Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 6.1 Downtown Dublin SP Attch 2-4 Cont
~r rr ~ r ~ ssi~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ~s r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r yin ~ o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~111~~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~11~ a iAm~Valfe Blw rAm~a or Valle Blvd) jAmador Valle B v Amador~alle Blwd' ~Amador Valle Blvdi iAmador Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~111~~ ~ ~ ~l~ ~ ~ .1~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~~ ~ ~ i~ Q ~ ~ I~ Dublin Blvd Dublin Blvd Dublin Blvd Dublin Blvd I Dublin Blvd t. Patrick Wa ~~ttt~~ sir ~1~ ~1~ ~ ~tt~ ~ ~ - Y I f r::,~ ~ a ~ ~ ~y o ~ i. '.I-680 SB Ram \ ~ - I St. Patrick Ways 1-880 NB On-ramp ~\.~1 j \ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~:a _ -.v ti, ~t VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY - ~ - ~ f'~ - A Signalized Intersection O Stud Intersection _ ~ r ' " ~ - - ~ ' ~ - _ ~~-~~=~1 Z Stop Sign = ' ~5 Future Study Intersection ~ ~s ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~1 1 ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I Future Roadway Extension ~ y / ~ ~ sro, a,: ~ , , , ~ - Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Control CONSULTING 9!2010 JN 70-100239 Figure 3.9-3 r~ . r ~ ~ ~ ~r ~r it r~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Legend Q Specific Plan Boundary 6~,a 4' City Limit Line ~ ~a~~e~l I~ Class I Bike Path a~` 3, Pia D Class II Bike Lanes ~ II® Class III Bike Route 3 0 v G4~ ~ c tL Cs A H / ~d~0 ~1 A, drd Dublin Blvd gyp. o~ ckwaV Orb\~r Q / Owens Dr :1 N Stoneridge ~ ~ c Mall a v z a T o 0 C ~a e~`d9eo S~O~ Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR pct Existing Bicycle Facilities ¦ ¦ ¦ N CONBU LTINO ~ g/y0~0 JN 70-100239 F~gUrQi 3.9-4 ~ ~ - ~ ~ ( ~ 3V ®Specific Plan Boundary - , 3V - _ 202 ~ r _ ' ~ ~ 3 C' imit Line ity L - ~ ) _ ~~,,a. r, i ~ o a D,-~~ ~p ~ ; 1 fey ~ ©Bus Route , I ~ ~ ~ ~ 10 Route No. JOX, -r r ~ ~ - - ~ _ 1 ~~II ;y ~ o I, e ~ ~ - ~ _ i ~ ~ ~f - ~ ~ - ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ;;o 201`,~~ 3V~~ I - _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v + 202' DublinrBrvd, ~ ~ I F~ - ~ , z_ - ` - i ~ - - - ~ 10 ~ ~d- ~10 " ~ 70 ~ I`.r- - ~ 70 ~ eat" ~ ~ ~ _ ~ v, ~ ~ ,~,e , - 3 _ i- - - ~ l , - i 3V 3V ~ 1 s Gr ,uwen , ~ i; Y ~ ~ a 7 ~ ~ ~ - u~~ --~~a, ,i _ _ 0 - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~4~ ~ ~ ~ z~ t _ ~ ~ . / ~ s ~ ~ 70X ___-c ~ '1'-- ~ "u - , / _ a - - - - - ~ i s s _ u 1 I _ - _ NOTES: Route 3 Hourl Directional Mon -Sat Yl ( ) Route 3V-Extra Peak Hour Bus/Directional (Mon-Fri) ~ Sto~7eridg~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ iT Routel0-Livermore-Pleasanton-Dublin (Mon-Sun) ' Mall t ~ - - ~ 15 min. peak hour; 30 min. off-peak 1 s ° - _ _ - Route 70X Pleasant Hill BART t ublin PI _ 0 0 easanton BART M n ri 10 o F } _ . 30 min. in peak hours only i : ~ ' ~ .t1--- _ Route 201- East Dublin to Dublin High School \\a ~i,1` _ 3 3~ ~ 1 IL-'~ - AM School Bus =1 Route; PM-1 Route ~ ~ ~~d9e~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ Route 202 -Dublin Ranch Village /Dublin High School ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~y- AMSchool Bus =1 Route; PM =1 Route ~ ~ . . , \ Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLA N EIR Da pa ~ C~C~~~BPII~ ~I~~Inl~9~ G~®QA~~~ v,' 0 o v N CONSULTING 9l2010JN70-100239 Figure 3.9-5 s r ar r ~ ~r ,err ~ ~ ~ rr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r r~r ~ ~ x O N ~ ~ ~ (2) B) ~ N ~ C 104 (22) .N.. D22 15 (29) ~ I~ F 15 (26) a ~ 15 (25) N ....N N 19 (19) ON1V i~ ~-6(17) 00 'a ~3(7) N C O N O ~ ~-26(21) NINOI ~ j8(B) ? ~ L iAmaRdor*Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ ~ AmaRdor Valle Blvd: ~ ~ Amador Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ 'Amador Valle Blvd ¢ ;AmaRdor Valle Blvd r ~ y ~ AmaRdor*Valle Blvd I I~ I~~ ~ 1 ~ I I vmco 1(3)1 ~~0 1(1)1 ~ 1(1)1 ~ ~ 16(38)1 c~nci 1(1)-a 10 (24)~ 14(28)--? ~ 13 (28)~ 12 (25)~ ~ 9(28)-? 1(1)~ ~nco 46(18) noon U 3(4)~ a 2(1)~ ~NLL] ~ ~ o ~ C N ~ ~ O ~ I~ m p` C N iN Y y '~~M ° X60 87 ~ X11 48 t0 'm ~ m ° ~ mrn m ~ V C ~ ( ) m ( ) C7 is 1 (4) ~ a 5 (10) v.....-. C7 ~ 4 (10) F 36 (102) a,v" c 108 (326) c 69 (185) 121 (112) 140 128 ~n o F 17 (55) ~ j 166 (261) m v ~ ~ j 101 (43) la j 44 (31) N c~ ° ~ io ~ ~ 45 (11) N DubRlin Boulevard: ~ ~ ~ ~ Dublin Boulevard ~ DubRlin Boulevard ~ • ~ is DubRlin*Boulevard ~ ~ ~ Dublin Boulevards ~ ~ ~ ~ St. Pa*trick Wa I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ I I ~ I 56(41)1 mov 2(2)1 ocon rn N 9(36)1 Nmm 13(41)1 38(26)1 70 (53) -y ~ ? N 354 (192) ~ ~ 174 116 ~ 143 237 ~ o 111 203 ~ 56 31 -i M ~ 198 (116) ~ 87 (155) ~ 226 (94) " " 93 (28) ~ ( ) ( ) ~ Imo ~ vNi ~1 h n otON 48(65)-~ c~ _ _ P"'S - I - m 3 - a~ ~ ~ - I ~ I - i I~ s ~ L, X10 2a ~ ~ n~ih X58(43) ~ ° - m~~ ~m X19(3) ° m (}C"~~~ ~ E I I-680 SB Rams ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ' ~ St. Patrick WaY I ~ ~ I-680 NB On-ra~J {(_Qi / _ 1 i 22 18 1 `_1 ~ ~ - ~ _ ~~P ~ _ V~ - i VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY ~ ~ ~ XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour _ Study Intersection - ~ ~ _ Traffic Volumes 0 ~,9' ~(~~n~~p=~ 15 Future Study Intersection ' ~ 1s NOTE: Volumes were not developed for this O 7 s ~f-"~ ~ ~''-~y intersection in the near-term case. ~ ~ ~ ~ I Future Roadway Extension - , ~ 1 " _ ri ~ ~ ~ See text for additional information. _ - ~ ~ 1. ~ . - rr I N ctor e dge ~j / - i i Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR o Approved Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes CONSII LTING 9/2010 JN 70-'100239 FIgUI'@ 3.9-6 r rr r~ rr rs r i~r rr ~ rir r rir ~ r r ~ r ~ ~ r v aND N O ~ ep ~ ~ • ~ ~ ¦ ~ ~ ~ N N n N B 224 (400) Cm o ~ 4 (26) v,,,,~ a 33 (49) v~.-. m 109 (83) a 0 (2) o_ ~ 25 (27) < o m ~ 41 (48) N ~ f 726 (518) o'-' ~ ~ 590 648 m N ' ~ 563 598 ^ r 762 (504) m m v y F 536 (330) mvtn o: m---- co_ ao"n ( ) mom ( )o v~v N m m c ~ 498 (308) tlo m ~ ~ 56 (121) mom ~ m nl ~l °c ~ 11 (17) to v o ~ ~ 257 (230) m e ~ 273 (150) ~ .AmaRdor*Valle Blvd ~ • ~ ~ IAmaRdor*Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ ~ Amador Valle Blvd! ~ • y ~ maRdor Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ a AmaRdor*Valle Blvdl ~ ~ ~ ~ maRdor Valle Blvd I I~ 1 I~ C~~~ I~~ I I~ I 26 (44) ~ ~ N 30 (113) ~ ~ 30 (74) ~ v o N 21 (49) ~ o ~ N 2 (8) -r o ui ui 274 (430) ~ o ~ ~ 30 (50)~ ~ vv 609 (730)-? N M,fA 513 (828)-i d NON 525 (761) 598 (716)-i `n o ~ 331 (608)-? L'.V 43 (33) N ~ m 77 (114) ~ ~ rn N 10 (18) ~ U 32 (46) m m N 65 (127) ~ m 25 (79) e n o corns tno co N mvv ON ~ ~ ~N N i~ IY d ? ' i d' N 1. ~ NmN CO ml.V (n ~ rn~0 CNO 1Y N.-. ~ E ~ 253 (250) ~ Cr. ~ ~ 46 (140) ~ ~N ~ ~ 15 (40) O ~rn d ~ 70 (177) ~ ti ~ 277 (335) a r-a ~ ~ 29 (45) n+ ~ m m t- 207 (345) c ~ 479 (1141) to m c ~ 504 (1029) "m ` ~ ~ 557 (859) to a rn ~ r 641 (1051) m " c ~ 23 (67) mrn CO Q' mNl~ O tD aDNI~ i0 OON ~com m ~ c~ 482 (1064) m N m ~ ~ 60(115) ~ n N v~ 157(96) m N m :o j 282(341) N o v 107(201) m y 66(20) ~ Dublin Boulevard) ~ ~ ~ (Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ ~ Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ I Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ ~ Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ ~ ~St. Patrick Wa ~ o ~ 92(239) N ~ ~ 46(120) o ~ ~ 123(210) ~ ~ m 207(377) ~ ~ ~ 42(37) ~ o ~ 282(306)-? von 1063(1071)--? ~~m 735(1106) m~N 577(1094)-? vNv 540(979) 'DN.v 60(43) o~~ 678 (458) 166 (306) ~ m ~ ~ 370 (150) n N ~ 174 (172) ~ ~ m N 182 (260) ~ m 1 (1) ~ m N i~~o ~ e n o ooco ~ o lnmm N ~ rrN r Nm K 3 r ~c~ _ c. a ~ a m ~ 425 428 to ~ m ~ ~ r i ~ _ - "'u~u~ ~ X138 (127) v~ m ~ ~ ~l - _ _ Nye ~ j53 (46) ~vni ~ 1' - ~ _ _ 4 ~650~8 am s ~ ~ ~ i ~ I - a ~ t c of r I SL Patrick WayJ ! ~ ~ II-680 NB On-ramPl R ~ ~C~e' J l I ~ ~ - N (D m N ~ ` ~ C` 101 (136)-+ ~ ~ 28(24)-~ tn~m rn~ ~ t i \ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ _ A S° \ ~ \ - I Duhlnelvd ,~r 7 1~. VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY I ~ ~ , XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour + ^ ~ lO Study Intersection ~ ~ ~ _ Traffic Volumes " _ _ ~ 1$ Future Study Intersection I , ~ isj ~~s, NOTE: Volumes were not developed for this ~ s _ intersection in the near-term case. I ~ ~ ~ ~ I Future Roadway Extension See text for additional information. - ~i~ t~ _ I _I ~ \ ~Stone~idge ~ ~ I Mall ~ ~ ' ~ j iyl . Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) r'~ DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR d~ Near-Term Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ~ CONStJ LTING 9/2010 JN 70-100239 FIgUfP. 3.9-7 ~ _ ~°~p ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - p%[Y961 AM (PM) Commercial - ~ ~ _ % ~ - P ct T istn i 1 _ „ ( roje rip D' bufon _ ~`.7-~ ~ .;a ! - ~ , 0 0 0 o ~ p p p o i Future Roadwa Extension ~ ~ ~ o~~i~~ ~ ' ,f - i ,o ~ ~ i P, ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ _ Q~moD , _ ~ - _ > ~ - - - r ~ to _ ~ ~ j~ ~ _ - ~ ,S , _ ~ ~ ~ ~ u _ - ~ ~ - d '~oi - - O' 4y I I \ _ - \9 O A ~ - I - - ~ V ~ d~ ~ - ~,o~ - _ - - _ ~ J - ~ ~ d ~ ~~j 1: /Q ((~0~ 'Dublin tiivd , _ _ . r° ~ ? \ 1 _ , 's .G`~ , ~ _ ~ I ~ ` ~ t iP~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~`b.~P ~ O ~ S~~ . - _ - -.z--, G ~ i., ~~t - " _ ~ - - - ~ ,l _ - ~ -s,~,®~, \1 o . - ~ 11 i , > ~ i _ _ ~ _ _ _ ~ _ ~ - I; - ~ - - ~ ~ , ~ z ~ - _ ~ St~nPridye ~ A I • ~ ~ ib1~N ~ i . , ~ - 1 c ~ ~ ~ - ~r ~ - , i~ ~ - i q ~ _ v %~Q ll~®~0~! w ~ y - _ ~ S ~k~~\C~9t 1. ~..5-'"~ ~y i _ may.., 1, t. NOTE: Distributions derived from ~ T' Travel Demand Model Select-Zone Analysis ' ` ~ ~ { ~ ~ I ~ ` ~ ~ _ -,rte ~ _ _ _ ~ , ~ - ` ~ 7 - Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) p DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR o v o A CONSII LTING 9!2010 JN 70-100239 FIgUCP. 3.A~8a ~ ~ ' ~ ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1, p%[Y%1 AM (PM Residential _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , < < , Project Trip Distribution l~~ ~ , ~ ' ~ ~ ~I~I~'e~C ~ ~%`'Q~~%~~ ~e`~~~ 0 0 0 o i Future Roadway Extension I , ~ ~ ~ ~~a~~ ° ~ F ~ ~ - i _ I 11 , - w. ~ 0/ ` ~ < ~ ~ ado p~~ ~ - - - - ~ p ~ - y( w . ~ _ ~ \ ~ \o ` ~ _ k• _ ~ i ~ _ (S - `C~/ - - ~'ti 1. ~ I Y3 ~ - t r ~ 1 _ ~ ~ Q'' - ~ L' - 0 _ f+ + - ~ ` ,'r I p " - .~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ I ~ - ~ r \ - 1 ~ ~ ~ - _ _ ~ - ~ ~ ~ i - s m,..=- _ , . ~ o~,~~ - - - . - _ , - L, ~ i , . _ - I_ Stuneridge ~ t , 'y 'I ~l i. Mall: = ~ ' ~ , o _ _ . _ _ i ~ - ~ - _ r ~ i ~ - _ a: dge~`~ ~ ~ - . - ~ NOTE: Distributions denved from.CCTA Travel Demand Model Select-Zone Analysis ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L`` G---' , ~ -j-_"l_ n, - ' - ~ - Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR °a o° ~ G~~~u~~u~~u~0 po°®~c~~f~ ~o°u~ ®u~~~uf~a~i~o®u~ 0 0 o N CaNSULTING g/2010JN70-100239 Figure 3.9-8b ~ o o ~ x E 20 (57) m v~ 1 (0) d~ 1 (O) a a .n ~ ~ r 0 (4) o r 21 (40) 0 2m2 r 29 (68) o L x 29 (68) o x 16 (38) - y r 5 (17) N N ~ r 6 (7) ~ 6 (26) ~ C ~ O N ~ 9 (36) ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 (12) AmaRdor Valle Blvdi AmaRdor Valle Blvd Amador Valle Blvd (Amador Valle Blvd G maRod>r Dal~Blvd AmaRdor*Valle Blvd I~~ I ~ ~ I ~ I I VNCh N ~ ~ O N B(45)~ vrN 1 (4)--? 17 (55)~ ~ 23 (83)~ u°i 22 (83)~ 14 (59)-? m 4 (18)-? 1(3)~ ~N~ 12(32) r ~ U g(24)~ r~ co 7(13) NrnN `o c m ~ ~ O ~ ~ m D C d N ~ d ~~v ~ X21 (79) ~ R-13(40) ~ `0 X22 64 mrnm m X10 30 ~ ~ ~4 12 m ~ _ ~ ~ x7(41) ~~o o x88(307) n rn c x74(214) a x41(132) o_ ( ) u"°„ CO 1(7) _ d VC)N `o a,._..., d x55(165) ~~W ~ x3(8) o mlN ~ x85(268) NN X3(9) ~II ~ ~ ~-7(24) N~~ ~ x23(78). vl n~ ~ vrnm ~ ~ u lin Boulevard i ~ ~ ~ ~ Dublin Boulevard f ~ U Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ a Dublin Boulevard' ~ • ~ ~ I Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ U St. Patrick Wad 8 (36)~ ~N 12 (35)-~ V~ ^ 31 (87)~ ~ 0 23 (78)~ ~ 15 (76)-} 4 (15)~ ~ 0 0 ~ 127(369)-~ m- 82(271) 42(177) ~"?0 38(173)-? 3(11)-~ oN~, 9(30) o u~ 27(77) ~ ~ 41(138)-~ m°'u~ 25(68) 0(1)~ ~ C7 N ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I " ~ 2a a7 ~ x8(15)) ~ a Qi ~ ~ E I = - - - I a I-6$0 SB Rams r ~ I - - \ I St. Patrick Way f 1 ~ I-680 NB On-ramp) ~ _ _ i - ~ ~ 4(20)~ _ - - N / ~ 1I' \ i ~ A°_ - _ ~ _ _ V f VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY i ~ : ~ ~ XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour ~ Study Intersection i Traffic Volumes ,.o ~r'.h~ ' - ~ F..-~ _ - I i 15 Future Study Intersection ~-7, ~ ~ ~ \ J NOTE: Volumes werenotdevelopedforthis - intersection in the near-term case. ~ ~ ~ ~ I Future Roadway Extension L~ - _ ~ ' ~ See text for additional information. _ b _ ~ tStoner dge` ~~`?y~ ~ ` ~I Mall° ~ _ ~I\ \ - \ i _ A I _ __i v>=T,w Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 1 Project (Baseline FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes CONSULTING 9/20'10JN70-700239 Figure 3.9-9 I~ _ v'rw °an ~ v<oM i° X244 457 w.-.~ ~ ~4 26 ~ ~ o ~ ~ rn o ~ !m ~ ~~''.`?C m ( ) ~'vv E 41 62 ) `O ° ~ ( ) ? --o a 34 (49) ~ d 110 (83) 0 (2) R- 25 27 m M ~ F N ~ r 747 558 0 " ~ 619 716 m n r s- 592 o_ o_ m m r I ~ ( ) ~ ° ( ) ° ( ) ° ~-,M (666) r 6v I ~ ~ 778 (542) v o v ° F 541 (347) N co co c 506 (315) .n m ~ 64 (149) ~n o c~ m n ~ ~ 11 17 ur a o !a 266 266 ~ v ~ j ~ ~ ( ) ~ ( ) ~-277(162) Amador*Valple Blvd'.. AmaRdorValle Blvd t- AmaRdor*ValAle Blvd AmaRdorVatle Blvd AmaRdorpValle Blvd ~ AmaRdor*Valle Blvd I I I~~~ C I I I I~~ I I~ I I 28 (44)1 N ~ ~ 30 (113) N ~ ~ 30 (74) a? y o N 21 (49) ~ o ~ 2 (8) ~ o ~ 282 (475) ~ ~ ~ 31(54) ~Vm 626(785)-? N''?~ 536(911) d NON 547(844) 612(775)-~ °oM 335(626) i°Vv 44 (36)~ MGM 89 (146) ~m~ 10 (18)~ U 32(46)-~ mMN 74 (151) m ~ 32 (92)~ mmn (°~N u7 (h O r ~ N? ~ ~ N (n ~ IN ~ ' ~ ~ ~ C N ~ r d O).-. ''N (D .gym Y n N E X274(329) !N X59(180) ~ ~ `0 X37 104 '``-0 ~ `m ~ rn~co m L N m N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( ) N !o_ 80 (207) a 281 (347) v_,,n ~ 30 (52) 214 (386) o'-'n 567 (1448) c 578 (1243) ~ 598 (991) o co N y ~ 696 (1216) a c F 26 (75) gym-- 0' _oro o ~n `~rn Nmrn iD`o Nom _°rm I m N c ~ 567 (1332) I N ~ ~ 63 (124) m n ~ -o 164 (120) ro N n ~ 305 (419) N ~ v ° ~ 107 (201) mI v ~ ~ 66 (20) Ir 1 L v~ - r i~ I~ - ~i~ c7 ~i~ is > c~ DubRlin *Boulevard) ~DubRlin Boulevard) Dublin 4Boulevard DubRlin Bouplevard? DubRlin *BOUlevard SLRPa4trick Wa I I I~ 1~ I ~ I~ I~ I I I~ I I 190(160)1 ~ N ~ 104(274)1 ~ m rn 77(207)1 ~ ~ N 146(288)1 rn ~ d. 222(453)1 ~ w ~ 46(52)1 290 (342) A ~ ~ 1190 (1440)-+ ^ n rn 817 (1377)-? ^ ~ ~ 619 (1271) M'~ 578 1152 ~ m 63 54 ~ `o ~ 678 (458) n ~ ~ 175 (336) N ~ ~ 397 (227)-~ ~ N o 215 (310)-~ v ` 0 207 (348) ~ ro 1 (2)~ n N ~Nm N r ~~M ~ ~ A r(O N 3 ~ ~ I vC !a ~ 449 (476) N In N ~ f N~ f-146(142) VN d I ~r°aa X57(55) r~ivri ~ i .g (-1=68D-SBRamps ~ ~ I o St. Patrick Wa I ! * ~ n-ramp ` ? `Le \ - /F ~ l I _ l I T ~J1 40 78 1 , . _ - 106 (159) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - . ~ 1 \ - i i _ VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY ~ ~ - ~ - = ~ ' i ' XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour I Studylntersection ~-r ~e~y~ - _ _ Traffic Volumes ~ I ~n~e• ~~,'n - ~ 15 Future Study Intersection , - ~ , ~ ~ NOTE: Volumes were not developed for this ~ ~ ~ 5 _ ~ _ intersection in the near-term case ~ % ~;A\ ®®®®I Future Roadway Extension - - ~•r See text for additional information. - - - ~ - ~ ~ -N~ - Stone dge ~ ~ Moll s _ ~ _ ~v`~i ~ ~ _ ai Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR . Near-Terre Plus Project (baseline F'`4F~) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ~1'' CONSIl LTING 9/2010 JN 70-100239 Figure 3.9-10 ~ la v ? > ~ m E X45(127) N a X2(0). m x-2(0) m nN m ~ ~ ~ F 1 (13) o F 33 (71) o o m ~ 54 (165) o o ~ o 55 (165) a`o 35 (87) ~ ~ ~ F 15 (50) c j 8 (7) ~ ~ 22 (73) ~ tm ~ ~I rr ~(pc o ~ 31 (114) rI> rn ~ j 18 (58) ~ AmaRdor Valle Blvd ~ AmaRdorr- Valle Blvdl ~ y N Amador Valle Blvd r ~ Amador Valle Blvd ~Q. AmaRdor Valle Blvd r ~ ~ maRdor Valle Blvd 2(13)-? 28 92 ~ ^ ~ 42 144) ~ 1(0)~ v ~ 24(139) °M~ o ( ) N ( ) 0 44(144) 223(Sgj~ N N 19«4~~ 3(16) NCO 26(B1)~ N ~ V C d ~ ~ ~ m ~ n ~ "mom' ~ ~ 101 (391) ~ v~ ~ ~ 27 (84) ~ m ~ ~ 43 (125) ~ ~ ~ a ~ 19 (57) N !a ~ 8 (28) ~'v~ tj ~ 9 (43) " !~.m 26 (154) c F 346 (1251) c F 264 (839) 137 (397) ~ " F 210 (633) ~ 18 (50) m ~ rn ~nN o c~ cn comma o m~~ c o m ~ j 309 (963) N ~ V ~ 18 (59) ch ~ a x 46 (149) C) C) N ~ ~ 151 (476) rn rn ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ r p (1) ~DUblln Bo~u/levard ~DubRlin Bo~u/levard DubRlin Bo~u/levard < DubRlin Bo~ullevard .Dublin Boulevard ~ St.RPatric~klWa 11 1~1 I I I~I I~I 2(7)~ 26(74)-~ 61(172) m ~ 46(153)-~ 58(324) 20(91) mom 32 (140)-? ~ N 537 (1529)-i ~ v ~ 349 (1063) M m 132 (543) vv~ 147 (672) 21 (67)~ OWN N ~ 58 (188) ~ ~ ~ N 174 (487) ~ ~ ~ 247 (741) ~ m o 98 (265) ~ 1 (3) ~ m y ~ m O R N ~ ~ V f7 ~ N N Y ` I r _ i `:'fir _ I I - / T~ I r I m m t 57 (112) m -'r-i ~ ~rl - - o x-47 (93) o ~ ~1 ~ 1 ~ rj I° ~ ~ (-I-6~0 SB amps ~ ~ ~ 'I ~r _ _ . i I St. Patrick WayJ ~ ~ I-680 NB On-ramps O - _ i 26 (126) ~ ~ - s" ~ - ~ I 33 (144) ~ o ~ co ~N ~ti1. ~ ~ D bl n Blvd VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY ~ ~ ~ ~ XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour I ~ ' Study Intersection I - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ Traffic Volumes r ~ s~~.~ ~ ~ - _ 15 Future Study Intersection ~ - ~ ry NOTE: Volumes were not developed for this i' ~ _ ~ / ~ intersection in the near-term case ' /r ~ ~~f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I Future Roadway Extension ~ ~ ' .,t See textfor additional information. ~e ~ L~f w I ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ 6ronerrd e- r 9. ~N r 1\_ 'g O~\ Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 1 Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes CONSULTING 9I2U,OJN7U-,pp239 Figure 3.9-11 ¦r ~r ~r r ~r r sr ~r +r ~r r !r rr r rr ¦r ~r ~r r~ ~ m~~ ~ ~ v ° R- 269 527 m N ~ 4 26 N ~ o ~ ~ m o ~ I m com ~ ~ ( ) v i E ( ) N m o ~ ( ) v^,a a 35 (49) ~ m 111 (83) ~ 0 2 25 27 ~ , ° ~ 42 (61) N v c f-- 759 (589) O " ° ~ 644 813 m ~ ' ~ 618 763 ~ a rn n o tr m q rn "o ( ) rn ~M ( ) 797 (591) n v v y F 551 (380) Nnv 506(315) ~mm ~ 78(194) u>ov ~ mn~ ° 11 17 invo o° 288 344 cnie~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ l ( ) ,r 29, (206) h IAmaRdor*Valle Blvd ~ ~ AmaRdor Valle Blvd ` N Amador Valle Blvdi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~dor Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ Amador Valle Blvd ~ • ~ ~ mador Valle Blvd I I ~ I ~ ~ C 28 (44)-~ ~ N N 30 (113) mo M ~ 31 (74)-~ ~ ~ r ~ 22 (49)~ ~ ~ ~ 2 (8)1 ~ 1 ~ 298 (569) 32 (63)-? m 637 (822) N 555 (972)r N NON 569 (905)-? 'o 623 (830)-? N o ~ 342 (661) ~ ~ m 46 (49) 105 (195) rn " 10 18 U m m N ~ ~ ~ mm ~ n ~ ( ) ~ 0 32 (46) 88 (178) m m 34 (103) m m °1N m R ~ mN C ~ ~ N d N A M C m r i N r H O n Y O _N ~'O E X354(641) N R-73(224) Mo ~ 'm X58 165 NNE m ~ m ~ Mvn ~ ~ w rn rn m V.-.N:c7 ( ) ~,--N a 89 (234) a 285 (363) ~ rn I~ 38 (88) f- 233 (499) m "m c 825 (2392) c 768 (1868) m " ~ 694 (1256) co coo ~ F 851 (1684) '-o c 41 (117) ~mio ~ 791 2027 ~rmi~ ° 78 174 u~nM °"'m o o~v NNO ~ c r ( ) ~ ( ) ~ 203 (245) rn N m o ~ 433 (817) ~co ~ v j 107 (201) v a m I.o 66 (21) ~ Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ ~ Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ (Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ a - ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ' R * R * R ) (Dublin*BOUlevardl (DubRlin Boulevard: ~ [-StRPat*rick Wa I I~ 1 I~ I~~ ~ I~ I~~ I I 191(163)-~ cnrnrn 118{313)-~ oorn 107(292) 169(363) ~vo 265(701) mm~ 62(128)1 v,ov 314(446)-~ v~~ 1600(2600) ~v~ 1084(2169) ~~nv 709(1637) 687(1651) 81(110) ovm 678(458) ~ 224(494)-~ m m 544(637) N 421(913) 280(545) ~ m 2 4~ N O uv'i~nm°' ~vm ~ ^ ~ Nmv ~N NM _ I ^Mm ~ ~ 1,11 ,.y ~ t _ I C c° m R- 482 (541) ~ ui `m J _ ~1 _ ~ A/ ~ ~ r' ~ ~ 185 (220) ~ d 1 l~ ~ - u~MU> ~m X82 (104) vvni ~ O~ ~1- - - - ~ 7~. _ _ ~Q ~ ~ l rr-~6~-s8-~ ~ rye ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ St. Patrick Way^j ! ~ ~ I-68 B n-ramp ! ~ 1 - - ' 62 (184) 1 -1 ^ { \ - ~ ~ o~ _ 134 (280) ~mc min - ~ ~ ~ ~ _ 28 24 ~ _ rn cn ~ - ( ) In N r ~ - ~ u n_i ~ eita I i ~ VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY ~ - ~ , , ~ ~ ,?4 1~ XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour ~ ~ ~ ~v Study Intersection I ' o ~ Traffic Volumes ~ ® - l~ ~ - _ - _ - NOTE: Volumes were not developed for this ~ S Future Study Intersection ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s? ~ _ - p/ ~ - intersection in the near-term case. ( ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ I Future Roadway Extension ~ See text for additional information. e - ~ r i I ~~i:`` e 1,~ ` c iW .A Smnendge ~ ' 1N .Mall, SJ ~ VVV~~~"' ~ _ ~o ~ . ~ ti ~ _ a _ . _ Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) y DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 1 Near-Term Plus Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes CONSULTING 9l2010JN70-7 00239 Figure 3.9-12 ~m~ ~ v...,.,.. i ~ ~ 307 (572) N ~ o ~ ~ 4 (26) v~~ a ~ 60 (99) ~ ~ ~ 136 (133) a ~ 0 (2) ac ~ 25 (27) o m ~ 43 62 < c ~ 796 637 O ~ F 706 887 m ~ r 680 C ~ ~ a- 890 717 o n a F 703 484 rn m ~ i~ ( ) ~ o ( ) ~ ~o ~ ( ) o (877) ( ) ( ) N m a i~ ~ 549 (364) u~ ~ ~ j 128 (242) moo ~ ~ n ~1 0 11 (17) ~n a o E ~ 343 (458) ~ ~ ~ ~ r 341 209 y iAmaRdor*Valle 81vd1 ~ ~ ~ - AmaRdor~*VallAe B r ~ ~ AmaRdor Valle Blvd ~ ~ y - Amador*Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ 4 AmaRdor*Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ ~ maRdor*Valle Blvd 1 I~ I I I ~ I~~ ~ I~ I I~ I I 28 (44)1 ~ ~ ^ 30 (113)-~ ^ N N 56 (124) ~ ~ v o v 47 (99) ~ o n 2 (8) ~ ~ ~ ~ 298 (583) ~ ( ) 625 1167 ~ ~ m -'v ~ m 33 (64)~ ~ N ~ 684 1003 ~ ``rN ( ) O NON 640 (1060) 668 (834)-? vo v 442 (836) N vv 46 (50) 158 248 rn v ~ ~ ~ ~ ( n N 10 (18) ~ 32 (46)~ ~ M N 139 (227) ~ rn o 30 (98) ~ N n n M mo n o v w ~n ~ ~ N M d' d ~ , ~ N IO O M r _ _ _ X00 ~ W (n ~ ~ V mN ~ ~ V N ~ ~t0p ~ n n ~ ~ 371 (766) ~ ~ ~ 122 (277) N ~ ~ ~ 63 (181) N M M m R- 140 236 ~ ~ 384 459 M o 10 ~ ~ 255 (558) m `-o c r- 848 (2613) ~ " c ~ 855 (2165) n m F 798 (1469) mom a 965 (1971) '-'v " ~ ~ 40 (113) N W M ~ 7B9 21 OS ~ M~ O ~ "47 O N O th O N M N N ~ i0 ' C ~ ( ) ~ ~ 81 (183) u~ n c~ ~ 199 (233) m mI ~ ~ 446 (902) co N ~n ~ 157 (251) v v ~n 66 (20) ~ Dublin Boulevard ° ~ ~ ~ Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ ~ Dublin Boulevard ~ ? a a l ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ o ~ rDutilin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard: SL Patri k LVa 191 (162) ~ ~ ~ 166 (357) ~ N 115 (314)-~ ~ ~ 168 (357)1 ~ ~ ~ 266 (765)1 ~ m ro 61 (125)1 v~ ~ 366(551) ~~N 1778(2913) ~v~ 1311(2569) 847(1904) memo 933(1952)-? m~~ 71(114)-e rnm 726 (456) ~ 22O (466) ~ N m 529 (595)1. N N ~ SO6 (1OS9) ~ O O ~ 26B (606) ~ ~ ~ 2 (3) ~ O N N ~ m N N V N ` ~ r N r r r O N i," I - i - 111II a0 O ~ tG th 3 N ~ ~ 1y _ 14 _ I, ~ \ I m ~ 535 (695) ~ N a o N r°a ~ t 43 (82) ~ ~l ~~o a181 (210) o" ~ `-a f-10(10) - vvco ~OO X88(114) Muni ~ °~u`S ~O 31(50) \ f0 _ ,J I d ( I IQ '-1-680 S8 amps ` ? > ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ , ~ ~ ~ I St. Patrick Way f ~ ~ ~ II-680 n-ramp) ~ ~ St. Patrick WayJ 1 121(273)-'+ .NN...o^ 10(10) °rn~ _,~.1\ i 2B(24)~ ~.r.,.^ 10(10)1. Ol()N ' ` ~ J P ; VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY ' ~ - ~ ® - e~ i~~i XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour ~ ~ Studylntersection e - 1~~ \ ) ~ - q0 ~ ~ - ' ~ ~ i1~ - r ~ l Traffic Volumes Future Stud Intersection o ` a - i , A ®®®I Future Roadway Extension ~ ~ Y - - <r ~ > ~ ~ s _ _ A ~~f - - ti N sro, e M 1!, ~ 1 I ~i(i Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Cumulative IVo Project (Current Specific Plans) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ~ CONSULTING 9!2010 JN 70-100239 FIgUCP. 3.913 m m m a ~ d c ~ io! m t` ?.o E ~ 294 (507) N ~ o c ~ 4 (26) V , ~ ~ ~ 59 (99) ~ ~ m ~ 135 133 ' `0 ~ 0 2 ~ n m ~ rn ~ 41 52 N o F 797 608 0 m ~ ? ° ( ) ja a 25 (27) ( ) ( ) 694 806 m m L ~-667 7 r m m N D; m o M ( ) ~ (96) s ~ a 878 (672) v o e ~ F 691 (447) rv r v c 556(365) ~ ~n m ~ 114(199) mom m r ~ ~ 11 17 m v o !a° 316 366 m m~ 1 Ir ~ l ( ) ( ) ~ 327 (162) ~ AmaRdor*Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ ~ AmaRdor*VallAe Blvd ~ • ~ ~ AmaRdor Valle Blvd: ~ ~ ~ ~ AmaRdor*Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ LE i~Ror Valle Blvd ~ ` y ~ Amador Valle Blvd I I~ I I I C 1~~ 1 I~ I 28(44) uN^iN~ 30(113) N,n~ 55(124) vov 46(99) or;N 2(8)~ o~~ 282(475)-~ n~~ 31 (54)-? ~ rn ~ 676 (985) ~ CO m m c ~ vN ~ ~-v v 611 (1111)-y N NON 622 (1004)-~ 662 (895) v0 ~ 435 (796)-+ N v~ 44 (36) ~ o m 139 (196) ~ m rn ~ 10 (18) ~ U 32 (46) m ch N 124 (201) m ~ 32 (92) ~ m m r m~M ~O m O r m ENO ~ m m ~ N ~ , ~ m ~ ~n o rn tD rn r N m'~°J ° 8-429 429 ~mN m ~ M ~ m m`°'°°r' ~ x E ( ) r 109(230) ~ 37 104 m ~ ~ ~ ~ `m n rn r m f- m C7 ( ) a 130 (207) o_ ~ 381 (447) N ~ ~ 30 (52) 239 (436) m ~-r c ~ 617 (1598) a 678 (1443) "m m a 698 (1191) v m N 796 1466 a'~ ~ 26 75 ornm 0_ ~nnm o ~n ~rn ~ NmN `o rom a~ ( ) c ( ) ( 63(124) n r ~ 164 120 m N ~ m N O~ N ~ ~ 617 1382 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ( ) ~ r 305 (469) N N N ~ ~ 157 (251) ~ to K ~ ~ 66 (20) j o _ N DubRlm*Bouplevards, ~ • ~ ~ DubRlin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ ~ (DubRlin BouAlevard ~ ~ ~ t '~;"DubRlin*Boulevard: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~DubRlin BouAlevard ~ ~ ~ C ~St.RPatrickAWa ~ 11 I ~ I~~ 1~ I I I~ I~ I 1~ I 190 (160) ~ ~ N ~ 154 (324) ~ ~ ~ ~ 77 (207) ~ ~ ~ N 146 (288) ~ ~ n ~ 222 (503) ~ ~ ~ ~ 46 (52) ~ N o c~ 340 (442) ~ o" m 1340 1690 r r rn r ~ ~ in r~ o m v~- cuc~m ( ) v..-~ 1017(1677)--? 769 (1521) vvV 828 (1402) 63(54; om 728 (458) ~ 175 (336) m ~ e 397 (227) ~ ~ N ~ 265 (360) N r r 207 (398) v m `r 1 4 ° ~v vmiNO N m o ~ v~~ ~ mN I~ ° ~ ~ i rri m = ~ 499 626 rn x I (;';?;t ~ _ ~i i"/ _ _ ~ a`~--m o_ ( ) m N o_ o N o ~ ~ 41 (64) ~ ~N~ X146142 0^ ° ~ X10(10) ~ 57 (55) u~ ~n m ° v u> ° 22 (34) ~ ~ ~ ~ i I-680 SB Rams ~ 1 > ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ' ~ ~.4 ~ ,v ~ ~ _ " ~ ~ St. Patrick WayJ ` ~ S I-680 NB On-ram ~ I ~ - 1 - ~ 1 ( ^ I St. Patrick Ways ~ ~ ~ \v 106 (159)-? 10 (10) ~ o w m ~ v, 1 ~ o. 1 \ t - _ I~ ~ D bl n Blvd t~ VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~V ~ ~ XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Study Intersection ~ ~ o ~ ~ V- n ~ TrefhcVolumes ~ % ~eoo ~ //~-vs _ - 15 Future Study Intersection ~ ~~~~i ~ _ ~ ~_y~'`~ ;a,( ®®®®I Future Roadway Extension _ , , ~1 ~ ~ 1. I r P A !Stone dge ~ ~ ~o. ) ~ ~t: - \ Mall \ ~ a~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~ max. - ~ ~ ~ aj - 1 Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR v ® Curnulateve Plus Project (base FAR) Peak Hour Intersection V®lurnes nA ~ CCNSLI LTING 9/2010 JN 70-100239 Figure 3.9-14 ~ e > ~ x v~"~ E X319 (577) N~o ~ 4(26) N, N a ~60 (99) v^~ m 136 (133) a ~0(2) am~ ~ ~25 (27) rn n N ~ r 42 (61) ~ ~ ? o F 809 (639) o N `m f 719 (903) o ~ z f= 693 (893) C ? S ~ 897 (727) ~ ~ ap ~ f 701 (480) N m v ~ ~ 556 (365) ~n m ~ 128 (244) ~ o co ~ --i m rl ~ o ~ 11 (17) ~n a o -a ~ 338 (444) o ~ ~ ~ 341 (208) m AmaRdor+Va~ll/e BNd. ~ :AmaRdor Va~ll/e Blvd! N Amador*Va~ll/e Bivd':. ~ AmaRdor Valle Blvd ~'~I-~ E iAmaRdor Vall}e Blvd! ~ iAmaRdor.Val~lle Blvd'':, I~I~,.I I.'~ I m ~_I_I 1 ~ 1_~_I I_~LI 28 (44)x. r` n ~ 30 (113) o ~ ~ 56 74 1 v 47 49 ~ 2 8 ( ) aov ( ) o~u~ ~v~ 298(569)1 32 (63)~ ENV 687(1022) vm oN 630 (1172) N NON 644 (1065) 673 (950) Nov 442 (831) vv~ 46(49)-~ "~0 155(245) m 10 68 U 32 96 ~ ~ N 138 228 34 103 d .1 v .1 ~ M :1 o N v E ~ 379 (741) v~ M ~ ~ 123 (274) N N ~ ~ 58 (165) H vN~.,, a ~ 139 (234) ~ vv a ~ 385 (463) ~ vor^, ~ ~ 38 (88) c m c ~ F 258 (549) ~ m m F 875 (2542) ~ f 868 (2068) rn m F 794 (1456) ~ ~ o ~ ~ 951 (1934) ~o f 41 (117) Nmm 841 2077 m~ ° L-78 774 ~nrm ~ - voM `o i ~n~v NNO d ~ ( ) ( ) ~ 203 (245) m mI ~ ~ 433 (867) cn N u~ ~ j 157 (251) v v co .o ~ 66 (21) N ~Dubiin Boulevard ~ Dublin Boulevard) ~-~1 ~ ~ Dublin Boulevard) ~Lt.~ ¢ ~ Dublm Boulevard: ~ ~ ~u~ ~ ~I R R ~I R * ~I DubRlin Bo~u/levard t.RPat*ric~klWa ~i_~.I I I-~ I I I_I 1. ~_f I I_.1 191(163)1 168(363)1 oom 107 (292)x, 169 (363) N<o 265 (751)r~ 62 (728) vo y^ 364(546)=? ~ m M ~ 1750 2850 m ~ m 1284 2469 ~ o ~ r 859 1887 ~ ~ v 937 1901 y 'v 81 110 ~ ~ 728(458) 224 494 544 637 N 471 963 ~ 280 595 ~ m ~ icmi <n~ ( ~<<o ( m ° ( N`o'm ( 2(4)~ ~N u~ ro ~ ^ 3 rn -o~ _ N a l,rn~ is L_44 e,, 1 it 'r C00 a 532 (691) vv, ~ o~~ ~ ~ ~ - ~i - - I'~.~ - a~inm ~825104) ua'i uri ~ o~N g !~10 10 \ a : I-680 SB Ram sl ~ ~ i~ _ \ ~ - ~ St. Patrick WayJ R * ~I I I-660 NB On ramp' p SL Patrck Wa _ 62 184 I I~_I ~ 134 280 y ~ \ ( ) m~ 10 10 ~ ~mr ~\AA ~ ~ ~ ~ - VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY Ii ~r ~ v _ _ JOC (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour ~ Study Intersection ~ v 'S' ~ _ ~ ~ _ Traffic Volumes °o ~ Future Study Intersection ~ 7s ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ I Future Roadway Extension I i :~r~~ _ _-A~ - _ Mall ~ ~ . - \ ~ ~ j vv Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) - DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 1 Cumulative Plus Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersecton Volumes CONSULTING O4(19Y2010 JN 70.100239 Figure 3.915 ° r r~ r ~ r r . rr ¦r r~ r r ~r r rr r r rr r¦~ rr EXISTING/NEAR-TERM NEAR-TERM + BASE FAR PROJECT NEAR-TERM + MAX FAR PROJECT CUMULATIVE + BASE FAR PROJECT CUMULATIVE + MAX FAR PROJECT L ~ ~ '6ubltn Bou evar ~ 'Dublin Boulevard) 'Dutilin Boulevard) 'Du61in Bourevardl ~Dublln Boulevard; ~~ittr~r ~ ~~tiirr~ ~ ~~tttr~r~ ~ ~~itirr ~ ~~itirr~ ~~~tti~~ ~ ~~~111~~ ~ ~~~111rr ' ~ : ~ ' ddb a ~ ~ ' ~l~b W ~ ~ ' ~b~~ 'F ~ ~ a E 'Dublin Boble and ~ 'ISu~~6ou B del ~ E Du61in Boulevard) E rDublin Boulevard) ~ E rD~olGBooie~ardl sir' ~ sir' ~ = sir ~ = ~i~ ~ ~ sir m a ~1~~ ~ ~1~~ ~ ~1~~ v ~ rl~~ m r ~1~~ ''6'ublin 9ouTev~l '6u6~Boulevar ~ DubTn Boulevard L> u ~g~a a ~ r6ublin Bou evf~rar 1 ~iir ~ ~iir ~ ~ttr ~ 1 ~ii~ ~ 1 ~itr ~ s ~ ~ l9 'ice 'ice I~ t. atoc a t. atnc ~ (Bt-~~v~l ~ Bt-Patrick Wa 1 l~ t. ~t}ri~ KEY NOTE: All improvements shown in the current Downtown iIF Program Existing Lane Geometry ~ Traffic Signal Mitigated Lane Geometry Stop Sign Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) V DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Mitigation Summgary C~NSLI LTING 04/19/2010 JN 70-700239 FIgUCE! J.9~16 3~:~ ~C~ ~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft"EIR Transportation & Circulation 3.9. Transportation & Circulation This section presents the results of the transportation impact study for the proposed project that was prepared by Fehr & Peers in April 2010. The purpose of the transportation impact analysis for the proposed project is to evaluate transportation impacts, identify short-term and long-term roadway and circulation needs, determine potential mitigation measures, and identify any critical transportation issues that should be addressed in the on-going planning process. The study primarily focused on evaluating conditions at fourteen existing intersections that may potentially be affected by the proposed project. The intersection operating conditions were evaluated under seven ' scenarios. A complete copy of the traffic level of service worksheets, prepared by Fehr & Peers, is included in Appendix D of this DEIR and is available for review at the City of Dublin. Environmental Setting This chapter includes a description of existing traffic and circulation conditions, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities in and around the project area. Existing Roadway Network Operations of key intersections in the vicinity of the project area during the weekday morning and evening peak commute periods were evaluated, when traffic volumes on the ' surrounding roadways are highest. Intersections with potential impacts were selected in consultation with City staff, based on the amount of traffic projected to be added by the proposed project. The locations of these intersections are shown on Figure 3.9- I Transportation Study Area and represent the locations most likely to experience traffic impacts associated with the project. These intersections are listed below followed by a narrative description of key roadways. ¦ Amador Valley Boulevard/San Ramon Dublin Boulevard/Regional Street Rd. Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive ' Amador Valley Boulevard/Regional Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road Street Dublin Boulevard/Village Parkway ¦ Amador Valley Boulevard/Starward Saint Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive Drive Amador Valley Boulevard/Donohue Saint Patrick Way/Amador Plaza ¦ Road/Interstate 680 (I-680) Southbound Drive Ramps ¦ Amador• Valley Boulevard/Amador Plaza 1.680 Northbound On-Ramp/Village Road Parkway ' Amador Valley Boulevard/Village Parkway ' Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road Page 3- 145 ~~6~~~3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Interstate 580 (I-580) I-580 is an eight-lane, east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local Tr-i-Valley cities ' _ such as Livermore and Pleasanton as well as regional cities such as Oakland, Hayward and - Tracy. According to Tragic Volumes of Califomia State Highways (Caltrans 2008), I-580 ' carries between 178,000 and 209,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in the project vicinity. I-580 interchanges are located at San Ramon Road/Foothill Road, I-680, Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road, and Fallon Road/EI Charro Road. Interstate 680 (I-680) I-680 is a six-to-eight lane north-south freeway that provides access to the south to Fremont, Milpitas and San Jose, and north to San Ramon, Danville, Walnut Creek and beyond. According to Tro~c Volumes on Califomia State Highways, I-680 carries between 148,000 and 163,000 vpd in the vicinity of the project area (Caltrans 2008). I-680 interchanges are located at Alcosta Boulevard, Dublin Boulevard via Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway, and I-580. Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial in the City of Dublin. Dublin Boulevard, west , of Dougherty Road is a four- to six-lane divided road fronted largely by retail and commercial land uses. Between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard is , a six-lane divided arterial fronted primarily by residential uses, commercial uses, and vacant land. Dublin Boulevard extends east of Tassajara Road to Fallon Road as a four- to five- lane roadway fronted by multi-family residential, commercial uses and vacant land. Amador Val~_ Boulevard Amador Valley Boulevard is an east-west collector that spans from San Ramon Road in the ' west to Dougherty Road in the east. East of Village Parkway, it is a two-lane divided road fronted largely by residences. West of Village Parkway, it is four-lane divided road that , traverses through the Retail District. It is located north of Dublin Boulevard. San Ramon Road San Ramon Road is a north-south arterial that forms the western border of the Plan study area. San Ramon Road has six travel lanes (with a median) north of I-580 and an interchange at I-580. North of Amador Valley Boulevard, Sam Ramon Road narrows to ' four travel lanes (with a median). This arterial runs parallel to I-680 north through San Ramon, Danville, Walnut Creek, and Concord; south of I-680 it becomes Foothill Road and continues through Pleasanton. Because of the I-580 interchange, this roadway will be a major access point to uses in the Specific Plan Area. Village Parkway , Village Parkway is a north-south Class I collector that extends from just south of Dublin Boulevard north to Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon. Village Parkway has four travel lanes Page 3- 146 ' Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation with a raised median. Within the Plan area between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley ' Boulevard, Village Parkway provides access to commercial uses; north of Amador Valley Boulevard, access is provided to residential developments and to Dublin High School. South of Dublin Boulevard, an on-ramp is provided to I-680 northbound. Regional Street Regional Street is a north-south Class II collector that begins at' Amador Valley Boulevard and terminates south of Dublin Boulevard; it is a two-lane roadway providing access to local commercial land uses. Amador Plaza Road Amador Plaza Road is a north-south Class II collector that begins at Amador Valley ' Boulevard and terminates south of Saint Patrick Way; at the intersection with Saint Patrick Way it provides access to and from I-680 southbound. It serves as an access point to commercial uses. Saint Patrick Way Saint Patrick Way is an east-west Class.ll collector connecting the I-680 ramps to Golden Gate Drive. It currently provides two travel lanes and provides access for the uses between Amador Plaza Road and Golden Gate Drive, as well as to and from I-680 southbound. In the future this roadway will extend further west to Regional Street. Starward Drive and Donohue Drive Starward Drive and Donohue Drive provide access to residential dwellings located north of Amador Valley Boulevard between San Ramon Road and I-680. They are both two-lane residential collectors which tum into Landale Avenue. Traffic Analysis Methodology ' Operational traffic analyses focus on intersections rather than roadway segments, due to the capacity constraints typically occurring at the intersections. The operational perforrnance of a roadway network is commonly described with the term level of service or LOS. LOS is a qualitative description of operating conditions, ranging from LOS A (free-flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (oversaturated conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and. delays). The LOS analysis methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board, 2000) were used in this study. The HCM methods for calculating LOS for signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections are described below. Traffic operations at signalized intersections were evaluated using the LOS method described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 HCM. The Synchro 7.0 software was used to analyze ' traffic conditions throughout the Plan Area. A signalized intersection's LOS is based on the weighted average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration. Table Page 3- 147 coweu~riwa . 3~~ Q Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ~ ~ v~ Transportation & Circulation a 3.9- I : 'Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria summarizes the relationship between the control delay and LOS for signalized intersections. ' Table 3.9-1: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria Level of Description Average Control Service Delay (Seconds per Veh{c{e) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable traffic signal < 10.0 progression and/or short cycle lengths. B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle > 10.0 to 20.0 lengths. Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer C cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20.0 to 35.0 Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression; D long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop > 35.0 to 55.0 and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle E lengths, and high VIC ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. > 55.0 to 80.0 This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. ' Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over- F saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000 In Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), the LOS for unsignalized intersections (side-street or all-way stop controlled intersections) is also defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds). The control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay is calculated for each stop-controlled ' movement and for the uncontrolled left turns, if any, from the main street. The delay and LOS for the intersection as a whole and for the worst movement are reported for side- street stop intersections. The intersection average delay is reported for all-way stop , intersections. Table 3.9-2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. The delay ranges for unsignalized intersections are lower than for signalized intersections as drivers expect less ' delay at unsignalized intersections. Table 3.9-2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria Level of Description Average Control Delay Service (Seconds Per Vehicle) A Little or no delays < 10.0 B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0 , D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0 ` E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0 Page 3- 148 373 ~(~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000 Existing Traffic Operations and Levels of Service The existing peak hour turning movement volumes can be seen in Figure 3,9-2: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, and the lane configuration and control for each intersection is shown in Figure 3.9-3: Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Control. The fourteen study intersections were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours according to the procedures described and reflect the worst 15 minute scenario during each of these peak periods Table 3.9-3: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ' provides a summary of the level of service results. Currently, all fourteen intersections operate acceptably during both peak hours. Table 3.9-3: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Peak Detay`(in Intersection Control Hour seconds)~~2 LOS~~~ 1 Amador Valley Boulevard /San Ramon Road Signal AM 32 C PM 26 C 2 Amador Valley Boulevard /Regional Street Signal AM 8 A PM 15 B 3 Amador Valley Boulevard / Starward Drive Signal AM 6 A PM 7 A ' 4 Amador Valley Boulevard / Donohue Drive Signal AM 13 B PM 14 B 5 Amador Valley Boulevard /Amador Plaza Road Signal AM 12 B PM 18 B ' 6 Amador Valley Boulevard /Village Parkway Signal AM 50 D PM 43 D 7 Dublin Boulevard /San Ramon Road Signal AM 39 D PM 36 D 8 Dublin Boulevard /Regional Street Signal AM 21 C PM 43 D 9 Dublin Boulevard /Golden Gate Drive Signal AM 10 B PM 27 C 10 Dublin Boulevard /Amador Plaza Road Signal AM 35 D PM 41 D ' 11 Dublin Boulevard /Village Parkway Signal AM 37 D PM 34 C 12 Saint Patrick Way /Golden Gate Drive AWSC AM 8 A PM 7 A 13 Saint Patrick Way /Amador Plaza Road / I-680 Si nal AM 19 B SB Ramps g PM 24 C ' 14 I-680 NB On-Ramp /Village Parkway SSSC AM 1 5 A A PM 1 4 A A Notes: 1. Signalized intersection and all-way stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. 2. Side-street stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle and worst approach control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual in the notation: average worst a roach . Page 3- 149 COMOULTMO 3~~~ ~g ~ Downtown Dublin Speafic Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Source: Fehr & Peers 2010 Traffic Impact Fee Program ' The Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) was established in 2004 after completion of three Specific Plans (Village Parkway, Downtown Dublin Core, and West Dublin BART Specific Plans) in the Downtown area. It encompasses the entire study area for this project. The TIF evaluated traffic impacts associated with potential future development based on the City's General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plans. As a result, roadway improvement projects were identified throughout downtown Dublin to mitigate traffic impacts. To fund these improvements, a TIF rate was calculated by dividing the estimated number of ' trips associated with the potential development in the study area into the unfunded cost of the proposed improvements. The 2004 adopted cost per daily trip for non-residential development added was $ 136; for residential development, the cost per unit added varied from $8 16 to $ I ,360 per unit based on the density of the development. Automatic annual adjustments are applied each year and the current fees are somewhat higher. The improvements identified that are part of the study area include: ® Extension of Saint Patrick Way to Regional Street ' ¦ Widening of Golden Gate Drive ¦ Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive intersection improvements , ¦ Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road intersection improvements ¦ Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection improvements ¦ Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection improvements The above improvements are identified and funded by the TIF program; however the City ' anticipates updating the TIF program in the near future to ensure that the program is consistent with the goals of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and previously-adopted mitigation measures for other projects. Therefore, the improvements are not identified as planned improvements pending this revision. The revision is anticipated to commence once the Specific Plan has been adopted. ' Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Sidewalks are provided on all of .the existing roadways in the study area. All study intersections provide some striped crosswalks, although crossings are not provided at a few locations for safety reasons. There are no marked crossings across Village Parkway at the unsignalized I-680 , northbound on-ramp; however, there should be no need to cross here. Pedestrian signal heads are provided at the signalized intersections where crosswalks are provided. A shared pedestrian and bicycle pathway is also provided in the study area. The pathway is , a pedestrian/bicycle path that provides off-street thoroughfare through the area. The path Page 3-150 ~ ' x . 1 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation is located to the west of San Ramon Road and runs from Westside Drive/Alcosta Boulevard to Dublin Boulevard in the south. Bicycle facilities include the following: ¦ Class (Paths -These facilities are located off-street and can serve both bicyclists and pedestrians. Recreational trails can be considered Class I facilities. Class I paths are completely separate from the roadway and are typically 8 to I 0 feet wide excluding shoulders and are generally paved. ¦ Class II Bicycle Lanes -These facilities provide a dedicated area for bicyclists within the paved street width through the use of striping and appropriate signage. These facilities are typically four to six feet wide. ¦ Class III Bicycle Routes -These facilities are found along streets that do not provide sufficient width for dedicated bicycle lanes. The street is then designated as a bicycle route through the use of signage informing drivers to share the roadway with bicyclists. Class III facilities may also provide the shared lane marking (sharrow) to identify the bicycling path for bicyclists and to inform motorists to share the roadway. Within the project area, a Class (bicycle/pedestrian path is provided on the west side of San Ramon Road, as described above. A Class II bicycle lane is provided in both directions on Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road. Class III bike routes are provided along Village Parkway. Amore complete map of the existing bicycle facilities near the study area is illustrated on Figure 3.9-4: Existing Bicycle Facilities. Transit Service Transit service providers in the project vicinity include Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), which provides regional rail service, and the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) which provides local and regional bus service. Figure 3.9-5: Existing Transit Routes shows the existing transit services provided near the project site. Each service is described below. Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART BART provides regional transit service to Alameda, San Francisco, Contra Costa, and San Mateo Counties. Weekday service is provided from 4:00 a.m, to I:00 a.m., while Saturday and Sunday service is provided from 6:00 a.m. to I:00 a.m., and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., respectively. Trains have a typical headway of 15 minutes on weekdays and Sundays, and 20 minutes on Saturdays. The East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is located approximately one and one half miles east of the Project site. Another BART Station, the West Dublin/Pleasanton station and a 7 I I -space parking garage for BART patrons, is located in the Specific Plan Area and is currently under construction and projected to open ' sometime in 20I I. The BART project also includes approval of a Stage I Development Plan which will allow for up to 150 hotel rooms and 7,500 square feet of commercial development adjacent to the BART station (see Table 2- I Additionally, a total of 617 Page 3- 15 I eo..au~nHo Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation residential dwellings and a 150,000 square foot office building have been approved in close proximity to the new station. Table 3.9-4: Projected BART Ridership - West , Dublin/Pleasanton Station shows the projected ridership for the new West Dublin/Pleasanton station, based on system-wide forecasting perFormed by Fehr & Peers for BART. The Station is projected to serve approximately 700 boardings and 700 alightings in each of the peak hours, and about 6,000 boardings/6,000 alightings on a daily basis. Table 3.9-4: Projected BART Ridership -West DublinlPleasanton Station Access Mode AH9 Feak Hour F~ {°ea4c Hour Daily Eoard Afght Baard Alight Board ar~rt Walk/Bike 40 625 509 156 3175 3262 Transit 158 65 87 148 1043 1068 Drive/Park 395 15 32 326 1324 1057 Drive/Drop off 100 8 20 103 530 515 Total 693 713 648 733 6072 5902 Source: BART Direct Ridership Model and Fehr & Peers 2009 Livermore_Amador_Valley Transit__Authority_ (LAVTA~ LAVTA provides transit service for the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton via Wheels, which provides both local and regional bus service. Wheels provides Transbay service to destinations in San Francisco via connections to BART. Three Wheels' bus routes operate near the project site. The characteristics of the routes operating in the project area are summarized in Table 3.9-5: LAVTA Service Summary. Local adult fares, as of March 2009, are $2.00, and youth and senior fares are $1.00. A transfer to and from other Wheels routes is free, as are transfers from the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) and Contra Costa County's County Connection service. Transfers from BART are $1.00. Ten-ride and monthly passes are also available for Wheels. Fares are paid on the bus, and passengers must have exact change. Ridership estimates from March 2010 for routes operating in the project area are summarized in Table 3.9-6: March 2010 LAVTA Route Ridership. Page 3-152 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation 1 Table 3.9-5: LAVTA Service Summary Line " Route Nearest Stop Weskday .Weekend Hours Head- `Hours Head- way way BART / Dougherty / Several on 5:00 AM - 9:00 30 7:45 AM -11:15 3 Johnson Drive /West Amador Valley AM; 3:00 PM - minutes - AM; 2:30 PM - 8:00 1 hour Dublin /Stoneridge Mall Boulevard and g;30 PM 1 hour PM (Saturday only) ' Regional Street BART / Dougherty / Village Parkway / 3V Johnson Drive /West Amador Valley Once in morning, once in n/a n/a Dublin /Stoneridge Mall - Boulevard afternoon, once in evening Limited Service Dublin / Pleasanton / Several on Dublin 5:00 AM - 2:00 15 - 40 20 10 Livermore Boulevard AM minutes 6:00 AM -1:00 AM minutes - ' 1 hour Dublin Boulevard Pleasant Hill BART to 5:30 -10:00 AM; 30 70X Dublin/Pleasanton BART east of Village 3:30 - 7:00 PM minutes nla n/a ' Parkway Village Parkway / 201 East Dublin to Dublin High Amador Valley Once in morning, once in nla n/a School Boulevard afternoon Village Parkway / 202 Dublin Ranch Village / Amador Valley Once in morning, once in n/a n/a Dublin High School Boulevard afternoon ' Source: Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, March 2010 Table 3.9-6: March 2010 LAVTA Route Ridership Route YVeekday Average 5afurday Average Ridership Ridership 3 130 37 ' 10 2726 1956 70 155 - 201 76 - 202 30 - Source: LAVTA, April 2010 Relevant Project Characteristics This section presents the relevant project details pertaining to the transportation impact analysis, and describes the analysis scenarios and analysis methods. The traffic analysis includes the following scenarios ¦ Existing Conditions ¦ Near-Term Conditions Without the Project, which assumes all entitled development, including that which is in the Plan area, in addition to existing traffic volumes. Page 3-153 co«au~nwa ~7~~ ~ Downtown Dublin Speafic Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation ¦ Near-Tenn Plus Base FAR19 Project, which assumes all entitled development in addition to existing traffic volumes, plus a level of Plan development that would , result in minor roadway and infrastructure improvements, such as signal timing adjustments or re-striping of lanes. ¦ Near-Term Conditions Plus Maximum FAR Project, which assumes all entitled development in addition to existing traffic volumes, along with the entire allotment of development allowed by the plan, including the "development density pool," , which is the proposed project. ¦ Cumulative Conditions Without the Project, which starts with the Near-Term Without Project case, adds regional background growth as determined from the Contra ' Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Countywide Travel Demand model, and also adds the additional net new development (after accounting for the entitled projects) that is allowed by the five current specific plans that make up the Project , area. ¦ Cumulative Conditions Plus Base FAR Project, which starts with the Near-Term , Without Project case, adds regional background growth as determined from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Countywide Travel Demand model, and also adds the additional net new development (after accounting for the entitled projects) that is allowed by the Base FAR Project. ¦ Cumulative Conditions Plus Max FAR Project, which starts with the Near-Term , Without Project case, adds regional background growth as determined from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Countywide Travel Demand model, and also adds the additional net new development (after accounting for the , entitled projects) that is allowed by the Max FAR Project. The process for developing each of these scenarios is further explained below. The LOS results for each scenario are provided another section. , Because there are several entitled but not yet constructed projects in and around Dublin, projected traffic volumes from these projects were added to the existing volumes to form ' a Near-Term scenario for the Plan analysis. Entitled projects within Dublin, San Ramon, and Pleasanton were included if they were expected to add traffic through the Plan area. Entitled projects within and outside of the Plan area are shown in Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area. Bold-face projects are located within the Plan area. i9 FAR =Floor Area Ratio. Base FAR for the purposes of the traffic analysis is the difference between the proposed project Base FAR and already entitled projects. Page 3-154 ~ , i 3'q ~ ~g~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area ' City Project Location Development Schaefer Ranch Western terminus of Dublin 582 dwelling units ' Boulevard Windstar Condos South of Dublin Boulevard; 309 dwelling units west of Golden Gate Drive ' AMB Site South of Dublin Boulevard; 308 dwelling units;150,000square east of Regional Street feet office space ' Tralee Development Eastern Dublin along Dublin 233 dwelling units; 33,500 square Boulevard feet retail space Arroyo Vista Eastern Dublin along Dublin Residential; traffic volume information ' Dublin Boulevard provided Hotel Site (adjacent to the Southern terminus of Golden 150 hotel rooms; 7,500 square feet West DublinlPleasanton Gate Drive retail space ' BART Station) BART Station Parking Southern terminus of Golden 711-space parking garage Garage Gate Drive Custom Fireplace, Patio, Amador Plaza Road north of Additional 10,900 square feet retail 8 BBQ Dublin Boulevard space ' Northwest comer of Amador Additional 4,185 square feet retail Big Lots Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road space ' Senior Citizen Housing Along Foothill Boulevard 132 dwelling units Pleasanton Multi-family Homes ~ Along Foothill Boulevard 350 dwelling units ' San Senior Citizen Housing Along San Ramon Road 105 dwelling units Ramon Notes: Bold projects are part of the proposed Plan area. Source: City of Dublin, January 2010. Trip generation estimates for the entitled projects during both AM and PM peak hours ' were estimated using the trip generation equations and rates presented in Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Project trip generation was adjusted to account for pass-by trips and transit use, to more accurately reflect the number of new vehicle trips expected to be added to the roadway network. Pass-by trips are those that occur when a driver on an adjacent roadway to a particular use decides to stop on their way to their final destination (e.g., to purchase an item on their way home from work). These trips are not considered as new trips on the roadway network. Transit trip reductions are taken to reflect the higher-than-average transit mode share that is expected for development with good access to transit. The following pass-by trip and transit trip reductions were taken: Page 3- 155 ~a..e~~„moo 3g®~ ~t ~ Downtown Dublin S ecific Plan Draft EIR P Transportation & Circulation Residential uses: 25% transit trip reduction Retail Uses: 25% pass-by reduction ' Office: 15% transit trip reduction , The approved project trips were distributed to the study area intersections using a TRAFFIX traffic assignment model with distribution percentages derived from the Contra. , Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Travel Demand Model. The trip generation calculations for the entitled projects are included in the technical appendix. The resulting peak hour turning movements generated by these projects are shown in Figure 3.9-6: ' Approved Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, and Figure 3.9-7: Near-Term Peak Hour Intersection Volumes shows the total near-term peak hour intersection volumes. Base FAR Project and Maximum FAR Project ' Trip generation estimates for the proposed project during both AM and PM peak hours were estimated using the trip generation equations and rates presented in Institute of , Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Project trip generation was adjusted to account for pass-by trips and transit use, to more accurately reflect the number ' of new vehicle trips expected to be added to the roadway network. Pass-by trips are those that occur when a driver on an adjacent roadway to a particular use ' decides to stop on their way to their final destination (e.g., to purchase an item on their way home from work). These trips are not considered as new trips on the roadway network. , Because the project site is adjacent to the under-construction West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, which also will also serve as a hub for several bus routes, it is reasonable to ' expect transit use by employees and patrons that is somewhat higher than the average ITE rate for these types of development. Given the proximity to BART and bus route coverage available to the Downtown Dublin ' Specific Plan area, the proposed mix of uses, and the proximity to freeways and arterials from which pass-by trips can be drawn, the following pass-by trip and transit trip reductions ' were taken: ¦ Residential uses: 25% transit trip reduction ' ¦ Retail Uses: 15% transit trip reduction and 25% pass-by reduction i hi h r ' Because the total development potential in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plans g e than can be reasonably expected within the Near-Term and Cumulative horizons, an assessment was conducted to determine how much development would likely be constructed in the near term. The analysis determined that 867,320 square feet of non- residential development, 799 dwelling units, and 150 hotel rooms could be added and the ' Page 3-156 ~ , Downtown Dublin Speafic Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation existing roadway network would operate acceptably without major infrastructure improvements. This amount of development defines the Base FAR Project for the purposes of this traffic analysis. It is important to note that the Base FAR Project described above includes the entitled project development within the Specific Plan boundary. Thus, the net new development after accounting for the entitled projects, (see Table 3.9-7, bold projects) is 182 new ' residential units and 709,500 square feet of commercial space. Table 3.9-8: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Trip Generation -Base FAR Project provides the trip generation estimates for each of the three districts for the Base FAR Project. Table 3.9-9: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Trip Generation -Maximum FAR Project gives the trip generation for the full Downtown Dublin Specific Plan development potential (the ' Maximum FAR Project). Detailed trip generation calculations for both cases are provided in Appendix D. As these tables show, the Base FAR Project generates about 580 net new AM peak hour trips and I ,900 net new PM peak hour trips. The Maximum FAR Project generates much higher trips, at 2, 100 and 7, 100 net new in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The ' difference is much greater in the PM peak hour because much of the additional development in the Maximum FAR project is commercial development, which has higher ' trip generation in the PM peak hour, relative to the AM peak hour. Need to insert new information in a text or table format that provides a description of Base FAR and Maximum FAR that shows consistency with Chapter 2 definitions. Table 3.7-8: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Trip Generation -Base FAR Project t District Development AM Peak Hour Trips (Net) PM Peak Hour Trips{Net) InSound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total ; 368,680 square feet of commercial Retail (retail) space; 100 dwelling units 183 154 337 537 562 1,099 (total and net) 477,910 square feet of commercial Transit- (office) space (320,410 net after Oriented entitled projects subtracted); 150 125 103 228 372 387 759 hotel rooms (0 net); 699 dwelling units (82 net) Village 20,730 square feet of commercial 10 6 16 28 31 59 Parkway (retail) space (total and net) ' 867,320 square feet of commercial Total space (709,820 net); 799 dwelling 318 263 581 937 980 1,917 units (182 net); 150 hotel rooms (0 ' net) Note: The total development numbers include already-entitled projects within the Plan area; the net numbers represent the net additional development allowed under the Base FAR case. The trip generation shown is for the net new development. ' Source: Fehr & Peers, April 2070 Page 3- 157 1 oo..eu~nwa ~~3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Table 3.7-9: Downtown Dublin S ecific Plan Tri Generation -Maximum FAR Pro'ect ' P P 1 - - - _ District Development AM Peak Hour Trips (Net) PM Peak Hour Trips (Net) ' Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total 737,100 square feet of commercial ' Retail (retail) space; 100 dwelling units 358 263 621 1,035 1,102 2,137 (total and net) 2,202,710 square feet of ' Transit- commercial (office) space g06 637 1,443 2,352 2,468 4,820 Oriented (2,045,210 net);150 hotel rooms (0 net); 1,100 dwelling units (483 net) Village 20,730 square feet of commercial , Parkway (retail) space; 100 dwelling units 20 47 67 68 53 121 (total and net) 2,960,540 square feet of Total commercial space (2,803,040 net); 1,184 947 2,131 3,455 3,623 7,078 1,300 dwelling units (683 net); 150 hotel rooms (0 net) , Note: The total development numbers include already-entitled projects within the Plan area; the net numbers represent the net additional development allowed under the Maximum FAR case. The trip generation shown is for the net new development. Source: Fehr 8 Peers, April 2010. ' .Project Trip Distribution Trip distribution is defined as the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would use to arrive at and depart from the site. Project trip distribution was primarily based on the results of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)'s Countywide Travel ' Demand model. Since the model is a regional model and does not accurately forecast local traffic patterns, the trip distribution was further refined based on existing traffic patterns in the area, local roadway characteristics, and location of complementary land uses. Project- ' generated trips were assigned to the surrounding transportation network based on the percentages shown in Figures 3.9-8a: Commercial Project Trip Distribution and Figure 3.9- 8b: Residential Trip Distribution. ' Near-Term Plus Project (Base FAR) Figure 3.9-9: Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes shows the turning movement volumes at each of the study intersections for net new project-generated trips beyond already entitled projects for this scenario. The Near-Term plus Base FAR Project ' scenario adds the existing traffic volumes, projected trips from the entitled projects listed in Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area, and net new Plan-specific trips beyond already entitled projects as shown in Figure 3.9-9: Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour ' Intersection Volumes. The sum of these elements is shown in Figure 3.9- 10: Near-term Plus Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. The results from this analysis Page 3- 158 ~ ' ~3 ~ `f~~ ' Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation were used to determine impacts to the roadway network and develop mitigation measures. Near-Term Plus Project (Maximum FAR) 1 The Near-Term Plus Maximum FAR Project scenario adds the existing traffic volumes, projected trips from the entitled projects listed in Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area, and net new Plan-specific trips beyond already entitled projects as shown in Figure 3.9- I I : Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. The sum of these elements is shown in Figure 3.9- 12: Near-term Plus Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. The results from this analysis were used to determine impacts to the roadway network and develop mitigation measures. ' Cumulative No Project Conditions The Cumulative Conditions without Project scenario adds the existing traffic volumes, projected trips from the entitled projects listed in Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area, development permitted under the existing Specific Plans and background growth from the CCTA Countywide Travel Demand model, to form a baseline for the analysis. Development allowed by the five existing specific plans that apply ' to the greater downtown area was included, as these specific plans would still be in place if this proposed Specific Plan is not adopted. These specific plans allow for additional development of nearly 3.2 million square feet of retail and office development, 717 dwelling units, and 150 hotel rooms beyond existing development and already entitled projects. The sum of these elements is shown in Figure 3.9- 13: Cumulative No Project (Current Specific Plans) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. The Cumulative analysis scenario also includes a new study intersection, Regional Street and Saint Patrick Way. This intersection is introduced as a result of the extension of Saint Patrick Way past Golden Gate Drive; the extension is necessary to move vehicular traffic through the Transit-Oriented District when the new West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and entitled projects are completed. It was analyzed as an all-way stop intersection, with improvements as required by the City for the ' Windstar development. Cumulative Plus Project (Base FAR) This scenario adds the existing traffic volumes, projected trips from the entitled projects listed in Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area, background growth from the CCTA Countywide Travel Demand model, and net new traffic generated by the ' Base FAR Project beyond already entitled projects. The projected tuming movements for this case are shown in Figure 3.9- 14: Cumulative Plus Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. Cumulative Plus Project (Maximum FAR) This scenario adds the existing traffic volumes, projected trips from the entitled projects listed in Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area, background growth from the CCTA Countywide Travel Demand model, and net new traffic generated by the Maximum FAR Project beyond already entitled projects. The projected tuming Page 3-159 EEN9~l LTIND 3g~~ 1 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR 3 Transportation & Circulation movements for this case are shown in Figure 3.9- 15: Cumulative Plus Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. Project Circulation Elements The project will also necessitate some improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. In order to induce more pedestrian travel along the Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin ` Boulevard corridors and meet the intent of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, the Specific Plan will require project developers to improve pedestrian connectivity in the Specific Plan Area by requiring landscaping, streetscape enhancements and pedestrian connections to establishments. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance , In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQf~ Guidelines, agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would: ¦ Result in a traffic increase that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and . capacity of the street system, which is defined as causing an existing .acceptable intersection or roadway level of service to drop to unacceptable levels (as defined by a City's General Plan). ¦ Cause a Congestion Management Plan (CMP) or Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) network segment to fall from acceptable (LOS E, roadway segment volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.99 or less) in the No Project case to unacceptable (LOS F, v/c of I.00 or more); or, if a segment is already operating at LOS F in the No Project case, the v/c ratio increases by more than 0.02 (for example,~from 1.03 to 1.06). ¦ Conflict with adopted policies, plans, programs that support supporting altemative transportation (for example, bus turnouts, bicycle racks). ¦ Increase the demand for public transit service above that which local transit operators or agencies could accommodate. ¦ Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting altemative transportation. ¦ Disrupts existing transit service or does not provide amenities necessary to accommodate transit demand. The proposed Project includes an amendment to the City's General Plan related to acceptable Levels of Service within the City. As proposed, this General Plan amendment will require a Level of Service of D or better for all intersections except for intersections within the Downtown Specific Plan Area, including the intersections of Dublin Blvd./San Ramon Road and Village Parkway/Interstate 680 on-ramp, which are exempted from the standard in the Draft General Plan Amendment: Page 3-1.60. , O / Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation As shown in the following Traffic Analysis Results section, no intersections will operate unacceptably, in accordance with the amended General Plan, as a result of the Project. Intersection Traffic Analysis Results Table 3.9- 10: Near-Term Intersection Levels of Service -Base FAR Project provides the LOS results for the Near-Term No Project and Near-Term Plus Base FAR Project scenarios. Table 3.9- I I : Near-Term Intersection Levels of Service -Maximum FAR Project provides LOS results for the summary for the Near-Term No Project and Near-Term Plus . Maximum FAR Project scenarios. Table 3.9- 12: Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service -Base FAR Project provides the LOS results for the Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Base FAR Project scenarios. Table 3.9- 13: Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service -Maximum FAR Project provides the LOS results for the Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus ' Maximum FAR Project scenarios. Page 3-161 t ~a~a~~r~e 3~b ~ Downtown Dublin 5 ecific Plan Draft EIR P Transportation & Circulation L Table 3.9-10: Near-Term Intersection Levels of Service -Base FAR Project Intersection T Control LOS I Peak Hour Existing Conditions P'ear•Term P!o Project Near-Term With Base FAR Standard Prejert ~ ~ Delay (in LOS' ~ Delay (in LOS' ~ Delay (in LOS' seconds)' secondsj'~~ seconds)' Amador Valley AM 32 C 36 D 38 D 1 Boulevard I San Signal Exempt Ramon Road PM 26 C 28 C 30 C Amador Valley Exempt AM 8 A 8 A 9 A 2 Boulevard I Regional Signal Street PM 15 B 17 B 18 B Amador Valley Exempt AM 6 A 6 A 6 A 3 Boulevard I Starward Signal Drive PM 7 A 7 A 7 A Amador Valley Exempt AM 13 B 13 B 13 B 4 Boulevard I Donohue Signal Drive PM 14 B 14 B 14 B Amador Valley Exempt AM 12 B 13 B 14 B 5 Boulevard I Amador Signal Plaza Road PM 18 B 19 B 22 C Amador Valley AM 50 D 53 D 54 D ' 6 Boulevard I Village Signal Exempt Parkway PM 43 D 48 D 54 D Dublin Boulevard / AM 39 D 43 D 47 D 7 San Ramon Road Signal Exempt PM 36 D 57 E 91 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 21 C 47 D 48 D 8 Re Tonal Street Signal Exempt 9 PM 43 D 61 E 71 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 10 B 22 C 25 C 9 Golden Gate Drive Signal Exempt PM 27 C 43 D 65 E Dublin Boulevard I AM 35 D 38 D 45 D 10 Amador Plaza Road Signal Exempt PM 41 D 50 D 98 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 37 D 36 D 36 D 11 Villa a Parkwa Signal Exempt 9 Y PM 34 C 36 D 43 D Saint Patrick Way / AM 8 A 18 C 20 C 12 Golden Gate Drive AWSC Exempt PM 7 A 18 C 24 C Saint Patrick Way / AM 19 B 27 C 30 C 13 Amador Plaza Road I Signal Exempt I-680 SB Ramps PM 24 C 37 D 65 E I-680 NB Ramps / AM 1 (5) A (A) 1 (5) A (A) 1 (5) A (A) 14 Village Parkway SSSC Exempt PM 1 (4) A (A) 1 (4) A (A) 1 (4) A (A) 1. 2. Notes: Signalized intersection and all-way stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.- 3. Side-street stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle and worst approach control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual in the notation: average (worst approach). Source: Fehr & Peers 2010 '1 Page 3-162 ' Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Table 3.9-11: Near-Term Intersection Levels of Service~M~aximum FAR Project r Intersectio? ~ontrol I~ LOS P k I Existing Conditions Near-Tenn P!o °roject I P!ear•Term Witt? P~aximum Standard Hour fAH Project Delay (in L05~~ rJelay (in LrJS~~ Delay (in LOS'' secondsh~ secords)'~ ~ ~ seconds)' I Amador Valley Exempt AM 32 C 36 D 46 D 1 Boulevard /San Signal Ramon Road PM 26 C 28 C 37 D Amador Valley AM 8 A 8 A 10 A 2 Boulevard /Regional Signal D • Street PM 15 B 17 B 25 C Amador Valley AM 6 A 6 A 6 A 3 Boulevard / Stanvard Signal D Drive PM 7 A 7 A 6 A Amador Valley AM 13 B 13 B 13 B 4 Boulevard / Donohue Signal D Drive PM 14 B 14 B 15 B Amador Valley AM 12 B 13 B 16 B 5 Boulevard/Amador Signal D Plaza Road PM 18 B 19 B 29 C Amador Valley AM 50 p 53 D 60 E 6 Boulevard /Village Signal Exempt Parkway PM 43 p 48 D 87 F Dublin Boulevard / AM 39 D 43 D 73 E 7 San Ramon Road Signal Exempt PM 36 D 57 E >120 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 21 C 47 D 62 E 8 Regional Street Signal Exempt PM, 43 D 61 E >120 F Dublin Boulevard 1 AM 10 B 22 C 35 C~ 9 Golden Gate Drive Signal Exempt PM 27 C 43 D >120 F ` Dublin Boulevard I AM 35 D 38 D 94 F 10 gmador Plaza Road Signal Exempt PM 41 D 50 D >120 F Dublin Boulevard / AM 37 D 36 D 39 D 11 Village Parkway Signal Exempt PM 34 C 36 D 119 F Saint Patrick Way / p AM 8 A 18 C 48 E 12 Golden Gate Drive AWSC Exem t PM 7 A 18 C >120 F Saint Patrick Way / AM 19 B 27 C 73 E 13 Amador Plaza Road I Signal Exempt 1-680 SB Ramps PM 24 C 37 D >120 F I-680 NB Ramps / AM 1 (5) A (A) 1 (5) A (A) 1 (5) A (A) 14 Village Parkway SSSC D PM 1 (4) A (A) 1 (4) A (A) 1 (4) A (A) ' 1. 2. Notes: Signalized intersection and all-way stop intersection level of service based on weighted average wntrol delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. 3. Side-street stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle and worst approach control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual in the notation: average (worst approach). ' Source: Fehr & Peers 2010 Page 3-I63 CCNlU~TNO ~ ~g~ Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Table 3.9-12: Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service -Base FAR Project - _ _ Intersection Contr LOS Peak _ _ _ _ - s Existing Conditions I Cumulative No Project Cumulative lNitn Protect ol Standard Hour Delay (in ~ LOS' = Delay (in LOS' ~ Delay (in LOS' seconds)'' I seconds)' secondsj'= Amador Valley AM ~ 32 C 76 E 65 E I Boulevard I San Signal Exempt Ramon Road PM 26 C 55 E 37 D Amador Valley AM 8 A 13 B 12 B 2 Boulevard I Regional Signal D Street PM 15 B 34 C 27 C Amador Valley AM 6 A 8 A 8 A 3 Boulevard I Starward Signal D Drive PM 7 A 7 A 8 A Amador Valley AM 13 B 17 B 17 B - 4 Boulevard I Donohue Signal D Drive PM 14 B 20 B 18 B Amador Valley AM 12 B 18 B 16 B 5 Boulevard I Amador Signal D Plaza Road PM 18 B 49 D 32 C Amador Valley AM 50 D 82 F 72 E 6 Boulevard I Village Signal Exempt Parkway PM 43 D >120 F 85 F Dublin Boulevard / AM 39 D 81 F 54 D 7 San Ramon Road Signal Exempt PM 36 D >120 F >120 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 21 C 55 D 51 D 8 Re Tonal Street Signal Exempt . g PM 43 D >120 F 82 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 10 B 35 C 23 C 9 Golden Gate Drive Signal Exempt PM 27 C >120 F 57 E Dublin Boulevard I AM 35 D 92 F 46 D 10 Amador Plaza Road Signal Exempt PM 41 D >120 F >120 F , Dublin Boulevard I AM 37 D 51 D 50 D 11 Signal Exempt Village Parkway PM 34 C >120 F 72 E Saint Patrick Way! p AM 8 A 22 C 15 B 12 Golden Gate Drive AWSC Exem t PM 7 A 60 F 15 B Saint Patrick Way I AM 19 B 99 F 34 C 13 Amador Plaza Road I Signal Exempt I-680 SB Ramps PM 24 C >120 F 109 F 14 1-680 NB Ramps I SSSC D AM 1 (5) A (A) 1 (6) A (A) 1 (5) A (A) Village Parkway PM 1 (4) A (A) 1 (4) A (A) 1 (4) A (A) 15 Saint Patrick Way I AWSC D AM nla nla 8 A 8 A Regional Street PM nla nla 8 A 9 A ' 1. 2. Notes: Signalized intersection and all-way stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. 3. Side-street stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle and worst approach control delay per vehicle, , according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual in the notation: average (worst approach). Source: Fehr & Peers 2010 Page 3-164 IW,F' Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Table 3.9-13: Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service -Maximum FAR Project htersection ' Control ~ Peak Existing Condi!ions Cumulative No Project ~ Cuinulatie~e ~Nifh Project LOS Hour ~ Standard Uelay (in ! OS'? , Delay (in LOS' ~ ' Delay (in LGS' seconds)'' seconds)'- secondsl'~ Amador Valley AM 32 C 76 E 77 E 1 Boulevard I San Signal Exempt Ramon Road PM 26 C 55 E 54 D Amador Valley AM 8 A 13 B 13 B 2 Boulevard I Regional Signal D Street PM 15 B 34 C 35 C Amador Valley AM 6 A 8 A 8 A 3 Boulevard I Starward Signal D Drive PM 7 A 7 A 8 A Amador Valley AM 13 B 17 B 17 B 4 Boulevard I Donohue Signal D Drive PM 14 B 20 B 19 B Amador Valley AM 12 B 18 B 18 B 5 Boulevard /Amador Signal D _ Plaza Road PM 18 B 49 D 49 D Amador Valley AM 50 D 82 F 81 F 6 Boulevard /Village Signal Exempt Parkway PM 43 D >120 F >120 F Dublin Boulevard / AM 39 D 81 F 85 F 7 San Ramon Road Signal Exempt PM 36 D >120 F >120 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 21 C 55 D 65 E 8 Re Tonal Street Signal Exempt. g PM 43 D >120 F >120 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 10 B 35 C 36 D 9 Golden Gate Drive Signal Exempt PM 27 C >120 F >120 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 35 D 92 F 91 F 10 Amador Plaza Road Signal Exempt PM 41 D >120 F >120 F Dublin Boulevard / AM 37 D 51 D 52 D 11 Signal Exempt Village Parkway PM 34 C >120 F >120 F Saint Patrick Way / p AM 8 A 22 C 25 C 12 Golden Gate Drive AWSC Exem t PM 7 A 60 F 75 F Saint Patrick Way I AM 19 B 99 F 95 F 13 Amador Plaza Road / Signal Exempt 1-680 SB Ramps PM 24 C >120 F >120 F 14 1-680 NB Ramps I SSSC D AM 1 (5) A (A) 1 (6) A (A) 1 (6) A (A) Village Parkway PM 1 (4) A (A) 1 (4) A (A) 1 (4) A (A) 15 Saint Patrick Way / AWSC D AM n/a nla 8 A 9 A Regional Street PM nla nla 8 A 15 B - Notes: 1. Signalized intersection and all-way stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. 2. Side-street stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle and worst approach control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual in the notation: average (worst approach). Source: Fehr & Peers 2010 ,1~ Page 3-165 eoweu~r,HO 39~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ~ 3 Transportation & Circulation CMA/MTS System Analysis Results The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) requires analysis of project impacts to Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways for development projects that would generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips. The ACCMA requires that the baseline forecasts be represented by the model run completed by the ACCMA for 2015 and 2035 conditions. To complete this analysis, the project traffic, generated and distributed outside of the model as described in the preceding section, was added directly to the ACCMA 2015 and 2035 peak hour model runs. It is noted that a review of the 2015 and 2035 ACCMA model land use files showed very little growth in the Plan area; thus, this approach gives a reasonably accurate assessment of the net new traffic added by the Plan on the MTS roadways. The MTS system analysis differs from the intersection analysis in the following aspects: ¦ The regional and local land use data sets used for the intersection forecasts and the ` MTS forecasts are different, since the CCTA Countywide Model was used to develop intersection volumes and the ACCMA Countywide Model was used to ' develop the MTS system forecasts ¦ The MTS roadway analysis reports the outputs of the ACCMA model on a roadway segment level, as compared to the more detailed intersection turning movement level forecasts developed for the intersection analysis. The MTS roadway system in the vicinity of the Project includes I-580, I-680, Dublin Boulevard, and San Ramon Road. The ACCMA Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requires this analysis only be done for the PM peak hour, however, Caltrans requires that it be done for the AM peak hour as well for all Caltrans' facilities. Tables 3.9- 14: Near-Term PM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service and 3.9- 15: Cumulative PM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service summarize the results of the analysis on various segments of the four MTS roadways for the Near-Term and Cumulative Conditions scenarios, respectively, during the PM peak hour. Tables 3.9- 16: Near-Term AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service and 3.9-17: Cumulative AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service summarize the results of the analysis on Caltrans' facilities only for the Near-Term and Cumulative Conditions scenarios, respectively, during the AM peak hour. Page 3-166 r ~~l V Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Table 3.9-14: Near-Term PM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service Location Capacity fear 20 i5 No ?roject PM Peak Hour Year 2015 Plus Project (Base FAR; PM I Year 2015 Plus Project (Maximum FAR) Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume VIC I LOS Volume VIC LOS Volume VIC T LOS I-580 West of San Ramon Road Eastbound 8,000 8,955 1.12 F 9,144 1.14 F 9,652 1.21 ~ F 1 Westbound 10,000 5,667 0.57 A 5,866 0.59 A 6,402 0.64 B Between San Ramon Road and I-680 Eastbound 9,000 5,682 0.63 B 5,714 0.63 B 5,753 0.64 B Westbound 9,000 8,334 0.93 E 8,469 0.94 E 8,821 0.98 E East of I-680 . Eastbound 12,000 10,030 0.84 D 10,042 0.84 D 10,062 0.84 D Westbound 9,000 5,403 0.60 B 5,416 0.60 B 5,435 0.60 B I-680 South of I-580 Northbound 7,000 6,071 0.87 D 6,196 0.89 D 6,534 0.93 E Southbound 7,000 5,329 0.76 C 5,461 0.78 C 5,818 0.83 D North of I-580 Northbound 8,000 7,031 0.88 D 7,105 0.89 D 7,305 0.91 E Southbound 8,000 7,336 0.92 E 7,408 0.93 E 7,599 0.95 E Dublin Boulevard West of San Ramon Road Eastbound 1,600 344 0.22 A 384 0.24 A 490 0.31 A Westbound 1,600 627 0.39 A 669 0.42 A 782 0.49 A Between San Ramon Road and Regional Street Eastbound 2,940 449 0.15 A 882 0.30 A 2,240 0.76 C Westbound 2,940 403 0.14 A 791 0.27 A 1,911 0.65 B Between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive Eastbound 2,940 695 0.24 A 1,163 0.40 A 2,484 0.84 D Westbound 2,940 514 0.17 A 870 0.30 A 1,908 0.65 B Between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road Eastbound 2,940 759 0.26 A 1,151 0.39 A 2,195 0.75 C Westbound 2,940 439 0.15 A 740 0.25 A 1,552 0.53 A Between Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway Eastbound 2,940 889 0.30 A 1,206 0.41 A 2,150 0.73 C Westbound 2,940 613 0.21 A 852 0.29 A 1,544 0.53 A ~i Page 3- 167 39a~ Downtown Dublin S eafc Plan Draft EIR P Transportation & Circulation ~aGon ~ Capacity Year 2015 No Project PM Peak Hour ii Year 2015 Plus Project (Base FAR) PM Year 2015 Plus Project (Maximum FAR) ~ Peak Hour PM Peah Hour - r ..Volume VIC LOS + - - - ~ Volume ~ V1C ~ LOS Volume V,'C LOS East of Village Parkway Eastbound 2,940 1,156 0.39 A 1,341 0.46 A 1,848 0.63 8 Westbound 2,940 2,500 0.85 D 2,677 0.91 E 3,161 1.OB F San Ramon Road Between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard Northbound 3,920 3,011 0.77 C 3,380 0.86 D 4,363 1.11 F Southbound 3,920 1,639 0.42 A 1,914 0.49 A 2,609 0.67. B Between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard Northbound 2,940 2,441 0.83 D 2,568 0.87 D 2,907 0.99 E Southbound 2,940 1,397 0.48 A 1,477 0.50 A 1,772 0.60 B North of Amador Valley Boulevard Northbound 1,960 1,912 0.98 E 2,051 1.05 F 2,425 1.24 F Southbound 1,960 1,342 0.68 B 1,476 0.75 C 1,836 0.94 E Note: Shaded cells indicate a significant impact (increase of more than 0.02 in the v/c ratio, relative to the No Project case). Source: Fehr & Peers 2010 Table 3.9-15: Cumulative PM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service Location I Capacity ~ Year 2035 No Project PM Peak Hour ~ Year 2035 Plus Project (Base FAR) Pitt Year2035 Plus Projecf(hlaximutn FAR) Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume V(C LO5 ~ Volume V!C LOS Volume VIC_ LO5 1.580 West of San Ramon Road Eastbound 8,000 10,932 1.37 F 10,595 1.32 F 11,103 1.39 F Westbound 10,000 7,715 0.77 C 7,424 0.74 C 7,960 0.80 C Between San Ramon Road and I-680 • Eastbound 9,000 6,862 0.76 C 6,856 0.76 C 6,895 0.77 C i Westbound 9,000 10,274 1.14 F 10,079 1.12 F 10,431 1.16 F East of I-680 Eastbound 12,000 11,472 0.96 E 11,466 0.96 E 11,486 0.98 E Westbound 9,000 6,849 0.76 C 6,850 0.76 C 6,869 0.76 C I-680 South of I-580 Northbound 7,000 7,992 1.14 F 7,791 1.11 F 8,129 1.16 F Southbound 7,000 6,280 0.90 D 6,062 0.87 D 6,419 0.92 E North of I-580 Northbound 8,000 7,412 0.93 E 7,292 0.91 E 7,492 0.94 E Southbound 8,000 8,071 1.01 F 7,961 1.00 E 8,152 1.02 F ~r Page 3- 168 ` t ~ r~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Location Capacity Year2035 Ho ProjectPM Peak Hour Year 2035 Plus Project(Base FAR) PM Year2035 Pfus Project (MaxPmum FAR) ` `Peak Hour PMPeak Hour Volume V/C LOS Volume VIC LQS Volume VIC LOS Dublin Boulevard West of San Ramon Road Eastbound 1,600 514 0.32 A 451 0.28 A 557 0.35 A Westbound 1,600 978 0.61 B 909 0.57 A 1,022 0.64 B Between San Ramon Road and Regional Street Eastbound 2,940 2,252 0.77 C 1,441 0.49 A 2,799 0.95 E Westbound 2,940 1,607 0.55 A 928 0.32 A 2,048 0.70 B Between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive Eastbound 2,940 2,794 0.95 E 1,996 0.68 B 3,317 ~ 1.13 F Westbound 2,940 1,637 0.56 A 989 0.34 A 2,027 0.69 B Between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road Eastbound 2,940 2,648 0.90 E 1,995 0.68 B 3,039 _1.03 F Westbound 2,940 1,374 0.47 A 851 0.29 A 1,663 0.57 A Beiween Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway Eastbound 2,940 2,936 1.00 E 2,343 0.80 C 3,287 1.12 F Westbound 2,940 1,492 0.51 A 1,064 0.36 A 1,756 0.60 A East of Village Parkway _ Eastbound 2,940 3,212 1.09 F 2,898 0.99 E 3,405 .1.16 F Westbound 2,940 3,394 1.15 F 3,098 1.05 F 3,582 "1.22 F San Ramon Road Between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard Northbound 3,920 4,863 1.24 F 4,303 1.10 F 5,286 1.35 F Southbound 3,920 2,540 0.65 B 2,139 0.55 A 2,834 0.72 C Between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard Northbound 2,940 3,065 1.04 F 2,858 0.97 E 3,197 1.09 F Southbound 2,940 1,851 0.63 B 1,666 0.57 A 1,961 0.67 B North of Amador Valley Boulevard Northbound 1,960 2,328 1.19 F 2,104 1.07 F 2,478 ,,1.26 F n Southbound 1,960 2,151 1.10 F 1,944 0.99 E 2,304 1.18 F Note: Shaded cells indicate a significant impact (increase of more than 0.02 in the v/c ratio, relative to the No Project case). Source: Fehr & Peers 2010 Page 3-169 i~ ~o~.~~.,~o ,g Downtown Dublin 5 ecific Plan Draft EIR P Transportation & Circulation Table 3.9-16: Near-Term AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service Location" Capacity Year 2015No Project AM Peak Hour Year 2015 Plus ProJecf (Base FAR) AM Year 2015 Plus Protect (Maximum FAR) Peak Hour AMPeak Hour r Volume VIC LOS Volume VIC LOS Volume VIC L05 - I-580 West of San Raman Road Eastbound 8,000 5,813 0.73 C 5,903 0.74 C 6,149 0.77 C Westbound ' 10,000 9,952 1.00 E 10,025 1.00 EIF~ 10,215 ~ 02 F Between San Ramon Road and I-680 ,~1 Eastbound 9,000 8,095 0.90 D 8,106 0.90 E 8,118 0.90 E - Westbound 9,000 4,927 0.55 A 4,959 0.55 A 5,046 0.56 A East of I-680 Eastbound 12,000 5,756 0.48 A 5,764 0.48 A 5,775 0.48 A Westbound 9,000 8,625 0.96 E 8,627 0.96 E 8,630 0.96 E I-680 South of I-580 Northbound 7,000 6,012 0.86 D 6,043 0.86 D 6,128 0.88 D Southbound 7,000 6,175 0.88 D 6,204 0.89 D 6,278 0.90 D North of I-580 Northbound 8,000 7,106 0.89 D 7,136 0.89 D 7,213 0.90 E Southbound 8,000 7,050 0.88 D 7,086 0.89 D 7,183 0.90 D 1. LOS EIF due to rounded vlc ratio. Note: Shaded cells indicate a significant impact (increase of more than 0.02 in the vlc ratio, relative to the No Project case). Source: Fehr 8 Peers 2010 Page 3-170 `~~3 Downtown Dublin Speafic Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Table 3.9-17: Cumulative AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service L tact ion Capacity ~ Year 2D35 No Project AM Peak Hour Year 2035 Plus Project (Base FAR) AM Year 2035 Plus Project{~laximun. FAR) Peak Flour AM Peak Hour - - T- Volume VIC LOS Volume V(C LOS Volume VIC ~ LOS 1 1.580 West of San Ramon Road Eastbound 8,000 7,765 0.97 E 7,617 0.95 E 7,863 0.98 E Westbound 10,000 11,866 1.19 F 11,773 1.18 F 11,963 1.20 F Between San Ramon Road and I-680 Eastbound 9,000 9,362 1.04 F 9,365 1.04 F 9,377 1.04 F Westbound 9,000 7,254 0.81 D 7,206 0.80 D 7,293 0.81 D East of I-680 Eastbound 12,000 7,674 0.64 B 7,676 0.64 B 7,687 0.64 B Westbound 9,000 12,007 1.33 F 12,007 1.33 F 12,010 1.33 F 1.680 South of I-580 Northbound 7,000 6,299 0.90 D 6,250 0.89 D 6 335 0.91 E Southbound 7,000 9,278 1.33 F 9,247 1.32 F 9,321 1.33 F North of I-580 Northbound 8,000 7,511 0.94 E 7,475 0.93 E 7,552 0.94 E Southbound 8,000 7,347 0.92 E 7,289 0.91 E 7,386 0.92 E Note: Shaded cells indicate a significant impact (increase of more than 0.02 in the v/c ratio, relative to the No Project case). Source: Fehr 8 Peers 2010 Transit Demand Generated by the Downtown Specific Plan Table 3.9- 18: Project Transit Trip Summary provides a summary of the transit trips generated by the Plan; the results are taken from the trip generation calculations that can be seen in the Appendix. Transit trips generated by the different projects were estimated by calculating the number of trips expected with the ITE rates, then assuming 25% of trips for residential uses and 15% of trips for retail uses were made on some form of transit. Page 3-17 I =o-,-~„-o Downtown Dublin 5 ecific Plan Draft EIR P Transportation & Circulation Table 3.9-18: Project Transit Trip Summary All Transit Trip (3us + BARS) Case ~ Daily AM Peak Hour Ptd1 Peak Hour Entitled Projects in Plan Area 2,160 180 220 No Project 14,450 350 1,250 (Existing Specific Plans) Base FAR Project 2,200 50 200 Max FAR Project 13,800 350 1,200 Source: Transit trip generation calculations by Fehr 8 Peers, assuming 25% transit use for residential uses and 15% transit use by retail uses. See technical appendix for detailed trip generation calculations. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Intersection Impacts As shown in Tables 3.9- I 0 to 3.9- 13, with the proposed amendment to the General Plan, the Project would result in no significant impacts to intersections. Metropolitan Transportation System Impact 3.9- I : In the Near-Term, the Base FAR Project results in sub-standard LOS on one Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segment, when compared to the Near-Term Without Project scenario. This is a significant impact: ¦ San Ramon Road northbound, north of Amador Valley Boulevard (PM peak hour). As shown on Table 3.9- 14, the intersection would drop from LOS E under the No Project scenario to LOS F with the Project under the Base FAR and Maximum FAR scenarios. It should be noted that the intersection of San Ramon Road/Amador Valley Boulevard is projected to operate acceptably with the Base FAR Project in the Near-Term scenario. This result, which appears inconsistent with the above impact finding for San Ramon Road, is due to the different analysis methods and models used to conduct the intersection and MTS system analyses. Mitigation Measure: MM 3.9- I : As required by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, the City of Dublin shall do the following to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system: ¦ Support Alameda County's projects and programs which are aimed at reducing traff c congestion. ® Encourage developers to voluntarily develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce trips associated with their project. Strategies that could be included in the program could include additional bicycle Page 3-172 3~7~b ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation parking, shower facilities, HOV parking, direct building access for pedestrians, commute altemative incentives and convenient transit waiting areas. ¦ Implement the policies outlined in the City's Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element related to bikeways. Support public transit improvements, including but not limited to re-routing, schedule adjustments, new vehicles, upgraded waiting areas, and transit information signs, to encourage use of altemative modes. Collect fees from develo ers in the S ecific Plan Area for the Tri-Valle P P Y Transportation Development Fee as well as the Downtown TIF programs prior to issuance of Building Permits, which fund local and regional transportation improvements. Even with mitigation, the City's ability to restore acceptable LOS on the identified roadways/freeways cannot be assured because some projects are the County's, and some the City can encourage but not require (e.g. employer TDM programs). Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Impact 3.9-2: In the Near-Term, the Maximum FAR Project results in sub-standard LOS on five Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments, when compared to the Near- Term Without Project scenario. This is a significant impact: ¦ San Ramon Road northbound, north of Amador Valley Boulevard (PM peak hour) ¦ San Ramon Road northbound, between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 (PM peak hour) Dublin Boulevard westbound, east of Village Parkway (PM peak hour) ¦ I-580 eastbound, west of San Ramon Road (PM peak hour) • I-580 westbound, west of San Ramon Road (AM peak hour), It should be noted that the San Ramon Road/Amador Valle Boulevard and Dublin Y Boulevard/Village Parkway intersections are projected to operate acceptably with the ' Maximum FAR Project in the Near-Term scenario. These results, which appear inconsistent with the above impact findings for San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard, are due to the different analysis methods and models used to conduct the intersection and Metropolitan Transportation System analyses. Mitigation Measure: MM 3.9- I : As required by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, the City of Dublin shall do the following to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system: ¦ Support Alameda County's projects and programs which are aimed at reducing traffic congestion. Page 3-173 w.~~,,,.a ~g~ g3 Downtown Dublin S ecific Plan Draft EIR P Transportation & Circulation ¦ Encourage developers to voluntarily develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce trips associated with their project. Strategies that could be included in the program could include additional bicycle parking, shower facilities, HOV parking, direct building access for pedestrians, commute altemative incentives and convenient transit waiting areas. ¦ Implement the policies outlined in the City's Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element related to bikeways. Support public transit improvements, including but not limited to re-routing, schedule adjustments, new vehicles, upgraded waiting areas, and transit information signs, to encourage use of altemative modes. ¦ Collect fees from developers in the Specific Plan Area for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee as well as the Downtown TIF programs prior to issuance of Building Permits, which fund local and regional transportation improvements. For the same reasons as above, the City's ability to restore acceptable LOS on the identified roadways/freeways cannot be assured. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Impact 3.9-3: In the Cumulative scenario, the Maximum FAR Project results in sub- standard LOS on eight Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments, when compared to the Cumulative Without Project case. This is a significant impact: 20 ¦ San Ramon Road northbound and southbound, north of Amador Valley Boulevard (PM peak hour) ¦ San Ramon Road northbound, between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard (PM peak hour) ¦ San Ramon Road northbound, between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 (PM peak hour) . ¦ Dublin Boulevard eastbound and westbound, east of Village Parkway (PM peak hour) ¦ Dublin Boulevard eastbound, between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive (PM peak hour) ¦ Dublin Boulevard eastbound, between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road (PM peak hour) 20 Note that there is no significant impact on the MTS system for the Cumulative Plus Base FAR Project case, because the Cumulative Without Project case contains higher trip generation than the Cumulative Plus Base FAR project case. This is due to the slightly higher land use and trip generation in the five current specif c plans that make up the Cumulative Without Project case. Page 3- 174 ~ ~ ~b~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Mitigation .Measure:. MM 3.9- I : As required by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, the City of Dublin shall do the following to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system: Support Alameda County's projects and programs which are aimed at reducing traffic congestion. ¦ Encourage developers to voluntarily develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce trips associated with their project. Strategies that could be included in the program could include additional bicycle parking, shower facilities, HOV parking, direct building access for pedestrians, commute altemative incentives and convenient transit waiting areas. ¦ Implement the policies outlined in the City's Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element related to bikeways. Support public transit improvements, including but not limited to re-routing, schedule adjustments, new vehicles, upgraded waiting areas, and transit information signs, to encourage use of altemative modes. ¦ Collect fees from developers in the Specific Plan Area for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee as well as the Downtown TIF programs prior to issuance of Building Permits, which fund local and regional transportation improvements. For the same reasons as noted above, the City's ability to restore acceptable LOS on the identified roadways/freeways cannot be assured. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Transit Impact 3.9-4: The Base FAR Project will increase transit. demand, generating an estimated 2,200 weekday daily transit trips (bus and BART combined). This will create the need for bus route adjustments and increased bus frequency. This is a significant impact on bus transit. A portion of the projected demand would be served by the new West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. BART projects ridership of approximately 6,000 weekday hoardings/6,000 alightings at this station, based on expectations of current and future ridership generated by transit-oriented and transit-proximate development like that proposed by the project. ' Therefore, the demand generated by the Maximum FAR project falls within the BART ridership projection and does not constitute a significant impact on BART. The Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority is planning increased bus service via a Bus Rapid Transit service, scheduled to begin operation in January 201 I. The service will run eight buses in each direction along Dublin Boulevard during the peak hours, with BART transfers occurring at the East Dublin/Pleasanton Station. It is reasonable to assume that the service would connect to the West Dublin/Pleasanton Station when it is built. This Page 3- 175 Q ~v Downtown Dublin S ecific Plan Draft EIR P Transportation & Circulation service is expected to be adequate to serve the additional peak hour bus trips generated by the project. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, the impact will be less than significant. Mlitigation Pleasure MM 3.9-4 The City will continue to support and work with LAVTA to define route changes and increased service as needed as the Plan area develops. Pedestrian/Bicycle Mobility Impact 3.9-5: The Plan contains Guiding Principles to "create apedestrian-friendly downtown that minimizes potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists" and to "enhance the multi-modal circulation network to better accommodate alternative transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle and pedestrian transportation." These proposals are consistent with the goals and policies of the Dublin General Plan Circulation Element and the Bikeways Master Plan. This is a beneficial impact; no mitigation is required. Page 3-176 t~. 5~, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations 4. CEQA Considerations This section of the EIR discusses long-term implications of the proposed project as required by CEQA. The topics discussed include significant irreversible commitment of resources, growth-inducing impacts, significant and unavoidable environmental effects, and effects found not to be significant. Cumulative impacts and alternatives to the proposed project are also discussed herein. 4. I. 4.1 Si nificant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects g Unavoidable adverse impacts are those effects of the proposed project that would significantly affect either natural systems or other community resources, and cannot be mitigated to aless-than-significant level as identified in the previous analyses. The proposed project, if implemented, would result in the following significant and unavoidable project impacts: ¦ Transportation & Circulation: As described in Impacts 3.9- I through 3.9-3, although mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts, the proposed project would generate result in sub-standard LOS on eight Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments would be considered significant and unavoidable. 4.2. Significant Irreversible Changes ' Section 15 126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the significant . irreversible environmental changes that would be involved if the proposed project would r, be implemented. Examples include the following: uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely; primary and secondary impacts of a project that would generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., highway improvements that provide access to a previously inaccessible area); and/or irreversible damage that could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the proposed project. Analysis This proposed project replaces four of the current Specific Plans and the fifth for the portion that is within the DDSP area. It does increase densities, but instead focuses on strengthening the development standards and design guidelines, and providing greater direction as to future land uses. The proposed project would allow for approximately I ,300 dwelling units and 3.0 million square feet of non-residential development, and 150 additional hotel rooms . A variety of nonrenewable and limited resources would be irretrievably committed for construction and operation, including but not limited to: oil, natural gas, gasoline, lumber, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, water, land, energy, and construction materials. With respect to operational activities, compliance with all applicable building codes, as well as project mitigation measures or project requirements, would ensure that all natural resources are conserved or recycled to the maximum extent feasible. Page 4-I CONHUlTiNO ~~a ~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations The proposed project would result in an increase in demand on public services and utilities. For example, an increase in the intensity of land uses within the planning area would result in an increase in regional electric energy consumption to satisfy additional electricity demands from the proposed project. These energy resource demands relate to initial project construction, transport of goods and people, and lighting, heating, and cooling of buildings. However, the proposed project would not involve a wasteful or unjustifiable use of energy or other resources, and energy conservation efforts would occur with new - construction. In addition, new development associated with the proposed project would be constructed and operated in accordance with specifications contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Therefore, the use of energy on-site would occur in an efficient manner. Although the majority of the DDSP area is already built-out and urbanized, increased development within the DDSP area to support urban uses may be regarded as a permanent and irreversible change. The proposed project would generally commit future generations to similar urban uses within the DDSP area. 4.3. Gr®wth Inducement CEQA requires that any growth-inducing aspect of a project be discussed in an EIR. According to CEQA, it must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental or of little significance to the environment. A project would have growth-inducing effects if it would: ¦ Foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing (either directly or indirectly) in the surrounding environment; ¦ Remove obstacles to population growth; ¦ Tax existing community services or facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or ¦ Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. If a project meets any one of these criteria, it may be considered growth inducing. Generally, growth inducing projects are either located in isolated, undeveloped, or underdeveloped areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure such as sewer and water facilities or roadways, or encourage premature or unplanned growth. To comply with CEQA, an EIR must discuss the ways in which the proposed project could promote economic or population growth in the vicinity of the project and how that growth will, in turn, affect the surrounding environment [CEQA Guidelines Section 15 126.2(d)]. ' 4.3.1 Economic Effects The combination of land uses within the DDSP area would function to increase nighttime population through increased residential units and an increase in retail and commercial sales Page 4-2 ~ ~ 3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations and activities within the City, as well as enhance the economic viability of the regional area. Future new development within the DDSP would include approximately I ,300 dwelling units and 3.0 million square feet of non-residential development, and 150 additional hotel rooms The creation of new commercial activities and enhancement of existin commercial facilities g would contribute to the economic vitality of the City, which would enable the continued provision of high quality services and programs for residents and businesses, and would contribute to the municipal revenue streams. The positive revenue stream may result in the creation of indirect and induced jobs. Indirect jobs are those that would be created when the future owners and/or managers of the retail-commercial uses purchase goods :1 and services from businesses in the region, and induced jobs are those that are created when wage incomes of those employed in direct and indirect jobs are spent on the purchase of goods and services in the region. The City's economic impacts are primarily the result of purchases of goods and services as well as payment of taxes and salaries, which affects the regional economy of the City and County, and on a more indirect basis, California. Therefore, the positive revenue stream and the resulting increased economic viability of the proposed project could result in indirect growth-inducing impacts. 4.3.2 Remove Obstacles to and/or Foster Population Growth Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including the direct constructiori of new homes and businesses, the elimination of obstacles to growth, or through the stimulation of economic activity within the region. The discussion of the removal of obstacles to growth relates directly to the removal of infrastructure limitations (typically through the provision of additional capacity or supply), or the reduction or elimination of regulatory constraints on growth that could result in growth unforeseen at the time of project approval. The elimination of either physical or regulatory obstacles to growth is considered to be a . growth-inducing effect. A physical obstacle to growth typically involves the lack of public service infrastructure. The extension of public service infrastructure, including roadways, water mains, and sewer lines, into areas that are not currently provided with these services would be expected to support new development. Similarly, the elimination or change to a regulatory obstacle, including existing growth and development policies, could result in new growth. The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area beyond that already forecasted for the City of Dublin. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2008 population estimate for the City of Dublin was 44,297 persons. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments, the City of Dublin's population will be approximately 50,000 persons in the year 2010, representing an annual average growth rate of approximately 2,852 residents per year. The proposed project provides for development through intensification through existing sites and projects that will make efficient use of the existing infrastructure. Although the proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change (via the proposed Specific Plan), the proposed designations would be generally consistent with the nature of on-site and r Page 4-3 ~ /D~~ Downtown Dublin 5 ecific Plan Draft EIR P CEQA Considerations surrounding development. The implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would allow for the intensification of commercial and mixed-use development within the Downtown districts. Most of the intensification is anticipated to occur in the Transit-Oriented District, as the demand for mixed-use development in that District will likely increase due to the .construction of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and parking structure. Like the other districts, the TOD is fully served by utilities and public services. Therefore, the proposed project would not be growth inducing as a result of removing an obstacle to growth. 4.3.3 Tax Existing Community Services or Facilities The proposed project would not require significant regional public infrastructure upgrades ,~l for any utility or service. Any new development would be required to include provisions to make the necessary improvements in order to facilitate implementation of the DDSP. Project developers would be required to fund their fair share allocation of any necessary public infrastructure associated with development under the DDSP. Therefore, the proposed project would not tax existing community services or facilities. 4.4. Energy Conservation Public Resources Code Section 21 100(b)(3) and Appendix F of the CEQf~ Guidelines requires a description (where relevant) of the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by, a project. In 1975, the Califomia State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1575 (AB 1575) in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s. This bill created the Califomia Energy Commission (CEC). The purpose. of the CEC is to forecast future energy needs; license thermal power plants of 50 megawatts or larger; develop energy technologies and renewable energy resources; plan for and direct State responses to energy emergencies; and to promote energy efficiency through the adoption and enforcement of appliance and building energy efficiency standards. Energy Consumption Short-Term Construction In 1994, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted the first set of emission standards (Tier I) for all new off-road diesel engines greater than 37 kilowatts (kW). The Tier I standards were phased in for different engine sizes between 1996 and 2000, reducing NOx emissions from these engines by 30 percent. The EPA Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards for off-road diesel engines are projected to further reduce emissions by 60 percent for NOx and 40 percent for particulate matter from Tier I emission levels. In 2004, the EPA issued the Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule. This rule will cut emissions from ofF road diesel engines by more than 90 percent, and will be fully phased in by 2014. A number of construction projects using diesel powered equipment have the potential to occur every year under the DDSP. Development under the DDSP includes mixed-use, commercial, and transit-oriented development. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable s Page 4-4 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ' CEQA Considerations construction sites in the region or State. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the DDSP would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects. Also, diesel powered construction equipment in general will continue to become more efficient as the EPA standards phase in. Long-Term Operations Transportation Energy_Demand Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for new passenger cars has been 27.5 miles per gallon. Since 1996, the fuel economy standard for new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been 20.7 miles per gallon. Heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. Compliance with Federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each manufacturer's average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. The DDSP would create a edestrian-friend) downtown that includes transit-oriented P Y development and mixed use and is intended to reduce daily vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The DDSP is not anticipated to result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption. The DDSP involves typical downtown commercial and mixed-use use type trips which would include internal trip capture rates. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by future development within the DDSP would not be considered inefficient, wasteful,, or unnecessary. Public Transportation Options The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) provides public transportation for the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, California. Additionally, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) is constructing a new station on existing track way between the Castro Valley and Dublin/Pleasanton stations. This station will provide LAVTA with easy connections to San Francisco via BART. Additionally LAVTA operates the Wheels bus system, which is in the process of constructing new bus stops in preparation for its new bus rapid transit service. The availability of the public transit for the residents and visitors to the DDSP area would ensure that the DDSP would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy. Building Energy Demand The DDSP would not result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive long-term operational building energy demand. The Development Standards and Design Page 4-5 Downtown Dublin S ecific Plan Draft EIR P CEQA Considerations Guidelines in the DDSP specify that warm white, energy efficient lighting source types such as metal halide, induction lighting, compact fluorescent, and light-emitting diode (LED) should be used where feasible. Energy-efficient lighting (lighting from renewable sources and energy-saving devices, such as light sensors) are encouraged. Additionally the DDSP has standards for the use of Energy Star requirements. Therefore, the DDSP would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Energy Efficiency Measures Califomia Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, is California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential Buildings. Title 24 was established by the CEC in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California's energy consumption, and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and non- residential buildings. In 2010, the CEC updated Title 24 standards with more stringent requirements. The 2010 Standards are expected to substantially reduce the growth in electricity and natural gas use. Additional savings result from the application of the Standards on building alterations. These savings are cumulative, .increasing as years go by. Future development under the DDSP would adhere to all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the CEC's Title 24 standards. The proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building ' _ energy. The following energy efficiency measures are incorporated into the DDSP: ¦ Energy efficient lighting sources; ¦ Solar energy systems; ¦ Green roofs• ® , Use of energy star roof materials; ¦ Water efficient landscaping; ¦ Water efficient fixtures and appliances; ¦ Mixed-use development; and ¦ Promotes pedestrian travel and alternative transportation mode use. As discussed above, future development under the DDSP would result in less than significant impacts on energy resources. There would not be any inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy usage in comparison to similar development projects of this nature regarding construction-related fuel consumption. Additionally, the availability of public transit services would ensure that the DDSP would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy. The DDSP would adhere to, and exceed, all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24 of the Califomia Code of Regulations regarding building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the DDSP would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy. Therefore, the DDSP would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Page 4-6 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations 4.5. Effects Found Not to be Significant A significant effect on the environment is generally defined as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15328). The term "environment," as used in this definition, means the physical conditions that exist within the area that will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. The area involved shall be the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the proposed project. The "environment" includes both natural and man-made conditions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). Detailed analyses and discussion of environmental topics found to be si nificant are g provided within Section 3.0 of this EIR. Section 3.0 also identifies impacts that are found to be less than significant. The project site is an urban infill area and the below resources do not exist on the project site and / or are not considered to have the potential to cause a significant environmental impact. As such, detailed analyses of the following environmental resources were not included in the EIR: ¦ Agricultural Resources 'I~ Biological Resources ¦ Mineral Resources ¦ Population & Housing Other environmental issues listed below were found to have no impact as a result of the proposed project. This determination is based on the standards of significance contained within the CEQA Guidelines and the Notice of Preparation process for the proposed project. Aesthetics & Visual Resources Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista A scenic vista is a view that possesses visual and aesthetic qualities of high value to the community. Scenic vistas can provide views of natural features or significant structures and buildings. The term "vista" generally implies an expansive view, usually from an elevated point or open area. Because there are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the planning area, no impacts would occur. Cultural Resources The DDSP project area is primarily developed and has been disturbed through prior development. Although no significant historical, archaeological or Native American artifacts are anticipated within the DDSP project area, construction of the proposed project could disturb unidentified and unrecorded artifacts, including prehistoric archaeological and/or native American remains. The proposed project would be required to comply with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code in the event of the discovery or P - age 4 7 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery during future development activities, which would require that there be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24-hours of identification. Geology, Soils, ~ Seismicity Landslides Due to the relatively flat topography and the lack of steep slopes within or adjacent to the proposed project, landslides are not considered to be a potential significant geologic hazard. In addition, the proposed project is not located within a CGS Seismic Hazard Zone where ~ ~ landslides may occur during a strong earthquake, although other seismic hazards (e.g. liquefaction) were identified in Chapter 3.0. No impacts would occur. Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems Wastewater disposal in the DDSP area is provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Proposed projects in the DDSP area would connect to the existing wastewater system. The DDSP area would not need to use septic tanks or other altemative wastewater disposal systems. Consequently, the threshold of significance for septic tanks I or altemative wastewater disposal systems would not apply to the proposed project and no further analysis is required. No impacts would occur. Flydro6ogy ~ mater Quality Place Housing or Structures Within a 100-Year Flood-Hazards Area Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows Several properties within the DDSP area are located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. As previously discussed, new construction will be subject to floodplain regulations. In addition, the Zone 7 Stream Management Plan contains plans to retrofit the culvert that carries water from Dublin Creek under Donlon Way. This retrofit will increase the culvert capacity and reduce the risk of flooding in the DDSP area. Future construction would be required to comply with the existing floodplain regulations to ensure that the structures do not impede or redirect flows. No impacts would occur. Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Pludflow The proposed project is located well inland from the San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. The site and surrounding properties are also relatively flat and would not be subject to mudflows. No impacts would occur. Page 4-8 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Land Use & Planning Conflict with Applicable Conservation Plans , The project site is located in an urban area that is completely developed. There are no naturally occurring habitat areas in the project area and therefore, no impacts would occur. Urban Blight or Decay The proposed project .seeks to guide future development and redevelopment in downtown Dublin in an orderly and cohesive fashion through the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The combination of land uses would function to increase .retail and commercial sales and activities within the City, as well as enhance the economic viability of the area. The creation of new commercial activities and enhancement of existing commercial facilities would contribute to the economic vitality of the City, which would enable the continued provision of high quality services and programs. for residents and businesses and would contribute to a large municipal revenue stream. Therefore, the positive revenue stream and the resulting increased economic viability of the project would be a benefit to the City and not result in urban blight or decay and therefore, no impacts would occur. 4.6. Cumulative Impacts CEQA Requirements CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are substantial or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. An evaluation of cumulative impacts is required by CEQA when they are significant, but need not be as detailed as the discussion of project impacts. Cumulative conditions are defined as conditions in the foreseeable future with all approved, pending, and known planned development in place. The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR discuss the cumulative impacts of a project where the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The criteria for determining significance of cumulative impacts are the same as those that apply to the project-level analysis unless otherwise noted in the section, where other agency standards regarding cumulative analyses may apply. Where the combined cumulative impact associated with the project's incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant, the EIR indicates why the cumulative impact is not significant and is not discussed in further detail in the EIR. Where the EIR identifies a significant cumulative impact, but finds that the project's contribution to that impact would be less than considerable, an explanation for that conclusion is provided. According to the California State CEQA Guidelines section 15 130 (a)(I there is no need to evaluate cumulative impacts to which the project does not contribute. Relevant potential cumulative impacts to which the proposed project could contribute include: Page 4-9 cnr.auanwa ~~a~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ~ "v CEQA Considerations aesthetics and visual resources; air quality; geology, soils and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise; public services and utilities; and transportation and circulation. Each of these topics is addressed herein. Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Assum tions P Impacts associated with cumulative development were analyzed based on the proposed project's effects in combination with a summary of projections in the adopted City of Dublin General Plan (February I I , 1985, Updated January 19, 20 10). Aesthetics 8~ Visual Resources The proposed project is located within an already urbanized area of the City. Portions of the proposed project are visible from Interstate-680 (an officially designated State Scenic Highway and a locally designated scenic route), Interstate-580 (a highway eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway and locally designated scenic route), and San Ramon Road (a locally designated scenic route). However, all projects that are visible from these corridors would be subject to design review per the policy of the City's General Plan and requirements of the proposed Specific Plan. Although implementation of the proposed project would allow for the intensification of commercial and mixed use development within the Downtown districts, the proposed Specific Plan includes both development standards and design guidelines to guide the design of future development-. within the area. In addition, compliance with the design guidelines would ensure that the proposed project does not introduce substantial light and - glare, which would pose a hazard or nuisance. Future development would be required to undergo design review, thereby ensuring that cumulative development would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. Conclusion: The proposed project would be required to comply with the design guidelines in the proposed Specific Plan, which would ensure that the proposed project does not contribute to cumulative light and glare in the City and surrounding areas, and would ensure that the proposed project is of quality design. The existing setting together with the design features of the proposed Specific Plan would minimize the project's cumulative contribution to aesthetics and visual quality, resulting in a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to aesthetics and visual resources. Air Quality Cumulative Construction Impacts Th BAA MD recommends that for an ro'ect that does not individual) have si nificant e Q YP J Y g operational air quality impacts, the determination of significant cumulative impact should be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local general plan and of the general plan with the regional air quality plan. Individual development projects that - generate construction-related or operational emissions that exceed the BAAQMD Page 4-10 ~s~~ ~~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts would also cause a cumulative considerable increase in emissions. Conclusion: As stated in the short-term construction impacts discussion, with implementation of BAAQMD control measures, construction-related air quality impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. Cumulative Operational Impacts As previously stated, the BAAQMD recommends that for any project that does not individually have significant operational air quality impacts, the determination of significant - cumulative impact should be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local general plan and of the general plan with the regional air quality plan. Consistency was analyzed above in the long-term operational emissions discussion. As discussed above, traffic modeling conducted for the DDSP reflects a lower rate of VMT growth than population growth. The projected growth rate of VMT would be 23.4 percent from 2009 through 2015, while projected population growth would be 31.7 percent in the same time frame. With the extensive policies intended to reduce VMT, the growth rate of VMT under the DDSP would not exceed the growth rate of the population. Therefore, according to the current BAAQMD CEQ~4 Guidelines, the VMT growth rate would not exceed the City's population growth rate and therefore would be consistent with the 2005 Ozone Strategy. Conclusions: DDSP includes guiding principles that reasonably implement TCMs, and includes guiding principles that would reduce air pollution from VMT. Therefore, the DDSP is consistent with the applicable air quality plan, and a less than significant cumulative impact would result. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The proposed DDSP would facilitate the construction of new mixed-use, transit-oriented, commercial, and residential uses. As shown in Table 3.2-8, the proposed project would result in 166,891.58 MTCO2eq/year of operational-related emissions. The DDSP includes numerous guiding principles that encourage the transit-oriented development, alternative - transportation modes, and sustainable development. As noted above, the project is anticipated to reduce VMT Below related population growth. The City's process for the future evaluation of discretionary projects within the DDSP would include an environmental review pursuant to CEQA, as well as a consistency analysis with the principles and objectives of the DDSP and the City's General Plan goals and policies. In general, implementation of these DDSP goals and principles, DDSP Development Standards and Design Guidelines, as well as ~i compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations, would reduce their incremental contribution to the significant worldwide increase in GHG emissions. Page.4-II coe.au~r~Ha ~~a Downtown Dublip Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Conclusion: In general, with implementation of project-specific reduction measures, future projects would have a less than significant impact with regards to GHG emissions. As seen in Table 3.2-9 and Table 3.2- 10, the DDSP includes several measures that are consistent with the Attorney General's recommendations and the CARE Scoping Plan measures which would reduce GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project in combination with cumulative projects would be consistent with, and not hinder, the reduction strategies for meeting the goals of AB 32, Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Geology, Soils, & Seismicity The geographic context for the analysis of impacts resulting from geologic hazards generally is site-specific, rather than cumulative in nature, because each construction project site has unique geologic considerations that would be subject to uniform site development and construction standards. As such, the potential for cumulative impacts to occur is limited. Impacts associated with potential geologic hazards related to soil or other conditions occur at individual building sites. These effects are site-specific, and impacts would not be _ compounded by additional development, especially in relatively level areas like the project site. Buildings and facilities in the City of Dublin would be sited and designed in accordance with the City's Building Code. General Plan, Specific Plan and findings from a design level geotechnical study prepared for future development in accordance with Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-I. Development of cumulative projects in the vicinity of the proposed project could expose soil surfaces and further alter soil conditions, subjecting soils to erosional processes during construction. To minimize the potential for cumulative impacts that could cause erosion, all proposed construction projects in the DDSP area (and cumulative projects throughout the City) are required to be developed in conformance with the provisions of applicable federal, state, county, and City laws and ordinances. Adequate control of sedimentation and erosion must be incorporated into individual projects to address current legal requirements for control of erosion caused by stormwater discharges. Future development projects within the DDSP area that are more than one acre in size and would be required to comply with the provisions of the NPDES permitting process and local implementation strategies, which would minimize the potential for erosion during construction and operation of the facilities. In addition, future development would be required to comply - with the City of Dublin Public Works Department Policy No. 95- I I to control erosion during construction activities. Compliance with this permit process, in addition to the City's Building Code and other legal requirements related to erosion control practices, would minimize cumulative effects from erosion. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion: Adherence to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations with respect to project design and construction would provide adequate levels of safety regarding geologic and seismic hazards. Adherence by each proposed development project to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations would ensure the proposed Page 4-12 ~ p~ _ I v Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts regarding soil erosion. As potential geologic impacts are evaluated on a site-specific basis during the environmental review process, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to geology, soils, and seismicity. Hazards & Hazardous Materials Development within the project area would increase the total transport of hazardous materials within the City, but would not include the transport of significant amounts or types of hazardous materials. In addition, future development of the proposed project would not generate significant amounts of hazardous waste and the City as a whole would generate reasonably manageable quantities of waste, all of which would be regulated by federal, state and local statues. The construction related hazardous waste disposal resulting from all development within the City could result in large amounts of lead, asbestos, and other hazardous materials. However, these hazardous materials would be disposed of in compliance with all pertinent regulations for the handling of such waste. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion: Hazardous materials and substances highly regulated at the federal, state, and local levels. Impacts related to hazardous materials and hazardous substances are considered site-specific and are generally mitigated to less than significant levels on aproject-by-project basis. Compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws that regulate, control, or respond to hazardous waste, transport, disposal, or clean-up would ensure that development in the region, which includes the project area, does not result in significant impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to hazards and hazardous materials. Hydrology & Water Quality Buildout within the project area would contribute to cumulative drainage flows and surface water quality impacts when combined with other growth and development in the area. However, the potential cumulative impact is mitigated through required drainage studies, the relationship to City and County drainage master plans, and implementation of appropriate on-site and off-site drainage improvements. Proposed project conveyance and detention structures will be planned and designed to maintain existing condition drainage patterns and storm flow rates. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to contribute significantly to cumulative impacts on flooding and drainage system capacities that might arise because of continued development within the region. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion: The proposed project would be required to implement NPDES and BMP measures on aproject-by-project basis to reduce potential water quality impacts (as required by mitigation measures MM 3.5- I and MM 3.5-2). In addition, Page 4-13 ~a~.~~,,,.m ~i~ Downtown Dublin Speafic Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations projects may require drainage improvements to be in compliance with the City of Dublin General Plan, Dublin Zoning Ordinance and/or Municipal Code standards. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to stormwater runoff and contamination impacts, with mitigation measures incorporated herein. Land tJse & Planning The City of Dublin has planning programs such as the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Municipal Code, that have established plans and guidelines for growth and development within the City. The City's General Plan, including the General Plan Land Use Map, would be amended concurrent with the adoption of the proposed DDSP, to include a DDSP Land Use Designation to replace the existing General Plan land use designations for the area. fn addition, projects that require zone changes must be found to be consistent with such planning programs in order to be approved. The Zoning Map for the project area will be amended concurrent with the adoption of the proposed DDSP to rezone the DDSP project area to PD, Planned Development. Land use regulations and/or development standards in the PD will include the standards and regulations of the DDSP. Any issue not specifically addressed in the DDSP shall be subject to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and/or Municipal Code. Interpretations may be made by the Community Development Director if not specifically covered in the City's existing regulations. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to land use and planning. Conclusion: Development of the proposed project would be compatible with surrounding land uses and would not conflict with applicable plans or policies. Projects would also be subject to the City's environmental review process. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed project with respect to future development would result in a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to land use and planning. Noise The cumulative mobile noise analysis is conducted in a two step process. First, the combined effects from both the proposed project and other projects are compared. Second, for combined effects that are determined to be cumulatively significant, the project's incremental effects then are analyzed. The combined effect compares the "cumulative with project" condition to "existing" conditions. This comparison accounts for the traffic noise increase from the project generated in combination with traffic generated by projects in the cumulative projects list. The following criteria have been utilized to evaluate the combined effect of the cumulative noise increase. Combined Effects: The cumulative with project noise level ("Cumulative With Project") causes the following: ® An increase of the existing noise level by 5 dBA or more, where the existing level is less than 60 dBA CNEL; Page 4- 14 SRC ~~5~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations ¦ An increase of the existing noise level by 3 dBA or more, where the existing level is 60 to 65 dBA CNEL; or ¦ An increase of the existing noise level by 1.5 dBA or more, where the existing level is greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed project in combination with other related projects (combined effects}, it must also be demonstrated that the project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the proposed project. The following criteria have been utilized to ,evaluate the incremental effect of the cumulative noise increase. Incremental Effects: The "Cumulative With Project" causes a I dBA increase in noise over the "Cumulative Without Project" noise level. A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only proposed projects and growth due to occur in the general vicinity of the project site would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Table 4.5- I , Cumulative Noise Scenario, lists the traffic noise effects along roadway segments in the project vicinity for ;;Existing Without Project", Cumulative Without Project ,and Cumulative With Project ,including incremental and net cumulative impacts. First, it must be determined whether the Cumulative With Project Increase Above Existing Conditions (Combined Effects) is exceeded. Per Table 4.5- I ,this criteria is exceeded along ten of the project area roadways. Under the Incremental Effects criteria, cumulative noise impacts are defined by determining if the ambient (Cumulative Without Project) noise level is increased by I dBA or more. Per Table 4.5- I ,this criteria is not exceeded along DDSP roadways. Table 4.5-1: Cumulative Noise Scenarios ' I E g ~ Cumulative ~ Without Without Gumulative Combined ~ Incremental r _ Project_ Pro'ect ~ U~~th f~roject Effects i Effects I ~ Gifferance In Ciffeter~ce !n Cu~rulativaly Raaaeva Se n~ent ~ ddA C~.EL dBA CNEL dEA C~JEL d13A 3etween I c~BA oetvveen y g' I @ 100 Feet @ 10U Feet ~ 100 Feet "E~isting ~ "Cumulative Significant from from ~ from i V'~ithcui Without ImFact? Roadv~ay Roadway i~oad~.vay ~ Projec4" and ~ Project" and Genteriine Certerlin2 Centerline `Cumulatwe `Cumulative With Pro'ect" With ~ro'ec~i" Amador Plaza Amador Valley Blvd. / 57.6 60.0 60.3 2.7 0.3 No Dublin Blvd. Dublin Blvd. / St. 59.1 63.5 64.0 J 4.9 0.5 No Patrick Wa Amador Plaza Rd. / 62.4 63.8 63.9 1.5 0.1 No Villa a Parkwa Page 4-15 ~a,.e~~,.~e y g~ Downtown Dublrn Speafic Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Existing Cumulative I Without y~ithout Cumulative i Combined Incremental ~ With Project ~ Effects Effects Pr~ct Project Difference I~ Difference !n i ' - Cumulatively d~:A CNEL dBA CNEL dBA CNEL ~ dt1A Between dBA betv~~een f;oad~~~ay Segment ! Significant @ 100 Feet @ 100 Feet @ 100 Feet "Existing I "Cumulative Impact? from from from Without i Without Roadway Roadway I Roadway Project" and Project" and Centerline Centerline ~ Centerline I `Cumulative `Cumulative U11;th Project" With Project" Donahue Dr. /Amador 61.8 62.9 63.1 1.3 0.2 No Plaza Rd. E. of Villa a Parkwa 61.2 62.5 62.6 1.4 0.1 No Regional Street I 61.7 62.9 63.1 1.4 0.2 No Starward Dr. • San Ramori Rd. I 62.0 63.2 63.4 1.4 0.2 No Re Tonal Street ~t Starward Dr. I 61.4 62.7 62.8 1.4 0.1 No Donahue Dr. W. of San Ramon Rd. 54.9 55.4 55.5 0.6 0.1 No Dublin Blvd. Amador Plaza Rd. / 64.7 67,6 68.0 3.3 0.4 No Villa a Parkwa E. of Villa a Parkwa 64.9 67.4 67.5 2.6 0.1 No Golden Gate Dr. / 63.9 67.4 67.9 4.0 0.5 No Amador Plaza Rd. Regional Street / 64.0 67.8 68.4 4.4 0.6 No Golden Gate Dr. San Ramon Rd. / 64.6 68.3 68.9 4.3 0.6 No Re Tonal Street W. of San Ramon Rd. 63.6 65.4 65.5 1.9 0.1 No Golden Gate Dr. Dublin Blvd. / St. 53.8 60.0 60.9 7.1 0.9 No Patrick Wa S. of St. Patrick Wa 49.1 57.3 57.8 8.7 0.5 No " Re Tonal Street Amador Valley Blvd. I 57.8 60.6 61.1 3.3 0.5 No Dublin Rd. S. of Dublin Blvd. 57.9 60.5 61.1 3.2 0.6 No San Ramon Rd. Amador Valley Blvd. I 66.4 68.1 68.3 1.9 0.2 No Dublin Blvd. N. of Amador Valley 65.5 67.5 67.8 2.3 0.3 No Blvd. S. of Dublin Blvd. 68.3 70.8 71.1 2.8 0.3 No St. Patrick Wa E. of Amador Plaza 59.2 61.5 61.8 2.6 0.3 No Rd. Golden Gate Dr. / 52.6 56.5 57.3 4.7 0.8 No Amador Plaza Rd. W. of Golden Gate Dr. (Proposed Saint 43.9 53.7 54.5 10.6 0.8 No Patrick Wa Page 4-I6 ~ g3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations TExisting Cum:~lative Cumulative Combined Incremental Without I Without ~ With Project Effe~.,ts Effects Project Pro'eci ~ ~ - II Difference In Difference In Cumulatively daA CNEL dBA CNEL. d6l, CNEI. dBA 3erNeAn dBA between ~Zoadway Segment ~ 5ignificart @ .00 Feet @ 100 Feet @ 100 Feet "Ex;sting Cumulative Impac?? ~ from from from Without Witi~out Roadway ECOedway I Roadway ; Froject" and Project" and I Centerline Centerline Centerline ~ `Cumulative `Cumulative With Project" With Pro'ec'c" Extension Villa a Parkwa Amador Valley Blvd. / 61.0 63.0 62.9 1.9 -0.1 No Dublin Blvd. Dublin Blvd. / I-680 NB 57.3 59.4 59.8 2.5 0.4 No on ram N. of Amador Valley 61.5 63.4 63.7 2.2 0.3 No Blvd. S. of I-680 NB on ram 50.4 50.4 50.4 0 0 No ADT =avers a dail tri s; dBA = A-wei hted decibels; CNEL = communi noise a uivalent level Source: Intersection Cumin movements, re ared b Fehr and Peers, dated Janus 2010 and ADT calculations b RBF Consultin , dated A ril 2010. Activities associated with future develo ment could cause local noise level increases P resulting in higher noise levels. However, the expected combined cumulative effect within the proposed project would be reduced by implementing Mitigation Measures 3.7- I through 3.7-3. Furthermore, the DDSP proposes development that is consistent with existing land uses. As such, the increase in ambient noise levels is anticipated to generate noise levels similar to the surrounding developments. For areas where new development would abut sensitive uses such as residences, the DDSP includes design guidelines and development standards that are aimed at reducing impacts, including building orientation, wall placement, lot dimensions, maximum intensity, outdoor storage, setbacks, buffers, edge conditions, and landscaping. Based on the results of Table 4.5- I ,the maximum noise increase for the "Cumulative With Project" scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline would range from approximately 50.4 dBA to 71. I dBA. The maximum noise increase for incremental effects criteria would be 0.9 dBA along Golden Gate Drive (Dublin Blvd./Saint Patrick Way). Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed project with respect to future development would result in a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to noise. Public Services & Utilities Significant cumulative impacts to public services would occur if the cumulative projects would overburden the public service agencies, and if utility providers were unable to provide adequate services. Implementation of the proposed project in combination with reasonably foreseeable development would result in the increased demand for public services, which would result in the need for the provision of fire and police protection Page 4- 17 ~i~ ~ ~g3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations services, educational services, and parks and recreation facilities. However, development fees and/or construction of infrastructure by developers within the DDSP project area would meet the increased demand on public services and utilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion: The increased need for funding of public services would be covered in whole or in part by the City's public facilities fee (Chapter 7.78, of the City of Dublin Municipal Code), which is assessed on all new construction within the - project area. Development fees are assessed on aproject-by-project basis to fund improvements to meet the increased demand on public services and utilities. As a result, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to public services and utilities. ~'ransportation ~ Circulation A discussion of the cumulative impacts associated with Transportation & Circulation are addressed in Section 3.9. 4.7. Project ~?Iternatives The altematives discussion briefly identifies and describes a range of altematives as developed by City staff that would feasibly attain most of the project objectives and would avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts of the proposed project including the following: ¦ Altemative # I - No Project Altemative; ¦ Altemative #2 -Reduced Development Altemative; and ¦ Altemative #3 - Alternate Use Altemative This section discusses the environmental impacts associated with each of these three altematives as compared with the impacts resulting from the proposed project. The impact level of each of the altematives (less, similar, greater) is noted in parentheses at the beginning of each comparison. Table 4.5-2: Comparison of Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project at the conclusion of this section provides a summary. This section also identifies the "environmentally superior' altemative. 4.10. I Relationship to Project Objectives Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), a clear statement of objectives and the underlying purpose of the proposed project can help the City develop a reasonable range of altematives. Each altemative would be evaluated as to how well it meets the objectives of the project, as currently proposed. The DDSP consists of a comprehensive set of incentives, standards, and requirements that will implement the vision for the future development in downtown Dublin. The DDSP will define the physical envelope for downtown Dublin's future growth using height limits, setbacks, density, and design standards. The DDSP will act as the planning tool to guide Page 4- 18 , ~ 1 ` Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations and direct new development, economic development, transportation improvements (including pedestrian and transit-oriented development), parking, pedestrian amenities, and public open space (e.g. public plazas) through the DDSP Guiding Principles. The DDSP will be instrumental in promoting a more walkable, livable downtown Dublin, as well as providing incentives for development in keeping with the City's broader vision. ¦ As discussed in the project description, the DDSP project area has been divided into three districts, based on the existing building patterns and land uses within each area and the intended development envisioned for each district. A set of guiding principles were prepared as part of the DDSP and serve as the project objectives ~I~ for this EIR and are described in Section 2.4: Proposed Project Characteristics and Objectives. 4.10.2 Alternatives Considered But Rejected The followin alternatives were considered b the Cit but were rejected: g Y Y~ J Altemative Sites ~r Altemative Development Plan -Shifting Uses ¦ Altemative Development Plan -Incorporation of Large Format Retail Alternative Sites ¦ The project is specific to the downtown area. Altemative site locations were not considered as they would not be consistent with the City's objectives for the proposed project area of creating a vibrant and dynamic commercial and mixed-use center that provides a wide array of opportunities for shopping, services, dining, working, living, and entertainment that attracts both local and regional residents. Alternate Development Plan -Shifting Uses To potentially reduce the significant traffic impacts of the proposed project, the City considered shifting the distribution of land uses from areas with the greatest traffic impacts (e.g. along Dublin Boulevard and Saint Patrick Way) to the north along Amador Valley Boulevard where the roadways are generally less congested particularly during the AM and PM peak hours. Although this altemative would concentrate more development along Amador Valley Boulevard, it would not decrease the amount of traffic generated overall by the DDSP. Therefore, this altemative was rejected since it would just shift the same amount of traffic generated to another portion of the project area, which would potentially .degrade the intersections along Amador Valley Boulevard. Also this altemative would concentrate uses away from the transit opportunity on Dublin Boulevard and the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. This would be contrary to many of the objectives in the DDSP. More Large Format Retail The City considered incorporation of more large-scale big box retail uses in the Transit Oriented District. However, this altemative was rejected as it was not consistent with the Page 4-19 CON•ULT~NO t l~ D Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations City's Housing Element, which accounted for the proposed residential uses within this district as part of the total residential dwelling unit projections. In addition, this altemative would not reduce significant traffic and air quality impacts and was generally not consistent with the project objectives of creating atransit-oriented district that would compliment and support transit uses, particularly the West Dublin BART station. 4.10.3 Alternative # I - No Project Alternative Characteristics CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3) requires that a "no-project" altemative be evaluated as part of an EIR, proceeding under one of two scenarios: the project area remaining in its current state or, for planning level projects such as the DDSP, development of the project area under its current zoning designation, Altemative # I - No Project Altemative considers the environmental effects of not . approving the proposed project with the continuation of the existing permitted land uses and zoning into the future. Under this altemative, the existing zoning and entitlements from the existing five Specific Plans that encompass the proposed DDSP project area would continue to allow for additional development within the project area. However, Altemative # I - No Project Altemative would not result in a net increase of an additional 460,000 square feet of additional non-residential development and additional residential units as proposed under the DDSP. Comparative Analysis Aesthetics and Visual Quality rte). There would be a slight change to the visual character of the planning area with a reduction of the amount of development within the project area. However, the No Project Altemative would not require compliance with development standards and design guidelines proposed in the DDSP. Therefore, although No Project Altemative would result in a reduction in the amount of development within the project area in comparison to the proposed project, development would proceed under each of the five Specific Plans, which do not include a comprehensive set of development standards and design guidelines as proposed in the DDSP. Furthermore, the lack of comprehensive development standards and design guidelines are contrary to the project objective to enhance the visual quality of the downtown and to create a more mixed-use pedestrian friendly downtown. Therefore, the No Project Altemative would result in greater impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Air Quality (slightly less). Due to a slight reduction in the amount of development that would be allowed under the No Project Altemative, this altemative would result in slightly less impacts to short-term and long-term air quality impacts as compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Altemative would also result in a less than significant impact with respect to Greenhouse gas emissions. Geology and Soils (similar). Impacts under the No Project Altemative would be similar to the proposed project in that the project area could still be exposed to seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, soil erosion, and expansive soils with development under the five Page 4-20 ~~s~~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations existing Specific Plans within the project area. Compliance with the City's Building Code and the California Building Code would ensure that the No Project Altemative would also result in a less than significant impact as compared to the proposed project. Hazards and .Hazardous Materials slightly less. The No Project Altemative would have slightly less impacts in comparison to the proposed project with respect to hazards and hazardous materials with a decrease in the potential for storage and use of hazardous materials within the project area. However, similar to the proposed project, The No Project Altemative would result in a less than significant impact to hazards and hazardous materials ~drology and Water ualit _ similar . Because the ro'ect area is alread lar el built- P 1 Y g Y out, there is little remaining pervious surfaces. Surface water runoff under this altemative would be similar to the proposed project in that either would occur in an area that is mostly developed with buildings, paving and other impervious surfaces. Furthermore, mitigation measures MM 3.5- I a and 3.5- I b would also be required under this altemative to reduce potentially significant impacts to short and long-term surface water hydrology. Therefore, the No Project Altemative would result in similar impacts in comparson to the proposed project. Land Use and Planning (reg. ater), The No Project Altemative would reduce the total residential dwelling unit projections and therefore would not comply with the provisions of the Housing Element. Therefore, the No Project Altemative would result in greater impacts as compared to the proposed project. Noise slightly less The No Project Altemative would result in a slight reduction in the generation of noise during short-term construction and long-term operations in comparison to the proposed project due to a slight reduction in the amount of traffic to the project area under this altemative. Therefore, the No Project Altemative would result in slightly less impacts from noise. Public Services/Utilities ~sli~htly less The No Project Altemative would result in a slight reduction in the impacts to public services, utilities, and recreation in comparison to the proposed project with a reduction in the total amount of residential development in the project area as compared to the proposed project. Tra~ortation/Circulatio>n less)., The No Project Altemative would result in less impacts to transportation and circulation with a reduction in the number of trips in comparison to the proposed project. Under the No Project Altemative, the only intersections operating that would operate below LOS D would be the Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road and the Dublin Boulevard/Regional Street intersections, which would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. However, similar to the proposed project, the No Project Altemative would include a General Plan Amendment to exempt these intersections from Guiding Policy G in the General Plan, which strives to maintain a LOS of D or better. In comparison to the proposed project, there is however a significant reduction of trips during P age 4-21 DDU8114 AND y~~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ~ ~ CEQA Considerations the PM peak hour in comparison to the proposed project. Therefore, the No Project Altemative would result in a less traffic and circulation impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Ability to Meet Project Objectives This altemative would generally not be consistent with the project's objectives. For example, this altemative would not be consistent with the DDSP's objective of increasing the amount of retail sales and related economic activity throughout downtown Dublin by not increasing the amount of commercial/retail uses within the project area. In addition, the No Project Altemative would not enhance the visual quality of downtown Dublin without the proposed design standards and guidelines included in the DDSP. Therefore, the No Project Altemative would be less consistent with the project objectives. 4.10.4 Alternative #2 -Reduced ®evelapment Alternative Characteristics Altemative #2 -Reduced Development Altemative assumes construction of existing entitled development of approximately 617 residential dwelling units; 157,500 square feet of commercial development; and 150 hotel units, plus a minor amount of additional plan development . As described in Chapter 2: Project Description Under the Base Floor to Area Ratio Altemative, an additional 709,820 square feet of non-residential uses would be constructed for a total of 867,320 square feet of commercial space; 617residential dwelling units; and 150 hotel rooms. Comparative Analysis Aesthetics and Visual Quality (similar). While this altemative would result in less total density as compared to the proposed project, both the proposed project and the Reduced Development Altemative would result in intensification of development within an existing developed urban setting. Furthermore, this altemative would also include development standards and design guidelines that seek to improve the visual quality and character of the project area. Therefore, aesthetic impacts are considered similar to the proposed project. Air Quality (less). Due to a reduction in the amount of development that would be allowed under the Reduced Density Altemative, this altemative would result in slightly less impacts to short-term and long-term operational air quality. Therefore, this altemative would result in slightly less impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Density Altemative would also result in a less than significant impact with respect to Greenhouse gas emissions. Geology and Soils (similar). Impacts under the Reduced Density Altemative would be similar to the proposed project in that the project area would still be exposed to seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, soil erosion, and expansive soils with development within the project area. Compliance with the City's Building Code, and the California Building Code, the No Project Altemative would result in similar impacts to the proposed project. Page 4-22 Gv HB~~lvwp r ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Hazards and Hazardous Materials .(slightly less. The Reduced Density Altemative would have slightly less impacts in comparison to the proposed project with a decrease in the square footage within the project area, which would subsequently decrease the potential for storage of hazardous materials within the project area. H drolo and Water ualit similar Because the ro ect area is alread lar el built- y.._............~)_......._ ................................_..Q ..._~...Y_.._(....j.........j............)_~ P J Y g Y out, there is little remaining pervious surfaces. Surface water runoff under this altemative would be similar to the proposed project in that either would occur in an area that is mostly developed with buildings, paving and other impervious surfaces. .Furthermore, mitigation measures MM 3.5- I a and 3.5- I b would also be required under this altemative in order to reduce potentially significant impacts to short and long-term surface water hydrology. Therefore, the Reduced Density Altemative would result in similar impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Land Use and Plannin reater .The Reduced Develo ment Altemative woul r th _ .......................g...(g.......__ P deduce e total residential dwelling unit projections and therefore would. not comply with the provisions of the Housing Element. Therefore, the Reduced Development Altemative - would result in greater impacts as compared to the proposed project. Noise (slightly less The Reduced Development Altemative would result in a slight reduction in the generation of noise during short-term construction and long-term operations in comparison to the proposed project due to a reduction in the amount of development under this altemative, which would reduce short-term and long-term operational noise impacts. Public Services/Utilities (slightly less Due to a reduction in the amount of development under the Reduced Development Altemative, this altemative would result in a reduction in the impacts to public services, utilities, and recreation in comparison to the proposed project. Transportation/Circulation (less. The Reduced Development Altemative would result in a total of 58 I trips during the AM peak hour and I ,917 trips during the PM peak hour, which is a reduction of approximately I ,550 trips during the AM peak hour and 5, 16 I during the PM peak hour under the Maximum FAR. Under the Reduced Development Altemative, five intersections would operate at below LOS D during the PM peak hour, including the Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road; Dublin Boulevard/Regional Street; Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road; and Saint Patrick Way/Amador Plaza Road/I-680 SB Ramps intersection, which would operate at an unacceptable LOS F; and the Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive intersection, which would operate at an unacceptable LOS E. However, similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Development Altemative would include a General Plan Amendment to exempt these intersections from Guiding Policy G in the, General Plan, which strives to maintain a LOS of D or better. In comparison to the proposed project, there is however a significant reduction of trips during the PM peak hour in comparison to the proposed project. Therefore, the Reduced Development Altemative would result in a less traffic and circulation impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Page 4-23 ~o~a~~ ,moo 1 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Consistency with Project Objectives While generally consistent with the proposed project's objectives, some objectives would not be consistent or would be diminished under this altemative. For example, ~ this altemative would preclude the opportunity to implement a community benefit program that would help fund public improvements within the project area. The ability to encourage and support large-format regional retail as an important community and financial asset of the City could be diminished. The ability to create multiple high density- housing sites could also be diminished. And finally, the ability to create mixed-use projects that provide public and/or private plazas and outdoor gathering areas could be diminished. Therefore, this altemative would be slightly less consistent with the project objectives. 4.10.5 Alternative #3 -Alternate Use Alternative Characteristics Altemative #3 -Altemate Development Plan would alter the mix of land uses within the Transit-Oriented District with more office and commercial and fewer residential dwelling units. This altemative would result in a reduction of approximately 683 residential dwelling units with the construction of approximately 696,000 square feet of non-residential uses _ (e.g. office space and commercial uses) for a total of 3,73 I ,540 square feet of non- residential uses and 617 residential units Comparative Analysis Aesthetics and Visual Quality similar. While the type of land uses in the Transit Oriented District would be different, the overall density and visual character would be similar to the proposed project. Furthermore, this altemative would require compliance with development standards and guidelines identified in the DDSP and therefore would result in similar impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Air Quality {greater). The Altemate Use Altemative would result in slightly greater impacts to short-term and long-term air quality due to an increase in traffic generated to the project area under this altemative. Both the proposed project and the Altemate Use Altemative would be required to implement basic control measures during short-term construction. However, due to an increase in the number of vehicle trips to the Transit Oriented District, this altemative would result in a greater range of impacts as compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Density Altemative would also result in a less than significant impact with respect to Greenhouse gas emissions. Geolo~Y and Soils (similar). Impacts under the Altemate Use Altemative would be similar to the proposed project in that the project area could still be exposed to seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, soil erosion, and expansive soils. However, with compliance with the City's Building Code, the Califomia Building Code, similar to the proposed project would result in similar impacts under this altemative. Compliance with the City's Building Code and the Califomia Building Code would ensure that the No Project Altemative would also result in a less than significant impact as compared to the proposed project. Page 4-24 2~~ ~f g3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Hazards and_Hazardous _Materials _(simila~. The Altemate Use Altemative would have similar impacts as compared to the proposed project with a change in the mix of development within the Transit Oriented District. Office and residential uses would not result in a substantial increase in the storage and/or use of hazardous materials within the project area over existing conditions. Therefore, this altemative would result in similar impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Hydrology and_Water Quality (similar). Because the project area is already largely built-out and there is little remaining pervious surfaces within the project area, surface water runoff under this altemative would be similar in that the Altemate Design Altemative and the proposed project would require redevelopment of existing uses. Furthermore, mitigation measures incorporated herein (mitigation measures MM 3.5- I a and 3.5- I b) would also be required under this altemative in order to reduce potentially significant impacts to short and long-term surface water hydrology. Therefore, this altemative would result in similar impacts in comparison to the proposed project with respect to hydrology and water quality. Land _Use and _Planning (greater). The Altemate Use Altemative would not have the potential for compatibility impacts, which in any case are less than significant for the proposed project. However, the City's recently adopted Housing Element identifies housing opportunity sites in the project area and these sites helped the City meet the City's Regional. Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers as required by State law. Noise similar The Altemate Use Altemative would result in similar impacts from noise during short-term construction and long-term operations as compared to the proposed project due to a similar type of development. Public Services/Utilities (similarZ Given the fact that the overall buildout density would be similar to the proposed project, the Altemate Use Altemative would result in similar impacts to public services, utilities, and recreation in comparison to the proposed project. Transportation/Circulation (greater). The Altemate Use Altemative would result greater impacts to transportation and circulation with a decrease in the amount of residential dwelling units and an increase in the amount of non-residential uses (e.g. office space) within the Transit Oriented District. Construction of additional non-residential uses in the Transit Oriented District would likely increase the amount of daily traffic by approximately 26, 3 I I average trips per day. Trips to the study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours as compared to the proposed project would therefore increase. Therefore, impacts to intersections and roadway segments during the AM and PM peak hours would be greater under this altemative. Consistency with the Project Objectives While generally consistent with the project objectives, this altemative would not be consistent with some of the transit-oriented district guiding principles. For example, this altemative would not promote transit-oriented development to create a distinctive and Page 4-25 ca~+mu~i~Hm ~~,3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations active distract. It could also limit some future development that incorporates mixed-use within the district. Therefore, this altemative would be slightly less consistent with the project objectives. 4.10.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e)(2) requires that the environmentally superior altemative be identified. If the environmentally superior altemative is the No Project Altemative, the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior altemative among the other altematives. Altemative #2-Reduced Development Altemative would. be the environmentally superior altemative as it would reduce impacts to air quality, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services/utilities, and traffic and circulation associated with development compared to the project. Among the other altematives, Altemative # I -No Project Altemative would be considered the environmentally superior altemative, as it would reduce impacts related to air quality, hazardous materials, noise, public services/utilities, and traffic and circulation. Table 4-5.2: Comparison of Project Altematives to the Proposed Project rates the impacts of the above altematives compared to the ~i impacts of the proposed project, Table 4.5-2: Comparison of Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project _ _ EnYironmental C:ategtoryTAiterr~ative # I - EVo Algernative #2 - 8$educed ~ ,alternative - ~~~oj2ct i~Lltern~.tive ~evelopnierzt laltee•r~ative ~ Alternate fJsc ~,iternative Aesthetics and Visual Greater Similar Similar ` Character Air Qualit Sli htl Less Less Greater Geolo and Soils Similar Similar Similar Hazards and Hazardous Materials Slightly Less Slightly Less Similar Hydrology and Water Similar Slightly Less Similar Qualit Land Use and Plannin Greater Greater Greater Noise Sli htl Less Sli htl Less Similar Public Services, Utilities, and Recreation Slightly Less Slightly Less Similar Transportation and Less Less Greater Circulation Ability to Meet Project Less Slightly Less Slightly Less Ob'ectives None of the altematives identified would avoid the significant unavoidable impacts identified in transportation Impacts 3.9- I through 3,9-3 on eight Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments. This is due to the fact that ail three of the altematives would allow for new development either under the previous five downtown area specific plans (Altemative # I) or under a variation of the proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Altematives #2 and #3). Page 4-26 ~o r,»a ~ ~ g~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Page 4-27 ~e~a„~,,,.o ~ Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Draft EIR References 5. References 5.1. References Cited Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Congestion Management Program, 2009. Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Countywide Travel Demand Model, 2008. Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Level of Service Monitoring on the Congestion Management Program Roadway Network, 2008. Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District, Flood Control Zone 2. Available at: http://www.acgov.org/pwa/ACFCD%20Website%20Upgrade%20Feb2008/ acfcd/zone2.html. Accessed: April 8, 2010. Alameda County Library. Available at; http://www.aclibrary.org/. Accessed: April 14, 2010. Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. Available at: http://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/aboutus_home.htm. Accessed: April 8, 2010. Amador Valley Industries. Available at: http://www.amadorvalleyindustries.com/fags.html. Accessed: April 14, 2010. Association of Bay Area Governments. Bay Area Dam Failure Inundation Hazards Map, 1995. Available at: http://www.abag.ca.gov/index.html. Accessed: April 8, 2010. ~1 Available at: http://www.dsrsd.com/news_and_event/05 1005 I rptFinal%20UWMP.pdf. Accessed: April 15, 2010. Available at: http://www.ed-data.kl2.ca.us/. Accessed: April 9, 2010. Califomia Department of Conservation, Califomia Geological Survey. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Available at: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/affected.aspx. Accessed: April 5, 2010. Califomia Department of Transportation: Califomia Seismic Hazards Map, July 1996. Available at: Califomia Department of Water Resources, San Francisco Hydrologic Region, Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. California's Groundwater Bulletin 118. Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_ 118/basindescriptions/2- i O.pdf. Accessed: April 6, 2010. Califomia Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Available at: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb2/basin_planning.shtml. Accessed: April 6, 2010. Califomia State Parks, Lake de Valle SRA. Available at: http://www.par~ks.ca.gov/?page_id=537, Accessed: April 8, 2010. CalRecycle. Active Landfills Profile for Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery. Available at: Page 5-I Sala , ~T~ ~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR References http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Profiles/Facility/Landfill/LFProfile I .asp?COID=3&FACID =0 I -AA-0009. Accessed: April 14, 20 10. City of Dublin, City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan, 2007. City of Dublin. City of Dublin General Plan, adopted February 1985, City of Dublin, City of Dublin General Plan, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, updated 2010. City of Dublin, Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, 2004. City of Dublin, Dublin Downtown Specific Plan, 1987. City of Dublin, Final Downtown Core Specific Plan, 2000. City of Dublin, Final Village Parkway Specific Plan, 2000. City of Dublin, Final West Dublin BART Specific Plan, 2000. City of Dublin, Mape Memorial Park. Available at: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/DepartmentSubLevel2.cfm?PL=Rec&SL=pri<fac&dsplyl D= 434. Accessed: April 14, 2010. City of Dublin, San Ramon Road Specific Plan, 1983. ~I Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Countywide Travel Demand Model, 2003. Dublin San Ramon Services District. Available at: http://www.dsrsd.com/home/home.html. Accessed: April 6, 2010. Dublin Unified School District: School Boundaries. Available at: http://www.dublin.kl2.ca.us/. Accessed: April 14, 2010. East Bay Regional Park District, Don Castro Regional Recreation Area, Available at: http://www.ebparks.org/parks/don_castro. Accessed: April 8, 2010. EDAW. 2000. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village EIR. Ed-Data. Education Data Partnership. 'r~ Fehr & Peers, BART Direct Ridership Model, 2009. Glendale, City of Downtown Specific Pian Final EIR. Available at: http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/downtown_specific_plan_EIR final.asp. Accessed: April 7, 2010. Google Earth, Accessed: April 5-6, 2010. i~ http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/earthquake-engineering/Seismology/MapReport.PDF. Accessed on April 7, 2010. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008. Keyser Marston & Associates, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan -Focused Market Study, May 2009. Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, WHEELS, March 2010. Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency, Facilities. Available at: http://lavwma.com/facilities_IavwmaSystem.php. Accessed: April 15, 2010. Page 5-2 Downtown Dublin S ecific Plan Draft EIR P References MWH. Dublin San Ramon Services District, Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update, Final Report, June 2005. Northern Califomia SHZP Data. Official Map of Seismic Hazard Zones NAD83, Dublin Quadrangle. Available at: http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/MapProcessor.asp?Action=SHM P&Location= All&Version=5&Browser=Netscape&Platform=Win. Accessed: April 6, 2010. Pers. Comm. Ms. Diane Lowart. City of Dublin Parks and Community Services Director. April 15, 2010. Pers. Comm. Ms. Joanne Sharkey, Dublin Unified School District. April 14, 2010. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Water Sources & Water Supply Planning, http://sfwater.org/msc_main.cfm/MC_ID/ 13/MSC_ID/ 165, viewed April 7, 20 10. SCI Consulting Group. Dublin Unified School District, Demographic Study and Facilities Plan. 2007-2008. State of Califomia Department of Transportation, 2008 Traffic Volumes on the Califomia State Highway System, 2009. Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service: Web Soil Survey, Alameda Area, Califomia (CA609). Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed: April 6, 2010. United States Geological Survey; 2006. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States. Available at: http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/gfaults/. Accessed: April 7, 20 10. West Yost & Associates. Dublin San Ramon Services District Urban Water Management Plan, 2005 Update Final. Available at: http://www.dsrsd.com/news_and_event/05 1005 I rptFinal%20UWMP.pdf. Accessed: April 7, 2010. West Yost & Associates. Dublin San Ramon Services District Urban Water Management Plan, 2005 Update Final. Zone 7 Water Agency. Available at: http://www.zone7water.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96&Itemi d=408. Accessed: April 16, 2010. Zone 7, Annual Review of the Sustainable Water Supply Report, May 2009. Available at: http://www.zone7water.com/images/pdf dots/water supply/sustainable_09.pdf. Accessed: April 15, 2010. Zone 7. 2008 Annual Report. Available at: http://www.zone7water.com/images/pdf dots/biennial/%5C%2708-annualreport- web.pdf. Accessed: April 15, 2010. I~ Page 5-3 ~3I~ ~~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR References 5.2. List of Preparers City of Dublin Erica Fraser, Project Manager Jeri Ram Jeff Baker Jaimee Bourgeois RBF Consulting Bill Wiseman, Project Manager Erika Spencer Jennifer Stewart Jonathan Schuppert Eddie Torres Achilles Malisos Brian Allee Fehr & Peers Kathrin Tellez, Project Manager Ellen Polling Dan Hennessey Page 5-4 City of Dublin SPECIFIC PLAN Final Environmental Impact Report ~ .~~F~~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 p. lli 1~~~t 11 ; ` ti ' ¦ • SCH# Z~~OOQZ 2OOJ CONSLI LTING ~3.3~ ~ ~3 1 1 i 1 1 DOWNTOWN DUBLIN ~ SPECIFIC PLAN ' Final Environmental Impact Report 1 December 2010 i i 1 The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR has been financed in part by grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation, as provided through the Metropolitan ' Transportation Commission (MTCJ. The contents of the Draft EIR do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. SCH # 2010022005 D~ Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Final EIR Table of Contents Table of Contents I . Introduction I ' 2. Response to Comments 2 1 3. Revisions to the EIR I 1 ' ~ Page i i ~3~~C~~ Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Final EIR Introduction I. Introduction f The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was circulated fora 45-day review period from September 20, 2010 through November 4, ' 2010, consistent with CEQA statutes and guidelines. Copies of the document were distributed to the State Clearinghouse, regional and local agencies, and interested organizations and individuals, for their review and comment. ' Section 15088 (a) of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that: The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead ' agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and any extension and may respond to late comments. ' In response to the State Guidelines, the City as Lead Agency has evaluated the comments received on the DEIR. Written responses to the comments related to environmental issues are included in this Final EIR. i Chapter 2, provides a list of all those who submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review period. This is followed by a copy of each comment letter and the respective responses to comment. Text changes resulting from comments on the DEIR are presented in Chapter 3, Revisions ' to the DEIR, by chapter and section. Revisions to the DEIR text are indicated by underline for new text and for deleted text. This Final EIR document in conjunction with the DEIR, dated September 2010 and incorporated herein by reference, constitutes the Final EIR for the project. Page Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Final EIR Response to Comments 2. Response to Comments ' All commenters on the DEIR are listed in the table below. This table identifies a number designation for each comment letter received, the author of the comment letter, the comment letter date, a number designation for each comment, and the general topic for each comment. Letter Commenter Date Number Summary of Issue State Agencies 1 Department of Transportation 1 1 /4/10 1-1 Project-related traffic impacts to Interstates 680 and 580 (Caltrans) and associated ramps 1-2 Cumulative traffic impacts on Interstates 680 and 580 ' 1-3 StormwaterTreatment Construction Improvement Project adjacent to Interstate 680 Local Agencies 2 Alameda County 11/3/10 2-1 Delete reference to Alameda County Congestion Transportation Commission Management Agency 2-2 Mitigation measures and their effect on Alameda County transportation projects and programs 2-3 Transportation Demand Management Program implementation 2-4 Applicable City General Plan and Bicycle Master Plan policies that would be implemented by the developer 2-5 Implementation of the Downtown Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) 3 Alameda County Flood 11/1/10 3-1 Recommended text revision Control and Water Conservation District 4 County of Alameda Public 9/13/10 4-1 Potential stormwater runoff impacts on the Alameda Works Agency Creek Federal Project in western Alameda County 4-2 Measures to prevent the discharge of contaminated ' materials into public drainage facilities 5 Contra Costa County Public 11/4/10 5-1 Traffic analysis of Dougherty Road roadway segment in Works Department Contra Costa County 5-2 Traffic Control Plan requirement for future projects 5-3 Roadway impacts on haul routes for future projects ' Page 2 { Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 5560; ~3~~ "I~~ I Nov-4-10 t ~ Comment Letter #1 r~ (Z~~n~ 1rcnRIV1 .-1L. LTSFN~S~ mrinly~'Pt1t~TA.TLR~~1~'I iJa AGCY 1~EiTTOT~„S_CIiWA~~~~.f c pq, 7~~y ~ptpg~~7~r'gY ~g~v ~~'y~y1~q~ q rgr~d~~,T ~ ~iOYprilor '-`7 ~1L,~~1'l.g,L 81'[JL.E:al~ Y 'ti't' ~'~~~J':9.0.8 L ~ Y S'Vl`I 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. SOX 23660 QAKI.ANl~, CA 94B2~•Ofi40 FGex your paver! ~ PHt?NE (520) P22=5491 NOV 0 4 2010 ~P e~rl~, p~~Rt! t•nx t~lo~ zae-gssq ~r~ X21 ~11~~IN w~~1~1I~V(a 1 November 4, 2010 . ,ALAGEN247 SCI-I #2010022005 , 1Vi[s. Kristi Bascom City of Dublin, - Community lbevelopnaent Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 9456$' i Dear 1Vis. Bascom: ,:::i llow'ttown Dublin Spee~e Pl~rz -Draft >Etivixonanental Imipact~ )IYeport Thank you far cantinu.ng to incltile the California T~epartment of Transportation (Department) in . ~ tl~e envi.ranmental review: process far the I3owntovrn .Dublin Specific. Plan (DDSPj. The DDSF - consists of a Cornprel}eitsivi~ sct'ef ir~eeat~+es, stan.dards., and requirements that Will implement the _ vision foi future development iii downtown Dublin. The fcsllovoing eornments are based on the ` Draft Bnvironmcntal ~Irrtpsct:Report (DEIR) dated September 2470. Trunsportatinn arYd Ctrctt~ati~n The text pf the DEIR doES not adequately discuss traffic impacts to dte Interstate 680 (I-680) and Interstate 584 (I~580j freeway mainline .and ramp intersections from diverted Sgeci~c 1?lan area traffic. Additionally, the.Trip Generation Appendix does not include traffic assigned to freeway in~inline and ramps. The impact to the follawirtg Stale facilities should be discussed itt greater detail: 1. I-680 1-1 2. I-SSO 3. I-6'80/I-5$0 interel~an~;~ 4. I-6.8[)JSt. Patrick "W ay ramps S. I-580IVillage Parkway ramp `:I 6. I-580/San Raman Road ramps 7. I-S80lFooth.ill Road tamps Additional project generated trips on I-680 and 1-580 will result in heavy weaving rttovements and a worse Level of ~Serviee. The cumitlative impact of traffic an tl~e .mainlinQ firom other 1-2 projects in the vicinity of the study arEa should tie evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures should be identified. "Caltrcnns ine~pruves rr+bbili~y dC7'd~an Cc<!i~ornics" 11/04%2010 THU 14:00 [ii/RX F10 i23~J ~ 001 ~~y. vr~Lii~.UVU inniv~r~niHi~u 1"LHIVIVlIVIaj 51U ~tjl~ 556Uj NOV-4-10 2:15PMj Comment Letter #1 (page 2 of 2) IVIs. Kristi Bascom 1 November 4, 2410 Page 2 ' drtau~ics,ud'~x: ~iy . The Department crf Transpo~tta~.aYt:and~.xlte City of f.)ublin are iriip~lene~rting Stormwater Treatment Canso-uctori:.~mprcivetn~nt projects ~v~i.thi~t the limits of the~I~USP~ area. ,'The vcrork includes hydrodynamic separators to treat appro~cimately 60 acres of impervious area and 1-3 retrofitting an ex.istin~ c;ulvezt pipe loe.ated along Village Parkway L~c~th withir? City right of catty. in addition, a biofiltrat~on Swale wt]l be constructed within the State's right of way. Ft~tut~ developr~tent slYOtY~d not adversely trrtpact these-envirc~nrnental cornmizments. See-Cdoperative Agreement 4~2Z74 between tits l~epu~tnent cited: the City fare further detail. ' lease. contact Y~atri'~tl~ Kv~an of my staff via Should yctu ~ta~vc icy cltt~styons:.rreg9rd~ttg this letter P . err~.~l ttt Yatmttri~~w~tnQdol:.Ca.~ov ar:by~~phatie at {510)~6~2-1~~670r~. Sincerely, _ ` C` Y.,IS;A t~A~B~~li District l~raTtch Gla~irrf T.ocal Develcsptlneiiti _ 1~tet'g~vetrixttt~1 l~evtevv.. ~ ~ _ c:. StHte Cle~righouse ' "Galf>YVt~ irnFroa~s ~'coBilii,~.acrn~e.Caid~'orrcr'ac"' ' . 11!O~r'2010 TWU 1:00 [T,'P'; t10 723] ~i002 ~39~ ' Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Final EIR Response to Comments Response to Comment # CA Department of Transportation (Caltrans) November 4, 2010 ' I-I: Project-related traffic impacts to Interstates 680 and 580 and associated ramps Impacts to the two freeways are covered in Draft EIR Section 3.9 in the CMA/MTS system analysis, which covers I-580 and I-680 in the vicinity of the Specific Plan, and also via the intersection analysis for intersections that constitute freeway ramp terminals. The CMA/MTS system analysis provides PM peak hour volumes both with and without the Specific Plan, for the Near-Term and Cumulative cases, in Tables 3.9- 14 and 3.9- 15, respectively. An analysis is also provided specifically for I-580 and I-680 for the AM peak ' hour, for the Near-Term and Cumulative cases, in Tables 3.9- 16 and 3.9- 17, respectively. Impacts 3.9- I , 2 and 3 describe the impacts to these systems for the Near-Term/Base FAR Project, the Near-Term/Max FAR Project, and the Cumulative/Max FAR Project, respectively. Two freeway segment impacts are identified in Impact 3.9-2 (the Near- Term/Max FAR Project case): I-580 eastbound, west of San Ramon Road, in the PM peak hour, and I-580 westbound, west of San Ramon Road in the AM peak hour. Mitigation Measure 3.9- I applies to all 3 impacts and outlines the actions the City will take to help reduce congestion on the freeways and CMA/MTS systems, thereby reducing these impacts. However, as noted in Mitigation Measure 3.9- I , the City's ability to restore acceptable LOS on these segments cannot be assured by the actions, so the impacts remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Regarding analysis of the freeway interchange ramps: while a direct assessment of ramp capacity was not performed, the analyses of intersections # 13 (Saint Patrick Way/Amador Plaza Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps) and # 14 (I-680 Northbound Ramps/Village Parkway) provide an assessment of the operation of the ramp "terminals". In addition, the analysis of intersection #7 (Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road) provides an assessment of the operation of the closest control point adjacent to the I-580/San Ramon Road/Foothill Boulevard interchange, at which most of the ramps themselves are free-flow (i.e., not ' regulated by traffic control devices. These analyses, along with the CMP segment analyses described above, provide an adequate assessment of the Project's impacts on the freeway system, for aerogram-level EIR. A Project Study Report (PSR) to modify both the City of Pleasanton and Dublin portions of the Interstate 580/Foothill Road interchange was approved by Caltrans in December 2000 and a Project Report (PR) was approved by Caltrans in July 2002. Subsequently, the City of Dublin has constructed the north side improvements in anticipation of accommodating increased development in the Downtown area. The City of Pleasanton is currently preparing Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PSE) for improvements to the portion of the interchange located in Pleasanton. The traffic forecasts Page 3 ~~o~ ' Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Final EIR Response to Comments i being used to evaluate planned improvements to the interchange represent buildout of the ' Cities of Pleasanton and Dublin according to their current General Plans. Analysis results indicate that the eastbound and westbound ramp terminal intersections at Foothill Road/San Ramon Road would operate at LOS C or better with the improvements that ' have already been implemented (in Dublin) and the planned improvements in Pleasanton. Additional capacity would be provided to accommodate the potential traffic growth associated with buildout of the Downtown Specific Plan and implementation of the Specific ' Plan would have ales-than-significant impact on the interchange. The comment does not say what additional detail is sought nor does it identify any ' inadequacies in the DEIR. As shown above, the DEIR addresses potential impacts and mitigations at all of the facilities mentioned in the comment. No additional discussion is required for CEQA compliance. 1-2: Cumulative traffic impacts on Interstates 680 and 580 The analysis described above in response to comment I - I includes cumulative traffic projections. Please see also DEIR Tables 3.9- 14 through 3.9-17. The DEIR adequately analyzes cumulative traffic impacts at a program level; no additional discussion is required for CEQA compliance. Detailed assessments of freeway operations, such as weaving, ' merge and diverge analyses, are typically performed for the traffic operations studies supporting freeway improvement projects, such as the PSR discussed in response to comment I - I . -3: Stormwater Treatment Construction Improvement Project adjacent to Interstate 680 Comment noted. For any project located within or adjacent to the Stormwater Treatment Construction Improvement Project will be carefully reviewed by the City of Dublin to ensure that hydrodynamic separators, culvert pipes, and biofiltration Swale are not adversely affected. Page 4 oo~s~~r,~a Comment Letter #2 y7l ~ ' ACCMA ¦ 1333 Broadway, Suite 220 ¦ Oakland, CA 946 12 ¦ PH: (5 I OJ 836-2560 AL.AM E DA ACTV1 ¦ 1333 Broadway, Suite 300 ¦ Oakland, CA 94612; ¦ PH: (5 1 01 893-3347 ' ~oUnty Transportation www.Alamea~cTC.org Commission A Transit ' ~irecror Greg Harper ' Alameda County Supervisors Alice Lai-Bigrer Spott Haggerty, Vice Chair Gaasteete November 3, 2010 Nate Miley Keilh Carson Cityotalameda Ms. Kristi Bascom ' Mayor Principal Planner 6everty Johnson City of Albany Community Development Department vice Mayor City of Dublin FaridJavandel 100 Civic Plaza BART Dublin, CA 94568 Directs ThomasBtalock ICristi.bascom(c~dublin.ca.gov ' City of Berkeley Councilmember SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Environmental Im act Re ort for the Downtown Laurie Capitelli P p City of Dusan Dublin Specific Plan ' Mayor Tim Sbranti Dear Ms. Bascom: City of Emeryville Mayor RulhAtkin Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft City of Fremont Environmental Impact Report for the llowtitown Dublin Specific Plan. The Plan consists of Vice Mayor RabertWieckowski a set of incentives standards and requirements that will implement the vision for future ' City of Hayward development in downtown Dublin. It will include three districts and include a commercial Councilmember and mixed use center, retail, transportation improvements, and open space. Olden Henson ' City of Livermore The ACCMA respectfully submits the following comments: Mayor Marshall Kamena City of Newark • For Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 (pp. 3-172, 3-173, 3-174, and 3-175, ' Councilmember Luis Freitas o Please delete "As required by the Alameda County Congestion Management City of Oakland Agency". The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (now the 2-~ councamembers Alameda County 'Transportation Commission) does not require specific ' Larry Reid Rebecca Kaplan mitigation measures to reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system. City of Piedmont o :Please explain how, specifically, this mitigation measure would support vice Mayor Alameda County's projects and programs. Would the developer be required 2-2 ' John Chiang to pay their feu share of fees to construct specific transportation FityofMlYwsanton improvements for the project's contribution to significant increases in traffic JennirarHosterman On the MTS 1'OadWayS? City of San Leandro o .How would developers be encouraged to voluntarily develop a Councilmember . 2-3 Joyce R. SWrosciak Transportation Demand Management Program to reduce trips? City of Union City o Which policies would the developer implement in the City's Master Plan and I 2-4 MazkGreen,Chair General flan t•elated to bikeways in the project area? o Please explain how mitigation measures in this EIR will be incorporated into ~xxecyitive gtrector the Downtown Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (TIF), which will be 2_5 Arthur L.Dao revised after the Specific Plan has been adopted (as stated on p. 3-150). Which transportation improvements will be constructed or implemented Comment Letter #2 (page 2 of 2) ~~a~ l~Q ~j ' Ms. Kristi Bascom / lam/ November 3, 2010 ' Page 2 within the current or revised TIF? Will recommended mitigation measures in this EIR be incorporated in the TIF? How will the '1'Il~ be updated "in the 2-5 near firturc to ensut•e that the program is consistent with the goals of the (cont.) Downtown Dublin Specific Plan" (p. 3-150) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft rIR. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 510.836.2560 if you reyuu•e additional inrormalion. ' Sincerely, Diane Stark ' Senior 'Transpo?-tation Planner cc: Beth Walukas, Manager of Planning ' file: C1VIP - L;nvironmental Review Opinions -Responses - 20] 0 ~`~3 ~ ~g~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Final EIR Response to Comments Res once to Comment Letter #2 P Alameda County Transportation Commission November 3, 2010 ' 2- I : Delete reference to Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Comment noted. The first sentence of MM 3.9- I is hereby revised as follows wherever it appears in the DEIR to reflect the correction and the fact that the City will continue to impose the identified mitigation measure. "MM 3.9-I: o~ ~o„I ~o~ h.,+t,o oi-,..,.,o,~-, r-~,.II.,+., r-,,.,,~o~+~„n r.~~n.,,~o.,-,o.,+ o,~o.,,-„ t#e The City of Dublin shall do the following..." Other references to the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency have been corrected to ACTC through the Final EIR, but may still be referenced in these responses where helpful to locate specific discussion in the DEIR. ' 2-2: Mitigation measure 3.9-I support of Alameda County transportation projects and programs ' All new development in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is subject to the City of Dublin's Site Development Review process. Some projects, depending on their size and scope, will also require additional traffic and circulation analysis to ensure that the proposed development works on the site and with the existing transportation infrastructure. For all projects in the DDSP, City staff will be reviewing project proposals with an eye for the inclusion of trip reduction programs, good pedestrian and bicycle circulation and facilities, and transit accessibility. Where appropriate, conditions of approval will be added to the Site Development Review permit to ensure that such programs and designs are included in the project. Through the Site Development Review process, a finding must be made which states that the project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans. A finding also needs to be made that the site has been adequately designed for pedestrians and bicyclists. Therefore, future projects in the DDSP project area will be required to ' incorporate measures to help improve circulation, reduce vehicle trips, and therefore traffic congestion on the MTS system. In addition, project developers would be required to pay into the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF) and the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee (TI F), both of which would contribute toward improvements to MTS roadways. ' 2-3: Transportation Demand Management Program implementation Please see response to comment 2-2. As part of the Site Development Review Process, ' the City will work with developers to design TDM programs that will ensure that findings can be made that the projects are consistent with the Specific Plan. TDM program Page 5 CONBUlTIN6 ~/~~~~~3 1 Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Final EIR Response to Comments ' elements ma include alternative mode use incentives bike lockers and showers in Y ( ' commercial buildings), carpool and vanpool matching services, Zipcar sites, bike-share programs, bus shelters and amenities, site TDM coordinators, as well as other options. 2-4: Applicable City General Plan and Bicycle Master Plan policies that would be ' implemented by the developer The City of Dublin's Bikeways Master Plan (2007) includes several policies that would be applicable to development projects to be built within the Specific Plan: Policy 4.6 - As a condition of project approval, require major development projects ' with major transportation impacts to construct adjacent bicycle facilities included in the proposed bicycle system Policy 4.7 -Evaluate the needs of the community for bicycle parking on a project- by-project basis Policy 4.8 -Consult the Recommended Bikeways map prior to implementation of street improvement projects Policy 4.9 -Install bicycle stencils and bicycle-sensitive loop detectors (or other detector type) on bikeways as part of new signals, signal upgrades, and resurfaang/restriping projects ' Policy 4. I 0 -Provide appropriately-signed detours for bicyclists during construction projects. ' 2-5: Implementation of the Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) The current TIF was adopted in 2004, and includes the following improvements within the ' DDSP Study area (refer to Table B-3 from the 2004 Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Study Update Memorandum dated September 2004): ' Project I - St. Patrick Way Extension Project 2 -Golden Gate Drive Widening ' Project 3 -Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive Intersection Improvements Project 4 -Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road Intersection Improvements Project 5 -Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road Intersection Improvements Project 6 -San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard Intersection Improvements ' The City plans to update the TIF following adoption of the DDSP to include additional improvement projects and to recalculate the fee with consideration of the land use development changes identified by the DDSP. The DEIR identifies MMs 3.9-I and -4, neither of which requires specific roadway improvements. However, it is the intent of the City to incorporate improvements that are in the Bikeways Master Plan, as well as other Page 6 CONBULTIN6 y~s~ ~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Final EIR Response to Comments im rovements that su ort the oats and olicies of the S ecific Plan. Thus develo ment P PP g P P ~ P that is constructed within the DDSP area will be subject to the TIF and will contribute a fair share toward these improvements. 1 Page 7 CON BU LTIN6 Comment Letter #3 y`I ~l/~ ~ ~3 ALAMEDACOUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ' _ 100 NORTHCANYONS PARKWAY IIVERMORE, CA 94551 PHONE (925) 4545000 FAX (925) 454-5727 November 1, 2010 NOV Q 3 204Q Ms. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner City of Dublin -Community Development Department ~~~~0~ ~~..~4~96V1~N~ 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, Ca. 94568 Sub'ect: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the J Downtown Dublin Specific Plan ' Dear Ms. Bascom: ' Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) has reviewed the referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in the context of Zone 7's mission to provide drinking water, non-potable water for agriculture/ irrigated turf, flood protection, and groundwater and stream management within the ' Livermore-Amador Valley. We have the following comment for your consideration. Un page 3-89, under Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures -Place Housing or Structures . ' Within a 100-year Flood Hazards Area Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows, the third sentence should be revised to the following: "In addition, the Zone 7 Stream Management Master Plan proposes projects to retrofit culverts that carry waters from Dublin Creek under Donlon Way and the unnamed 3_~ drainage feature (Line J-1) which. runs parallel to Interstate 680 and crosses under ' Interstate 680 just north of Dublin Blvd. These proposed retrofits would increase culvert capacities and reduce the risk of flooding in the DDSP area. While the projects are ' proposed by Zone 7's Stream Management Master Plan, they are not Zone 7 specific projects." ' We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your project. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convezaience at 925-454-5036 or by e-mail at mlim@zone7water.com. Sincerely, ary L Environmental Services Program Manager ' cc: Kurt Arends, Joe Seto, Jeff Tang, Carol Mahoney ~~7~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Final EIR Response to Comments ' Res onse to Comment Letter # 3 P ' Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District November I, 2010 ' 3-I: Recommended text revision Comment noted. Page 3-89 of the Final EIR has been revised to reflect the recommended ' text revision. 1 Page 8 COIV6ULTIN6 Comment Letter #4 ~ ~ f G ~ ~Q~ ,~~o~ ~ Bwia;,~ COL7NTY OF ALAMEDA p 1, ova s ~ V Y Y A~~1~t ~Y ' ~y CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 951 Turner Court w PUBLIC Hayward, CA 94545-2698 ' ' WQRKS (510} 670-5450 Construction Services 9~s~ur~es (510) 670-6601 Development Services (510) 670-5269 FAX October 13, 2010 ' Kristi Bascom Princi al Planner ~ ~ p ' Community Development Department ~~~~Q~ City of Dublin 100 Civrc Plaza ' Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Ms. Bascom: ' Subject: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan -Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Report (DEIlZ} Reference is made to your transmittal on September l7, 2010, of a copy the Notice of Availability of the Draft EiR and Notice of Public Meeting for the subject project .The Downtown Dublin ' Specific Plan consists of a comprehensive set of incentives, standards, and requirements that will implement the vision for the future development in downtown Dublin. ' Per our cursory review of the transmitted material, we .hereby offer the following comments regarding storm drainage that should be considered in the determination of project status: 1. Although the project site is located in Zone 7, runoff ultimately drains to the Alameda Creek ' Federal Project in western Alameda County. This flood control facility is maintained by the Alameda County Flood Control District. The District is concerned with augmentation in runoff from the site that may impact flow capacity in the Federal Project and in the 4-1 watercourses between the site and the Federal Project, as well as the potential for runoff from the project to increase the rate of erosion along those same watercourses that could cause localized damage and result in deposition of silt in the Federal Project. There should be no augmentation in runoff quantity or duration from the project site that will adversely unpact downstream drainage facilities. t 2. The applicant should provide measures to prevent the discharge of contaminated materials into public drainage facilities. It is the responsibility of the applicant to comply with Federal, 4-2 State, or local water quality standards and regulations. Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Report for this project. If you ' have questions, please call me at (510) 670-5209. Very holy yours, R se arie e eon A i t ineer Land evelopment 1 TO SERVE AND PRESERVE OUR COMMUNITY Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Final EIR Response to Comments Res onse to Comment Letter #4 P County of Alameda Public Works Agency October 13, 2010 ' 4-I: Potential stormwater runoff impacts on the Alameda Creek Federal Project in western Alameda County ' Potential drainage and runoff impacts are addressed in Section 3.5 of the DEIR which notes that the Specific Plan project area is largely built-out with buildings, parking lots, streets, and sidewalks, with associated landscaping. The goal of the specific plan is to facilitate redevelopment of the area overtime in a manner that is more pedestrian, bicycle, and transit friendly, however the area will remain urbanized as it is now. Because the project area is largely built-out, stormwater flows to collection and distribution systems are ' expected to be similar to that which currently exists. The flow capacity is not expected to increase in quantity or duration, but rather is expected to be reduced with future development due to improved design and practices and the implementation of better onsite stormwater detention and management (see especially, Impacts 3.5-3, -4). 4-2: Measures to prevent the discharge of contaminated materials into public drainage ' facilities Comment noted. The DEIR addresses construction and post construction water quality ' impacts in Impact 3.5- I . Subsequent project-specific development applications will be reviewed as to their consistency with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and current City and State regulatory requirements to control to minimize stormwater runoff and to improve stormwater quality, consistent with MMs 3.5- I a and - I b. These regulations include the requirement to develop and implement a stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent alf construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off-site into ' receiving waters. Page 9 Comment Letter #5 ~dV~ From: Rene Urbina mailto:rurbi w.cccount .us VVV _ I ~ @p Y l Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:37 PM To: Kristi Bascom Cc: Mary Halle; Monish Sen; Chris Lau; Jerry Fahy Subject: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ' Hello Ms Bascom, We provide the following comments on the DEIR for the Dublin Specific Plan: ' We understand that the proposed City of Dublin Specific Plan will replace and combine 5 specific plans: Downtown Core Specific Plan, Dublin Downtown Specific Plan, San Ramon Road Specific Plan, Village Parkway Specific Plan and West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The Transportation Engineering Division of Contra Costa County Public Works Department has the following comments on ' the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan project: 1. The traffic analysis should include the section of Dougherty Road in unincorporated Contra Costa County to determine the increase demand on this 5_~ road due to the ultimate build out of the Specific Plan areas. Mitigation measures should be included to address any impacts. 2. For construction projects in the City of Dublin that would directly impact County roads, a Traffic Control Plan (including any temporary lane closure, 5 2 flagging, haul routes, detour plans, etc.) would be required to be submitted to Contra Costa County Public Works Department for review and approval. The 1 document must address the impacts of any lane closure. 3. On future projects with hauling routes that would impact County roads, a ' mitigation requirement should be identified in the report to describe a process where apre-project survey of haul route(s) is conducted, thereafter damaged or 5-s deteriorated pavement resulting from the project truck traffic is identified on the f haul route(s), and measures are implemented to bring the pavement back to pre- project conditions by the project sponsor at their own cost. ' Thank you, Rene Urbina, PE Civil Engineer Contra Ccvst~ County Public Works D e p a r t m e n t Transportation Engineering Division 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: (925) 313-2308 Fax: (925) 313-2333 ~ Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Final EIR V Response to Comments Res onse to Comment Letter #5 P Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 4, 2010 5- I : Traffic analysis of Dougherty Road roadway segment in Contra Costa County Consistent with the professional opinion of the traffic consultant and the City's Traffic ' Engineer, Dougherty Road was not included in the traffic analysis because the estimated project trip distribution to this roadway was very low: for commercial trips, I percent in the AM peak hour and 2 percent in the PM peak hour, and for residential trips, 3 percent in both peak hours. These percentages were derived from select-zone evaluations for zones in the DDSP area in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Travel Demand Model. 5-2: Traffic Control Plan requirement for future projects Comment noted. The proposed project is a programmatic review of the Draft Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and does not involve approval of any project specific development application. For future project-specific development projects that would directly impact City and/or County roads, a Traffic Control Plan, including any temporary lane closure, flagging, haul routes, detour plans, etc. would be required to be submitted to the City and forwarded to the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, consistent with the development review practices and standard conditions of approval of the City of Dublin. 5-3: Roadway impacts on haul routes for future projects Comment noted. The proposed project is a programmatic review of the Draft Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and does not involve approval of any project specific development application. ' As part of any Traffic Control Plan, as discussed in response to comment 5-2, above, the applicant would be required, consistent with the development review practices and standard conditions of approval of the City of Dublin, to identify hauling routes that would ' impact City and/or County roads. Apre-project survey of haul route(s), identification of any damaged or deteriorated pavement resulting from the project truck traffic, and completion of improvements to bring the pavement back to pre-project conditions by the project sponsor at their own expense, would be required if the truck traffic is estimated to be significant. Page 10 "l ~ ~ ~ p3 ' Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Final EIR Revisions to the EIR 3. Revisions to the EIR ' Text changes resulting from comments on the DEIR are presented below, Revisions to the DEIR text are indicated by underline for new text and for deleted text. 1 Page I I `~S3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases VMT would be 23.4 ercent in the same time frame, The VMT estimate is based on the P scenario where not all development is built out in order to be consistent with the 2009- 2015 time frame. Additionally, the DDSP proposes downtown development near transit and includes extensive policies intended to reduce VMT. The DDSP policies would reduce ' VMT by creating apedestrian-friendly downtown, accommodate alternative transportation modes (i.e., BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian), promote transit-oriented development, and incorporate mixed-use development into the Specific Plan area. As a result, the growth ' rate of VMT under the DDSP would not exceed the growth rate of the population. According to the current BAAQMD CEQ~4 Guidelines, the VMT growth rate compared to the City's population growth rate over the same time frame would not hinder progress towards achieving the goals of the 2005 Ozone Strategy. Therefore, the DDSP is consistent with the applicable air quality plan, and a less than significant impact would result. Long-Term Operational Emissions - Toxics Air Contaminants Impact 3.2-3: No major existing stationary or area sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) were identified in the vicinity of the project area. The DDSP would result in the development of mixed-use and commercial uses at the project site, which may generate sources of TACs from stationary sources. The proposed project would not result in increased exposure of sensitive land uses in excess of applicable standards. This is considered a less than significant impact. To address community risk from air toxics, the BAAQMD initiated the Community Air Risk ' Evaluation (CARE) program in 2004 to identify locations with high levels of risk from TACs co-located with sensitive populations and use the information to help focus mitigation ' measures. Through the CARE program, the Air District developed an inventory of TAC emissions for 2005 and compiled demographic and heath indicator data. According to the findings of the CARE Program, diesel particulate matter, mostly from on and off-road ' mobile sources, accounts for over 80 percent of the inhalation cancer risk from TACs in the Bay Area. As of November 2009, the impacted communities include the urban core areas of Concord, eastern San Francisco, western Alameda County, Redwood CityfEast ' Palo Alto, Richmond/San Pablo, and San Jose. The CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (April 2005) offers advisory recommendations for locating sensitive receptors near uses associated with TACs, such as freeways and high-traffic roads, commercial distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome platters, dry cleaners, gasoline stations, and other industrial facilities, to reduce exposure of sensitive populations. No major existing stationary or area sources of TACs were identified in the project vicinity. The DDSP would result in development within Downtown Dublin, which may generate sources of TACs from stationary sources. The ' development of any new stationary sources of TAC's associated with the DDSP project area would be subject to BAAQMD rules and regulations and permitting requirements. t Page 3-37 CON6U~TIN6 ~s~ ~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ' o.,,.ora.,,-e,-I ".,'+h~n inn ~ o+ .,~+ho +~.,olorl rl,~.-I.,..~.~~' Tho n ror+ r ~;,-Ian+~-,I .,~+ho nc lea-~s-~e~t te~eet~or~zet ' o..r,r,~ ~ .,~~+~"o r on+l.,-~ +r, T~('~ ~I~ ha le ~ ~1,~.. ~:.~..:i:.~.~.,+ ' To assist Lead Agencies in evaluating air quality impacts at the neighborhood scale, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has established thresholds of significance for local community risks and hazards associated with Toxic Air Contaminants ' (TAC) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). These thresholds apply for siting a new source and/or receptor and for assessing both individual source and cumulative multiple source impacts. For all State highways within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), the ' BAAQMD has made available a set of maps and tables that provide screening-level risks and PM2.5 concentrations. To develop these tables, the BAAQMD selected conservative assumptions and inputs with the following methodology: ' Hourly vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and emissions for 2012 were developed for each county using the EMFAC model, based on default vehicle mix and full range of vehicle speeds. Highest vehicle traffic volumes for each roadway are based on Caltrans's 2007 Traffic Volumes on Califomia State Highways and were scaled based on VMT to develop hourly vehicle volumes. Hourly vehicle volume and emissions were input into a roadway model, ' CAL3QHCR, to estimate annual average concentrations using the most conservative meteorological data collected from monitoring locations within each county. CAL3QHCR is an advanced model that process up to a year of hourly ' meteorological, vehicular emissions, and traffic volume and signalization data in one model run. In addition, I -hour and running 8-hour averages of CO or 24-hour and annual block averages of particulate matter can be calculated. For the screening tables, the peak one hour of traffic was used to develop hourly vehicle volumes that totaled to the annual average daily traffic while risk and hazard tables are based on annual average daily vehicle volumes. The screening tables are based on the ' highest annual average daily traffic (AADT) for each highway. It should be noted that the AADT fluctuates depending on postmile; in some cases, the traffic may decrease by an order of magnitude. Therefore, the BAAQMD recommends adjusting the values listed in the screening tables to reflect the AADT for a particular postmile. As a result, the ratio of ~ Califomia Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook A Community Heath Perspective, April 2005. Page 3-38 ~ss~ ~~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases the actual AADT to the AADT used b the BAAQMD was a lied to the screenin values Y ' to determine the appropriate values for the project site. For example, the screening tables are based on an AADT of 218,000 and 266,000 vehicles for I-580 and I-680, respectively. Based on Caltrans data, the AADT at these locations would be 169,000 and 165,000 for I- 580 and I-680, respectively. As indicated in the DDSP, a large portion of the project area is in the vicinity of I-580 and I- 680, Based on the adjusted values in the screening tables, the cancer risk and noncancer hazards generated from the highways would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds at 1,000 feet, which is the BAAQMD recommended screening distance. Therefore, any new ' receptors (e.g., residences, schools, etc.) within the I ,000-foot buffer of the highways would implement specific development standards to reduce exposure to highway pollution. These development standards are specified within the DDSP and include the following: Configure the proposed buildings so that the bulk of the building is located farther from the highway. ' Place heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system intakes as far away from highway as feasible. Include high efficiency filters in the HVAC system (rated with a minimum efficiency rating value ~MERV~ of at least 13). This would also include a commitment to regular maintenance and replacement of filters as needed. ' Provide positive pressure with the HVAC system in all occupied spaces to prevent the incursion of outside air that bypasses the HVAC filters. To reduce the amount of outside unfiltered air indoors, do not place operable windows in close proximity to the highway. In addition, signs should be posted to keep exterior doors closed when not in use. 1 The identification of diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a toxic air contaminant in 1998 led ' the California Air Resources Board (GARB) to adopt the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles (Risk Reduction Plan) in October 2000. The Risk Reduction Plan's goals include an 85 percent reduction in DPM by 2020 from the 2000 baseline. The Risk Reduction Plan includes regulations to establish cleaner new diesel engines, cleaner in-use diesel engines (retrofits), and cleaner diesel fuel. ' It should be noted that the current emissions factors (EMFAC2007) utilized for the BAAQMD screening tables do not include emissions reductions from the implementation of the various measures included in CARB's Risk Reduction Plan. As a result, ' implementation of the GARB DPM reduction measures, the I ,000-foot buffer is anticipated to shrink over time. Based on an 85 percent reduction in DPM at full implementation of the Risk Reduction Plan, the risk would be reduced accordingly. The Transit Oriented District has the greatest exposure to I-580, and upon full implementation of the Risk Reduction Plan, the I ,000-foot buffer would be reduced to 700 feet. Page 3-39 Qo~a~~r,~a ~56~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ' Because an new rece tors e.., residences, schools, etc. within the I ,000-foot buffer of y ~ the highways would be required to implement specific development standards as defined in the DDSPP to reduce exposure to highway pollution, and implementation of the CARB DPM reduction measures is expected to be reduce this I ,000 foot buffer distance over 1 time, the exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs would be less than significant. In addition, all projects must implement any applicable air toxics control measures (ATCM). ' For example, projects that have the potential to disturb asbestos (from soil or building material) must comply with all the requirements of CARB's ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. Compliance with applicable regulatory ' standards is required as part of the permitting process for development and operation of future development within the DDSP, and would ensure a less than significant impact. ' Long-Term Operational Emissions -Localized Carbon Monoxide (CO) Impact 3.2-4: Carbon monoxide concentrations are Vow in the project vicinity and the proposed project would result in carbon monoxide concentrations that would be well below the State and Federal standards. Therefore, the proposed protect would have a less ' than significant impact on localized carbon monoxide concentrations. Local air quality is a major concern along roadways. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a primary ' pollutant, and unlike ozone, is directly emitted from a variety of sources. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of its impacts upon the local air quality. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create "pockets" of CO called "hot spots." These pockets have the potential to exceed the State I -hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) and/or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm. t The BAAQMD requires that proposed projects are analyzed for the potential to cause localized CO hotspots. Per the BAAQMD CO screening guidelines, a project would have ' CO impacts if the following were to occur. ¦ Project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at level of service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F. ¦ Project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by I 0 percent or more. ¦ Project would contribute to CO concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours and 20 ppm for one hour. Because traffic congestion is highest at intersections where vehicles queue and are subject to reduced speeds, these hot spots are typically produced at intersections. Based on the Tragic Impact Analysis, the intersections listed in Table 3.2-7: Project Buildout Carbon Monoxide Concentrations, would require a CO hotspot analysis. The BAAQMD thresholds for CO emissions require projects to perform localized CO modeling. In order Page 3-40 ~s~~ ~E~3 1 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology & Water Quality ¦ Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through ' the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; ¦ Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or ' planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; ¦ Otherwise substantially degrade water quality; ¦ Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; ¦ Place within a 100-year flood-hazards area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows; ¦ Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; and/or ¦ Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Methodology ' Impacts evaluated in this section were assessed based on previously published reports by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Water Resources, ' and information from the City of Dublin General Plan. Impacts to surface and groundwater quality were analyzed by reviewing existing groundwater and surface water quality literature that pertain to the project area; identifying existing on-site ground and surface waters, and evaluating existing and potential sources of water quality pollutants based on the types of land uses and operational activities that occur or could occur in the DDSP area. Additionally, the applicability of federal and state regulations, ordinances, and/or standards ' to surface and groundwater quality of the project area and subsequent receiving waters was assessed. The impacts of the proposed project on water resources and water quality are evaluated qualitatively. ' Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Place Housing or Structures Within a 100-Year Flood-Hazards Area Which Would Impede ' or Redirect Flood Flows Several properties within the DDSP area are located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. As previously discussed, new construction will be subject to floodplain regulations. ;,;-addit+e;Tt~he ze,=,~-T~t~ea~aa ' ~+s~ ~SP~;z~-In addition, the Zone 7 Stream Management Master Plan proposes project to retrofit culverts that carry waters from Dublin Creek under Donlon Way and the unnamed drainage feature (Line J- I) which runs parallel to Interstate 680 and crosses under Interstate 680 just north of Dublin Blvd. These proposed retrofits would increase culvert capacities and reduce the risk of flooding in the DDSP area. While Page 3-90 ~sg~ ~3 Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Draft EIR Hydrology & Water Quality the projects are proposed by Zone 7's Stream Management Master Plan, they are not 1 Zone 7 specific projects. Future construction would be required to comply with the existing floodplain regulations to ensure that the structures do not impede or redirect flows. No impacts would occur. Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow The proposed project is located well inland from the San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. The site and surrounding ' properties are also relatively flat and would not be subject to mudflows. No impacts would occur. ' Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Impact 3.5- I Future construction associated with the proposed project may violate water ' quality standards or waste discharge requirements. This is considered a potentially significant impact. ' The project area is a primarily urbanized, developed area, which likely already contributes non-point source pollution such as motor oil, fertilizers and pesticides, human littering, animal waste and other pollutants typical of developed commercialized areas. These ' pollutants are typically washed from streets, parking lots, and garages during rainfall events that create sufficient runoff to carry the waste materials. These pollutants have the potential to degrade water quality and may result in potentially significant impacts to the ' extent that they are generated by new development. Although the majority of the project area is built-out, the construction of individual projects would include grading and other ' earth moving activities which would expose on-site soils to erosion processes. Additionally, construction activities could lead to exposure of contaminated materials/soils which if present within the project area that could impact surface water quality during storm events. ' Individual development projects within the project area greater than one acre would be required to mitigate short-term construction impacts pursuant to the NPDES criteria and standards on aproject-by-project basis. The purpose of the NPDES permit is to ensure ' that the proposed project would eliminate or reduce construction-related sediments and pollutants during stormwater runoff. ' Construction sediment erosion can be adequately controlled through the application of standard construction BMPs. The goal of BMPs is to capture and treat "first flush" stormwater run-off generated by surrounding and on-site watersheds. Water quality ' management BMPs for grading and construction scenarios may include the use of sand bags and straw bales for run-off diversion and velocity reduction, mulch topping, hydro-seeding and siltation fencing to prevent soil loss and measures to minimize vehicular leaking and spilling. Design guidelines identified in the DDSP encourage increased percolation through the use of vegetated swales, curb extension, reconfigured parking lots with increased landscaping, and the use of pervious materials (e.g. pervious pavers) in parking lots. Page 3-9 I Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation CMA/MTS System Analysis Results ' The Alameda County E~ngest+e~ Management °~-,~rt°^.~Transportation Commission (AEEf~,4ACTC) requires analysis of project impacts to Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways for development projects that would generate more than 100 PM ' peak hour trips. The ASE-~,4ACTC requires that the baseline forecasts be represented by the model run completed by the °~,~ACTC for 2015 and 2035 conditions. To complete this analysis, the project traffic, generated and distributed outside of the model as described in the preceding section, was added directly to the ACTC 2015 and 2035 peak hour model runs. It is noted that a review of the 2015 and 2035 °~°,°,CTC model land use files showed very little growth in the Plan area; thus, this ' approach gives a reasonably accurate assessment of the net new traffic added by the Plan on the MTS roadways. ' The MTS system analysis differs from the intersection analysis in the following aspects: ¦ The regional and local land use data sets used for the intersection forecasts and the ' MTS forecasts are different, since the CCTA Countywide Model was used to develop intersection volumes and the ~4C-E-F~4ACTC Countywide Model was used to develop the MTS system forecasts ¦ The MTS roadway analysis reports the outputs of the A~iocACTC model on a roadway segment level, as compared to the more detailed intersection turning movement level forecasts developed for the intersection analysis. The MTS roadway system in the vicinity of the Project includes I-580, I-680, Dublin ' Boulevard, and San Ramon Road. The A~E~?cACTC Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requires this analysis only be done for the PM peak hour, however, Caltrans requires that it be done for the AM peak hour as well for all Caltrans' facilities. Tables 3.9- ' 14: Near-Term PM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service and 3.9- 15: Cumulative PM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service summarize the results of the analysis on various segments of the four MTS roadways for the Near-Term and Cumulative Conditions scenarios, respectively, during the PM peak hour. Tables 3.9- 16: Near-Term AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service and 3.9- 17: Cumulative AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service summarize the results of the analysis on Caltrans' facilities only for the ' Near-Term and Cumulative Conditions scenarios, respectively, during the AM peak hour. 1 Page 3- 167 y~® Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Table 3.9.18: Project Transit Trip Summary ' All Transit Trip (Bus + BART) Case Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ' Entitled Projects in Plan Area 2,160 180 220 No Project 14,450 350 1,250 ' (Existing Specific Plans) Base FAR Project 2,200 50 200 ' Max FAR Project 13,800 350 1,200 Source: Transit trip generation calculations by Fehr & Peers, assuming 25% transit use for residential uses and 15% transit use by retail uses. See technical appendix for detailed trip generation calculations. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Intersection Impacts As shown in Tables 3.9- I 0 to 3.9- 13, with the proposed amendment to the General Plan, the Project would result in no significant impacts to intersections. ' Metropolitan Transportation System Impact 3.9- I : In the Near-Term, the Base FAR Project results in sub-standard LOS on one ' Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segment, when compared to the Near-Term Without Project scenario. This is a significant impact: ' San Ramon Road northbound, north of Amador Valley Boulevard (PM peak hour). As shown on Table 3.9- 14, the intersection would drop from LOS E under the No Project scenario to LOS F with the Project under the Base FAR and Maximum FAR ' scenarios. It should be noted that the intersection of San Ramon Road/Amador Valley Boulevard is ' projected to operate acceptably with the Base FAR Project in the Near-Term scenario. This result, which appears inconsistent with the above impact finding for San Ramon Road, es due to the different analyses methods and models used to conduct the Intersection and ' MTS system analyses. Mitigation Measure: ' M M 3.9- I : ,ors--re~uire~i e-~Aeda~et~~~;o~e,Tre~; ge,=,~-; t~eThe City of Dublin shall do the following to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system: ' Support Alameda County's projects and programs which are aimed at reducing traffic congestion. ¦ Encourage developers to voluntarily develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce trips associated with their project. ' Strategies that could be included in the program could include additional bicycle Page 3- 173 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation parking, shower facilities, HOV parking, direct building access for pedestrians, ' commute alternative incentives and convenient transit waiting areas. ¦ Implement the policies outlined in the City's Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element related to bikeways. Support public transit ' improvements, including but not limited to re-routing, schedule adjustments, new vehicles, upgraded waiting areas, and transit information signs, to encourage use of ' altemative modes. ¦ Collect fees from developers in the Specific Plan Area for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee as well as the Downtown TIF programs prior to issuance of Building Permits, which fund local and regional transportation improvements. Even with mitigation, the City's ability to restore acceptable LOS on the identified roadways/freeways cannot be assured because some projects are the County's, and some the City can encourage but not require (e.g. employer TDM programs). Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Impact 3,9-2: In the Near-Term, the Maximum FAR Project results in sub-standard LOS on five Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments, when compared to the Near- Term Without Project scenario. This is a significant impact: ' San Ramon Road northbound, north of Amador Valley Boulevard (PM peak hour) ¦ San Ramon Road northbound, between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 (PM peak hour) ' Dublin Boulevard westbound, east of Village Parkway (PM peak hour) ¦ I-580 eastbound, west of San Ramon Road (PM peak hour) ' ¦ I-580 westbound, west of San Ramon Road (AM peak hour) It should be noted that the San Ramon RoadlAmador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard/Village Parkway intersections are projected to operate acceptably with the ' Maximum FAR Project in the Near-Term scenario. These results, which appear inconsistent with the above impact findings for San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard, are due to the different analysis methods and models used to conduct the intersection and ' Metropolitan Transportation System analyses. Mitigation Measure: ' MM 3.9-I: ~4~re~u+red b~--the Al~med~-Ce~~t~or~e~iep~er;~~,~°~~~ ~eThe City of Dublin shall do the following to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS ' system: ¦ Support Alameda County's projects and programs which are aimed at reducing ' traffic congestion. ' Page 3- 174 ~~~a~ ~~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Mitigation Measure: ' MM 3.9- I : o~ ro„~ ,;roe h., +ho oi.,.,.,o,~-, r-,.. ,n+., r-,,.,,~o~+;,-,., n~-,n.,,~o.,.,o.,+ o,~o.,~., +ho The City of Dublin shall do the following to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system: ¦ Support Alameda County's projects and programs which are aimed at reducing traffic congestion. ' Encourage developers to voluntarily develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce trips associated with their project. ' Strategies that could be included in the program could include additional bicycle parking, shower facilities, HOV parking, direct building access for pedestrians, commute alternative incentives and convenient transit waiting areas. 1 Implement the policies outlined in the City's Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element related to bikeways. Support public transit improvements, including but not limited to re-routing, schedule adjustments, new vehicles, upgraded waiting areas, and transit information signs, to encourage use of alternative modes. ¦ Collect fees from developers in the Specific Plan Area for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee as well as the Downtown TIF programs prior to issuance of Building Permits, which fund local and regional transportation improvements. For the same reasons as noted above, the City's ability to restore acceptable LOS on the ' identified roadways/freeways cannot be assured. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable after mitigation. ' Transit Impact 3.9-4: The Base FAR Project will increase transit demand, generating an estimated ' 2,200 weekday daily transit trips (bus and BART combined). This will create the need for bus route adjustments and increased bus frequency. This is a significant impact on bus transit. ' A portion of the projected demand would be served by the new West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. BART projects ridership of approximately 6,000 weekday hoardings/6,000 alightings at this station, based on expectations of current and future ridership generated by transit-oriented and transit-proximate development like that proposed by the project. Therefore, the demand generated by the Maximum FAR project falls within the BART ' ridership projection and does not constitute a significant impact on BART. The Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority is planning increased bus service via a Bus ' Rapid Transit service, scheduled to begin operation in January 201 I. The service will run eight buses in each direction along Dublin Boulevard during the peak hours, with BART transfers occurring at the East DubliniPleasanton Station. -It is reasonable to assume that ' Page 3-176 EXHIBIT C FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the City Council hereby makes these findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts from adoption and implementation of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP, or Project), PA 07-036, and means for mitigating those impacts. Many of the impacts ' and mitigation measures in the following findings are summarized rather than set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final EIRs (EIRs) should be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and mitigations. Impact 3.3-2: Ground shaking is likely to occur in the project area in the even of a major earthquake on one of the nearby faults resulting in the exposure of people and/or structures to potentially significant adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death. MM 3.3-1: Project applicants shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level geotechnical report that addresses the effects of seismic ground shaking and includes a quantitative evaluation of.liquefaction and liquefaction-induced lateral spreading for . future development in the DDSP project area. The design level geotechnical report shall specify foundations and structural elements that are designed to resist forces and potential ground settlement for liquefaction and lateral spreading. This report shall be submitted in conjunction with a Building Permit application. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale: The mitigation measure ensures that groundshaking shall be examined specific to the Project's proposed structures and improvements and that appropriate engineering and design elements pursuant to the stringent CBC standards for Seismic Zone 4 sites are incorporated into the design level plans before building permits are issued. Impact 3.3-3: Future development associated with the proposed project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects of liquefaction. Implement MM 3.3-1. Project applicants shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level geotechnical report that addresses the effects of seismic ground shaking and includes a quantitative evaluation of liquefaction and liquefaction-induced lateral spreading for future development in the DDSP project area. The design level geotechnical report shall specify foundations and structural elements that are .designed to resist forces and potential ground settlement for liquefaction and lateral spreading. This report shall be submitted in conjunction with a Building Permit application. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale: Future development in the DDSP area would be required to comply with the City's Building Code, liquefaction regulations of the CBC, and the City's standard engineering practices and design criteria. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 ensures that appropriate soil 1 EXHIBIT C TO ATTACHMENT 4 . engineering, foundation design and construction techniques for potential liquefaction conditions are incorporated into design level Project plans. Impact 3.3-4: Implementation of the proposed project may result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during short-term construction activities within the DDSP project area. Implement MMs 3.5-1a and 3.5-1 b. Future development within the DDSP area would be required to comply with the City of Dublin Public Works Department policies, NPDES permit process, and the City's Building Code requirements as described in MM 3.5-1 a and 3.5-1 b below. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale: The mitigation measures ensure that sedimentation and erosion controls will be identified in applicable permitting processes and implemented during any Project ground disturbing activities. The measures further ensure that Project SWPPPs will describe how stormwater runoff will be controlled to reduce runoff sediments from moving off of construction sites. Impact 3.4-2: During construction of the proposed, project, there is the potential for the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, which could create a hazard to the public or the environment. Implement 3.5-1a and 3.5-1 b. Prepare and implement a stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies how the discharger will protect water quality during construction activities as required by MM 3.5-1a and 3.5-1 b, further described below. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale: Compliance with the appropriate hazardous materials handling measures and acquisition of the NPDES General Permit for construction activities would ensure that potential hazardous materials transport, use or disposal during short-term construction activities are consistent with applicable regulatory standards. Preparation and implementation of a SWPPP ensures that measures specific to a particular development will be identified to control construction and erosion pollutants from moving offsite. Impact 3.4-3: The proposed project may result in the demolition and removal of structures within the project area which may contain asbestos and/or lead based paint (LBPs). MM 3.4-1: Prior to demolition of existing structures that were constructed prior to 1980 within the project area, project applicants shall have structures proposed for demolition inspected by a qualified environmental specialist for the presence of LBPs and Asbestos (ACM) contaminating materials prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the City of Dublin. If found to be present, samples shall be collected and analyzed for ACM and lead using EPA testing methods. If actionable levels of lead and or ACM are within the structures, a remediation plan shall be prepared by a qualified consultant and implemented. Necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Worker safety plans shall be included in any remediation plans. Any hazardous 2 ~v ~ materials that are removed from the structures shall be disposed of at an approved landfill facility in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale: The mitigation measure ensures that any ACM or LBPs will be identified prior to demolition, thereby avoiding any inadvertent release of asbestos or lead-based paint. The measure also ensures that any development involving demolition of ACM or LBPs will comply with all regulatory standards and procedures for handling and disposal of these materials. Impact 3.4-4: The project area is not located on a hazardous material site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Based on a search of the State Water Resources Control Board's GeoTracker database, there are approximately seven sites within the project area that are currently being investigated. MM 3.4-2: Future development or substantial redevelopment within the project area shall prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to determine whether or not a particular development site contains any hazardous materials as a result of historic contamination within the project area subject to review and approval by the City. of Dublin. In the event that the Phase . recommends subsequent testing, the potential health. risks .shall be evaluated and a work plan prepared to remediate the soil and/or groundwater in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations: This assessment shall be submitted to the City in conjunction with the Building and Grading/Site work permit and. shall be found acceptable by the City prior to ground- disturbance. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project.which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale: The, mitigation measures ensure that future development will evaluate the' potential for hazardous materials within a specific project site prior to construction activities. If such materials are identified, the measure ensures that an appropriate work plan for remediation will be prepared and. implemented in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations. Impact 3.5-1: Future construction associated with the proposed project may violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. MM 3.5-1a: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the project proponent shall file a Notice of Intent as required by Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding storm water discharges _ associated with construction activities. Upon completion of construction activities, a Notice of Termination shall be filed. MM 3.5-1 b: Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by the project contractors and submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for review and comment and to the City of Dublin in conjunction with the Building/Grading/Site work permit and shall be found to be acceptable by the City prior to ground disturbance. The SWPPP shall be prepared to Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and Alameda .Countywide Clean Water Program requirements, and shall identify erosion minimization and control provisions, pollution detection provisions, and pollution elimination/ minimization provisions appropriate to the development project and its site for construction and post-construction activities. The SWPPP shall include best available technology, engineering, and design solutions such as the use of silt screens, hay bales, modern trash screens, energy dissipaters, and/or absorbent devices. Stormwater runoff water quality monitoring procedures shall be clearly detailed in the SWPPP. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale: The measures minimize the exposure of onsite soils to erosion processes and eliminate or reduce construction-related sediments and pollutants from entering stormwater runoff. This is achieved through application of standard construction Best Management Practices to reduce the amount and velocity of runoff from the site, to increase percolation onsite and related measures to keep construction activities from polluting surface waters affected by development site runoff. Impact 3.7-1: The proposed project could result in short-term construction-related noise 'and vibration that-would exceed applicable noise standards at nearby noise sensitive land uses. MM 3.7-1 a: Project applicants within the project area shall prepare a construction noise management plan .that identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding sensitive receptors (e.g. residential uses and schools) and includes specific noise management measures to be included into project plans and specifications subject to review and approval.by the City. These measures shall include, but not be limited to the following: • Construction activities, including the maintenance and warming of equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30..AM and 5:30 PM except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. , • All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an un-muffled exhaust. • The City shall require that the contractor maintain and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. • Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors. • All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors. • The construction contractor shall provide an on-site name and telephone number of a contact person. In the event that construction noise is intrusive to an educational process, the construction liaison will revise the construction schedule to preserve the learning environment. • Select demolition methods to minimize vibration, where possible (e.g., sawing masonry into sections rather than demolishing it by pavement breakers). 4 MM 3.7-1 b: Should potential future development facilitated by the proposed project require off- site import/export of fill material during construction, trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably major roadways (Interstate 580, Interstate 680, San Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard, .and Amador Valley Boulevard). Construction trucks should, to the extent practical, avoid the weekday and Saturday a.m. and p.m. peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in', or incorporated into; the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final. EIR. Rationale: The required construction noise management plan will identify measures to minimize construction noise on surrounding sensitive receptors (e.g., residential uses and schools) and include specific noise management measures to be incorporated in project plans and specifications subject to review and approval by the City. The measure ensures that construction will be limited to less noise sensitive periods of the day and ensures that proper operating procedures are followed during construction to minimize noise exposure for nearby. sensitive receptors. Impact 3.7-3: Development in the project area facilitated by the proposed project could permanently increase noise levels from mobile sources (vehicular traffic) at existing and .future uses within the DDSP project area: . . MM 3.7-3: Future development within the DDSP project area that is located adjacent to Highway 580; Amador Plaza (between Dublin Boulevard and Saint Patrick Way); and Dublin Boulevard (between Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway; between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive and between San Ramon Road and Regional Street} shall prepare.a site-specific acoustical analysis subject to review and approval by the City of .Dublin. The: acoustical analysis prepared for future development shall evaluate resultant noise.impacts in.comparison to the City's noise criteria for Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments. Feasible project specific mitigation measures shall be required as part of the project design to reduce .noise impacts at future noise sensitive land uses, including but not limited to the. following: 1) site design, 2) operational restrictions; 3) barriers; 4) setbacks, and 5) insulation, No . - . development permits or approval of land use applications shall be issued until the acoustical analysis is received and approved by City staff and any project design features are incorporated into the future development project. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale: The measure ensures that noise exposure will be identified for specific project sites near major traffic sources and that noise reducing features will be included in development design to meet City noise standards. Impact 3.9-1: In the Near-Term, the Base FAR Project results in sub-standard LOS on one Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segment on San Ramon Road when compared to the Near-Term Without Project scenario. MM 3.9-1: The City of Dublin will do the following to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system: (revised in Final EIR p. 3-173). 5 ~'~/O I A3 • Support Alameda County's projects and programs which are aimed at reducing traffic congestion. • Encourage developers to voluntarily develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce trips associated with their project. Strategies that could be included in the program could include additional bicycle parking, shower facilities, HOV parking, direct building access for pedestrians, commute alternative incentives and convenient transit waiting areas. • Implement the policies outlined in the City's Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element related to bikeways. Support public transit improvements, including but not limited to rerouting, schedule adjustments, new vehicles, upgraded waiting areas, and transit information signs, to encourage use of alternative modes. • Collect fees from developers in the Specific Plan Area for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee as well as the Downtown TIF programs prior to issuance of Building Permits, which fund local and regional transportation improvements. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no feasible alternatives that avoid .this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit D, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale: The Project itself is designed to encourage non-vehicular traffic,'and together with efforts set forth in the mitigation measure, should have the effect of reducing traffic congestion on San Ramon Road, as well as other MTC facilities. As explained iri the Draft EIR, acceptable LOS' cannot be assured after mitigation since some improvement projects and programs are the County's and some the City can encourage but not require, such as employer TDM programs (see p. 3-173). The impact is significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in conjunction with approval of the Project. Impact 3.9-2: In the Near-Term, the Maximum FAR Project results in sub-standard LOS on five Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments, when compared to the Near- Term Without Project scenario. Implement MM 3.9-1. As required under MM 3.9-1 (revised in the Final EIR on p. 3-174)., the City of Dublin will incorporate several measures to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit D, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale: The Project itself is designed to encourage non-vehicular traffic, and together with efforts set forth in the mitigation measure, should have the effect of reducing traffic congestion on MTC facilities. As explained in the Draft EIR, acceptable LOS cannot be assured after mitigation since some improvement projects and programs are the County's and some the City can encourage but not require, such as employer TDM programs (see p. 3-173). The impact is 6 - significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in conjunction with approval of the Project. Impact 3.9-3: In the Cumulative scenario, the Maximum FAR Project results in substandard LOS on eight Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments, when compared to the Cumulative Without Project case. Implement MM 3.9-1. As required under MM 3.9-1 (revised in the Final EIR on p. 3-176), the City of Dublin will incorporate several measures to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system. ,Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified. in the Final EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit D, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale: The Project itself is designed to encourage non-vehicular traffic, and together with efforts set forth in the mitigation measure, should have the effect of reducing traffic congestion on MTC facilities. As explained in the Draft EIR, acceptable LOS cannot be assured after mitigation since some improvement projects and programs are the County's and some the. City ...can: encourage but not require, such as employer TDM programs ,(see p. 3-173).. The impact is significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in conjunction with approval of the Project. Impact.3.9-4: The Base-FAR Project will. increase transit demand, generating an :estimated 2,200 weekday daily transit trips (bus and BART combined). This will create the need for bus route.adjustments and ,increased bus frequency. ~ . MM 3.9-4: The City will continue to support and work with LAVTA to define route changes and increased service as needed as the Plan area develops. . .Finding: Changes or alterations have been. required in, or incorporated into, the project. which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale: As reflected in the Draft EIR, LAVTA is actively planning for increased bus service; including BART transfers. Through this planning and the City's support, bus and transit service can continue to evolve as demand increases. fl ~3 ~7 EXHIBIT D FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires that an EIR "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project..." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). if a project alternative will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, the decisionmaker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific economic., legal, social, technological, or other considerations,... make the project alternative infeasible" (CEQA Sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3}). The City Council hereby makes these findings with respect to alternatives. The Project objectives are set forth in a series of Guiding Principles for the entire DDSP area and for each of the 3 Specific Plan districts (see pp. 2-3 to 2-5 in the DEIR). Alternatives are analyzed in Section 4.7 of the DEIR and include the required No Project Altemative, a Reduced Development Altemative and an Alternate Use Altemative. Each of the alternatives was assessed for each resource topic and compared to potential Project impacts. As further set forth below, the City Council considered the alternatives identified and analyzed in Section 4.7 of the DEIR and finds them to be infeasible for specific economic, social, or other considerations pursuant to CEQA Sections 21002 and~21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3). For CEQA purposes, "feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors. (CEQA Section 21061.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15364.) Alternative #1: 'No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative considers the environmental effects of not approving and implementing the DDSP. Under this alternative, existing land uses and zoning would continue into the future. Existing, entitlements from the existing five Specific Plans that encompass the proposed DDSP project area would continue to allow for additional development within the project area. However, the No Project Alternative would eliminate the additional 460,000 square feet of non-residential development proposed under the DDSP. As explained in the Draft EIR, the potential impacts of the No Project Altemative would be greater than the Project as to Aesthetics because there would not be a set of comprehensive development standards and design guidelines as proposed by the Project to enhance the downtown's visual quality and pedestrian experience. Land use and planning impacts would also be greater compared to the Project because the same level of housing could not be developed under this altemative, and the City could not provide as many units to meet local and regional demand. Most of the other potential impacts of the No Project Alternative are similar to or less than the Project, primarily due to the lesser amount of potential development. By eliminating Project traffic, the No Project Altemative eliminates the Project's unavoidable significant traffic impacts. However, the City finds this altemative infeasible because it would increase aesthetics and land use impacts compared to the Project and would not accomplish the basic Project objectives identified in the DEIR of facilitating a visually appealing, compact development pattern that encourages non-vehicular modes of transportation and a diverse mix of uses. The Project would not implement the Project objectives for the BART area of creating a distinctive and active district. This alternative would not recognize the Project's focus on the interaction between visual design quality, diverse uses, focused increased density, and pedestrian and bike travel as means of energizing the downtown area. In particular, the Project's development standards and design guidelines would not be 8 EXHIBIT D TO ATTACHMENT 4 I ~ adopted to facilitate upgraded development that is not only attractive, but also a distinctive amenity to the area and region. Alternative #2: Reduced Development Alternative The Reduced Development Alternative assumes construction of existing entitled development of approximately 617 residential dwelling units, 157,500 square feet of commercial development; and 150 hotel units, plus a minor amount of additional plan development. It is generally comparable to the Base FAR conditions described in DEIR Chapter 2 and Table 3.7-8 and would result in potential new development of 867,320 square feet of commercial space, 799 residential dwelling units, and 150 hotel rooms. The Reduced Development Alternative would increase the potential for new development; but to a lesser degree than the Project, because it does not include the Project's Development Pool. Land use and planning impacts would also be greater compared to the Project because the same level of housing could not be developed under this alternative, and the City could not provide as many units to meet local and regional demand. Most of the other potential impacts of the No Project Alternative are similar to or less than the Project, primarily due to the lesser amount of potential development. The City Council finds the Reduced Development Alternative infeasible because it would not be consistent with some Project objectives and other objectives would be diminished under this alternative. For example, this alternative would preclude the opportunity to implement a community benefit program that would help fund public improvements within the project area. The ability to encourage and support large-format regional retail as an important community and financial asset of the City could be diminished. The ability to create multiple high density housing sites could .also be diminished. And finally, the ability to create mixed-use projects that provide public and/or private plazas and outdoor gathering areas could be diminished. Alternative #3: Alternate Use Alternative The Alternate Use Alternative would alter the mix of land uses in the within Transit .Oriented District with more office and commercial and fewer residential dwelling units. This alternative would result in a reduction of approximately 683 residential dwelling units with the construction of approximately 696,000 square feet of non-residential uses (e.g. office space and commercial uses) for a total of 3,731,540 square feet of non-residential uses and 617 residential units. Like the other alternatives, Alternative # 3 would have greater land use and planning impacts than the Project because the same level of housing could not be developed under this alternative, and the City could not provide as many units to meet local and regional demand. Most of the other potential impacts of this alternative are similar to or less than the Project; however, air quality and transportation impacts would be greater because of the higher trip generation from office and commercial uses. The Project's only significant unavoidable impacts are related to increased traffic, which would be worsened under this alternative. While consistent with some of the project. objectives, this alternative would not be consistent with some of the transit-oriented district guiding principles. For example, this alternative would not promote transit-oriented development to create a distinctive and active district. It could also limit some future development that incorporates. mixed-use within the district. The City Council finds this alternative infeasible because it does not avoid the Project significant traffic impacts and is not consistent with Project objectives to promote transit-oriented development and mixed use pedestrian oriented development. 9 ~ol D EXHIBIT E STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093; the City Council of the City of Dublin makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan project (DDSP, or Project). to the City of Dublin against the significant adverse impacts identified in the Environmental. Impact.. Report (EIR) that .cannot be reduced to less than significant through . feasible mitigations or alternatives. .Pursuant to Section 15093, the City Council hereby determines that the benefits of the Project outweigh the adverse impacts and the Project should,... be approved. The City Couricif'has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the .Project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that implementation of the Project . carries .with it unavoidable. adverse environmental effects as identified in the EIR: TheCity Council specifically finds 'that to the extent the identified significant adverse impacts for';the . Project have not been reduced to acceptable levels through feasible mitigation or alternatives, there are specific economic, social, land use and other considerations that support approval of the project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. The following unavoidable significant traffic impacts are associated with the Project as identified in the Draft EIR Impact 3.9-1: In the Near-Term, the Base FAR Project results in sub-standard LOS on one Metr-opblitan Transportation System roadway segment on San Ramon Road when compared to the Near-Term Without Project scenario. Impact 3.9-2: In the Near-Term, the Maximum FAR Project results in sub-standard LOS on five Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments, when compared to the Near- Term Without Project scenario. Impact 3.9-3: In the Cumulative scenario, the Maximum FAR Project results in substandard LOS on eight Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments, when compared to the Cumulative Without Project case. 3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan project. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts, against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Project as further set forth below. The Project will facilitate development of vacant sites and intensification or redevelopment of underutilized sites in the Downtown area. This area is a primary focus for the City because it is an infill area,,fully served by public utilities, and convenient to major arterials, services, BART and public transit. The Project increases both residential and non-residential density to make more efficient use of its infill location. 10 'EXHIBIT E '1'O ATTACHMENT 4 ~~3~ ~ ~3 The Project provides an array of incentives, standards and requirements to implement the City's vision of a more walkable, livable Downtown, that is attractive and vibrant, and that draws workers, visitors and residents alike. The Project emphasizes higher density, compact development patterns in the TOD district where a diverse mix of uses would be readily accessible through alternative transport modes. It also emphasizes pedestrian level development where walking and bicycling would . be safe, feasible alternatives to automobile trips within the Project area and to or from nearby neighborhoods. Development standards and design guidelines provide measures for ensuring attractive, visually appealing. development of private projects and public spaces. The Project also recognizes and incorporates important elements of existing downtown uses,. such as large-format retail opportunities and existing auto dealerships. The Project includes a significant residential component that will assist the City in meeting its Housing Element RHNA goals. The potential housing will be of densities complementary to the mix of residential and non-residential. uses, and the Project's co-location of housing, work, recreation and entertainment Future development 'of .the site will also provide, construction employment and permanent employment opportunities for Dublin residents. The Project also provides a unique opportunity . to facilitate live/work units in.the Village Parkway district: , . The Project provides a comprehensive approach to meeting the City's objectives for the area, as . described in the Specific Plan and Draft EIR. For all of the above reasons, the benefits of the DDSP project outweigh its significant unavoidable traffic impacts. 11 Downtown llublin Specific Plan 1:3IR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program _ T _ - _ _ - - - - - - - Project Impacts ",9itigation Measure ~ Implementation and Monitoring j h9onitonng Responsibilityi Schedule. i Reporting Datel Monitor's Initials - ! _ - - - - Geology Soils, & Seismicity Impact 3.3.2: Ground shaking is likely to occur in the MM 3.3.1: Project applicants shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design Geotech report shall be submitted in City of Dublin Building and Planning project area in the even of a major earthquake on one of level geotechnical report that addresses the affects of seismic ground shaking and includes a conjunction with a Building Permit Divisions the nearby faults resulting in the exposure of people quantitative evaluation of liquefaction and liquefaction-induced lateral spreading for future development application. and/or structures to potentially significant adverse effects, in the DDSP project area. The design level geotechnical report shall specify foundations and structural including the risk of loss, injury or death. elements that are designed to resist forces and potential ground settlement for liquefaction and lateral spreading. Impact 3.3.3: Future development associated with the Implement MM 3.3-1. Future development within the DDSP area would be required to comply with the Geotech report shall be submitted in City of Dublin Building and Planning proposed project is not anticipated to expose people or City's Building Code, liquefaction regulations of the CBC, and the City's standard engineering practices conjunction with a Building Permit Divisions structures to potential substantial adverse effects of and design criteria. In addition, mitigation measure MM 3.3-1 would require properties developing within application. liquefaction. this zone to prepare a design level geotechnical report. Impact 3.3.4: Implementation of the proposed project Implement 3.5-1a and 3.5-1 b. Future development within the DDSP area would be required to comply Compliance with City NPDES permit City of Dublin Public Works may result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during with the City of Dublin Public Works Department policies, NPDES permit process, and the City's process shall be reviewed at the Department; Building and Planning short-term construction activities within the DDSP project Building Code requirements as described in MM 3.5-1a and 3.5.1 b. time of Grading and Improvement Divisions area. Plan submittal. Hazards and Hazardous'Materials Impact 3.4.2:- During constriction of the proposed Implement 3.5.1a and 3.5.1b. Prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Compliance with City NPDES permit . City of Dublin Public Works project, there is the potential for the transport, use, or (SWPPP) that specifies how the discharger will protect water quality during construction activities as process shall be reviewed at the Department, Building and Planning disposal of hazardous materials, which could create a required by Mitigation Measures MM 3.5.1a and 3.5-1 b. Compliance with the appropriate hazardous time of Grading and Improvement Divisions hazard to the public or the environment. materials handling measures and acquisition of the NPDES General Permit for construction activities .Plan submittal. would ensure that potential hazardous materials impacts during short-term construction activities associated with future development within the project area would be less than significant. Impact 3.4.3: The proposed project may result in the MM 3.4-1: Prior to demolition of existing structures that were constructed prior to 1980 within the project Documentation relating to LBP and City of Dublin Building and Planning demolition and removal of structures within the project area, project applicants shall have structures proposed for demolition inspected by a qualified ACM shall be required at the time of Divisions area which may contain asbestos andlor lead based paint environmental specialist for the presence of LBPs and Asbestos (ACM) contaminating materials prior to a Building Permit application to (LBPs). obtaining a demolition permit from the City of Dublin. If found to be present, samples shall be collected demolish the structure. and analyzed for ACM and lead using EPA testing methods. If actionable levels of lead and or ACM are within the structures, a remediation plan shall be prepared by a qualified consultant and implemented. Necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Worker safety plans shall be included in any remediation plans. Any hazardous materials that are removed from the structures shall be disposed of at an approved landfill facility in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Impact 3.4-4: The project area is not located on a MM 3.4.2: Future development or substantial redevelopment within the project area shall prepare a Phase 1 report shall be submitted to City of Dublin Public Works hazardous material site pursuant to Government Code Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to determine whether or not a particular development site the City in conjunction with the Department, Building and Planning Section 65962.5. Based on a search of the State Water contains any hazardous materials as a result of historic contamination within the project area subject to Building and Grading/Sitework Divisions Resources Control Board's GeoTracker database, there review and approval by the City of Dublin. In the event that the Phase I recommends subsequent permits and shall be found ~ ~ are approximately seven sites within the project area that testing, the potential health risks shall be evaluated and a work plan prepared to remediate the soil acceptable by the City prior to y ~ are currently being investigated. andlor groundwater in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. ground disturbance. ~ x ~ Hydrologyand'INaterQuality - ~ ~ ~ - a Impact 3.5.1: Future construction associated with the MM 3.5-1~a: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the project proponent shall file a Notice of Intent as SWPPP shall be submitted to the City of Dublin Public Works ~"3 proposed project may violate water quality standards or required by Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding storm water discharges associated with RWGCB and to the City at the time Department, Building and Planning rr `i7 waste discharge requirements. construction activities. Upon completion of construction activities, a Notice of Termination shall be filed. of Building and Grading/Sitework Divisions ao Page ~1MRP-1 Do~ztto«m Dublin Specific Plan EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Project Impacts Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring Monitoring Responsibiljtyl Schedule Reporting Datel Monitor's Initials - - MM 3.5.1 b: Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention permits and shall be found Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by the project contractors and submitted to the Regional Water acceptable by the City prior to Quality Control Board for review and comment and to the City of Dublin in conjunction with the ground disturbance. • Building/GradinglSite work permit and shall be found to be acceptable by the City prior to ground disturbance. The SWPPP shall be prepared to Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program requirements, and shall identify erosion minimization and control provisions, pollution detection provisions, and pollution elimination) minimization provisions appropriate to the development project and its site for construction and post-construction activities. The SWPPP shall include best available technology, engineering, and design solutions such as the use of silt screens, hay bales, modern trash screens, energy dissipaters, andlor absorbent devices. Stormwater runoff water quality monitoring procedures shall be cleady detailed in the SWPPP. Noise Impact 3.7.1: The proposed project could result in short- MM 3.7.1 a: Project applicants within the project area shall prepare a construction noise management A construction noise management City of Dublin Public Works term construction-related noise and vibration that would plan that identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding sensitive plan shall be reviewed and Department, Building and Planning exceed applicable noise standards at nearby noise receptors (e.g. residential uses and schools) and includes specific noise management measures to be approved prior to issuance of Divisions sensitive land uses. included into project plans and specifications subject to review and approval by the City. These Building or Grading/Sitework measures shall include, but not be limited to, the following: permits. Construction activities, including the maintenance and warming of equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 AM and 5:30 PM except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an un-muffled exhaust. , The City shall require that the contractor maintain and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors. All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors. The construction contractor shall provide an on-site name and telephone number o1 a contact person. In the event that construction noise is intrusive to an educational process, the construction liaison will revise the construction schedule to preserve the learning environment. Select demolition methods to minimize vibration, where possible (e.g., sawing masonry into sections rather than demolishing it by pavement breakers). MM 3.7.1 b: Should potential future development facilitated by the proposed project require off-site importlexport of fill material during construction, trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably major roadways (Interstate 580, Interstate 680, San Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Amador Valley Boulevard). Construction trucks should, to the extent practical, avoid the weekday and Saturday a.m. and p.m. peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). . Impact 3.7-3: Development in the project area facilitated MM 3.7-3: Future development within the DDSP project area that is located adjacent to Highway 580; Asite-specific acoustical analysis City of Dublin Building and Planning by the proposed project could permanently increase noise Amador Plaza (between Dublin Boulevard and Saint Patrick Way); and Dublin Boulevard (between shall be completed for those Divisions Page MMRP-2 Do~~--ntown Dublin Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Project Impacts Mitigation Measure ~ ~ lmplemeritafion and> Monitoring' Monitoring Responsibilityl, I ' Schedule; Reportirig DaterMonito~'s Initials levels from mobile sources (vehicular traffic) at existing Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway; between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive and properties located adjacent to and future uses within the DDSP project area. between San Ramon Road and Regional Street) shall prepare asite-specific acoustical analysis subject Interstate 580 and noise-mitigating to review and approval, by the City of Dublin. The acoustical analysis prepared for future development measures taken as needed. No shall evaluate resultant noise impacts in comparison to the City's noise criteria for Land Use development permits or approval of Compatibility for Community Noise Environments. Feasible project specific mitigation measures shall be land use applications shall be required as part of the project design to reduce noise impacts at future noise sensitive land uses, issued until the acoustical analysis including but not limited to the following: 1) site design, 2) operational restrictions; 3) barriers,4) is received and approved by City setbacks, and 5) insulation. staff and any project design features are incorporated into the future development project Trahsportation,and~Circulation> _ _ _ Impact 3.9.1: In the Near-Term, the Base FAR Project ~ MM 3.9.1:The City of Dublin will do the following to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system: Ongoing City of Dublin Public Works results in sub-standard LOS on one Metropolitan Support Alameda County's projects and programs which are aimed at reducing traffic congestion. Department and Planning Division Transportation System roadway segment, when compared to the Near-Term Without Project scenario. Encourage developers to voluntarily develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce trips associated with their project. Strategies that could be included in the program could include additional bicycle parking, shower facilities, HOV parking, direct building access for pedestrians, commute alternative incentives and convenient transit waiting areas. Implement the policies outlined in the City's Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element related to bikeways. Support public transit improvements, including but not limited to rerouting, schedule adjustments, new vehicles, upgraded waiting areas, and transit information signs, to encourage use of alternative modes. Collect fees from developers in the Specific Plan Area for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee as well as the Downtown TIF programs prior to issuance of Building Permits, which fund local and regional transportation improvements. Impact 3.9-4: The Base FAR Project will increase transit MM 3.9-4: The City will continue to support and work with LAVTA to define route changes and Ongoing City of Dublin Public Works demand, generating an estimated 2,200 weekday daily increased service as needed as the Plan area develops. Department and Planning Division transit trips (bus and BART combined). This will create the need for bus route adjustments and increased bus frequency. Page MMRP-3