f" 187
~...~
798 ~ +1'"
117.... mm
799 t vCO
......
I tN,..
figure 14
.. 178
f" 305
128...rJl'"
106 t ~~
.....
I
'~ON ~ 7
......~ + 15
~ ... ~ .. 432
........1...]. ~ + r~
10 .... r-...-- N
70 0>0'l0'l
t NCO
12
-MMCO ~ 154
N :g ~ + 963
~ ... ~ T 559
301 ~ "I + I'"
940... ...... M N
co r-. 10
392 to>O>......
110)0'l0 ~ 2
Mr-.
......~ + 0
.~..J..~ T 73
6 ~ ~i"+"~'
0... ~co~
298 -. .....~N
" N......
o
N 10'.1-
~...... ~ 10
... ~ f..~~=...
+1'"
10M
CO~
N......
ci
~
~...........
~
~
CI)
~
~..
~..-...-..
,.
......
9
8
'OMv ~ 25
~ co C') + 1838
..I ... ~.- 388
378 -1-1~ + I'"
1986 "'1 010 r-.
327 T' C') ......
BLVD.
CENTRAL PKWY.
7
.. 1981
f" 127
2966 "'I~ I'"
170 t ~ a
......
ci
~
9
o
z
~
<(
~ 77
;;I)~ ..1957
~ .- 19
77~~ ~
3109.... ~~
57 t .....
6
100N\ ~ 490
N~ .. 1659
~ ... ~ .- 17
5-1-~+~
2261 .... v 0 0
15 10..... N
T
"''Il
"
"
"
",
",
..'....
",
",
ci
~
~
~
W
I
e>
::I
o
o
10 M N t.. 490
......~~+ 2
N
~ ... ~.- 25
19 ~ ~"l'~
11 .... NOO
78 tCO~ N
llg~~ ~ 164
.....~M "II' 933
-41 ... ~ .- 742
48 ..+ ~+I'"
900.... O~M
770 t gO)~
..... .....
llcoo>
r-.N ~867
lOCO
...........
..I ... f" 722
+1'"
ctl\i
O>v
.....
-
il Ov -
o>r-.
vco
............
~ +1'"
1170 ..+ lOr-.
1133 t 0)0>
--N
...
~~ I~ 1299
~... T 1456
~+
NCO
co 10
~v
+~
O'lCO
NM
vN
......
10<0
O'lr-.
NCO
.....
~...
1711 -1-
1818 t
4
15
Center
BLVD.
AM Cumulative lVear 2025) + Dublin Transit
Peak Hour Volumes
~j ;~L~ARD
~"_ ._._,', ~t~~t ;Jr:rtr..............
;; PROJECT SI11!+;,1
'iJt~:::~:~;~.~;;1~4.r:I '~,~'~;lJJ
,~". :'>\.~"~' ;.-.;..~:..<;\..'" ...."'~..J
~
@OiJi)llilnameans
-
-
16
-'~~~ ~ 36
,","0..--..- 16
...' r~., 9
358 ~ ~inf"i'"
144 -. ("') O'l 10
350 ~ ~ ~ V
..--
~~~~ 15
(")..-..- 10
~!...(~~, f.n~.~
152 ~ <II, t i"-
32 -. 't..-..-
39 '<I'(")M
5 T ..-~M
17
~~~ ~ 402
..- !Xl 0> <II- 538
~ of l~ T 92
507 .~ '~;":rij;
1089 -. 0> 01 '<I'
..--lOO
1490 T IO;! 10
~ 650
T 611
+rt>
""'v
'<1'..-
..--,....
N
'0'
-1LO(")co
g~~ ~ 365
;; of ~ ., 161
784 ~ ... r~
344 -. ~ ~
246 T ~ ~
I
+- North
figure 15
I I
Q
-4- 56
- ., 84
123 ~I"'I rt>
122 T R ~
!1
N~O ~ 5
0>...... <II- 10
,_~J..J,~ T 104
13 ~ -41 t r~
15 ~ 'tIO<O
287 T <0 ~ ~
1110 LO r-. ~ 12
0><010
......OM ..- 643
..--
~...~ T 291
293 ~ <II, ... I~
1917 ~ 0> co 0
"--0..--
850 T lO 't (Q
COvM
"-..--N
'<1'0> CO
~r-.o
...... co ~ 490
r-.N
..--N
~... ., 310
~...
NO'l
0,....
""'v
........--
-
11] M co -
MM
MN
............
~
1101 ~ ...~
310 T ,....10
..- 0>
"--N
N..-
"1 g" /'
v 15
of ~ f...~33
f'i"-
00
0>(")
MNCO ~ 14
':i gj <11- 1052
-41 ... ~., 67
99 ~i~ ... rt>
2112 -~i M M ......
36 .! 10 N co
T: M ......
8
7
..- 1776
., 62
2033 ...~l ~
40 T 8l ~
<ON
10 't ~ 50
10 10 ..- 2324
<Ill l~., 101
50 ~ -4j ~
1990... M O'l
147 T ~ N
I>
10 '<I' LO: ~ 860
CflO>\
LOi <11- 1950
-4' ... ~\., . 12
5 ~ -4, + r"
1551... 0> 10 <0
33 T 0> N v
5
/JJ~ ~ ~ t. 860
~IO..._ 11
~ ... ~ T 20
1 0 ~ '~i":rijO:
5... O"--LO
36 T ~~N
I.~~~~ ~ 227
~ ..-- ..- 952
<IIJ ... ~ .,1075
130 ~ <III ... r~
1035 -.. N 0 0
1298 ~ :e:; ~
'f "--N
9, '<1'......
(,,)N
"-'<1'
..-..-
~...
18
BLVD.
I
I
Center
I
I
ci
a::
~_.....
<(
a::
<(
:t
CI)
CI)
~
;\..
,.---~--'"
---,,'"
BLVD.
_ GLEAS.Qti
ri
o
(3
z
w
o
<(
I CENTRAL PKWY.
DUBLIN
PM Cumulative (Year 2025) + Dublin Transit
Peak Hour Volumes
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ci
a::
o
.J
o
Z
a::
<(
. ~
lU . .
en U) : ~
=- oc': :
o ' 0 ~: ..
rr g r ~: ':
<..J za.1 I
::< m 0 ! !BOULEVARD
~ a:: -,_, ................................
THE - .....;......:......~.-.I
................ ,-. .
PROJ~CT S!TE!
......., ....'\, i i
......',... "......l........J
ci
0::
>-
I-
a::
w
I
(9
:J
o
o
I
~
-0
@lJiJi)lJi)oomeans
- - -
I I I
t. 732
T 462
t r'"
0> co
0>,....
NN
(")..--
ION
""'<0
V(O
..-......
...J ...
... ,'"
(")N
("),....
<0'<1'
N
<0 CO
00
'<I'CO
......
<IIJ ...
1357 ~
833,..
I
Table 7
Cumulative Year 2025 With Dublin Transit Center Project
Level-or-Service (LOS) AM and PM Peak Hour 2
Year 2025 Year 2025 Mitigated
Intersection No Project With Project
AM PM AM PM AM PM
1. Dougherty/Scarlett B 0.62 C 0.71 B 0.64 D 0.81
2. Dougherty/Dublin D 0.89 D 0.90 E 0.97 F 1.06 E 0.97 F 1.06
3. Dougherty/I-580 WB off C 0.77 D 0.81 C 0.77 D 0.83
4. Hopyard/I-580 EB off B 0.69 D 0.88 B 0.70 D 0.90
5. Dublin/Scarlett A 0.59 A 0.51 D 0.81 B 0.64
6. Dublin/DeMarcus A 0046 A 0049 CO. 74 A 0.59
7. Dublin/Iron Horse A 0.44 A 0047 B 0.66 D 0.82
8. Dublin/Arnold B 0.69 C 0.74 C 0.74 D 0.83
9. Arnold/Central AO.18 AO.I0 AO.19 A 0.32
10. Hacienda/Gleason A 0.22 A 0.15 A 0.26 A 0.18
11. Hacienda/Central A 0.50 A 0.51 A 0.54 A 0.52
12. HaciendaIDublin B 0.65 C 0.73 C 0.74 D 0.88
13. Hacienda/The Boulevard A 0040 B 0.62 C 0.74 D 0.88
14. Hacienda/I-580 WE off B 0.75 A 0.38 D 0.89 A 0.57
15. Hacienda/I-580 EB off D 0.89 B 0.66 D 0.90 C 0.73
16. TassajaralGleason A 0.57 A 0.60 B 0.61 B 0.61
17. Tassajara/Central A 0.60 B 0.61 B 0.61 B 0.62
18. Tassajara/Dublin C 0.74 D 0.81 CO.77 D 0.82
19. Tassajara/I-580 WE off A 0.58 C 0.78 A 0.58 C 0.80
20. Tassajara/I-580 EB off/Pimlico D 0.83 D 0.87 D 0.83 D 0.88
(1) Signalized intersection LOS is based on Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) methodology.
(2) Year 2025 no project base year volumes based on the Tri- Valley Transportation Model updated with ABAG
Projections 98'. Five year growth factor applied to Year 2020 land use projections to obtain Year 2025
volumes. Assumes Alamo Creek Transportation Model street network (Dowling Associates, Inc. Dublin
Transit 2025 Land Use P'98, November 15,2000).
Transpol1arion Analysis for rhe Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
53
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
1.
J.
k.
1.
All other project study intersections would be operating at LOS D or better during the AM and
PM peak hours with Year 2025 plus project traffic volumes.
5. Daily Volume Analysis
Based on discussions with City Transportation staff, a daily traffic analysis was conducted for
selected roadway segments in the project study area. 27 The following twelve segments were
analyzed for daily traffic volumes:
Hacienda Drive between 1-580 and The Boulevard
Hacienda Drive between The Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard
Hacienda Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway
Hacienda Drive between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive
Arnold Road between Altamirano Road and The Boulevard
Arnold Road between The Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard
Arnold Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway
Arnold Road between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive
Central Parkway between Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive
Central Parkway between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road
Dougherty Road between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard
Scarlett Drive Extension between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road
Consistent with previous analyses conducted in the study area, average daily traffic (ADT)
volumes were generated by assuming that PM peak hour volumes represent 10 percent of ADT
volumes for future base, proposed project, and Year 2025 base volumes. These projected ADT
volumes were then added to existing daily volume traffic and have been shown in Table 8.28
The City has established maximum ADT thresholds for two-lane, four-lane, and six-lane
roadways and arterials based on the Transportation Research Boards 1994 Highway Capacity
Manual and the City of Dublin General Plan. This includes 15,600 ADT for a two-lane
roadway, 30,000 ADT for a four-lane arterial, and 50,000 ADT for a six-lane arterial to
maintain LOS D. Based on these maximum thresholds, all selected roadway segments would be
operating at acceptable levels of service with the exception of two roadway segments:
-Hacienda Drive between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive would exceed the 15,600 ADT
volume with existing plus future base plus project traffic. This would require widening the
roadway from three to four travel lanes in this segment (two (2) northbound lanes and two (2)
southbound lanes).
27Ray Kuzbari, Associate Traffic Engineer, Personal communication on January 22, 2001.
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
~
-
28TJKM Transportation Consultants, Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Areas F - H, City _
of Dublin, January 31, 2000.
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
-
54
-
-
Table 8
Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes on Selected Roadway Segments
Dublin Transit Center Study Area
Roadway:
(Segment)
Exist
E+FB
E+FB+PIj.
2025
No PIj.
2025
wi PIj.
Hacienda Drive:
I-580--The Boulevard 15,400 44,150 61,690 45,125 62,625
The Boulevard--Dublin 15,400 34,630 37,430 34,875 37,687
Dublin--Central Parkway 12,600 27,300 28,200 27,300 28,200
Central Parkway--Gleason 10,650 15,960 16,8601 15,960 16,860
Arnold Road:
Altamirano-- The Boulevard 0 3,870 8,425 3,870 8,425
The Boulevard--Dublin 0 4,370 7,975 4,370 7,975
Dublin--Central Parkway 3,730 7,050 7,990 7,050 7,990
Central Parkway-Gleason 3,730 5,640 6,240 5,640 6,240
Central Parkway:
Arnold--Hacienda 0 6,540 6,875 6,540 6,875
Hacienda-- T assajara 1,150 6,450 6,900 6,450 6,900
Dougherty Road:
1-580--Dublin 40,680 52,660 57,730 75,020 80,060
Scarlett Drive Extension:
Dublin-Dougherty 0 0 14,000 11,600 14,000
Source: Omni-Means Engineers & Planners, Consultants Report: Transportation Impacts For the Proposed Dublin
Transit Center, City of Dublin, Administrative Draft Report, December 15, 2000.
The southbound volume estimate on Hacienda Drive between Gleason Drive and Central Parkway would
total 970 vehicles during the PM peak hour with existing plus future base plus project traffic.
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
55
.Scarlett Drive Extension between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road would just be
approaching the City's threshold of 15,600 ADT with existing plus future base plus project traffic
(14,000 ADT) for a four-lane roadway. In addition, directional turning movement volumes of
712 vehicles southbound during the AM peak hour and 891 vehicles northbound during the PM
peak hour would add to these lane requirements. For this reason, the Scarlett Drive Extension
between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road would require four travel lanes.
6. 1-580 Mainline Freeway Operation
Year 2025 Without Proiect
Mainline AM and PM peak hour directional volumes on Interstate 580 have been evaluated for
the Year 2025 without project. As shown in Table 9, four mainline freeway segments were
analyzed along 1-580 in the project study area. These include the following segments:
.
.
1-680 to Dougherty Road
Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road
Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
.
.
As shown in Table 9, all four segments in the westbound commute direction are projected to
operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour with Year 2025 no project volumes. During the PM
peak hour, the 1-680 to Dougherty and Tassajara to Fallon segments would be operating at LOS
F in the eastbound commute direction. The Dougherty to Hacienda and Hacienda to Tassajara
segments would be operating at LOS D and E, respectively.
Year 2025 With Project
With proposed Dublin Transit Center traffic added to Year 2025 no project mainline freeway
volumes, projected LOS for eastbound and westbound segments would remain unchanged.
However, with a projected LOS of F in the AM westbound commute direction, proposed project
trips would be adding to an already deficient condition. During the PM peak hour, project trips
would also be adding to a deficient condition between 1-680 and Dougherty Road and Tassajara
Road and Fallon Road. These specific segments would not meet the Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency's minimum freeway LOS standards. This would be true without proposed
project trips. For this reason, the addition of project trips to mainline 1-580 peak hour
directional volumes would be considered a significant, unavoidable impact.
7.
Operational/Queuing Requirements of the Dougherty/Dublin and Hacienda/I-580
Westbound Off-Ramp Intersections
The intersections of Dougherty/Dublin and Hacienda/l-580 Westbound Off-Ramp have been
analyzed for projected vehicle queuing requirements with base Year 2025 volumes with and
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
-
..
..
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
56
..
..
Table 9
Year 2025 1-580 Mainline Freeway Operation
AM and PM Peak Hour LOS12
Year 2025 No Project Year 2025 With Project
A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
Location Capacity Vol. LOS Vol. LOS Vol. LOS Vol. LOS
1-580, 1-680 to Dougherty
Eastbound 9,200 6.537 D 10,270 F 7,439 E 10,541 F
Westbound 9,200 10,315 F 8,072 E 10,536 F 8,840 E
1-580. Dougherty to Hacienda
Eastbound 13,800 6,783 C 9,714 D 7,339 C 9,878 D
Westbound 9,200 10,279 F 8,126 E 10,414 F 8.600 E
1-580, Hacienda to Tassajara
Eastbound 11 ,500 5,563 C 9,736 E 5,681 C 10,150 E
Westbound 9,200 10,690 F 7,174 D 11,177 F 7,318 D
1-580, Tassajara to Fallon
Eastbound 9,200 5,557 C 9,946 F 5,705 C 10,395 F
Westbound 9,200 10,019 F '6,494 D 10,549 F 6,656 D
(1) Transportation Research Board, Hi!!hwav Capacity Manual 1997, Chapter 3, Table 3-1, LOS Criteria For
Basic Freeway Sections, December 1997. Assumes maximum service flow rate of 2,300 passenger cars
per hour per lane,
(2) Year 2025 base year no project volumes based on the Updated Tri-Valley Transportation Model using
ABAG Projections 98'. Proposed Dublin Transit Center peak hour trips were then manually added into
these base volumes to generate Year 2025 with project volumes.
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
57
without the proposed project. (Please refer to appendices for operational calculations). Based
on ultimate lane geometric and phasing split data supplied by the Dublin Transportation staff, the
following storage requirements would be needed for critical turning movement volumes at the
two study intersections:
Year 2025 No Project
a. Dublin/Dougherty AM Peak Hour:
Southbound: The Dougherty Road left-turn approach would have a 95 percentile design
queue of 62 vehicles. Based on two left-turn lanes, this would equate to an average
queue of 31 vehicles or 682 feet of storage (based on 22 feet per vehicle). The right-turn
approach would have a 95 percent design queue of 8 vehicles. Based on one right-turn
lane, this would equate to 176 feet of storage.
Northbound: The Dougherty Road left-turn approach would have a 95 percentile design
queue of 66 vehicles. Based on two left-turn lanes, this would equate to an average
queue of 33 vehicles or 726 feet of storage (based on 22 feet per vehicle). The right-turn
approach would have a 95 percent design queue of 49 vehicles. Based on two right-turn
lanes, this would equate to 539 feet of storage.
Eastbound: The Dublin Boulevard left-turn approach would have a 95 percentile design
queue of 4 vehicles. Based one left-turn lane, this would equate to average queue of 4
vehicles or 88 feet (based on 22 feet per vehicle). The right-turn approach would have
a 95 percent design queue of 35 vehicles. Based on two right-turn lanes, this would
equate to 385 feet of storage.
Westbound: The Dublin Boulevard left-turn approach would have a 95 percentile design
queue of 46 vehicles. Based on three left-turn lanes, this would equate to average queue
of 15 vehicles or 330 feet (based on 22 feet per vehicle). The right-turn approach would
have a 95 percent design queue of 36 vehicles. Based on one right-turn lanes, this would
equate to 792 feet of storage.
b. Dublin/Dougherty PM Peak Hour:
Southbound: The Dougherty Road left-turn approach would have a 95 percentile design
queue of 49 vehicles. Based on two left-turn lanes, this would equate to an average
queue of 25 vehicles or 550 feet of storage (based on 22 feet per vehicle). The right-turn
approach would have a 95 percent design queue of 6 vehicles. Based on one right-turn
lane, this would equate to 132 feet of storage.
Northbound: The Dougherty Road left-turn approach would have a 95 percentile design
queue of 95 vehicles. Based on two left-turn lanes, this would equate to an average
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
-
..
-
-
..
..
-
..
..
..
..
..
..
-
..
..
..
58
..
..
queue of 48 vehicles or 1,056 feet of storage (based on 22 feet per vehicle). The right-
turn approach would have a 95 percent design queue of 20 vehicles. Based on two right-
turn lanes, this would equate to 220 feet of storage.
Eastbound: The Dublin Boulevard left-turn approach would have a 95 percentile design
queue of 10 vehicles. Based one left-turn lane, this would equate to average queue of 10
vehicles or 220 feet (based on 22 feet per vehicle). The right-turn approach would have
a 95 percent design queue of 39 vehicles. Based on two right-turn lanes, this would
equate to 429 feet of storage.
Westbound: The Dublin Boulevard left-turn approach would have a 95 percentile design
queue of 34 vehicles. Based on three left-turn lanes, this would equate to average queue
of 11 vehicles or 242 feet (based on 22 feet per vehicle). The right-turn approach would
have a 95 percent design queue of 33 vehicles. Based on one right-turn lanes, this would
equate to 726 feet of storage.
c. Hacienda/I-580 Westbound Off-ramp AM Peak Hour:
Northbound: The Hacienda Drive approach would have a 95 percentile design queue of
69 vehicles. Based on three through lanes, this would equate to average queue of 23
vehicles or 506 feet (based on 22 feet per vehicle).
Westbound: The 1-580 Westbound Off-ramp approach would have a 95 percentile design
queue of 50 vehicles. Based on two left-turn lanes, this would equate to average queue
of 25 vehicles or 550 feet (based on 22 feet per vehicle).
Year 2025 With Project
a. Dublin/Dougherty AM Peak Hour:
Southbound: The Dougherty Road left-turn approach would have a 95 percentile design
queue of 76 vehicles. Based on two left-turn lanes, this would equate to an average
queue of 38 vehicles or 836 feet of storage (based on 22 feet per vehicle). The right-turn
approach would have a 95 percent design queue of 8 vehicles. Based on one right-turn
lane, this would equate to 176 feet of storage.
Northbound: The Dougherty Road left-turn approach would have a 95 percentile design
queue of 66 vehicles. Based on two left-turn lanes, this would equate to an average
queue of 33 vehicles or 726 feet of storage (based on 22 feet per vehicle). The right-turn
approach would have a 95 percent design queue of 80 vehicles. Based on two right-turn
lanes, this would equate to 880 feet of storage.
Eastbound: The Dublin Boulevard left-turn approach would have a 95 percentile design
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
59
queue of 4 vehicles. Based one left-turn lane, this would equate to average queue of 4
vehicles or 88 feet (based on 22 feet per vehicle). The right-turn approach would have
a 95 percent design queue of 35 vehicles. Based on two right-turn lanes, this would
equate to 385 feet of storage.
Westbound: The Dublin Boulevard left-turn approach would have a 95 percentile design
queue of 54 vehicles. Based on three left-turn lanes, this would equate to average queue
of 18 vehicles or 396 feet (based on 22 feet per vehicle). The right-turn approach would
have a 95 percent design queue of 43 vehicles. Based on one right-turn lanes, this would
equate to 946 feet of storage.
b. Dublin/Dougherty PM Peak Hour:
Southbound: The Dougherty Road left-turn approach would have a 95 percentile design
queue of 55 vehicles. Based on two left-turn lanes, this would equate to an average
queue of28 vehicles or 616 feet of storage (based on 22 feet per vehicle). The right-turn
approach would have a 95 percent design queue of 6 vehicles. Based on one right-turn
lane, this would equate to 132 feet of storage.
Northbound: The Dougherty Road left-turn approach would have a 95 percentile design
queue of 106 vehicles. Based on two left-turn lanes, this would equate to an average
queue of 53 vehicles or 1,166 feet of storage (based on 22 feet per vehicle). The right-
turn approach would have a 95 percent design queue of29 vehicles. Based on two right-
turn lanes, this would equate to 330 feet of storage.
Eastbound: The Dublin Boulevard left-turn approach would have a 95 percentile design
queue of 10 vehicles. Based one left-turn lane, this would equate to average queue of 10
vehicles or 220 feet (based on 22 feet per vehicle). The right-turn approach would have
a 95 percent design queue of 47 vehicles. Based on two right-turn lanes, this would
equate to 517 feet of storage.
Westbound: The Dublin Boulevard left-turn approach would have a 95 percentile design
queue of 58 vehicles. Based on three left-turn lanes, this would equate to average queue
of 19 vehicles or 418 feet (based on 22 feet per vehicle). The right-turn approach would
have a 95 percent design queue of 46 vehicles. Based on one right-turn lanes, this would
equate to 1,012 feet of storage.
c. Hacienda/l-580 Westbound Off-ramp AM Peak Hour:
Northbound: The Hacienda Drive approach would have a 95 percentile design queue of
98 vehicles. Based on three through lanes, this would equate to average queue of 32.6
vehicles or 717 feet (based on 22 feet per vehicle).
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
..
..
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
..
-
60
-
..
Westbound: The 1-580 Westbound Off-ramp app:oach would have a 95 percentile design
queue of 66 vehicles. Based on two left-turn lanes, this would equate to average queue
of 33 vehicles or 726 feet (based on 22 feet per vehicle).
E. TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION
The following section summarizes the suggested mitigation measures for intersection and roadway
operation from existing through cumulative plus project conditions. These mitigation measures
reflect those circulation improvements which are above and beyond those programmed to occur
with approved, pending, or cumulative development.
1. Existing Traffic Conditions:
No mitigation measures for project study intersections/roadways are projected under existing
conditions.
2. Existing Plus Future Base Traffic Conditions:
-Dougheny/Dublin: Northbound Dougherty Road would need to be widened to provide three
(3) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, one (1) shared through/right-turn lane, and one (1)
right-turn lane. The southbound Dougherty Road approach would need to be widened to provide
two (2) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The westbound
Dublin Boulevard approach should be widened to provide three (3) left-turn lanes, two (2)
through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach would
need to be widened to provide one (1) left-turn lane, two (2) through lanes, and two (2) right-
turn lanes. With these measures, intersection LOS would improve from LOS E (0.94) to LOS
C (0.73) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, LOS would improve from LOS
F (1.03) to LOS D (0.85).
3. Existing Plus Future Base Plus Project Traffic Conditions:
a. External Intersections
-Dougherty/Dublin: In addition to the mitigation measures discussed in the Future Base Scenario
(Exist + Approved + Pending), the Scarlett Drive extension between Dougherty Road and
Dublin Boulevard should be constructed. The eastbound approach of Dublin Boulevard should
be widened to include an additional through lane. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach
would have one (1) left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and two (2) right-turn lanes. The
westbound triple left-turn lanes (recommended for the Existing + Approved + Pending scenario)
would need, to be lengthened to accommodate additional traffic from the Transit Center
development. As part of these intersection improvements, Dougherty Road should be four (4)
lanes in the southbound direction between Dublin Boulevard and the 1-580 westbound on-ramp.
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
61
These lanes should be configured so that the right most lane would lead exclusively to the 1-580
westbound on-ramp, with the second right most lane leading to the overpass or the 1-580
westbound on-ramp. These improvements would require widening and restriping the 1-580
westbound diagonal on-ramp. With these improvements, intersection LOS would improve from
E (0.97) to LOS C (0.74) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, LOS would
improve from E (0.99) to LOS D (0.86).
.Hacienda/I-580 Westbound off-ramp: The northbound Hacienda Drive approach (overcrossing)
would need to be widened to three (3) northbound travel lanes. This improvement would require
some alignment modifications to the 1-580 westbound loop on-ramp. In addition, the 1-580
westbound off-ramp approach would need to be widened to include three (3) left-turn lanes and
two (2) right-turn lanes. With these improvements, intersection LOS would improve from F
(1.17) to LOS D (0.89) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, LOS would
improve from B (0.61) to LOS A (0.57).
With the recommendation of the Scarlett Drive extension between Dougherty Road and Dublin
Boulevard, the Dougherty/Scarlett intersection would be created and the Dublin/Scarlett
intersection would require circulation modifications.
Dougherty/Scarlett: The southbound Dougherty Road approach should be widened and re-striped
to include two (2) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) free right-turn lane. The
northbound approach should be widened and re-striped to include one (1) left-turn lane, two (2)
through lanes, and one (1) free right-turn lane. The westbound Scarlett Drive approach should
have two (2) right-turn lanes and one (1) shared through/left-turn lane. With these
improvements, intersection LOS is projected to be B (0.63) during the AM peak hour and LOS
C (0.78) during the PM peak hour.
Dublin/Scarlett: The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach should be modified to include one
(1) left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The westbound Dublin
Boulevard approach should be widened to include one (1) left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes,
and two (2) right-turn lanes. The northbound Scarlett Drive approach would include one (1) left-
turn lane and one (1) shared through/right-turn lane. The southbound Scarlett Drive approach
would include two (2) left-turn lanes, one (1) through lane and one (1) right-turn lane. With
these improvements, intersection LOS is projected to be B (0.63) during the AM peak hour and
LOS A (0.59) during the PM peak hour.
b. External Roadways
· Hacienda Drive between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive would exceed the 15,600 ADT
volume with existing plus future base plus project traffic. This would require widening the
roadway from three to four travel lanes in this segment (two (2) northbound lanes and two (2)
southbound lanes).
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
62
-
.
i>-'-
-Scarlett Drive Extension between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road would just be
approaching the City I S threshold of 15,600 ADT with existing plus future base plus project traffic
(14,000 ADT) for a four-lane roadway. In addition, directional turning movement volumes of
712 vehicles southbound during the AM peak hour and 891 vehicles northbound during the PM
peak hour would add to these lane requirements. For this reason, the Scarlett Drive Extension
between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road would require four travel lanes.
c. Internal Roadways/Intersections:
Arnold Drive Bet'rveen:
Dublin Boulevard and The Boulevard (future): Four (4) travel lanes [two in each
direction] ;
The Boulevard and Commerce One Mid-Block Access (future): Four (4) travel lanes [two in
each direction];
Commerce One Mid-Block Access and Altamirano Road (future): Two (2) travel lanes [one in
each direction].
The Boulevard Between:
DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway (future): Two (2) travel lanes [one in each
direction] ;
Iron Horse Parkway and Campus Drive (future): Three (3) travel lanes [two in the westbound
direction and one in the eastbound direction];
Campus Drive and Arnold Road (future): Four (4) travel lanes [two in each direction];
Arnold Road and Commerce One Mid-Block Access (future): Six (6) travel lanes [three in the
westbound direction and three in the eastbound direction];
Commerce One Mid-Block Access and Hacienda Drive (future): Six (6) travel lanes [three in
each direction].
Campus Drive Between:
Dublin Boulevard and The Boulevard (future): Two (2) travel lanes with a two-way left-turn lane
[one in each direction with two-way left-turn lane];
The Boulevard and First Mid-Block Office Access (future): Four (4) travel lanes [two in each
direction];
First Mid-Block Office Access and Altamirano Road (future): Two (2) travel lanes with a two-
way left-turn lane [one lane in each direction with a two-way left-turn lane].
Altamirano Road Between:
Iron Horse Parkway and Arnold Road (future): Two (2) travel lanes [one in each direction].
Transportation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
63
..
DeMarcus Boulevard/TIle Boulevard
-
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Northbound approach:
Southbound approach:
I combination left-through-right-turn lane;
1 combination left-through-right-turn lane;
1 combination left-through-right-turn lane;
1 combination left-through-right-turn lane;
-
-
Iron Horse Parkway/TIle Boulevard
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Northbound approach:
Southbound approach:
Campus Drive/TIle Boulevard
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Northbound approach:
Southbound approach:
..
1 combination left-through-right-turn lane;
1 through/left-turn lane, 1 free right-turn lane;
1 combination left-through-right-turn lane;
1 combination left-through-right-turn lane.
-
-
1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane;
2 left-turn lanes, 1 through lane, I right-turn lane;
1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane;
I left-turn lane, 1 through lane, and 1 right-turn lane.
..
Arnold Drive/Dublin Boulevard:
-
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Northbound approach:
Southbound approach:
Arnold Drive/TIle Boulevard:
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Northbound approach:
Southbound approach:
I left-turn lane, 3 through lanes, 1 right-turn lane;
2 left-turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 right-turn lane;
2 left-turn lanes, I through/right-turn lane, and 1 right-turn lane;
1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane.
.
-
I left-turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane;
2 left-turn lanes, 2 through lanes, 1 right-turn lane;
I left-turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane, and 1
right-turn lane;
1 left-turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane.
-
-
Commerce One Access/The Boulevard:
..
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Northbound approach:
Southbound approach:
1 left-turn lane, 2 through lanes, 1 through/right-turn lane;
1 left-turn lane, 3 through lanes, I right-turn lane;
I left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane;
I left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane.
-
-
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
-
64
..
..
The Boulevard/Hacienda Drive:
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Northbound approach:
Southbound approach:
1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane, 2 right-turn lanes;
2 left-turn lanes, 1 through/right-turn lane;
3 left-turn lanes, 3 through lanes; 1 right-turn lane;
2 left-turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 shared through/right-turn lane.
Commerce One Access/Arnold Drive:
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Northbound approach:
Southbound approach:
1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane;
I left-turn lane, I through/right-turn lane;
I left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane;
1 left-turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 right-turn lane.
Arnold Drive/Altamirano Road:
Eastbound approach:
Westbound approach:
Southbound approach:
1 shared left/through lane;
1 shared through/right-turn lane;
1 shared left/right-turn lane.
4. Cumulative Year 2025 Without Project Conditions
-Dougherty/Dublin: The southbound Dougherty Road approach should be modified to include
two (2) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) shared through/right-turn lane.
The northbound Dougherty Road approach should be widened and re-striped to include three (3)
left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and two (2) right-turn lanes. The westbound Dublin
Boulevard approach should be modified to include three (3) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes,
and one (1) shared through/right-turn lane. With these improvements, intersection LOS would
improve from LOS F (1.01) to D (0.89) during the AM peak hour and from LOS E (0.94) to
D (0.90) during the PM peak hour. In addition, the section of southbound Dougherty Road
between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 would need to be modified to accommodate four (4) travel
lanes. These lanes should be configured so that the right most lane would lead exclusively to
the 1-580 westbound on-ramp, with the second right most lane leading to the overpass or the 1-
580 westbound on-ramp. These improvements would require widening and restriping the I-580
westbound diagonal on-ramp.
5. Cumulative Year 2025 With Project Conditions
-Dougherty/Dublin: With Year 2025 plus project volumes, both the Dougherty Road northbound
left-turn movement and southbound through movement would require additional mitigation
measures. Specifically, the southbound Dougherty Road approach would require five (5) through
lanes and the northbound approach would require four (4) left-turn lanes. These improvements
are not feasible given the physical constraints at the Dougherty/Dublin intersection. It is
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
,..-,
65
..
recommended that the City monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis
and continue to obtain updated volume forecasts for future horizon years (i.e. Year 2025). In
addition, current and future phases of the 1-580 Smart Corridor Project would likely relieve some
congestion at the Dougherty/Dublin intersection through ITS measures and discourage traffic
from diverting off the freeway due to congestion or incidents.
11II
-
..
-
..
..
..
..
..
-
..
..
..
..
-
Transponation Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center
III
66
..
..
Appendix 8.8
Photo simulations
Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Dublin
Page 214
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
580
Looking east towards site from Dougherty Rd overpass at hwy
I VIEW 2
94550
35
"'~
W ~;~4$
fi/:.J C;)~""'.:i
~i~~
.A.%.
.:i....:.-~
-",~ ~
''C-. .
94688
14
-
V'
--~
94568
..u\fu:
.:. J~. r--
--..:-
1!'-.....:;..~_~. .
,_.~..
''''-=-'':"'
r:7'.:."~
,.,..-:-
.;A';
~:~-
......~., :-
DU B L I N
,
,
""
.-~. "",
-',
t~:_~_~_~~_;_~ ~ ;r.
- ;i: C~\
.in.t:.-.-~s. -, !t
t!Of _ ~
~-_..-.'
. ".,..
: ~~r:"~
F ~
....0I(...""i-
. .--s(
-""
-
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
",
1l~-lI'iftbElIHI
V!;7
r3
:t.
CONTEXT MAP
1
.1
I
I VIEW 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fIIOflOSfD SUN
OfWlonr.AENr
IfYOND tHOT H VIEWI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Looking south-west towards site from Hacienda Rd.
94550~
35
W P'.J!.f~A5
~~_' CJ.~-
:~~~~ '<.
LIVERMORE
.::....::...:.., 7
, -
.,
'-" < ,
~ ~-~.-
:*.:~-
'" J
~
;
f:
; -.'
,..'34
.
.
94:588
.. 1
..~>: !
~::c~:k !
.;{ ;~}.~;," 94568
~~ ~ -.....u:.....~ ('=~
'! 1,,,.""- .",,, I
.~ ~;:;;'" ,.1.
il.-.,f-' S! :f~~---~':;'l~iJ"
, 4' ,,",' " 33' - ,.,.,.
..;;. .' ..~"""", .1. I
< ,5' { ..., ..;;}"t'~;t'... ....",.:::.'(<&;:>~
,,~ .,. ., .' .. "C' ''', iV."
-g~'~.t.~..:J' !' .",,;1 ,.)\\..... " ",,"" ,;0". ~
,~. ,", ~'.,_, _,u " , , 1 ,.."..- t, '~,l ."~, ",' ~" ",'" <)<<t"
". ,,_.. ' ,,,~,,,..p" "\'" " ~
, . ,,_J', ""'!'~. ,""~' ..," · _. ' . ~
_ .....J .,:;.., N, ' x"',,:'' .~,. !", .
~. .~. ~ ' I '. '~ i . ~o
- iiI;~ir~~if:~ ~; ll~
. .,~:
~ f ;:z,,,;
~ ~~:.
f"..-:;,.o
iU'~7H
~~r
~!J'
..-:Jo::"
Ii
~
-~-~. ~
;IL_.-'"
;
DUBLIN
;
;
:>.
~--.
~. ~~ il
,
.~
",:
~;.~;,:.~: ~S!;: '.~~-"' ...'
:~..... jr ,: .-:'lO'..a-....
_f. ::n:. ~ 1?
L:~.: :
~: '?'~!:' ~) :
~>,..-
!!~~'f~-:' .:~~
- :''''. I' :~; [ ~
t-~~~ =.
~ ~ ~
..fJQUGHER1Y
~~ ~
~:~I:."" -
,,,- T~~~'(.:- ;~- ~
~fJ
C '"'
~f
:;..!~......
.'jil!'~~IK.\lb
~
CONTEXT MAP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I VIEW 4
I
I
corner of Summerglenn and Aspen.
Looking south-west towards site from
1l~ril:.ht281111 K\U
.94.55Q
35
W.P";:!.:r,ij
.;T~l'" r~
~.;.--:.,l~
';_;l~'- ~
LIVERMORE
.a.r..: .:.t
~ .0-:::: ~~
,.-.", ;"
'.1-...'."'
.-""
,;.;....
.-.
~-;.
.;Kl:
"
.-
j
~.
JJ.i
.
....~.....;;.;-;~
'~;~.~::~i.. 94568
~.J:. I', .~_~.' .,.! ~-:;
.l"~ .;;:~-.-...:-, '
}--I. .......---.-- ......t:,;--..
~~~~.~~:ti~-t.~9-~~
'.-~; ," "''',. 33 .1 ,'1.
;;-.1 i ~~~4~,~ ~-_t"
~~~..."J.;;.,;t-
~~t'~'f-' ._~~~-- - -- ~Jp ~
~N ,.. " .....'-"" !b;;'Y,.~
~':--~T~: ~c ,
, i .----"
~~ !_~~~:
~ ~~ ![~
'-'" ~::...... ..-
~~~~.:.
_..._-~
.. :.0...::-
... -~. ...........:
; ~ ~ ~~:-
. -:.oIIo-?o~
:~Oi.~"'~
5.UTft
JC,..t1
-..r
~...
:r:--, ~
..
CONTEXT MAP
~
f~;;ill'1--) Iii;
;~...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MOPOSED SfM
DfVElorMS.ft
ImJNI)ftIOT.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Inglewood and Helpert.
corner of
Looking north-east towards site from
I VIEW 5
,94550
3~
.'.)'ai:.~
LIVERMORE
'.-'Ii.,::.--.....
"
~-L.-_::. -~
.-,
.,;. .~J._-
:;li~--
;
<>'
, '
':34
-
94p88
:.:0,
94568
'SUS7H-
IU-tl..t""
_:.o.C
.=.<:''':''1j.:__
..-..-...::,
,~t"
::.I'"-.:IICto::-
~~
a~'~
:::t~~<,-
._~::-
:::7'"";-;-
-~..., -
..,., "
::I ~a,~ :A..iil....~ c-':.:
~ c'" '-. \.
~]"~$::, ..,
.._,s..." ,~~..,.,..., ',-' _to., .._~_~
' '" " r'....c- __ ..'>(
.k,>:-- '~'~.~. 33 4,' I
;;:';! e.i~", ll.';',n
,-iJl.~'"-~~::~_J;,
:H ;;.c{;;o;, .1:!5' )-,,_
~:;; ~ ._~'- .. JlC'c>-t: _~'''<<.
:::~j--J- ,..' ;,,_ ~, ...".
'\ti.' On, ..'. ~ _ ~ ,~
',' "'~1' ~~"UO'\t_ ~'H~ \.....,~ __
~:~ . 4.... "'..- ;~
''1), 1=",
f-1't. ~ -'1...E
h.,L ; ;;. J'
i .. . u.c:C"~
1;" -i~.~
'/ !~[;
.~ ----
:. "",,-_..4
~ ~ t ~~~~
~ ::~: r:
f
DUBLIN
.;>-
~'
11
~ 5c"
';.'-;'-- ;~. :" ~ ;;.
J-::: ~,.;? ~. ~: ~: :;" ~
- _ " n "~ ,_
;;~_~~:?:$>:1.__~_-; ~
- ~ 1O!1t0 .-.
:.v.~~s~
:.~
-,
, "
:~j!~r"j';.'i
:~ ~~r;_~oI:>
~"&'!l"~ ~~
:::IiI .'-:-;-----.
:,
~.....~
\-., \11.'-
=~-
~-,~~ ~ -:-~
.
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I~ ri~ I_I K\fU
-;~
MAP
CONTEXT
I
I
..~ nldrlt 2"1 1\.'
9455Q
35
:iW.'Ii .c
LIVERMORE
:"-:.-.:.
-,
~; ,'- . ~
.;A....
, ..
.;;,]4
,
94588
,'"
,'--, ij';;>;:"':,Lc;,,,", 9: 4568'
._", ~ '
~-...- ...
_,,"'-"_ :f'
~'~'-~c--r-: ]i~~ :
iiJ ;~'~~ ., I
_~~-r n~~*-t~~"~j~_ l
,.,.' ,?;,,"" 33 .1-"1
.. iiJ/~;i~ _' i I _
!ii:i!"- . ~--~ -
..-Jo".... ~~?- ,.,
~~ ~ ..,.: "<-'....,
.I:.tt,,-~... ::"~ \.- .,'<<'4.
i .jl !olE \.... D I.... '"fj..
~~ ~s~ I~
~"'~h ;~,' ':~~~
-< ~oItC.J, ~-....-:'
~.,. !~~F 1~~
... ~: ~-:lL,:" ~ ......-:.;..0':"
~ ~ ~~:~ .'~~f~
, ~?;(. ~~:
..........Of< - -"-~-
, ~ _~. "'..... '-"'UJo;.,
;~.;~: t: ~> ~~
fIIOfIOSED SUN
0fVR0fMfHr
IaOND #NOT" YJfW)
I
I
I
I
I
I VIEW 6 - Looking north-west towards site from Genoveio Dr.
I I.>: DWBLIN
,
,
I :n~ I ..
"'~
t:"~ ..., I
',' ..4'i
~
~J? "i!
~
I "~: :~F~~ ~
" J
.rJ ~{r;':~B l!
; ~ i',g: r, ~
~ ~ ~. 'j.'
~
I - r
~
~! "" j
..
~ ~f '"-'-... L
I :.;~.~ - ~~. ,...
&:;;.:p.; :!.;-;,
~,
~:..'" ::: ...
-~-~- -.....--...:.
-.,~ --"
j:.. FRWY
.....~..~ ..
-"" "-"<.,. ~,~. -.-- . -
I ,;;,:f\~;X ,-; ::;.~; oJ
I ---'):.~-i-~
, ,~
:r~; ~
\ ---
3J .00::
",~~~"';1- .. S,....Af~~ocr
~ ..J =
-<.0 _~~. ,
I . ~ l2~ ~" ",! .
""..t.~c;.~ "L" --::"1''''' ~ !',.]l1fA
~l~\~ ~ft:~.~
I
CONTEXT MAP
I