HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.3 Public Hearing-Grafton Plaza Attch 3RESOLUTION NO. XX-10 ~~ ~~~°~'~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR
THE GRAFTON PLAZA PROJECT
PA 07-006
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stanforth Holding Company, LLC, submitted applications for
a 496,519 square foot project on approximately 25.33 acres between I-580 and Dublin
Boulevard, east of Grafton Street. The project proposes future development of either Campus
Office uses, or of a mixed use residential/retail and office project with up to 50% residential
uses. The project includes applications for General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
amendments to create a new "flex" designation of Mixed Use 2/Campus Office, to create a new
Grafton Plaza subarea in the Specific Plan, and to slightly expand the mixed uses to include
shopkeeper, live/work and other uses; a PD-Planned Development rezoning and related Stage
1 Development Plan to allow future development under either the Campus Office or residential
mixed use options; and Development Agreement. The applications are collectively known as
the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Project site slopes gently from north to south. The northerly portion of
the site is vacant and has previously been graded and filled; the southerly portion of the site is
developed with a water quality basin; and
WHEREAS, the Project is in Eastern Dublin and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area,
for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93
("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993 (incorporated herein by
reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the
Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon
approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council
adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference); and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2000, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative
Declaration ("Area H MND") for approximately 71 acres known as Dublin Ranch Area H in
Eastern Dublin (Resolution No. 34-00 incorporated herein by reference). The City Council
approved related General and Specific Plan amendments for Area H on March 7, 2000
(Resolution No. 35-00 incorporated herein by reference), and adopted PD-Planned
Development zoning and a related Stage 1 Development Plan on March 21, 2000 (Ordinance
No. 6-00, incorporated herein by reference). The Project site occupies roughly the middle third
of Area H and was anticipated for Campus Office uses with the potential for residential uses;
and
WHEREAS, the Grafton Plaza project is subject to all previously adopted mitigation
measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR and Area H MND as applicable to the Project and
Project site; and
1
ATTACHMENT 3
o~ ~ o°~ ~°~_~a
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study consistent with CEQA Guidelines sections
15162 and 15163 and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was required in order to
analyze the potential for new or additional significant impacts of the Project beyond those
identified in the prior EIR and Area H MND; and
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration dated December 2009 which reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis
of the potential environmental impacts of the Project and which was circulated for public review
from January 8, 2010 to February 8, 2010 (See Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference);
and
WHEREAS, although not required by CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all
the comments in a Responses to Comments document dated March 2010, which responses
provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the
comments (Exhibit B, incorporated herein by reference); and
WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and
determined that the prior EIR and Area H Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project
Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately identified and analyzed the Project's environmental
impacts, and that the comments and responses did not constitute or require substantial
revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. On these bases, the City determined that no
recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15073.5; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated April 13, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the draft Mitigated Negative Decla~ation, including comments and
responses, and the Project for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report, the draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, at a noticed public hearing on April
13, 2010 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 10-15, dated April 13, 2010
and incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Grafton Plaza project; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated May 18, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and
responses, and the Project for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the staff report, the draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration, including comments and responses, at a noticed public hearing on May 18, 2010 at
which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts that apply
to the Grafton Plaza project, therefore a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be
adopted in conjunction with any Project approval; and
2
~ ~ ~~~~'~
WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies new mitigation measures
applicable to the Project, therefore a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program must be
adopted in conjunction with any Project approval; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related project and environmental
documents, including the prior Eastern Dublin EIR, Area H MND and all of the documents
incorporated herein by reference, are available for review in the City planning division at the
Dublin City Hall, file PA 07-006, during normal business hours. The location and custodian of
the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and other documents that constitute the record of
proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic
Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file PA 07-006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
B. The Dublin City Council has reviewed and considered the draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration, comments received during the public review period, the City's written responses to
comments, and the previous EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to acting on the
Project.
C. The previous Eastern Dublin EIR and Area H Mitigated Negative Declaration togetherwith
the Project Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately describe the environmental impacts of
the Project. On the basis of the whole record before it, the City Council finds that there is no
substantial evidence that the Project, as mitigated, will have a signific~nt effect on the
environment beyond those identified in the prior EIR and MND.
D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the
CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
E. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the Grafton Plaza Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the City Council adopts the
following:
A. Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for PA 07-006, consisting of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration dated
December 2009, and the Responses to Comments dated March 2010, which documents are
attached as Exhibits A and B.
B. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council hereby adopts the following
Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant unavoidable impacts from the Eastern
Dublin EIR that apply to the Project.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993.) The City Council
~~, ~~ . ~~~ ~
carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin
through approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project.
The City Council is currently considering the Grafton Plaza project, PA 07-006. Although the
City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land use
approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin, pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council
hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the Project.'
The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR that are applicable to the Project will be substantially lessened by mitigation
measures adopted with the original approval and by mitigation measures adopted through the
Project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the project
carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially
adverse impacts for the Project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific
economic, social, environmental, land use, and/or other considerations that support approval of
the Project.
2. Unavoidable Siqnificant Adverse Impacts. The following unavoidable significant
environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for future development of Eastern
Dublin apply to the Grafton Plaza project.
Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts
3.8/B, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character. Future development of the vacant portion of
the Project site will contribute to the cumulative loss of open space land.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E. I-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts:
Future development of the Project will contribute to the unavoidable freeway impacts identified
in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/S. Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural
Resources and Sewer, Water; and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U. Increases in Energy
Usage Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal and Operation of Water Distribution
System: Future development of the Project will contribute to increased energy consumption.
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects:
Even with seismic design, future development on the Project site could be subject to damage
from large earthquakes.
Air Quality Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, E: Future development of the Project will contribute to
cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and stationary source
emissions.
3. Overridinq Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the
Eastern Dublin project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse
impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council now balances those unavoidable
impacts that apply to future development on the Project site against its benefits, and hereby
~"...public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite ifs significant
unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agencv 103 Cal.App. 4~ 98, _
(2002).
4
a~~~~~~
determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Project as
further set forth below.
The Project provides the potential for job opportunities related to both construction and
operation of the Project. The Project would provide construction and related jobs under either
development option. Also, whether developed as campus office or as residential mixed use,
either of the future development options provides that at least half or more of the Project would
be commercial, office or retail uses, creating related job opportunities after construction.
The Project is an infill project that complements existing and potential development in
the area. The Project would develop a site located within Eastern Dublin's urbanizing area
where urban utilities and services are readily available and can easily be extended to the site.
Future non-residential uses complement existing and proposed residential uses, such as the
Terraces, and Sorrento East and West, by providing job and some retail opportunities for
residents in close proximity so as to encourage walking, bicycling and other non-automotive
travel among the uses. The mix of uses within the area also recognizes the interaction of
residential and non-residential uses to provide a balanced and efficient community where
homes, jobs and services are located convenient to one another.
The Project provides limited residential development potential. The residential mixed use
development option allows residential use, but limited to no more than 50% of the development.
This limitation allows the potential for residential uses but in a way that recognizes other
residential sites in the area and ensures that such uses do not become saturated. In addition,
the residential mixed use option recognizes the energy, traffic and other efficiencies that can be
provided through live-work and shopkeeper units that provide living and job opportunities in the
same structure. .
The Project effectively integrates development on both parts of the site. The southerly
part of the site contains a water quality pond that complements future development on the
remainder of the site. Although operating as a utility structure, the water quality pond includes
recreational, open space and visual amenities not only to future development on the vacant
portion of the site, but also to the area.
C. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City Council hereby adopts the
following Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Mitigation Measure Implementing
Res onsibilit Monitoring
Res onsibilit Monitoring
Schedule Verification
Supplemental Mitiqation Project Dublin Planning As part of future
Measure VIS-1. Building Developers Division Stage 2
elevations facing Dublin Development
Boulevard shall have a high Plan and Site
quality, articulated design, Development
including but not limited to Review
building reveals, color approvals
changes, changes of building
surface planes, architectural
detailing, appropriate
setbacks, landscaped areas
and similar items to avoid a ,
monolithic appearance alon~ _
5
this street.
All mechanical equipment
and similar ground mounted
equipment located along the
Dublin Boulevard frontage
shall be screened with plant
material, fencing or both, to
the extent allowed by utility
companies and service
providers.
Supplemental Miti~ation Project Dublin Planning As part of future
Measure VIS-2. Future Developers Division Stage 2
construction of buildings on Development
the Grafton Plaza site shall Plan and Site
not cast significant levels of Development
shade or shadows on Review
adjacent sites as determined approvals
through compliance with the
standards listed below. As
demonstrated through shade
and shadow analyses
submitted as part of future
Stage 2 Development Plans
or Site Development Review
applications, future building
shade and shadows shall
comply with the follow
standards:
a) Buildings shall be
designed so as to not
cast shadows on any
existing solar collectors
(as defined in Section
25981 of the California
Public Resources Code)
installed on another
property on greater than
10 percent of the
collector absorption area
upon that solar collector
surface at any one time
between the hours of 10
a.m. and 2 p.m., local
standard time.
b) Buildings shall not cast
shade or shadows that
would substantially
impair the use of a public
or quasi-public park,
lawn, playground or
, similar open space area.
c) Buildings shall not cast a
shadow on a historic
resource, as defined by
CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5(a), such
that it would substantially
diminish or impair its
p~C ~ U ~ `~
eligibility for listing in the
National register of
Historic Places,
California Register of
Historical Resources or
i in any local register of
historic resources as
defined by the Public
Resource Code.
Supplemental Mitiqation Project Dublin Planning As part of future
Measure VIS-3. Project Developers Division Stage 2
developer(s) shall Development
incorporate the following Plan and Site
features into final building Development
and improvement plans for Review
building elevations adjacent approvals
to Dublin Boulevard:
a) Streetlight fixtures and
ground level, pedestrian
oriented light fixtures
shall be equipped with
cut-off-lenses to direct
light patterns in a
downward direction.
Photometric plans shall
be included with final
building and
improvement plans to
ensure that spillover of
light is minimized.
b) Exterior lights on upper
floors shall minimize
glare off of the site.
c) Interior lights for non-
residential uses shall be
dimmed or turned off
when not in use or
needed for building
security purposes.
d) Illumination shall be
limited for exterior signs.
If feasible, "canister" sign
types should not be used
in favor of non-
illuminated or exterior
illuminated fixtures.
e) Landscaping lighting
shall be limited and
directed appropriately to
avoid spillover of light
and glare onto adjacent
properties.
f) Light fixtures for interior
building spaces visible
from Dublin Boulevard
shall be equipped with
timing devices to turn off
lights when building
spaces are not in use, ___~
~~ ~~
y~
except for emergency
I lighting, as required by
applicable Codes,
Supplemental Mitiqation Project Dublin Building Included Stage
Measure AIR-1. In addition Developers Division 2 PD Plans
to measures identified in MM
3.11/1.0 of the East Dublin
EIR, the following measures
shall be included in the
Stage 1 Planned
Development approval:
a) Construction contractors
shall be required to
water or cover stockpiles
of debris, soil, sand or
other materials that can
be blown by the wind.
b) Construction contractors
shall be required to
sweep daily (preferably
with water sweepers) all
paved access road,
parking areas and
staging areas at
construction sites.
c) Construction contractors
shall be required to
install sandbags or other
erosion control
measures to prevent silt
runoff to public
roadways.
d) Construction contractors
shall adhere to all other
Basic and Enhanced
Dust Control Measures
included in the BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines
document (December
1999).
Supplemental Mitiqation Project Dublin Planning Submitted as
Measure NOISE-1. A Developers Division part of future
detailed acoustical study Stage 2
shall be submitted with Development
each Stage 2 Development Plan and Site
Plan and Site Development Development
Review application for each Review
building that contains a approvals
residential component,
including hotel uses, if
proposed. The study shall
be prepared by a qualified
acoustic specialist (as
approved by the Dublin
Community Development
Director) and shall show
how tne project meets
applicable Cit noise __
3~ ~~~ ~~~
exposure standards.
Supplemental Mitiqation Project Dublin Pubiic Included in
Measure TRA-1. Developers Works public
Improvement of the Dublin Department improvement
Boulevard/Tassajara Road plans
intersection to LOS D or
better require the addition of
a second northbound right-
turn lane to planned
improvements. Also, the
existing traffic signal shall
be programmed with
overlap signal phasing to
progress the northbound
right-turn and westbound
left-turn movements
concurrently. The second
northbound lane shall be
added to the planned
improvements included in
the next update of the
Eastern Dublin Traffic
Impact Fee (EDTIF)
program, so that
contribution by the Project
applicant to the EDTIF
would constitute full
m itigation. Otherwise,
arrangement of another
mechanism to fund the
improvement is required to
provide for contribution by
the applicant in proportion
to the Project's contribution
to this impact.
Supplemental Mitiqation Project Dublin Public Included in
Measure TRA-2. Developers Works public
Improvement of the Santa Department improvement
Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound plans
ramps to LOS D or better
during the a.m. and p.m.
peak hours require the
addition of a second
southbound left-turn lane to
current conditions.
a) This improvement is
already planned to be
included in the current
update of the City of
P-easanton Traffic
Development Impact
Fee. If the improvement
is included in the
Pleasanton update prior
to issuance of building ,
~
permits for the project, I
no mit~ation is required
~i ~ O~
[~~.~._~
from the Project.
b) If the improvement has
not been included in the
Pleasanton update prior
to the issuance of
building for the Project,
arrangement of another
mechanism to fund the
improvement is required
to provide for
contribution by the
applicant in proportion to
the ProjecYs contribution
to this impact. This
mechanism may include
reimbursement
provisions as
appropriate.
Supplemental Mitiqation Project Dublin Planning Included Stage
Measure TRA-3. Future Developers Division 2 PD Plans
uses within the Grafton
Plaza Project shall either
comply with City of Dublin
off-street parking
requirements in effect at the
time Stage 2 Development
Plan(s) are submitted, or, if
City standards cannot be
met, provide a shared
parking analysis
demonstrating that suitable
parking can be provided at
all times of the day and
days of the week.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this
day of May, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\PA#~2007\07-006 The Plaza\CC Mtg 5.4.10\cc reso adopting mitigated negative declaration (3).DOC
~~ ~ ~
`~7
10
~ ~ ~~.
4~
Initial ~tud /
y
Mltl ated Ne ative
g g
Declaration
Project:
Grafton Plaza Project
File # P07-006
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
December 2009
~jch ~ l~ ~1`.~
-~ ., Atfrh,~
Tab1e of Contents
Introduction ....... ............................................... ..... ............................................ ....... 2
Prior Environmental Review .................................................................................. 2
Applicant/ Contact Person ...................................................................................... 5
Project Description ..................................:.-:~........................................................... 5
Project Characteristics ..............::
.............................................................................. 6
Environmental Factors PotentiallyAffected ......................................................... 18
Determination ...................:.................................................................................... 19
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................................. 20
Earlier Analysis/Incorporation by Reference ..................................................... 30
Discussion of Checklist .......................................................................................... 31
1. Aesthetics .................................................................................................... 31
2. Agriculfiural Resources ............................................................................... 37
3. Air Quality .................................................................................................. 38
4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................ 48
5. Biological Resources ................................................................................... 58
6. Cultural Resources ..................................................................................... 61
7. Geology and Soils ....................................................................................... 63
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................... 66
9. Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................. 68
10. Land Use and Plannin ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 72
g .......................................................
11. Mineral Resources .................................................................................... 73
12. Noise .......................................................................................................... 73
13. Population and Housing .......................................................................... 83
14. Public Services .......................................................................................... 84
15. Recreation .................................................................................................. 87
16. Transportation/Traffic ............................................................................. 88
17. Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................104
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................113
Initial Study Preparers .........................................................................................115
Agencies and Organizations Consulted .............................................................115
References .............................................................................................................115
Appendices ...........................................................................................................116
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Regional Location ................................................................................. 11
Exhibit 2. City Context .......................................................................................... 12
Exhibit 3. Site Context ............................................:.............................................. 13
..
Exhibit 4. Existing & Proposed Land Use Designations .................................... 14
Exhibit 5. Proposed Stage 1 Planned Development ............................................ 15
Exhibit 6. Proposed Specific Plan subarea reorganization ................................. 16
Exhibit 7. Noise Measurement Locations ............................................................ 82
~ ~t-~~.
x~t.
~
~ ~~ ~~
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Grafton Plaza Project
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA", Pub. Res. Code ~§ 21000 et seq.) and
the CEQA Guidelines, (Cal. Code Regs. title 14, ~§ 15000-15387) for the Grafton Plaza
Property ("Project site").
This Initial Study assesses impacts related to a proposed Stage 1 Planned Development
rezoning for the Grafton Plaza property, amendments to the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan to add a new land use designation of "Mixed-Use 2/Campus
Office," and a development agreement, all of which are described below in the Project
Description. These entitlements are referred to herein as the "Project."
Prior Environmental Review
This Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief
explanation of the envirorunental topics addressed in the checklist. Future
development of the Project site have been analyzed in prior CEQA analyses and land
use approvals.
In 1993, the City Council approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
(EDGPA) and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP). The approved project was a
modified version of the original EDGPA for the 6,920-acre Eastern Dublin planning
area. The original EDGPA proposed to change commercial land use designations on
County property in the southwest portion of the GPA area and agriculture/open space
designations elsewhere in the planning area to a range of urban uses. At the same time,
a new EDSP addressed 3,328 acres within the larger 6,920-acre EDGPA. The EDSP
supplements the EDGPA with more detailed land use designations, policies, programs
and regulations.
The original EDGPA land use plan proposed to replace the undeveloped planning area
with a mixed-use urban community. At buildout, the EDGPA planning area was
projected to provide 17,970 new residences on 4,993 acres, including 2,672 acres
designated for Rural Residential use with a 100-acre minimum parcel size.
Approximately 10.6 million square feet of new commercial space, 25 parks on 287
acres, 571 acres of designated open space, and 12 new schools were also planned.
Buildout was expected to occur over a 20-30 year period from the start of construction.
City of Dublin Page 2
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~
~, ~~~~~~~~
The EDSP encompassed 3,328 acres in the western portion of the EDGPA planning
area. Seventy percent of the EDGPA residential development and 94% of the new
commercial space was planned for the Specific Plan area. The land use plan called for
compact villages with residential and neighborhood serving uses. Employment
generating commercial uses are generally provided along arterials with transit access.
The Eastern Dublin EIR was based on the origina16,920-acre planning area and land
use designations, and 3,328-acre Specific Plan area, both as described above. As
required by CEQA, the EIR also identified project Alternatives, including a Reduced
Planning Area (RF'A) Alternatives, which the City Council adopted in a modified form
in 1993.
The adopted modified RI'A Alternatives reduced the GPA area by 2,744 acres,
provided for buildout of the Specific Plan area and buildout of the EDGPA area only
within the Dublin Sphere of Influence. The Eastern Dublin project approved General
Plan and Specific Plan land use designations of "Campus Office" for the 25.33-acre
Grafton Plaza site.
A Program Environmental Impact Report was certified through Resolution No. 51-93
by the City of Dublin in 1993 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064); referred to as the
"Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR." That EIR evaluated the following impacts: Land Use;
Population, Employment and Housing; Traffic and Circulation; Community Services
and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage; Soils, Geology and Seismicity;
Biological Resources; Visual Resources; Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and
Fiscal Considerations. As part of the City's approval of the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan through Resolution No. 53-93, the City Council
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts:
cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, extension of
certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), consumption
of non-renewable natural resources, increases in energy uses through increased water
treatment and disposal and through operation of the water distribution system,
inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population, earthquake ground
shaking, loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise
and alteration of visual character. The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and
was found to be le~gally adequate.
Annexation and Prezonin~. The Project site and surrounding properties in Dublin
Ranch were annexed to the City of Dublin on September 28, 1995. The annexation and
reorganization encompassed 1,538 acres of land.
2000 Area H Ap~roval. In 1998, an application was filed with the City to approve an
amendment to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and a Stage 1
Planned Development rezoning for the 70.8-acre Dublin Ranch Area H within Eastern
Dublin. The applications, approved in 2000, provided for the potential for a greater
amount of Campus Office (CO) land uses and smaller quantities of General
City of Dublin Pa e 3
9
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~o~~~
Commercial (GC) land uses than originally approved by the City. The land use
designation of CO was not changed for the Grafton Plaza portion of Area H. Actions
also taken by the City in 2000 included increasing the average Floor Area Ratio for
Area H from 0.35 to 0.45 and allowing a maximum 0.60 FAR for some development so
long as the average FAR for all parcels of land would not exceed an FAR of 0.45. The
GPA and SPA was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 35-00, on March 7, 2000.
The Stage 1 Development Plan established the following:
• Various permitted and conditionally permitted uses for the site. The
Development Plan allowed for residential development of the site (up
to 50%) at the Stage 2 Development Plan if various conditions were
met.
• The Site Plan for Area H(bubble diagram) divided the 73.1 acre area
into General Commercial (GC) & Campus Office (CO) land uses.
* The Development Plan assumed that the site would be
developed with commercial and office uses.
* The Development Plan included a density of 0.45 FAR for the
campus office designation and a 0.25 FAR for the general
commercial designation.
* Subsequently in 2006, 10.5 acres of Area H was designated as
GC/CO flex designation.
• A Phasing Plan
• Design Concepts
• A Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan
The Planned Development (PD) rezoning and a Stage 1 Development Plan were
approved through Ordinance No. 06-00 on March 21, 2000.
In 2000, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") was approved by
the Dublin City Council (Resolution No. 34-00, dated February 15, 2000) for a General
Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and a Stage 1 Planned
Development rezoning for Dublin Ranch Planning Area H, within which this Project is
located. The Initial Study analyzed all of the environmental topics recommended in
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Based on additional site-specific analysis of light and
glare, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and traffic
and circulation; supplemental mitigation measures were adopted by the City.
Mitigation Measures included in the 2000 MND, as well as mitigations contained in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, will continue to apply to the Grafton Plaza Project, except as
modified in this document.
2005 Stage 2 PD Rezonin~ for Water Quali Pond. On October 4, 2005, the Dublin City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 26-05 that rezoned the southern 11.13 acres of the
Grafton Plaza site to allow the construction of a water quality pond. The pond was
subsequently constructed and is now operational.
City of Dubfin Page 4
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~ ~ ~~~~'~
This Initial Study has been prepared to address requested land use changes for the
Grafton Plaza Project as described more fully below. This Initial Study further
examines whether additional environmental review is required under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 or 15163. The resolutions, ordinances, Eastern Dublin EIR and
Area H MND referenced above are incorporated by reference, and are all available for
review by the public during normal business hours at the Community Development
Departrnent, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, 94568.
Applicant/Contact Person
Stanforth Holding Company, LLC
Attn: James Tong
4690 Chabot Drive, Suite 100
Pleasanton CA 95488
Phone: (925) 4631666
Project Description
Project location and context
The Project includes proposed land use entitlements for an approximately 25.3-acre
(gross) site located in Eastern Dublin, California. Exhibit 1 shows the regional location
of Dublin in relation to the Bay area. Exhibit 2 shows the Project site location in
relation to the City of Dublin. The site is bounded on the north by Dublin Boulevard,
on the west by Grafton Street, on the east by a planned local street, and on the south by
the I-580 freeway.
Access to the site is provided by Dublin Boulevard that intersects with Tassajara Road
to the west. In turn, Tassajara Road is linked to Interstate 580 via an existing
interchange thus providing regional connections.
Exhibit 3 shows the site in context with other surrounding streets arid properties.
The Project site contains no buildings and the southerly portion has been developed
with a water quality control basin. Surrounding land uses include higher density
residential uses to the north (The Terraces complex) and an approved but not
constructed commercial project (The Promenade), the I-580 freeway to the south,
vacant land to the east (owned by Kaiser and anticipated to be developed with a
hospital and medical offices) and the Grafton Station commercial center to the west,
which contains a Lowe's home improvement center and ancillary retail commercial
pads.
Site topography for the northerly portion of the site includes a gentle slope from the
north to the south. The northerly portion of the site was previously filled with up to
approximately 8 feet of fill material. A regional water quality control basin has been
constructed on the southerly portion of the site and consists of a subsurface basin that
allows the City of Dublin and Dublin Ranch properties to comply with Regional Water
Quality Control Board surface water quality standards.
City of Dublin Page 5
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~~~~
Project Characteristics
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments are being requested to re-
designate the site from Campus Office to a new flex land use designation, Mixed Use
2/Campus Office. Additionally, the Applicant requests approval to amend the zoning
for the site to PD - Planned Development, Mixed Use 2/Campus Office. The PD
zoning for the site establishes the various permitted uses and provides for two
development options, which include a mixed-use project or a campus office project.
These are described more fully below.
General and Specific Plan Amendments. General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendments would redesignate the site from Campus Office to a new Mixed
Use 2/ Campus Office land use designation and redefine the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan subarea from Tassajara Gateway to a new "Grafton Plaza" subarea for the Project
site. The Mixed Use 2/Campus Office flex land use designation gives the Applicant
the opportunity to develop the 25.3 acre project site with either a mixed-use project or
a campus office project. In both instances, the maximum amount of development on
the Project site would not exceed 0.45 FAR (496,519 square feet), as approved in 2000.
The new Mixed Use-2/Campus Office land use designation generally implements the
residential mixed-use option in the current Campus Office land use designation.
However, the new Mixed Use 2 land use designation would permit the introduction of
uses such as shopkeeper, live/work, residential, office, hotel and spa integrated with
retail and office and to permit greater flexibility in land use combinations. The Mixed
Use 21and use designation allows residential land uses to comprise up to 50% of the
projecYs development area (248,259 square feet).
The Campus Office land use designation (Option 2) is defined in the City's General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. This land use designation allows professional
and administrative offices in addition to ancillary uses that provide services to
businesses and employees in the Campus Office area. Ancillary uses include
restaurants, convenience shopping, copying services, branch banlcs and other such
services.
Exhibit 4 depicts existing and proposed General and Specific Plan land use
designations.
Sta~e 1 Planned Develo~ment Rezonin~. An amendment has also been requested to
the existing Stage 1 Planned Development. If approved, the amendment would expand
the list of uses by introducing residential development as a permitted use on the site
(up to 50%) and allowing for a mixed-use development. Allowable residential uses
include live / work, shopkeeper and other multi-family configurations. Current
proposal also expands commercial land uses.
City of Dublin Page 6
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~ ~k
~~~
The proposed rezoning also reflects the existence of the water quality pond on the
southern portion of the Project site and the clustering of development on the northern
portion of the Project site.
Two options are proposed as part of this Project to create a range of uses and maintain
flexibility to respond to market conditions. The Project is intended to create a vital
center, and proposes an average intensity of 0.45 FAR (floor area ratio) for a total of
496,519 square feet of development within the Project area (which includes the adjacent
water quality basin parcel), consistent with the maximum amount of development
approved by the City of Dublin in 2000. The final design and land uses shall be
determined with future submittals of a Planned Development Stage 2 Rezone
application, Site Development Review (SDR) application and a potential application
for a subdivision map.
The first Option (identified as "Option 1") would include development of a
mixed-use Project. A maximum of 50% of the total building area (248,259
square feet) would be allocated to approximately 235 residential units
including the residential portions of shopkeeper and live/work units, and
various multi-family configurations, and the other 248,260 square feet would be
associated with non-residential uses such as office, retail, restaurant, the work
portions of shopkeeper and live/work units, and hotel related uses. This
Option would generally implement the residential and mixed-use provisions
of the existing General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations for the site
and permits the ability to integrate fewer or a greater number of dwellings
units so long as the total square footage of residential uses does not exceed
248,259 square feet. If less than 248,259 square feet is assigned to residential
uses, the difference may be assigned to non-residential uses, as long as the
overall project square footage does not exceed 496,519 square feet.
The second program Option ("Option 2") represents the currently approved
land use for the Project site for Area H and proposes a Project with all Campus
Office uses. A maximum of 496,519 square feet would be permitted for uses
such as office, and ancillary supporting uses including retail, food
establishments and similar uses. Proposed uses that would be allowed under
this Option would be consistent with the existing Campus Office land use
designation and the Campus Office element of the proposed new "flex" land
use designation.
Exhibit 5 shows the existing and proposed Stage 1 Planned Development rezoning.
No changes are proposed to the existing water quality basin within the Project site and
no further discussion of this facility is provided in this Project Description.
Table 1 summarizes the amount of Campus Office development permitted on the
Grafton Plaza site under the existing Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning.
City of Dublin Page 7
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~ ~~~ ~~
Table 1. Grafton Plaza Existing Stage 1 Development Plan
Land Use Gross Net FAR
Residential Units
Designation Acres Acres S.F.
0.45 avg. Up to 50% of development, subject
Campus Office 25.33 23.4 0.60 max. to meeting conditions outlined in
the General Plan
496,519 S.F.
Source: Project Applicant, 2009
Table 2 summarizes the potential development program on the site under both
Options
Table 2. Proposed Stage 1 Planned Development
Land Use Gross Net FAR
Designation Acres Acres (0.45 average)
Option 1 Non-Residential Residential
(Mixed-Use-
2/Campus 25.33 23.4
Office with 248
260 S.F. 248,259 sq. ft. max.
Residential) , +/-235 Residential Units
Option 2 Non-Residential Residential
(Mixed-Use- 25.33 23.4
2/Campus
Office) 496,519 S.F. NA
Source: Project Applicant, 2009
A more comprehensive site plan, development program, and design and development
standards for Grafton Plaza would be submitted with future Stage 2 Planned
Development applications which could also include a Site Development Review (SDR)
application. Additional Project details would be submitted to the City as part of future
applications, including but not limited to building footprints, pedestrian and vehicular
networks, site and architectural design guidelines, site development criteria including
parking ratios and building heights/stories, architecture, and more detailed
landscaping as required by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Utility services. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) provides domestic and
recycled water to the site as well as wastewater treatrnent and disposal services in
accordance with the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan.
City of Dublin Page 8
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~ ~ ya.~
The Project Developer would be required to install local water lines as well as paying
fees to DSRSD to assist in funding upgraded water facilities in this portion of Eastern
Dublin, consistent with applicable Facility Master Plans.
Wastewater service would require the Project developer to install local underground
sewer lines to transport wastewater to DSRSD's regional treatment plant. Sewer lines
would be gravity flow.
When available, recycled water may be provided to the Project site for use in irrigation
of common open space areas and other areas. This could reduce the need for potable
water for the proposed Project.
Storm drainage facilities would consist of constructing on-site drainage inlets and
undergrourid drainage pipes to transport storm water runoff into the adjacent water
quality basin.
Water c~ualit,~protection. The proposed Project will be subject to Best Management
Practices to ensure water quality standards as enforced by the City of Dublin. On-or
off-site stormwater treatrnent for the Project may be required prior to release of
drainage flows into the adjacent stormwater basin. The basin incorporates vegetative
bio-filters and other devices for final stormwater treatment prior to disposal into
regional drainage facilities.
Pro~ect ~rading. The site has already been rough graded with the addition of up to 8
feet of fill, which was undertaken pursuant to a grading permit issued by the City of
Dublin. Necessary permits were also issued by appropriate biological resource
agencies to allow fill of wetland areas that previously existed on the Project site.
Additional grading and excavation would be required to accommodate future uses on
the site.
InclusionarX housing requirements. Dubliri s Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68) requires
that 12.5 percent of the number of dwelling units in each development project be
reserved for occupancy by very low, low and moderate income households. This
requirement can be met by construction of the specified number of dwellings, payment
of in-lieu fees to the City for up to 5% of the requirement, dedicating land for
construction of future housing projects, rehabilitating existing qualifying units, or any
combination thereof, or by other methods approved by the City Council.
For this Project, the Applicant proposes to pay "in lieu" fees to the City as an Optional
method of complying with the ordinance, subject to City Council approval.
Phasin~. Phasing for the proposed Project has not been determined at this time and
would be subject to market and economic conditions as well as to phasing standards
established through the future Stage 2 Development Plan.
City of Dublin Page 9
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~~ ~~~
Develo~ment Agreement. A Development Agreement is proposed to be executed
between the City of Dublin and the Applicant, pursuant to Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan requirements.
Requested land use approvals. The following land use entitlements have been
requested to allow implementation of the proposed Project. However, prior to any
construction on the site, additional land use approvals by the City of Dublin would be
needed, as described in the next section.
• A General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment that would
establish a new "Mixed-Use 2/Campus Office" land use category, establish a
new Eastern Dublin Specific Plan planning subarea (Grafton Plaza) and include
the project area within this planning subarea; and
• PD Rezone for a Stage 1 Development Plan; and
• A Development Agreement.
Future land use approvals. Prior to commencement of construction of the
proposed Grafton Plaza Project, the following additional land approvals are
required. These future approvals will require public hearings by either or both
of the Dublin Planning Commission and City Council.
• Stage 2 Development Plan rezoning to establish specific land uses, density and
intensity of land uses, development regulations, architectural and site
development guidelines, preliminary landscaping and similar Project details.
• Site Development Review (SDR) permits that regulate the design and
appearance of buildings, landscaping, fencing and other design features.
• Subdivision Map(s) to create smaller lots for the sale, lease and/or financing of
individual portions of the overall Project site.
City of Dublin Page 10
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
. ~I~~
, ~" >-,s~3. .r F i, ,~. Y ~.9 -~ ~ . -*m`"' ~ ~s ¢ a^'„~ xsv~=° s~>r `~ , x ~L"'w ~l £.:
,y,y;~~~~~,~: ,~ *, y~ ~ :~*~.~sl~~. ~ ~#,j,~~~ ~t~'~.r` ~ ''°$ ~ ~ ~. '}, ~s'.z'l.~' ~` P~s~S,~~~zK$~c~ ~,"~5°fi~ k~s ~~~* a~~ ~, ~!?,?:
~ +t;~ ~~ ~~~~~ '~ ~ ,~ s1~~~ ~C"'a„r~ ~t".~ + 2^°" ~ -•~ ~,,,~;.» `~5 e
~~~~ g , ~„; a~ " .~„ .~~~ ~ ~~t ~ ~r ~ ~~°' ~ .r ~ ~ '~~ ~e'
~ ~~~~ ~k
~` . ~ ~. ~~s $0 ~k; s ~
'~,~' ~, d . ,s ~r ~ s~~ F ..:f st~ ?.~g~~,.y~"~'„~~~ ~ ~~ ~a ~` 4 d ~~~
~' ~ t~A ~~M'fi~~ ~*;.:d~ 4~ ~ ~-
3r „c,.a~ h~ ~ ~v, 3 y~, ~ rn,k^ t ~~' :
.k
~~'F .nt C'a~ '?.~y.t~' ~ ~ y 3+ 1 ~ .
~ '~ M1S vj1° ~~ ' p?~ r~~ ~„' .
~+y } } ~~`M~/,Gj , ~~ ~~~,4 q :'"';'d 4i kF. y i ~~t ~.
~.. ' .£, 'd . ~S' '~, a ~^ '
~~. ~
~ t ~~. ~ ; ~ . ' .~ ~
a ~ . ~ c 1 ~... ,. . . ~ 't§ -,r s a` 5 .
s
. x' ~ a Y4 ' ~ . ~ . _ ' . };. .~e "y..
=r ~
~ ~~q~ ~ ~~ ~`+T~~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~ K S r ~ f .
~ ~~ ~~'~ ~Y ~? ~ ~~, ~ ~"~~ ~ ,~ ~'~~~'~ w~ ~ ' rz. : . s~ •
'~~~ ~~r~~'1~'~"~~ ~.~`~,.. .~ ~~ `g ~ '^`~. ! ~ ~' , sr . ~ ' ~
S ~` ,~- ` ~".~r ~~~ } tt+"~~" 4~ w a~~ ~' ~ ' ~
~~ Y ~
. ~ ~ :r ~ ~ ~ «.~.~ 2 ; ~~4 ~ • ~
~ . '~~~ " k ~~. ,,.~,.~~ ~a . ,~~ -. is~ :
.,;r. ~, ~ ~ r g ~, ~~ .
9s j
1 ~ .~~ :. ~~ ; ,~~~.~ k f
U ~ ° ~,y~ ~~'
~`~M y~ ~' r~ ~° ~'" 5 ~ ~'~~ ~,- ~ ',~ ~ x
~ ~ ~ t a,
~ R ~ ~ 4., ~ ~~,,~~ ~ ~ 4
~ 2 . ~ ta ~ `24 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~ ~~ ~r "t'n ~ _ . ..
~ ~ ' ~r r~~ n~ ~ - ~ St '~
_ San ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ ~r..~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~,~~_ ~ `~~~~
~ ~~klan ° ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~-~~~ t~~`~ , ~ ~:~ ~~.
,~ w.~~ ~ ~. ~~ Pro~ect Site ~ ~
Francisco ~' ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~
~~' ~a ~ f ` ,,~
.{~ R S ~'"'%`~..'~?"~ ~".~ p ~t, °N' ~ . "'Y
~5,'~ f ~~~ ~„ ' ~" ,+ x°~ ~„~'«",~~+~,~ ~{ ~, ,~,~ ji
~~ ~~ ~ '~~ ~ ,~r. ~i ;~~ ~ ~t s ~ sr ~ ~ +
_ .. ~ ,~ ~ v«.f ~,~``-~s 9 ~ ti j ~U~~~n ~ ~~'„~~ ,~ ~~ L ~ ~. ..
~ `~~"~ ... S8n `sa~n~~ ~ r,~~~ ~ ~' ~~ k'~~ ~ ~~ ~~~:.
~ ~ Francisco ~ ~ ~` ~ =~.r..~'~ ~ ~,.~~~ ~~~`~~ ' ~~aCy~:
Pacific Ocean ~ `~` ~ Bay : ~; ~~ ~ ~ _~~ {~ z Liverr~ ~e~~~~t~~,,~~ ~` ~~;.
s
. . x `~- ' ?y '~ ~.""~' r"~o- 1Y~ ~' 8z. +~.fiP. £~" ~.
. ~ .,+ ~,- ' ~ ~" d~ ~,nya ~# ~,.~3 w ~ ,+< ti; ~
. . L ~~. ~`` .t s€+ f`~ ~ 1, ~ G ~tW,~t~s .f~~i ~t. ~.~,r~~ ~ u.~~'~ ~ '
M 1 ~ . `~ '~ ~ :~+r~ ~ ~ { '~~ f~ ;.~ "~"r°~~+,f ~"`' ~, 4
. . r" ~, ~ q: ., ~ ~' ~.. ~: ~~r .~ . ~ a ,^3...-+„; '~S ~~',~'1"~ ...
~:.., ~ r~ ~ t s S ~, i~~. ~ y~f~~: f~~n dr~~ ,;
- : ~k , .~ t ~ r.: q `* ~c ~ .~ . ,~r~, ~ a~,~, z.. j f u y ay ~a~~ '.
~ . ~ ~~u 'i ~e~,~ x~~~ „y. ~{ S '~ ~~ , y~., s~ ~~~L~y~,~.*~t
. . ~~x ~ rt 10~.:.~ Y t~ $ r~"~1;~ t{
y~~ s A1~ ~F ,~ , ~ wr~ ~~< ,,~~~t~~~~J1
2 F ,~"~ ~ ~ 3,~= ~ ~ "1 ~ y 7,~+~ {~ ~° ~ ~ y~,{,~ y
i ~ ~~; x ~T') y'4',?x,,i°g ti~.~~."i"'T+(is~ .a~ '"'ytp, ,
~r~.i~,. r~. ~, e:~ d ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ `d..' ~ ~ i2~.j ,~ ~"'y'~,~r. ..;
~ s°",,, a~ ~,~.~ ~~ '~ ~ . r e~'° ~ r§~ E 7 L ec ° t
~t'~' ~ ~: r ,~,- ~ g ~, '` ~~,,;,~ t t4 .. f ~ i`nx ~,.
~ : ' ~ ,~ 8 u~'~ ~''' ~ ~'~ r # > ,~~'~~
. '{ x.7 ,d~ w ~'.
. . S "t r'. Y : . € fi 3 ' Y & ~y~ ~5 ~ae . .
. . ,~ ~ Rt" .,.~:~. ffiiVi ~ : ~ ~ ~~ r^' Zr ~ ,~y t
. . ~ x~ ~ xs~ ~"~+`w 'g~' _ Y• ~ a ~ ~i~ ~! c Rz % ~3
4 ~ , , ~ ~ ~.~ ~ San Jose ~~ * ~ a' ~ k ~~
0 " 10 Miles ~ ~' ~ ~j4` ~"'~~~
~, ~~ § 85 ~ a ' {t, ~ i
t t
~ ~
q s
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ . ~ ~a . € . x ` m r5~.
k~r~{'~+~"'~ } ~;. ~ ,3. ~ F .Z .1' / h
>.~,~~~~, , g m,~ 101, s
"'~ "~ ~. ~ , ~ 17 =3 ,, ~
~ ~~~~,- Detail ` ~~, ~ _ ~~~
.~ ~ ~ ; `
g ~ ,
6 ... .; }w ; ... Y ~~ S . ~ : ~ ~ ~X ~ rk j# ..4 ~~s~ ~r..
efi ~ . : s ~ ~ .? a ~°~,. i ~e~, r yt" ~ .,y t ~ ~ x
'~,~f r ~ . ~ >,. ~ y ~a a°' S ~ 3 ~. "'4 ~.~ y. ! ~,',r ~~s 'r'- ~,
`»~ ~``r. [ - r~ ~ ~. ~ ~ '~ z r . ~ 5~ ~.`r ~'
z t '~. ~ "~ w .F ~±~ a ~ ~ a~ ~. ,
~ ?. '~+~a~`h:. SantG~ ~ "5~ ~t ~~?~~3+`f` s~~G ~ ~~~<~ ~~;~"~~ a '~"~ ~ ~~,` 3
. ~(~r F~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~ ,~r s- ~ ~~ " 52 ~ ~~"~
T
~ ~ V 1 U Z' ~> ~~ .F'~' ~.f ~~"~"~ ~ ~ ~~ z'~~ ~~~~ s e.'~ ~ S ,a
~ " t ~ *` ~ ~$°~'w'~r
;:~i~fl d ° E += "''~~ ~~ ~~ `~ t,.' ~~s .52 '~ ~ ~~ ~~`~*.;i~~ r~;'~§~ ~~„ ~p;~
~. ~z ~t e F{3~ x,r r f . ~' ~ ~~i'~a' ~ ~r~4~~° a.
~ ~ '~ ~`° ~ ~` ~~~
.~ ~. . ~. . . . ~r w~ ~ ~ tq r ~~ ~~ ~+ u
`Gf
NI~fyPIaW I+I~YN .. . ~. • ~F ~ . ~ ~ b~~x...~i ~ .a. rQ~~d~ xw . . :;kl~~~' A3°' , x ~.?~~w-~ te~} ~.i+i~~~,
EXHIBIT 1-REGIONAL LOCATION
CITY OF D UBLIN
GRAFTON PLAZA
INITIAL STUDY
~A~CIUT~ SO~S
3-06-2008 16:31:31 mbrill P: 16034-1~Mixed-Use lannin InitialStud EXH1-Re ionalLoca ion°.dw °~"~
~~ ~~
Use~planning\InitialStudy\EX
EXHIBIT 2-CITY CONTEXT
CITY OF DUBLIN
GRAFTON PLAZA
INITIAL STUDY
3-13-2008
16:19:29
P:\ 16034 -12
N O R T H
NTS
IIIACKAY 8c SOUIPS
~ ~ ~
!~W Q G prn m-n.o
[
~~ ~ ~
EXHIBIT 3 - SITE CONTEXT
Cl~`~,'` aF D UB~
~~~o~v~~~
Ilvrr~~, s~~.
18004-12 /EJO i3Key Mep.Jpep
N'ORTH
I~1J
~~~~
~ ~ ~~
~t a aatt:sw~
~~ ~ ~
,~
HIGFi DENSITY RFS~ITIAL
VILLAGE COMM~CIAL
G6~RAL COMMERCIAL
CAMPUS OFFICE
2/CO MIX~ USE 2/CAMPUS OffICE
EXHIBIT 4-EXISTING AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
CITY OF D UBLIN
GRAFTONPLAZA N O R T H
"Ts
INITIAL STUDY ~IIqGY~i~s
- ~.
.
11-OS-2009 5,09pm Con~ie GoldadeP~blObA-iZMIXm-USE~PLANNING~CEOA\INRIALSfUDY~IXH4-IXGP.DWC .
,.~.
"""O~p °'9°'~
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN/EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN/EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
~~ ~~ ~
~~~
~
WY
A
~
~J
~ Existing
Figure 4'.2 :
~ '' Planning Subareas
-1 A Tassajara Gateway
B Town Center - Commercial
\ C Town Center - Residential
J ~ D Fallon Gateway
E Fallon Village Center
F 7assajara Village Center
~ G Foothill Residential
H County Center
I Hacienda Gateway
- J Transit Center
~
Proposed
Figure 4.2
Planning Subareas
A Tassajara Gateway
B Town Center - Commercial
C Town Center - Residential
D Fallon Gateway
E Fallon Village Center
F Tassajara Village Center
G Foothill Residential
H County Center
I Hacienda Gateway
J Transit Center
K Grafton Plaza
EXHIBIT 5-EXISTING AND PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA REORGANIZATION
CITY OF DUBLIN
GRAFTON PLAZA N NTS "
INITIAL STUDY ~q~pY ~ g~
09-30-2009 1251p~like Brill P:\16034-1~AlIXED-USE~PUWNING\CEQA\INfT1ALSTUDY~IXHS-PROGP.DWG "F1°"~O~a ~ ~~
~ o~ ~
~
~l 1
LEGEND
H High Density Residential
VC Village Commercial
GC General Commercial
CO Campus Office
PD Planned Development
EXHIBIT 6- EXISTING & PROPOSED STAGE 1
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF D UBLIN
GRAFTON PLAZA N O R T H
IlvITIAL STUDY "Ts
^A~KAY~ ~
12-1~2009 1o-.33amConnie GddadeP~kS6bA-1ZNIXED-USE~PLANNING~CEOA\INtIIALSfUDY~IXH6-PD1.DMfG ""'O`° ~ °°q°""'
~;~~ ya~
1. Project description The Applicant requests approval of
amendments to the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan to create a new Mixed-
Use 2/Campus Office land use category,
revise Eastern Dublin Specific Plan subareas
to include the Project site into the Grafton
Plaza subarea, a Stage 1 rezoning that would
allow either a mixed use development of
approximately 235 dwellings (not to exceed
248,259 square feet) and 248,260 square feet of
commercial, hotel, campus office and/or retail
development up to 496,519 square feet. A
Development Agreement has also been
requested to allow the development of either
option.
2. Lead agency:
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
3. Contact person: Michael A. Porto, Dublin Community
Development Departrnent
(925) 833 6610
4. Project location:
5. Project contact person:
6. Existing General Plan/
Specific Plan Land Use
Designation
7. Proposed General Plan/
Specific Plan Land Use
Designation
8. Existing Zoning
9. Proposed Zoning:
South of Dublin Boulevard, east of Grafton
Street and north of the I-580 freeway
David Chadbourne
Land Plan Associates
CO-Campus Office
Mixed-Use 2 / Campus Office
PD- Planned Development
PD-Planned Development
10. Other public agency necessary and/or desired approvals:
• Stage 2 Development Plan Rezoning
(City of Dublin)
City of Dublin Page 17
initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~~~~~fi~
• Site Development Review (City of
Dublin)
• Subdivision Map(s) (City of Dublin)
• Grading Plans, Improvement Plans,
and Building Permits (City of Dublin)
• Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
• Encroachment permits (City of Dublin)
• Notice of Intent (State Water Resources
Control Board)
• Determination of Airport Land Use
Plan Consistency (Alameda County
Airport Land Use Commission)
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below may be potentially affected by this
Project, involving at least one impact that is a"potentially significant impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
x Aes etics - Agricultural x Air Quality
Resources
- Biological - Cultural Resources - Geology Soils
Resources
- Hazards and - Hydrology Water - Land Use
Hazardous Quality Planning
Materials
- Mineral Resources x Noise - Population
Housin
- Public Services - Recreation x Transportation
Circulation
- Utilities Service - Mandatory
Systems Findings of
Si nificance
City of Dublin Page 18
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~Q~~~
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
_ I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and a Addendum will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR and MND pursuant to applicable standards; (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR and MND, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed Project and (c) the
mitigation measures included in this Initial Study have been included in the
Project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the propased Project may have a potentially significant
effect, or a potentially significant effect unless mitigated, on the environment,
but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. A
focused Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must
only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed.
Signature: jI/ti(,+.~.(~1,,~ /~t. Pr~/~ Date: ~u~o~
Printed Name: M~.~.(~tQ~,( ~l , Q~.~o For: (,c,~ of ~~
City of Dublin Page 19
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~~`7~
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers. Certain "no impact"
answers are supported by the information sources the lead agency cites
in the parenthesis following each question. A"no impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the
project falls outside a fault rupture zone), or, in this case, there is no
impact of the proposed project beyond that which was considered
previously in the 1993 EIR, and/or the 2000Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration. A"no impact" answer should be explained where
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the
project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as
well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as
direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that a supplemental effect is significant. It there are one or more
"potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made,
an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated" implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a
"less than significant impact". The lead agency must describe the
mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a
less than significant level.
City of Dublin Page 20
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
;5 4 0'~~..~:~-
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See
listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found
following the checklist.
1. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? (Source: 1,2)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Source: 1,2)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: 4)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (Source: 2,3,4)
2. Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 2,3, 4)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use,
or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 1,6)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of farmland to a non-
agricultural use? (Source; 4,6)
3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district may be relied on to make
the following determinations). Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2,3)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source: 2,3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
~ X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza
PA 07-006
Page 21
December 2009
~ ~,~~ ~~
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
(2,364)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Source: 2,3,4) .
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? (Source: 5)
4. Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?(Source: 2,3,4, 6)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 2,3,4, 6)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption or
other means?
(Source: Source: 2,3,4,.6)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2, 3,4)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 2, 3)
Po[entially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less [han
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza
PA 07-006
Page 22
December 2009
~a lr~ o~ ~-1~~
~ Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
(Source: 2,3)
5. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2,3)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2,3)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource, site or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 2,3)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery? (2)
6. Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault (Source: 2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2, 3)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Source 2, 3)
iv) Landslides? (Source 2, 3, 4)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (Source: 2,3)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards
(Source: 2, 3,6)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
(Source: 2, 6)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ciry of Dublin
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza
PA 07-006
Page 23
December 2009
~-~q.~ ~~~_ ~>>
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or Option wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 2, 6)
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials?
(Source: 3, 4)
b) Create a signi~cant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Source: 3, 4)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school? (Source: 3, 4)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Source: 7)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted
within two miles of a public airport of public use
airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 2, 4)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 2, 4)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
(Source: 2, 4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza
PA 07-006
Page 24
December 2009
~~a ~ ~~ ~~
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 2)
S. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 4)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g. the production rate of existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted? (2, 3,4)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 2,3, 4)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or areas, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 2, 3, 4)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Source: 6)
fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Source: 6)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Source: 2,6)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza
PA 07-006
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 25
December 2009
~ ~~ y~v
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows? (Source: 6)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, and death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? (6)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1, 2, 4)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1,
2, 4)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(1,2,4)
10. Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1,
2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local General Plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Source: l, 2)
11. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (2,4)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels? (Source: 2,4)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing
levels without the project? (2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza
PA 07-006
Page 26
December 2009
(~ ~a.~a
~
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project? (2)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing
or working n the project area to excessive noise
levels? (2, 4)
~ For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source: 2, 4)
12. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Source: 2, 4)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (4)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement of
housing elsewhere? (Source: 6, 7)
13. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
government facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services? (Sources: 2, 3, 5)
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
Solid Waste
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti oation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impac[
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza
PA 07-006
Page 27
December 2009
~ ~ ~ ~~~~
~
14. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated (Source: 2, 5)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 2, 5)
15. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion
at intersections)? (Source 2, 3)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (2, 3)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
~2,3)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm
equipment? (2, 3)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (5)
fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? (6)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting Option transportation (such as bus
turnouts and bicycle facilities) (Source: 4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza
PA 07-006
Page 28
December 2009
~~ ~ ' ~~p-_:~~
16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (2, 4, 5)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
(2, 4, 5)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (2, 4, 5)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing water entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (2, 4, 5)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments? (Source: 5)
~ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? (Source: 5)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (Source: 2)
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number of or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Potentially
Signi~cant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza
PA 07-006
Page 29
December 2009
~~ ~ ~~Y .{~
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects and the effects of probable
future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
Sources used to determine ~otential environmental im~acts
1. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/ Specific Plan
2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/ Specific Plan EIR
3. 2000 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4. Site Visit
5. Discussion with service provider
6. Other Source
Earlier Analyses and Incorporation By Reference
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are
available for review.
The following environmental documents have been used in the preparation of
the Initial Study. All are available for review at the City of Dublin Community
Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business
hours. Each of the following documents are hereby incorporated by reference
into this Initial Study.
• Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, May, 1993, (SCH
#91103064).
• Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning
Area H, November 1999 (SCH# 99112942).
City of Dublin Page 30
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~ ~ ~G~_~
~
Discussion of Checklist
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Settin~
The Project is set in a portion of Eastern Dublin that is transitioning to urban uses
under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, adopted in 1993. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the effects of
urbanizing vacant lands and identified significant and unavoidable impacts 3.8/B and
3.8/F regarding alteration of the area's rural, open space character. Visual and
aesthetic impacts were further discussed in the 2000 MND for Area H.
The Project site is vacant and is relatively flat but is generally characterized by slight
south-sloping topography. The southerly portion of the site has been developed with a
water quality basin.
The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that the Eastern Dublin area is visually dominated by
expanses of grasslands and rolling hills. Generally, at the time the EDSP was adopted,
the southerly portion of the EDSP area was flat, open and covered with grasslands
and agricultural field crops. In the northerly portions, steeper foothills framed
canyons settled with farms and ranchettes. In 1993, the EDGPA/EDSP planning area
was undeveloped at urban levels and conveyed a distinct rural atrnosphere
characteristic of the inland coastal valleys of Northern California. Currently, the
southerly and central portions of the EDSP are primarily developed.
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and approval of the EDGPA/EDSP,
urban development has proceeded in Eastern Dublin in accordance with these land
use regulatory documents. With the exception of the water quality basin on the Project
site, the site is currently undeveloped; however, parcels to the west and north of the
site are developed, as described in the Project Description section of this Initial Study.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains photographs of visual conditions of the Eastern
Dublin planning area as of 1993. No trees, major rock outcroppings or other natural
features exist on the site, since it was recently filled.
Nearby scenic highways include the I-580 freeway immediately south of the site and
Tassajara Road, approximately one-quarter mile to the west.
Surrounding properties to the north and west consist of urban uses, including the
Grafton Station retail center to the west and a high-density residential complex to the
north. Property east of the Project site is vacant, although it is anticipated that a
hospital and medical offices will be built in this location. There are no public parks on
the site. A privately owned and maintained but publicly accessible trail has been
constructed around the perimeter of the existing water quality basin on the site.
City of Dublin Page 31
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~'~ (~~_~ ~
As an undeveloped area, no light sources exist on the Project site, although street lights
have been installed on portions of Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street north and west
of the site and within the parking lot of the Grafton Station commercial center west of
the site. Building and parking lot lights exist within the residential area north of the
site.
Regulatory framework. Protection of visual resources in the Eastern Dublin area is
provided by the following:
Dublin General Plan. Applicable policies to protect visual resources adopted as part of
the Dublin General Plan are as follows.
Land Use Element (Eastern Extended Planning Area) Policy 2.1.4. C. 2. Proposed
site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands.
Land Use and Circulation Element. Policy 5.6 A. Incorporate County-designated
scenic routes ....., in the General Plan as adopted City-designated scenic routes and
work to enhance a positive image of Dublin as seen by through travelers.
Land Use and Circulation Element. Policy 5.6 B. Exercise design review of all
projects visible from a designated scenic route.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Section 6.3.4 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains
the following goals, policies and action programs regarding visual resources.
Visual Resource Goal: To establish a visually distinctive community which
preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements
and maintaining views from major travel corridors.
Policy 6-28: Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other visual resources,
such as creeks and major stands of vegetation:
Policy 6-30: Structures built near designated scenic corridors shall be located so that
views of the backdrop ridge (identified in Figure 6.3 as "visually sensitive
ridgelands-no development") are generally maintained when viewed from scenic
corridors.
Policy 6-31: High quality design and visual character will be required for all
development visible from designated scenic corridors.
Action Program 6Q: The City should officially adopt Tassajara Road, I-580 and
Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors, adopt a set of scenic corridor policies
and establish review procedures and standards for projects within the scenic
corridor viewshed.
Action Program 6R: The City should require projects with potential impacts on
scenic corridors to submit detailed visual analysis with development project
City of Dublin Page 32
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~ ~~~~~a
~
applications. Applicant will be required to submit graphic simulations and/or
sections drawn from affected travel corridor through the parcel in question,
representing typical views of the parcel from these scenic corridor. The graphic
depiction of the location and massing of the structure and associated landscaping
can then be used to adjust the project design to minimize the visual impact.
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. In 1996, the City of Dublin
adopted scenic policies and standards for the Eastern Dublin area, known as the
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. The purpose of this document is to
implement EDSP visual protection polices as related to individual development
projects.
This document contains the following overall implementing policies for Eastern Dublin
scenic corridors.
1. Maintain a sense of place for Eastern Dublin with relation to natural landforms
and topography.
2. Allow the traveler along a Scenic Corridor to experience the varied features of
the landscape.
3. Assure that development along the Scenic Corridors is well planned and
sensitively sited to respect natural topography.
4. Achieve high quality design and visual character for all development visible
from designated Scenic Corridors, generally within 700 feet of a Scenic Corridor.
5. Assure that landscaping adjacent to the Scenic Corridor harmonizes with the
scenic environment.
Previous CEQA documents.
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project.
Applicable impacts and mitigation measures kom this document include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized
tract development (IM 3.8/B) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation
requires future developers to establish visually distinct communities which
preserve the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual
elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open
space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM
3.8/B) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8/B remained
significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level.
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~ ~ ~~~~
~
• Impacts to changes in the visual character of valley flatlands, Impact 3.8/F, was
identified as a significant and unavoidable impact that could not be reduced to a
level of less-than-significant
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7/1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM
3.8/I) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require
protection of designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a
visual survey of the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds.
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/8.0 and 8.1 reduced impacts on scenic routes from
urban development to less than significant (IM 3.8/J). These measures provide
for designation of I-580, Tassajara and Fallon Roads as scenic corridors and for
submittal of visual analyses for project with potential impacts on scenic
corridors.
2000 MND. Mitigation Measure 1 addressed site-specific light and glare impacts for
development in Area H and requires pole-mounted street lights be equipped with cut-
off lenses and oriented downward to minimize spill over of light and glare.
Standards of Significance. The following criteria have been used to identify significant
visual impacts, if the following would occur to a substantially greater degree than was
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 MND:
• If a project would have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista;
• If a project would damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees,
rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a scenic highway;
• If a project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of a site; or
• If a project were to emit significant increases in light and glare from existing
levels.
Project Im~acts and Mitigation Measures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? LS. The EDEIR assumed and
analyzed intensive urban use of the site based on the Campus Office
designation. Such development would change the rural/open space character
of the area (e.g., IMs 3.8/B, 3.8/F) and affect distant views from scenic routes
such as I-580 (e.g., IM 3.8/J). The Project includes a GPA/SPA and PD rezoning
to expand the potential range of uses but retains the existing FAR. Future
development will be clustered in the northerly, vacant portion of the site; views
across the existing water quality basin portion of the site would continue to be
unobstructed. Based on the existing FAR, proposed buildings would be of
multi-story construction. Consistent with previously adopted mitigation
measures, applications for any future development projects shall be
accompanied by a detailed visual analysis showing how such project will
minimize visual impacts to visually sensitive ridgelands to the north and west
of the site (MM 3.8/8.1).
City of Dublin Page 34
initial Study/Grafton P~aza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~ L~
Project impacts to scenic vistas have been adequately addressed; there are no
new or substantially more severe impacts than previously identified. No
additional analysis is required.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including visual resources within state scenic
highway? LS. The proposed Project under either Option would convert the site
from a vacant condition to an urbanized area adjacent to a state scenic highway
(I-580). This impact was addressed as Impact 3.8/B of the Eastern Dublin EIR.
The Eastern Dublin EIR determined that, even with adherence to Mitigation
Measure MM 3.8/2.0, which requires the land use plan for the Eastern Dublin
area emphasize retention of the natural features of the planning area, this
impact remained significant and unavoidable. Similarly, Impact 3.8/F from the
Eastern Dublin EIR regarding alteration of flatlands, was significant and
unavoidable. At the time of the EIR and 2000 MND, the site contained non-
native grasslands and dry-farmed cropland (see ED EIR Figure 3.7). Grasslands
have since been removed with grading of the site. The site now contains no
scenic features or resources. Because of its location within 700 feet of the I-580
scenic corridor, the site is subject to the City's scenic corridor policies that
emphasize maintaining views of scenic ridgelands to the north. Compliance
with these policies will be reviewed through future Stage 2 Development Plan
and Site Development Review (SDR) submittals on the site. Thus, there would
be no new or more significant impacts with regard to scenic resources than
analyzed in previous CEQA documents prepared on th.is site.
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? LS/M. The
northern portion of the Project site is currendy vacant and was previously filled
to raise the site grade. Filling of the site covered grasslands and shrubs on the
site. No visual features exist on the site, which includes significant stands of
trees or major rock formations.
The Project site is located between the I-580 freeway and Dublin Boulevard.
Dublin Boulevard, which forms the northern boundary of the Project site, is not
a designated scenic route, but is a major thoroughfare. The site and surrounding
area have long been planned for urban uses and a high-density housing
complex (The Terraces) has been constructed north of the Project site, on the
north side of Dublin Boulevard. Future construction of the Grafton Plaza
Project, under either Option, would change the character of the site for residents
of The Terraces, especially for residents on the southern portion of the complex
with views of the Grafton Plaza site and for travelers along Dublin Boulevard
and the I-580 freeway near the Grafton Plaza site. The proposed change of visual
character of the Project site would include construction of one or more multi-
story structures along Dublin Boulevard that could be visually obtrusive to
travelers, residents and visitors in the area and would be a potentially
significant impact. The following measure is recommended to reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level and is applicable to both Options:
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~~ ~,~..~ ~
~
Supplemental Mitigation Measure VIS-1. Building elevations facing
Dublin Boulevard shall have a high quality, articulated design, including
but not limited to building reveals, color changes, changes of building
surface planes, architectural detailing, appropriate setbacks, landscaped
areas and similar items to avoid a monolith.ic appearance along this
street.
All mechanical equipment and similar ground mounted equipment
located along the Dublin Boulevard frontage shall be screened with plant
material, fencing or both, to the extent allowed by utility companies and
service providers.
The specific heights and designs of buildings on the Project site will be
established as part of the future Stage 2 Development Plan. Construction of the
proposed Project could cast shade and shadows on adjacent sites, including
residents of The Terraces on the north side of Dublin Boulevard and the quasi-
public trail to the south around the perimeter of the water quality pond during
certain hours of the day and during certain months of the year. This could be a
potentially significant impact and will be reduced to a less-than-significant
impact by adherence to the following measure:
Supplemental Mitigation Measure VIS-2. Future construction of
buildings on the Grafton Plaza site shall not cast significant levels of
shade or shadows on adjacent sites as determined through compliance
with the standards listed below. As demonstrated through shade and
shadow analyses submitted as part of future Stage 2 Development Plans
or Site Development Review applications, future building shade and
shadows shall comply with the follow standards:
a) Buildings shall be designed so as to not cast shadows on any
existing solar collectors (as defined in Section 25981 of the
California Public Resources Code) installed on another property
on greater than 10 percent of the collector absorption area upon
that solar collector surface at any one time between the hours of 10
a.m. and 2 p.m., local standard time.
b) Buildings shall not cast shade or shadows that would substantially
impair the use of a public or quasi-public park, lawn, playground
or similar open space area.
c) Buildings shall not cast a shadow on a historic resource, as defined
by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), such that it would
substantially diminish or impair its eligibility for listing in the
National register of Historic Places, California Register of
Historical Resources or in any local register of historic resources as
defined by the Public Resource~ Code.
d) Create light or glare? LS/M. The Project site currently contains no light sources
and construction of the proposed Project would add additional light sources in
the form of streetlights, parking lot and building lights. This impact was
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
7~ ~ ~~..-~
identified in the 2000 MND and would be potentially significant and will be
reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to the following measure.
This measure replaces Mitigation Measure 1 contained in the 2000 MND to
reflect the more recent Grafton Plaza application.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure VIS-3. Project developer(s) shall
incorporate the following features into final building and improvement
plans for building elevations adjacent to Dublin Boulevard:
a) Streetlight fixtures and ground level, pedestrian oriented light fixtures
shall be equipped with cut-off-lenses to direct light patterns in a
downward direction. Photometric plans shall be included with final
building and improvement plans to ensure that spillover of light is
minimized.
b) Exterior lights on upper floors shall minimize glare off of the site.
c) Interior lights for non-residential uses shall be dimmed or turned off
when not in use or needed for building security purposes.
d) Illumination shall be limited for exterior signs. If feasible, "canister"
sign types should not be used in favor of non-illuminated or exterior
illuminated fixtures.
e) Landscaping lighting shall be limited and directed appropriately to
avoid spillover of light and glare onto adjacent properties.
2. Agricultural Resources
Environmental Settin~
Figure 3.1-B contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the Project site as "larids of
locally important farmlands." Impact 3.1/F found that the cumulative loss of
agricultural lands was a significant and unavoidable impact of urban development in
the Eastern Dublin planning area. Impact 3.1 / C found the discontinuance of
agricultural operations to be less-than-significant.
The Project site is currently vacant and is not used for agricttltural production. Existing
zoning is PD-Planned Development. No Williamson Act Land Conservation
Agreements have been recorded on the Project site based on information contained in
the Eastern Dublin EIR (see Figure 3.1-C.)
No additional impacts and no mitigation measures regarding agricultural resources
were identified in the 2000 MND.
Project Im~acts
a,c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which could
result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use ? NI. Conversion of the site
to urban uses was planned in the Eastern Dublin GPA and SP, and analyzed in
the EDEIR and 2000 MND. The Project site is vacant but is not used for
agricultural production, although it was farmed in the past. The site is
City of Dublin Page 37
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~l~ y~
surrounded on two sides--north and west --with intensive urban development.
The property north of the site is planned for a commercial and office
development (The Promenade). Therefore, approval and implementation of the
proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts than have been
analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? NI.
The proposed Project is presently zoned for urban uses and would not conflict
with any existing agricultural zoning and would not conflict with a Williamson
Act Agreement, since none exist on the Property. Therefore, no impacts would
result with regard to these topics under either of the proposed development
Options.
3. Air Quality
Environmental Settin~
Air ~ollution climatology. The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is
determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to
transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution
are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine.
The Project is within the Livermore Valley. The Livermore Valley forms a small sub
regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The
Livermore Valley air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains.
Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San
Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County.
The terrain of the Livermore-Amador Valley influences both the climate and air
pollution potential of the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the
area has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when
compared to the greater Bay Area.
The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion
conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants
vertically. Inversions can be found during all seasons in the Bay Area, but are
particularly prevalent in the summer months when they are present about 90% of the
time in both morning and afternoon.
According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), air pollution
potential is high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall.
High temperatures increase the potential for ozone,~ and the valley not only traps
locally generated pollutants but can be the receptor of ozone and ozone precursors
from upwind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also occurs
between the Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east.
City of Dublin Page 38
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~ ~x. ~~~R
During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in
frequent surface-based inversions. Under these conditions pollutants such as carbon
monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and
agricultural burning can become concentrated.
Ambient air c~uality standards _ _
Criteria Pollutants. Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California
Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common
pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that
represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each
pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants
because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria
documents. Table 3 identifies the major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects
and typical sources. The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are
summarized in Table 4.
The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing
purposes and methods, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related
effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the
California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and
particulate matter (PMIO and PM2.5).
Suspended particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of tiny particles that
consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets
of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and
can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, and dust.
"Inhalable" PM consists of particles less than 10 microns in diameter, and is defined
as "suspended particulate matter" or PMIo. Fine particles are less than 2.5 microns in
diameter (PM2.5). PMZ.~, by definition, is included in PMlo•
Toxic Air Contaminants. In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air
Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. There are many
different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include
industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations,
commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle
exhaust. Cars and trucks release at least forty different toxic air contaminants. The
most important, in terms of health risk, are diesel particulate, benzene, formaldehyde,
1,3-butadiene and acetaldehyde.
Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as
accidental releases. Health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological
damage and death.
Ambient air c~ualitv. The state and federal ambient air quality standards cover a wide
variety of pollutants. Only a few of these pollutants are problems in the Bay Area
either due to the strength of the emission or the climate of the region. The BAAQMD
maintains a network of monitoring sites in the Bay Area. The closest to the Project site
City of Dublin Page 39
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~3 ~la.~
~
is in Livermore. Table 5 summarizes violations of air quality standards at this
monitoring site for the period 2005-2007. Table 5 shows that the federal ambient air
quality standards for ozone is not met in the Livermore Valley, and state standards for
ozone and PMIO are exceeded.
Attainment status and regional air c~ualit,~plans. The federal Clean Air Act and the
California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air Resources Board, based on
air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state
ambient air quality standards are not met as "non-attainment areas." Because of the
differences between the national and state standards, the designation of non-
attainment areas is different under the federal and state legislation.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco Bay Area
as a non-attainment area for the federal &hour ozone standard. The Bay Area was
designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the federal PMlo and PM2.5 standards.
Under the California Clean Air Act Alameda County is a non-attainment area for
ozone and particulate matter (PMIo and PM2.5). The county is either attainment or
unclassified for other pollutants.
Air districts periodically prepare and update plans to achieve the goal of healthy air.
Typically, a plan will analyze emissions inventories (estimates of current and future
emissions from industry, motor vehicles, and other sources) and combine that
information with air monitoring data (used to assess progress in improving air quality)
and computer modeling simulations to test future strategies to reduce emissions in
order to achieve air quality standards. Air quality plans usually include measures to
reduce air pollutant emissions f'rom industrial facilities, commercial processes, motor
vehicles, and other sources. Bay Area plans are prepared with the cooperation of the
Metro~olitan Tran.s~ortation Commission (MTC), and the Association of Ba,y Area
Governments (ABAG). Ozone Attainment Demonstrations are prepared for the
national ozone standard and Clean Air Plans are prepared for the California ozone
standard.
City of Dublin Page 40
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~ ~~~~
Table 3. Major Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Characteristics Health Effects Major Sources
Ozone A highly reactive Eye Irritation The major sources ozone
photochemical pollutant Respiratory precursors are combustion
created by the action of function sources such as factories
sunshine on ozone precursors impairment. and automobiles, and
(primarily reactive evaporation of solvents
hydrocarbons and oxides of and fuels.
nitrogen. Often called
hotochemical smo ).
Carbon Carbon monoxide is an Impairment of Automobile exhaust,
Monoxide odorless, colorless gas that is oxygen iransport in combustion of fuels,
highly toxic. It is formed by the bloodstream. combustion of wood in
the incomplete combustion of Aggravation of woodstoves and
fuels. cardiovascular fireplaces.
disease.
Fatigue, headache,
confusion,
dizziness.
Can be fatal in the
case of very high
concentrations.
Nitrogen Dioxide Reddish-brown gas that Increased risk of Automobile ar~d diesel
discolors the air, formed acute and chronic truck exhaust, industrial
during combustion. respiratory disease. processes, fossil-fueled
ower lants.
Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide is a colorless Aggravation of Diesel vehicle exhaust, oil-
gas with a pungent, irritating chronic obstruction powered power plants,
odor. lung disease. industrial processes.
Increased risk of
acute and chronic
res irator disease.
Particulate Solid and liquid particles of Aggravation of Combustion, automobiles,
Matter dust, soot, aerosols and other chronic disease and field burning, factories
matter which are small heart/lung disease and unpaved roads. Also
enough to remain suspended symptoms. a result of photochemical
in the air for a long period of processes.
time.
Source: Donald Ballanti, 2009
City of Dublin Page 41
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~5 ~ ~~
Table 4. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Federal State
Time Primary Standard
Standard
Ozone 1-Hour -- 0.09 PPM
8-Hour 0.075 PPM 0.07 PPM
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM
1-Hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM 0.03 PPM
1-Hour -- 0.18 PPM
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM --
24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.04 PPM
1-Hour -- 0.25 PPM
PMIO Annual Average -- 20 ~g ~ m3
24-Hour 150 Ng / m3 50 N/ m3
PM2.5 Annual 15 Ng/m3 12 ~g/m3
24-Hour 35 ~g ~ m3 --
Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 Ng/m3 --
30 Day Average -- 1.5 N/ m3
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 Ng~m3 __
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 PPM --
Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour 0.01 PPM --
PPM = Parts per Million
g/m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter
Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards (04/ 01 / 08)
http: / / wwrv.arb.ca.gov/research/ aaqs/ aaqs2 ~df
City of Dublin Page 42
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~, ~ ~~
Table 5. Air Quality Data Summary for Livermore, 2005-2007
Pollutant Standard Days Exceeding Standard In:
2005 2006 2007
Ozone State 1-Hour 6 13 2
Ozone State 8-Hour 7 15 3
Ozone Federal8-Hour 1 5 1
PMIO Federa124-Hour 0 0 0
PMIO State 24-Hour 0 3 2
PMZ,S Federa124-Hour 0 0 0
Carbon
Monoxide State/Federal
8-Hour 0 0 0
Nitrogen
Dioxide State 1-Hour 0 0 0
Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2008. (http:
//www.arb.ca.gov./adam/cgi-bin/adamtop/d2wstart)
Sensitive rece~tors. The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where
sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the
chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools
playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and
medical clinics. The closest sensitive receptors are residences located across Dublin
Boulevard north of the Project site.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed both construction and operational
impacts and contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air
quality impacts from implementation of the General Plan and EDSP project. These
include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.11 / 1.0 reduced project construction dust impacts
(IM 3.11 / A) to less than significant through measures such as watering
construction sites, covering exposed construction surfaces and trucks,
and cleaning construction vehicles. The cumulative impact remained
significant and unavoidable.
• Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 2.0-4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts
related to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11 /B) but not to
a less-than-sigrtificant level. These mitigations require emission control from on-
site equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others.
City of Dublin Page 43
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~"7 ~ ~--/~
~
Even with adherence to these mitigations, this impact remained significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emissions from ROG
and NOx (IM 3.11 / C) but not to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation
measures require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other
measures. Many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with
adherence to adopted mitigations, IM 3.11 / C remained significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts
related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11/E) but not to a less-than- .
significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary
source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques
and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures,
stationary source emissions remained significant and unavoidable.
2000 MND. No new air quality impacts or mitigation measures beyond those included
in the Eastern Dublin EIR were identified in the 2000 MND document.
Standards of Si~nificance. The BAAQMD has revised recommended thresholds of
significance since publication of the East Dublin EIR (BAAQMD, 1999). The following
criteria are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and current (2009)
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and have been used to analyze the potential for
significant air quality impacts beyond those previously analyzed:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plan.
• A significant impact on local air quality is defined as an increase in carbon
monoxide concentrations that causes a violation of the most stringent ambient
air quality standard for carbon monoxide (20 ppm for the one-hour averaging
period, 9.0 ppm for the eight-hour averaging period).
• A significant impact on regional air quality is defined as an increase in
emissions of an ozone precursor or PM10 exceeding the BAAQMD thresholds of
significance. The current significance thresholds are 80 pounds per day (or 15
tons/year) for ozone precursors or PMIO.
• Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public
to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a
significant impact.
Despite the establishment of both federal and state standards for PNI25 (particulate
matter, 2.5 microns), the BAAQMD has not developed a threshold of significance for
this pollutant. For this analysis, PM25 impacts would be considered significant if
Project emissions of PMIO exceed 80 pounds per day.
The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on
the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide
Gity of Dublin Page 44
initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~ ~ ~ { ~~
~
feasible control measures for construction emission of PMIO. If the appropriate
construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for
construction activities would be considered less-than-significant.
Project Im~acts and Miti~ation Measures
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? NI.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.11 / E regarding increased stationary
source air emissions from the Project area that would remain significant even with
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 12.0 and 13.0. The Eastern Dublin
EIR also assumed increased development in other areas, such as the San Joaquin
Valley, and related commutes to the Bay Area, and identified cumulative air
quality impact IM 3.11 / C as significant and unavoidable, even after mitigation.
Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration
for these two impacts.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Clean Air Plan is predicated on
population projections for local agencies within the District based on ABAG's
Projections '07, which is in turn based on development assumptions contained in
local General Plans. Development allowed under the proposed Project would be
consistent with the amount of development allowed under the Dublin General
Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, so there would be no new or more
significant impact with respect to conflicts with the regional air quality plan than
has been previously analyzed.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS/M.
Project and cumulative air emission im~acts. The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR
identified emission of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
from vehicles as a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact IM 3.11 / C).
Although the EIR identified several possible measures to mitigate this impact,
including but not limited to implementation of a transportation demand program,
encouragement of mixed-use developments and similar measures, any reduction
of mobile source emissions could not be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
The Project site is an infill site that has been designated for intensive urban
development which takes advantage of its high visibility and convenient access
to I-580 and Dublin Boulevard. Both the campus office and the residential mixed
use development options are complementary to the planned Village Center in
Area G to the north and provide for pedestrian and bicycle connections on and
off-site to adjacent uses. In these ways, the proposed Project and future potential
development implement EDEIR mitigations to reduce vehicle trips and related
emissions and congestion. As such, the Project would not result in new or more
severe significant impacts than previously identified. As noted in the EDEIR,
however, the Project would reduce but not avoid the identified significant
unavoidable impact.
City of Dublin Page 45
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~ ~~ ~~
~
Mobile source emissions (carbon monoxide) from vehicles were determined to be
less-than-significant in the Eastern Dublin EIR (see Impact 3.11 / D). Table 6
demonstrates that the proposed Project would remain below state and federal air
emissions standards and would continue to be less-than-significant.
Impacts related to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are anticipated to be less-than-
significant, since TACs include are associated with land uses and activities that
generate substantial diesel-powered vehicles, such as warehouses, port facilities,
truck terminals and similar uses, or are facilities such as dams, that require a large
and substantial construction period. Typically, suburban uses such as Grafton
Plaza, do not generate a substantial amounts of TACs.
Table 6. Worst Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near Selected
Intersections, in Parts Per Million
Intersection Existing
(2008)
1-Hour 8-Hour No Project
(2030)
1-Hour 8-Hour Project
(2030)
1-Hour 8-Hour
Haaenda Dublin 8.7 5.5 4.9 2.8 4.9 2.8
Tassa'ara Dublin 8.3 5.3 5.3 3.2 5.4 3.2
Grafton Tassa'ara 4.6 2.7 4.9 2.8 4.9 2.9
Most Stringent
Standard 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0
Source: Donald Ballanti, 2009
Construction air im~acts. The current BAAQMD significance threshold for
construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust
controls. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then
air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-
significant. Mitigation Measure NIM 3.11 / 1.0 in the East Dublin EIR implements
most, but not all, of the currently recommended measures. The following
supplemental mitigation measure is therefore required to further reduce
construction air impacts to a less-than-significant level.
City of Dublin Page 46
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
.~~'
` ~' ~-1~-~
Supplemental Miti~ation Measure AIR-1. In addition to measures
identified in MM 3.11 / 1.0 of the East Dublin EIR, the following measures
shall be included in the Stage 1 Planned Development approval:
a) Construction contractors shall be required to water or cover
stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by
the wind.
b) Construction contractors shall be required to sweep daily (preferably
with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging
areas at construction sites.
c) Construction contractors shall be required to install sandbags or other
erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
d) Construction contractors shall adhere to all other Basic and Enhanced
Dust Control Measures included in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
document (December 1999).
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS. Vehicle trips
generated by the Project would result in air pollutant emissions affecting the
entire San Francisco Bay Air Basin. Regional emissions associated with project
vehicle use have been calculated using the URBEMIS-2007 emission model.
The incremental daily emission increase associated with project operational trip
generation is identified in Table 7 for reactive organic gases and oxides of
nitrogen (two precursors of ozone) and PMIO. The Bay Area Air Quality
Management District's thresholds of significance for these pollutants are also
shown. Proposed Project emissions shown in Table 7 would not exceed these
thresholds of significance for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and PMIO, so the
proposed Project would have a less-than-significant effect on regional ozone
and particulate (PMIO and PM2.5) air quality. There would therefore not be a new
or more severe impact than has been previously analyzed.
The proposed Project would either be a high-density, mixed-use development
or a campus office development near a major transit route (Dublin Boulevard)
as well as adjacent high-density housing. The Livermore-Amador Valley
Transportation Agency (LAVTA) is presently implementing a bus rapid transit
system (BRT) within their service area to improve bus ridership. A BRT stop is
planned in front of the Project site on Dublin Boulevard. As such, both concepts
would use principles of Smart Growth. Smart growth planning seeks to create
communities based upon compact and efficient use of land, a mix of compatible
land uses, a range of housing opportunities and choices, and a variety of viable
transportation options. These characteristics result in reduced Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) than would typically occur with a typical suburban
development pattern.
City of Dublin Page 47
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~1 ~~
Table 7. Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day
Reactive Nitrogen
Organtc Oxides PM-10
Gases
Option 1-Mixed 48.8 46.22 78.0
Use
40.8 51.6 66.4
Option 2-Campus
Office
BAAQMD 80.0 80.0 80.0
Significance
Threshold
Source: Donald Ballanti, 2009
CO concentrations in 2030 are lower than current levels, despite increased traffic,
due to the gradual replacement of older, more polluting vehicles, with newer
vehicles that meet ever increasingly stringent state emission standards. In other
words, the vehicle fleet in 2030 will be much cleaner than the vehicle fleet in 2009.
d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable
odors? NI. The proposed Project would include either a mixed-use development
or a campus office development, neither of which would include manufacturing
or similar land uses, so no objectionable odors would be created and no impact
would result.
4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Settin~. The greenhouse effect is a natural process by which some of the
radiant heat from the sun is captured in the lower atrnosphere of the earth. The gases
that help capture the heat are called greenhouse gases (GHG). While greenhouse gases
are not normally considered air pollutants, all of these gases have been identified as
forcing the earth's atmosphere and oceans to warm above naturally occurring
temperatures. Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others
result from human activities. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water
vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. Certain human activities add
to the levels of most of these natural occurring gases.
City of Dublin Page 48
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~ ~ ~~ ~~
~
According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team Report' (CCAT), the following
climate change effects are predicted in California over the course of the next century:
• A diminishing Sierra snowpack declining by 70% to 90%, threatening the
state's water supply.
• Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4 degrees F under the higher emission
scenarios, leading to a 25 to 35% increase in the number of days ozone
pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas.
• Coastal erosion along the length of California and seawater intrusion into the
Delta from a 4- to 33-inch rise in sea level. This would exacerbate flooding in
already vulnerable regions.
• Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation and increased
temperatures.
• Increased challenges for the state's important agriculture industry from
limited water shortage, increasing temperatures, and saltwater intrusion into
the Delta.
• Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months.
In September 2006, the California legislature passed the California Global Warming
Solutions Act (CGWSA), which was added to Health and Safety Code Section 38500
(also commonly referred to as AB32). The CGWSA states that global warming poses a
serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the
environment of California.
The CGWSA requires that the state reduce emissions of GHG to 1990 levels by 2020.
This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG
emissions that will be phased-in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap,
CGWSA directs CARB to develop appropriate regulations and establish a mandatory
reporting system to track and monitor GHG emission levels.
The CGWSA mandates that CARB determine what the statewide GHG emissions level
was in 1990 and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalent to the
level to be achieved by 2020. On or before January 1, 2011, CARB must adopt GHG
emission Iimits and emission reduction measures by regulation to achieve the
maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions in
furtherance of achieving the statewide GHG emissions limit, to become operative
beginning on January 1, 2012.
The BAAQMD has prepared a GHG emissions inventory using 2007 as the base year.
The BAAQMD estimated that 102.6 million metric tons of COZ equivalentz GHG
gases were emitted from anthropogenic sources in the Bay Area in 2007. Fossil fuel
' California Environmental Protection Qgency Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report
to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislation, March 2006.
Z Greenhouse gases are converted into C02-equivalent values based on their potential to absorb
heat in the atmosphere. For instance, CH4 traps 21 times more heat per molecule than C02
and, therefore, one pound of CH4 has a COZ-equivalent value of 21 pounds.
City of Dublin Page 49
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
s ~
~'3 Q ~~~
consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles) accounted for
approximately 41 percent. Stationary sources, including industrial and commercial
sources, power plants, oil refineries, and landfills were responsible for approximately
49 percent. Construction and mining equipment was estimated to account for
approximately three percent (or about 2.9 million tons) of the total anthropogenic
GHG emissions.3
Standards of Significance. Whether there is a direct connection between GHG
emissions from an individual land use project and global climate change is
unknown. No scientific study has established a direct causal link between
individual land use project impacts and global warming. Climate change is a
global environmental problem in which (a) any given development project
contributes only an infinitesimally small portion of any net increase in GHGs and
(b) growth throughout the world is continuing to contribute large amounts of
GHGs. Therefore, this study addresses climate change as a potential cumulative
impact of the project. The analysis of this issue as a cumulative impact is consistent
with all proposed regulatory guidance. The issue is what is the appropriate
significance threshold for determining whether the project has a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global warming.
AB 32 requires statewide GHG emissions reductions to 1990 levels by 2020.
However, AB 32 does not amend CEQA. No generally applicable significance
threshold for GHG emissions has yet been established, nor is formal final State
agency regulations on global climate change analysis in CEQA documents
anticipated to be available until 2010 at the earliest.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) provides that the "determination of
whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful
judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on
scientific and factual data." An "ironclad definition of significant effect is not
always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting."
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b)). Lead agencies have discretion under CEQA
to establish significance thresholds. The State CEQA Guidelines further indicate
that if thresholds are established, they may include an"identifiable quantitative,
qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-
compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be
significant by the agency[.]" (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.7)
Some agencies have suggested that a zero emissions threshold would be
appropriate when evaluating GHGs and their potential effect on climate change.
However, most agencies believe that a"zero new emissions" threshold would be
impractical to implement and would hinder any new development. Further, prior
CEQA case law makes clear that the rule that "one additional molecule" could
' Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. 2008.
City of Dublin Page 50
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~ ~ ~~ ~~
create a significant impact is not consistent with CEQA. Such a rule also appears
inconsistent with the State's approach to addressing climate change impacts. AB 32
does not prohibit all new GHG emissions; rather, it requires a reduction in
statewide emissions to a given level. Thus, AB 32 recognizes that new GHG
emissions will continue to occur.
Bearing in mind that CEQA does not require "perfection" but instead "adequacy,
completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure," the analysis below is
based on methodologies and information available to the City at the time it was
prepared. Estimation of GHG emissions in the future does not account for all
changes in technology that may reduce such emissions; therefore, the estimates are
based on past performance and represent a scenario that is worse than that which
is likely to be encountered. Additionally, as explained in greater detail below,
many uncertainties exist regarding the precise relationship between specific levels
of GHG emissions and the ultimate impact on the global climate. Significant
uncertainties also exist regarding potential reduction strategies. Thus, while
information is presented to assist the public and the City's decision makers in
understanding the project's potential contribution to global climate change
impacts, the information available to the City is not sufficiently detailed to allow a
direct comparison between particular project characteristics and particular climate
change impacts, nor between any particular proposed reduction measure and any
corresponding reduction in climate change impacts.
Because no applicable numeric significance thresholds have yet been defined, and
because the precise causal link between an individual project's emissions and
global climate change has not been developed, it is reasonable to conclude that an
individual development project cannot generate a high enough quantity of GHG
emissions to affect global climate change. However, individual projects
incrementally contribute toward the potential for global climate change on a
cumulative basis in concert with all other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future projects. This analysis identifies qualitative factors to determine whether
this project's emissions should be considered cumulatively significant. Until the
City or other regulatory agency devises a generally applicable climate change
significance threshold or methodology for analysis, the analysis used in this draft
EIR may or may not be applicable to other City projects.
In the absence of regulatory agency rules or guidance on thresholds of significance
under CEQA, the City will analyze whether the project has a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global waxming
under the following qualitative standard:
Whether the proposed project conflicts with or obstructs the
implementation of greenhouse gas reduction measures under AB 32 or
other state regulations.
City of Dublin Page 51
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~-~~~ y~
~
If a project does not conflict with or obstruct GHG reduction strategies identified in
AB 32 or other state regulations, the project would result in a less than significant
contribution to the cumulative impact of global climate change.
Previous CEQA documents. The topic of greenhouse gas emissions was not analyzed
in either the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND.
Pro~ct Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Following is an analysis of Project impacts
with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.
Construction ~reenhouse gas emissions. The URBEMIS-2007 program was used
to calculate construction emissions of carbon dioxide as well as site grading,
construction of buildings, paving and other activities using URBEMI~2007
default estimates of equipment usage and construction travel. The URBEMIS-
2007 output is incorporated by reference and included as Appendix 1 of this
Initial Study.
Emissions of inethane and nitrous oxide were estimated separately based on the
URBEMIS-2007 estimates of carbon dioxide from diesel construction vehicles and
equipment. Published methane and nitrous oxide emission factors were utilized
to estimate project emissions of these gases based on the estimated carbon
dioxide emissions.4 Because these gases are more powerful global warming
gases the emissions were multiplied by a correction factor to estimate "carbon
dioxide equivalents." Methane was assumed to have a Global Warming
Potential of 21 times that of COZ, while nitrous oxide was assumed to have a
Global Warming Potential of 310 times that of COz. Appendix 1 contains a
spreadsheet that shows the adjustment of the construction emissions to account
for methane and nitrous oxide emissions, with the result reported as "COz
equivalent."
Construction emissions are a one-time event and do not represent a continuous
future source of GHG emissions. While construction emissions were calculated
assuming construction occurred in a single year, they could actually be spread
over a longer period of time. The magnitude of construction emissions,
however, is unaffected by how long the construction activity occurs. The GHG
emissions associated with the Mixed-Use Option are estimated at 689 metric tons.
The GHG emissions associated with the Campus Office Option are estimated at
632 metric tons.
O~erational greenhouse gas emissions. Estimates of operational carbon dioxide
emissions generated by Project traffic and area sources were made using
URBEMIS-2007. The URBEMIS program identifies 5 categories of area source
emissions: .
4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, December 2006.
City of Dublin Page 52
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~.~ A ~~~
~
Natural Gas Combustion
Hearth Emissions
Landscaping Emissions
Architectural Coating
Consumer Products
Operational greenhouse gas emissions associated with Project buildout are
estimated to be 7,932 metric tons for Option 1 and 9,037 metric tons for Option 2
as shown in Table 7. See the results of the URBEMIS model run in Appendix 1 of
this Initial Study
Table 8. Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
in Metric Tons Per Year (COZ Eq.)
Vehicles Area Sources Indirect Sources Total
O tion 1-Mixed Use
5,354 820 1,758 7,932
O tion 2- Cam us Office
6,043 661 2,333 9,037
Source: Donald Ballanti, 2009
While URBEMIS-2007 estimates carbon dioxide emissions from land use projects,
there are other global warming gases that should be considered. Emissions of
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20) were estimated separately based on the
URBEMIS-2007 estimates of carbon dioxide from vehicles and natural gas
combustion. See Appendix 1 for results of the URBEMIS-2007 model run.
Indirect global warming gas emissions are related to secondary emissions of
global warming gases emitted away from the site and not directly related to
Project activities. The most important of these is that portion of the electricity
used by the Project that would be generated by fossil-fueled power plants that
generate global warming gases.
Global warming gas emissions related to electricity use were estimated using
average annual electrical consumption per residential unit and square foot of
commercial space recommended by the California Energy Commission.
The proposed Project, under either of the Options will be required to comply
with a number of existing City of Dublin and other policies and programs that
would minimize emissions of greenhouse gasses, as identified in Table 9.
City of Dublin Page 53
initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~ ~ ~ ' ~c~--~
~
Table 9. Project Compliance with Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reduction Strategies
Vehicle Climate Change Standards.s AB 1493
(Pavley) required the state to develop and
adopt regulations that achieve the maximum
feasible and cost-effective reduction of climate
change emissions emitted by passenger
vehicles and light duty trucks. Regulations
were adopted by the ARB in September 2004.
Place and in Progress.6 Public Resources Code
25402 authorizes the Energy Commission to
adopt and periodically update its building
energy efficiency standards (that apply to
newly constructed buildings and additions to
and alterations to existing buildings).
Energy Efficiency.' Maximize energy
efficiency building and appliance standards,
and pursue additional efficiency efforts.
Reductions could be achieved through
enhancements to existing programs such as
increased incentives and even more stringent
building codes and appliance efficiency
standards. Green buildings offer a
comprehensive approach to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions that cross-cut
multiple sectors including Energy, Water,
Waste, and Transportation.
Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards in
Place and in Progress. 8 Public Resources Code
25402 authorizes the Energy Commission to
adopt and periodically update its appliance
energy efficiency standards (that apply to
devices and equipment using energy that are
sold or offered for sale in California).
Measures to lmprove Transportation Energ
Efficiency.9 Builds on current efforts to
provide a framework for expanded and new
Compliant. The vehicles from the Project wil
be in compliance with any vehicle standards
that the ARB adopts.
Compliant. The proposed Project will be
required to comply with the updated Title 24
standards for building construction including
exterior lighting requirements. Residential
buildings, including residential uses in mixed
use buildings, constructed in 2011 and after
would be required to comply with the 2007
California Green Building Code Standards. As
described below, the proposed Project
includes other measures that will reduce
energy and water use and promote alternative
transportation. The Project shall also
incorporate Green Building Measures. A
Green Building plan will be submitted to the
City Building Official for review and all
dwellings shall follow the "Build it Greeri'
program with the goal of obtaining 50 points.
c.omp~ianr. .vppiiances tnat are purcnasea tor
the Project will be consistent with existing
energy efficiency standards. The proposed
Project will include energy efficient heating
and cooling systems, appliances and
equipment, and control system. Project
Proponent will also provide education to
home buyers on energy efficiency in their
homes.
~t. The proposed Project promotes
which encourages walking,
and public transportation use
5 California Environmental Protection Agency
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March.
6 Ibid.
' California Air Resources Board. 2008.
change. June.
8 California Environmental Protection Agency
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March.
9 Ibid.
2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor
2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor
Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan: a framework for
City of Dublin Page 54
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~
initiatives including incentives, tools, and
information that advance cleaner
transportation and reduce climate change
emissions.
Smart Land Use and Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS).10 Smart land
use strategies encourage jobs/housing
proximity, promote transit-oriented
development, and encourage high-density
residential/commercial development along
transit corridors. ITS is the application of
advanced technology systems and
management strategies to improve operational
efficiency of transportation systems and move-
ment of people, goods and services.
Water Use Efficiency." Approximately 19% of
all electricity, 30% of all natural gas, and 88
million gallons of diesel are used to convey,
treat, distribute and use water and wastewater.
Increasing the efficiency of water transport and
reducing water use would reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.
Waste reduction and recycling: Reduce
amount of waste generated by projects and
increase recycling of products.
roug site planning and design elements.
The proposed Project would include either
additional higher density housing near the
Eastern Dublin Village Center in Area G(as
part of Option 1), or additional employment
opportunities (a portion of Option 1 and
Option 2) that would complement existing and
planned housing near the Project site.
option to locate residential uses near transit
stops on local transportation corridors (Option
1), which can be considered smart land use.
The proposed Project is an infill, mixed use
Project adjacent to existing development, and
it is located on Dublin Boulevard, which is a
major transportation corridor. It is also
relatively near the Eastern Dublin BART
station. A bus stop presently exists along
Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the site. Option
2 would also be an infill project, placing
employment and service opportunities near
existing high density residences.
incorporate water- conservation measures,
including water efficient fixtures and
appliances, water-efficient landscaping and
design, the use of water efficient irrigation
systems and devices, will be using reclaimed
water for landscape irrigation, and will
employ water conservation measures required
by the City of Dublin (Chapter 8.88).
~ompnanr. i ne proposea rro~ect wiii reuse
and recycle construction and demolition waste
including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation,
concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard, as
required by the City of Dublin Municipal
Code (Chapter 7.30, Waste Management Plan).
f °~..'L?
The Dublin Municipal Code, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, City Ordinances, and
standard practices will also contribute to reducing the GHG emissions of the
proposed Project. Several city-wide GHG-reducing measures that will apply to
the proposed Project are described below:
1. The Project will be required to comply with the Chapter 8.88 of the Dublin
Municipal Code (Water Efficient Landscaping Regulations), which
~o Ibid.
" Ibid.
City of Dublin Page 55
Initial StudylGrafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~ / ~a.?.,~
~
establishes a sufficient but flexible structure for designing, installing and
maintaining water-efficient landscapes.
2. The Project will be required to comply with Chapter 7.30 of the Dublin
Municipal Code (Waste Management Plan), which requires the diversion of
at least fifty percent (50%) of all Project-related construction and demolition
debris from the landfill.
3. The Project will be required to comply with California's Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings.
In addition to the above City regulations that reduce Project GHG emissions,
there are also Project-specific measures that are proposed to be incorporated into
the Project that will serve to reduce GHG emissions. These include:
Energy Efficiency
1. Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and
equipment, and control systems in each residential unit and commercial
space (both Options).
2. Provide education to homebuyers on energy efficiency in their homes
(Option 1 only) as well as energy education for commercial occupants (both
Options).
3. Incorporate Green Building Measures for each residential building per the
City's building code. A Green Building plan shall be submitted to the City
Building Official for review, and all dwellings shall follow the "Build it
Green" program with the goal of obtaining 50 points (Option 1).
4. Flat roof areas shall have their roofing material coated with light colored
gravel or painted with light colored or reflective material designed for
"Cool Roofs."
Water Conservation and Efficiency
5. Create water efficient landscapes including the use of drought-tolerant
species (both Options).
6. Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices such as soil moisture-
based irrigation controls (both Options).
7. Use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation (both Options).
8. Design each residential unit to be water efficient and install water efficient
fixtures and appliances (Option 1).
9. Design the Project site to maintain the general existing drainage pattern of
the site to manage storm water and protect the environment to the fullest
extent feasible. The proposed Project also incorporates storm water
retention within an existing pond on the southern portion of the site (both
Options).
City of Dublin Page 56
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
f
r~ ~ ~~ ~.~~_~
~
10. The Project shall have a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
that incorporates Best Management Practices appropriate to the Project
construction activities. The SWPPP shall also include City of Dublin
standard erosion control measures (both Options).
11. Provide education to home buyers on water conservation and available
programs and incentives (Option 1).
Solid Waste Measures
12. Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste including, but not
limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard (both
Options).
13. Provide education to homebuyers on reducing waste and available
recycling services (Option 1).
Transportation and Accessibility
14. Create travel routes that allow people to access destinations by public
transit as well as by walking and bicycling. Sidewalks are provided
throughout the Project site that connect with the citywide network of
pedestrian and bicycle paths, linking schools, parks, and other public
destinations (both Options).
There are also Mitigation Measures and requirements of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (EDSP) and/or the Eastern Dublin EIR that are applicable to the
Project and will serve to reduce the GHG emissions.
1. Action Program 5B of the EDSP requires review and approval of (1) Public
transit routes and phasing plan, to be prepared in consultation with
LAVTA. (2) Bus turnouts and transit shelters, in consultation with LAVTA,
and (3) Pedestrian paths between transit stops and building entrances.
Proposed Project sponsors will coordinate with LAVTA on this topic in
connection with future land use entitlements.
2. Action Program 5C of the EDSP requires projects to include a detailed
pedestrian circulation plan. The proposed Project will include this plan as
part of the future Stage 2 Planned Development rezoning application.
3. Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.3/15.0 requires the extension of
transit service within 1/4 mile of 95% of the Project area population. The
Project site is located adjacent to Dublin Boulevard, a major transit corridor
and the project proponents will consult with LAVTA regarding future
transit stops near the site. This negotiation is currently underway.
4. Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/46.0 requires developers to
demonstrate the incorporation of energy conservation measures into the
design, construction, and operation of proposed development. The
City of Dublin Page 57
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
/ f ~~~Cl
~
proposed Project is accomplishing this as referenced in the project-specific
energy conserving measures noted above.
5. Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5/7.0 requires project applicants
to prepare detailed wastewater capacity investigations, including means to
minimize wastewater flows. The proposed Project is accomplishing this as
referenced in the project-specific water conserving measures noted above.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed Project would not have a
cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact of
global warming because the Project does not conflict with or obstruct the
implementation of greenhouse gas reduction measures under AB 32 or other state
regulations. The Project would comply with applicable State of California Climate
Action Team and California Air Resources Board GHG Emissions Reduction
Strategies. Also, the GHG emissions from the proposed Project would be reduced
by compliance with City regulations, the mitigation measures contained in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, policies set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
Project components described above. Therefore, the Project's contribution to the
cumulative impact of global warming would be less than significant.
5. Biological Resources
Environmental Settin~
The 2000 MND contained an extensive project-specific analysis of biological resources
within Area H prepared by H.T. Harvey Associates. This report is incorporated by
reference into this Initial Study and copies of this report are available for review at the
Dublin Community Development Departrnent. A letter has been submitted to the City
from H.T. Harvey Associates dated March 19, 2008, indicating that no new special-
status plant or wildlife species or wetlands are present on the Project site. This letter is
appended as Appendix 2 to this Initial Study and is incorporated by reference.
The Biological Resources section of the 2000 MND identified the presence of two
special-status plant species and special-status wildlife species on the site.
The presence of Congdori s tarplant was identified on the site at that time and it was
believed that San Joaquin spearscale could also exist, although none were observed by
qualified biologists.
The 2000 MND also identified the presence of 5.33 acres of jurisdictional wetlands
within Area H.
Mitigation Measure 2 contained in the 2000 MND required pre-construction surveys
for San Joaquin spearscale and Condgori s tarplant on the site as well as burrowing owl
and American badger. Methods to safely remove and relocate those species, if found,
were included in the mitigation measure.
City of Dublin Page 58
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~a ~,~~
Required preconstruction surveys were carried out pursuant to the Eastern Dublin EIR
and the 2000 MND prior to site grading that was referenced earlier. These included
pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl, San Joaquin kit fox and American badger
and none of these species were found on the site. Congdori s tarplant and San Joaquin
tarplant seeds were also transplanted as required by the mitigation measure. No
individual California tiger salamanders were found on the site.
Mitigation Measure 3 contained in the 2000 MND required mitigation for loss of the
estimated 5.33 acres of jurisdictional wetlands in the Area H at a 2:1 replacement ratio.
Such a plan was prepared and permits were obtained from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers and California Departrnent of Fish and Game (CDFG) for fill of these
wetlands. Permits were also obtained from the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board. A replacement wetland area for filled wetlands
on the site was secured in the Lin Livermore Conservation Area.
Following completion of the above activities, the Project site was filled with up to
approximately 8 feet of fill material that was completed pursuant to a grading permit
issued by the City of Dublin.
Based on the extensive biological work on the site, no significant biological resources
currently exist on the site. This condition is documented based on a recent site
reconnaissance performed on the site by biologists of HT Harvey Associates, dated
3 / 19 / 08.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from implementation of the
General Plan and EDSP project. These include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/ 1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss
(IM 3.7/A) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigations require
minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of
vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing
management plan by the City of Dublin.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/5.0 and 3.11 / 1.0 reduced impacts related to indirect
loss of vegetation removal (IM 3.7/B) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation
Measure 3.7/5.0 requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as
possible. Mitigation Measure 3.11 / 1.0 requires measures to control dust
deposition during construction activities.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation
of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) to a less-than-significant level. These
measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to
minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream
corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development
City of Dublin Page 59
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
`~ 3 ~~~.~
projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of
individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/ 18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San Joaquin
kit fox (IM 3.7/D) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require
consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of
kit fox on project sites and preparation of and adherence to a kit fox protection
plan.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status
invertebrates (IM 3.7/S) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires
completion of special surveys for individual species prior to site disturbance.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures
regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red-legged frog, California tiger salamander,
western pond turtle, prairie falcon, northern harrier, black-shouldered kite, sharp-
shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, short-eared owl and California horned lizard.
2000 MND. The 2000 MND included two additional measures to mitigate biological
resources within Area H to a level of less-than-significant. These include:
Mitigation Measure 2 reduced impacts related to San Joaquin spearscale and
Congdon's tarplant to a less-than-significant level by requiring transplantation
of seeds of each of these species to a suitable alternative off-site location.
Burrowing owl impacts would be reduced by preconstruction surveys and
transplantation of owls, if present, to an alternative site, with issuance of proper
permits by CDFG.
• Mitigation Measure 3 mitigated impacts to on-site wetlands caused by project
development to a level of less-than-significant by providing for adequate off-site
mitigation in North Livermore.
The Applicant complied with all applicable biological mitigation measures from the
Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND prior to constructing the water quality pond and
grading the remainder of the Project site.
Project Im~acts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species?
NI. The Project site has been graded to construct the water quality basin on the
southerly portion of the site that provided fill material for the northerly section.
Therefore the site has been disturbed and no special-status plant or wildlife
species now occur on the site, based on the 3/ 19 / 08 H. T. Harvey letter. No new
or more severe impacts to special-status plarit or wildlife species than
previously identified would therefore occur should the Project under either
Option be approved and constructed and no further analysis is required.
City of Dublin Page 60
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
9~ ~, ~r=~_~
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands?
NI. Previous wetlands on the site have been replaced at the Lin Livermore
Conservation Area with necessary permits from appropriate biological
regulatory agencies as required by Mitigation Measure 3 contained in the 2000
MND. No new or more severe impacts to wetlands or riparian habitat than
previously identified would therefore occur should the Project be constructed
under either the mixed use or campus office Options.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? NI. The dose proximity of
urban development to the west and north and the I-580 freeway to the south
precludes movement of fish and wildlife on the site. No new or more severe
impacts than previously analyzed would occur.
e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. No trees
exist on the Project site that would be affected by construction and
implementation of the proposed Project. The Project site is not located in a
Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation area. No new
or more severe impacts than previously analyzed would therefore result.
6. Cultural Resources
Environmental Settin~
The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR contains a comprehensive listing of historic,
archeological, Native American and other cultural resources in the overall Eastern
Dublin area. Chapter 3.9 of the EIIZ, Cultural Resources, does not identify the presence
of identified archeological or prehistoric resources on the Project site.
The site is vacant and does not contain any structures, so that no above ground historic
resources are present on the site. The entire site has been disturbed as a result of filling
the northerly section of the site with approximately 8 feet of fill and constructing the
water quality basin in the southern portion of the site.
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts to cultural resources from implementation of the General
Plan and EDSP project. The mitigation measures applicable to this Project are:
Mitigation Measures 3.9/ 1.0-4.0 reduced impacts that could be caused as a
result of disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources (Impact
3.9/A). These measures require approval of a program for testing for presence
or absence of midden deposits and, if significant deposits are found, recordation
of such resources on State survey forms, and retention of a qualified
archeologist to develop a protection plan for such resources in accordance with
CEQA.
Gity of Dublin Page 61
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
9~ ~~
~ Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or
destruction of unrecorded prehistoric resources (IM 3.9 B) to a less-than-
significant level by requiring that construction activity cease if historical or
prehistoric remains are discovered.
2000 MND. The 2000 NIND analyzed the potential for site-specific cultural resources
impacts in Area H. No new or additional resources were identified, however an
additional impact and mitigation measure were identified for unknown resources that
could be discovered during construction activities. Mitigation Measure 4 reduced
impacts to archeological and prehistoric resources to a less-than-significant level by
requiring preparation of a contingency plan in the event potentially significant cultural
resources are discovered.
Project Impacts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. The Project site
is vacant and contains no structures of any kind, so there would be no impacts
related to future development with regard to historic resources on the site. No
such historic resources are identified in Section 3.9, Cultural Resources, of the
Eastern Dublin EIR and none were identified in the 2000 MND.
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or
paleontological resources or human remains? NI. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a
remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities,
including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant
archeological and / or paleontological resources on development sites.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 for Impact 3.9/A (page 3.9-6 - 3.9-
7) require subsurface testing for archeological resources if such are found during
site disturbance; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development
of a protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines (then Appendix K). Mitigation
Measures 3.9 / 5.0 and 3.9 / 6.0, also were adopted to address Eastern Dublin
Impact 3.9 / B, the potential disruption of any previously unidentified pre-
historic resources. These measures require cessation of construction activities
until uncovered cultural resources can be assessed by a qualified archeologist
and a remediation plan approved by the City of Dublin consistent with CEQA
Guidelines. Mitigation Measure 4 contained in the 2000 MND also requires
preparation of a contingency plan to be implemented during Site construction in
the event a cultural resource is uncovered. No new or more severe impacts with
regard to archeological or paleontological impacts beyond those previously
analyzed are therefore anticipated should the Project be approved.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? NI.
A remote possibility exists that historic or pr~-historic human resources could
be uncovered on the Grafton Plaza Property during grading and construction
activities. At the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified, the potential for
impacts on unknown and unsurveyed human remains was not a separate CEQA
checklist item, as in current Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Former
City of Dublin Page 62
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~ .~ ~~,
Appendix K, Archeological Impacts, specifically addressed human remains,
which provisions now have been incorporated into CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5 and apply to the Project pursuant to Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and
6.0. Mitigation Measure 4 contained in the 2000 NIND reflects this change to the
CEQA Guidelines and was adopted to mitigate potential impacts to human
remains that could be disturbed during Project construction.
No new or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified are
anticipated with regard to disturbance of human remains with adherence to
these Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures, as well as Mitigation Measure 4
contained in the 2000 MND and no new mitigation measures are required.
7. Geology and Soils
Environmental Settin~
Soils, geologic and seismic conditions were analyzed in Chapter 3.6 of the Eastern
Dublin EIR and reviewed in the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 2000 MND
was based on a document entitled "Geotechrucal Report, Dublin Ranch, Pao-Yeh Lin
Property, Tassajara Road, Dublin California" prepared by Berlogar Geotechrucal
Consultants in August 1999. This document is incorporated by reference into this
Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community Deeelopment
Department during normal business hours.
The 2000 project review determined that soils, geologic and seismic conditions did not
present any new potentially significant impacts when compared with the Eastern
Dublin EIR and no new mitigation measures were included in the 2000 document.
Applicable geological and soils mitigation measures contained in the 1993 EIR
continued to apply to the current Project.
Topography of the northerly portion of the site is relatively flat but consists of a
gentle slope from north to south. The southerly portion of the site consists of a
deep water quality basin, recently constructed to retain and cleanse stormwater
runoff from a number of properties within Dublin Ranch.
Based on the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND, no Earthquake Safety Zones
have been identified on the site.
Previous CEOA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated geologic and soils impacts from the General Plan and EDSP
project. The mitigation measures applicable to this Project are:
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/ 1.0 reduced the impact of the effects of primary ground
shaking (Impact 3.6/B) by requiring conformity with seismic safety
City of Dublin Page 63
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
g~ ~~
~
requirements of applicable building codes. Even with adherence to this
mitigation, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0-7.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary
effects of seismic ground shaking to a less-than-significant level (Impact 3.6/C).
These measures require placement of structures set back from unstable land
forms, stabilization of unsuitable land forms, use of engineered retention
structures and installation of suitable subdrains and appropriate design of fill
material, and preparation of design level geotechnical analyses.
Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 11.0-13.0 reduced impacts related to shallow
groundwater to a less-than-significant level (Impacts 3.6/F and G). These
measures require submittal of detailed geotechrucal investigations to investigate
possible risks of groundwater conditions to proposed improvements, control of
high groundwater through installation of subdrains and removal of stock ponds
in the Eastern Dublin area.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to shrink-swell soil
hazards to a less-than-significant level (Impact 3.6 / H). These measures require
controlling moisture in the soil surrounding individual development projects
and with appropriately designed foundations.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 reduced impacts related to erosion and
sedimentation to a less-than-significant level (Impacts 3.6/K and L). These
measures require general limitations on grading to avoid the rainy season of
each year and require installation of erosion control improvements.
The proposed Project is required to adhere to the above mitigation measures.
2000 MND. The 2000 MND updated the site-specific geologic conditions, but no
additional geology or soils impacts or mitigation measures were identified in this
document.
Pro~ect Im~acts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss,
injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or
landslides? NI. Although the Project is not located within an Earthquake Fault
Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone), the Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the
primary and secondary effects of ground shaking (Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/C)
could be potentially significant impacts.
With implementation of Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 1.0 and
adherence to the California Building Code, there would be no new or more
severe impacts related to primary effects of ground shaking beyond those
analyzed in previous environmental documents.
City of Dublin Page 64
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~ ~ ry ~~-.~
~~
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/7.0 contained in the
Eastern Dublin EIR will be implemented to reduce the secondary effects of
seismic ground shaking on future Project improvements and will ensure that no
supplemental soil stability impacts would result based on the previously
certified Eastern Dublin ETR and 2000 MND.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. Construction of
the future improvements on the Project site under either development Option
would modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff
and infiltration and could result in a short-term and long-term increases in
erosion and sedimentation. Adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation
Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level. The developer of this Project will also be required to comply with
provisions of the Alameda County Clean Water Program to reduce short-term
and long-term operational runoff from the Project site. These provisions require
approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to
commencement of site grading and adherence to Best Management Practices
(BMPs) during the operational phase of the Project. BMPs include but are not
limited to such features as installing silt fences and de-siltation basins, installing
sandbags near graded areas. Consistency with these erosion control
requirements will be made future conditions of Project approval by the Dublin
Public Works Department as is normally and customarily done during the
development review process. Such conditions would be applied to either
development scenario.
With adherence to the above mitigation measures and regulatory requirements,
no new or more severe erosion impacts would occur beyond those analyzed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR.
c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral
spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? NI. Portions of Area H are underlain
by soil types with high shrink-swell potential, which have the potential to cause
damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/H
and page 32 of the Area H MND). With adherence to Mitigation Measures
3.6/ 14.0 through 16.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, there would be no
significant shrink-swell impacts beyond those previously identified. These
measures require project developers to use appropriately designed building
foundations and to use other construction techruques to reduce shrinlc-swell,
such as moisture conditioning prior to construction and installation of
appropriate surface and subsurface drainage.
Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0, the Project
Applicant will be required to submit a soils and geotechnical report prior to
issuance of grading permit(s) identifying any soil-related hazards and
containing specific techniques to reduce any such hazards to an acceptable level
of risk. This requirement will apply to either of the development Option
scenarios. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to soil hazards than
~iry or uuonn Page 65
initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~~~~
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR are anticipated and no additional analysis is
needed.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI.
Future residential and non-residential development on the Project site under
either development Option would be connected to sanitary sewers provided by
DSRSD, so there would be no impacts with regard to septic systems.
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Settin~
The issues of hazards and hazardous materials was not addressed in the 1993 Eastern
Dublin EIR. However, this topic was addressed in the 2000 MND and was found to be
less-than-significant based on a site-specific Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment prepared by Berlogar Associates dated September 25, 1997 for Areas F, G
and H. This report is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available
for review at the Dublin Community Development Departrnent during normal
business hours. The Berlogar report concluded that no obvious potentially hazardous
materials were observed based on soil sampling. Similarly, no detectable levels of
pesticide or herbicide contamination was encountered.
The Project site was not listed in environmental data bases as a hazardous site, a
hazardous materials generator, hazardous materials transporter or a site containing
underground storage tanks.
The Project site is located within both the General Referral Area and the Height
Referral Area of Livermore Municipal Airport. This requires review of the proposed
Project by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to ensure it
complies with height and other requirements of the Alameda County Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan prior to issuance of building permits.
Previous CEQA documents
Fire service were analyzed in Section 3.4 of the Eastern Dublin EIR and are addressed
in the Public Services section of this Initial Study. The 2000 MND referenced Phase I
and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment documents completed in 1997 that found
no significant amounts of hazardous materials on Planning Area H.
Pro~ct Im~acts
a-c) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accidental release of hazardous materials or emit or handle hazardous materials,
substances or wastes within a quarter mile radius of a school? NI. The 2000 MND found
that the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or environment
through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials was less-
than-significant since proposed land uses on the site would include minor and
less-than-significant quantities of potentially hazardous materials that would be
City of Dublin Page 66
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~ ~~ ~{ ~~
~"
used and stored on the site. These would typically include landscape maintenance
products, paints, solvents building repair products and similar normal and
customary materials. The construction of either a mixed-use development or a
campus office complex on the site would not change the use or storage of these
materials. No changes to conditions on the site have occurred since 2000 with
regard to hazardous materials. No schools exist within a one-quarter mile radius
of the site. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to hazardous
materials than analyzed in the 2000 NIlVD are anticipated and no additional
analysis is required with regard to this topic.
d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. The Project site is not listed on the
State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified
hazardous site as of May 6, 2009. There is therefore no impact with regard to this
topic and no additional analysis is needed.
e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip?
NI. The 2000 MND noted that Area H is located northwest of Livermore
Municipal Airport. The Eastern Dublin EIR also notes that Area H is within the
Airport Referral Area for Livermore Airport. Future building heights within the
proposed Project are not expected to exceed typical heights of surrounding
buildings constructed in this area of the Eastern Dublin Planning Area, which are
typically six stories or less. As required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
the Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan, future Stage 2 Development
plans and Site Development Review applications for this site will be referred to
the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of
consistency with the Airport Land Use Policy Plan. No new or more severe
impacts with regard to airport safety beyond those analyzed in previous CEQA
documents are anticipated.
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. The proposed Project would
include the construction of either a mixed-use development (Option 1) or a
campus office project (Option 2) on private land. The City's Comprehensive
Emergency Management Plan, which provides for emergency evacuation
procedures, would not be affected since no roadways that could be used for
emergency evacuation would be blocked or otherwise impeded by Project
improvements. The Project would also provide access to emergency vehicles as
well as pedestrian and vehicle exits from the site for emergency egress. No impact
would therefore result.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires or where residences are zntermixed with wildlands? NI. The Project area is
located in a substantially developed area. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified
mitigation measures for impacts to fire services generally as well as in high fire
hazard open space areas (Impacts 3.4/C and E). With adherence to mitigation
measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, no new impacts related to
wildland fire would result. Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0 to 13.0 require measures
such as requiring project developers to assist in funding new fire stations,
City of Dublin Page 67
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~~ ~~
~
requiring use of non-combustible roof materials, maintaining water fire flow and
pressure, establishing low-fuel buffers between structures and wildland areas and
installing fire sprinklers in buildings. These requirements apply to future
development of the Project. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts are
anticipated that were not analyzed in earlier CEQA documents and no additional
analysis is needed.
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Settin~
Local surface water
The Project site is located within the lower reaches of the Arroyo Mocho watershed, a
sub-basin of the Alameda Creek watershed. This watershed drains westerly into and
through the Arroyo de la Laguna, which discharges into Alameda Creek near Sunol
and ultimately into San Francisco Bay near Union City.
The project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance
of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County.
Surface water quality
Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the
discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. In the San
Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in November 1990
expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of stormwater discharges
from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and construction sites that
disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of
the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated effort by local
governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay.
In 1994, the RWQCB issued a set of recommendations for New and Redevelopment
Controls for Storm Water Programs. These recommendations include policies that
define watershed protection goals, set forth minimum non-point source pollutant
control requirements for site planning, construction and post-construction activities,
and establish criteria for ongoing reporting of water quality construction activities.
Watershed protection goals are based on policies identified in the San Francisco Bay
Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), and the entire program relies on the
implementation of Best Management Practices to limit pollutant contact with
stormwater runoff at its source and to remove pollutants before they are discharged
into receiving waters. The California Stormwater Quality Task Force has published a
series of Best Management Practices handbooks for use in the design of source control;
and treatment programs to achieve the water quality objectives identified by the Basin
Plan for the beneficial uses of surface waters, groundwaters, wetland and marshes.
Ciry of Dublin Page 68
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
1 ~? ~ t~~~
--~
Surface water quality is affected by a number of pollutants generated from structures,
parking areas and open space uses, including but not limited to petrochemicals (oil
and grease), yard and landscape chemicals (herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers), and
similar sources.
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. prepared a stormwater management plan (SWMP) for the
Dublin Ranch development, of which the proposed Grafton Plaza Project is a part. This
SWMP was prepared in 2003 and covers approximately 515 acres of land. One of the
implementations of the SWMP was construction of a regional water quality basin on
the southern portion of the Grafton Plaza site. The basin was constructed pursuant to
specific design criteria to reduce water quality impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Flooding
Until recently, the site was designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) as being within a 100-year flood hazard area, primarily due to ponding of
stormwater behind the elevated I-580 freeway south of the site. FEMA has recently
issued a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for the Project site. The LOMR confirms that,
due to the placement of up to 8 feet of fill material on the site, it is no longer within a
100-year flood hazard area. Documentation from FEMA to the City of Dublin is on file
with the City of Dublin and is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated hydrology and water quality impacts from implementation of the
General Plan and EDSP project. The mitigation measures applicable to this Project are:
Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48.0 reduced the potentially significant impact of
flooding from increased runoff (Impact 3.5/Y). These measures require storm
drainage master planning (MM 3.5 / 46.0), natural channel improvements
wherever possible (MM 3.5/45.0) and that drainage facilities minimize any
increased potential for erosion or flooding (MM 3.5 / 44.0), and provision of
facilities to control downstream flooding (MM 3.5/47.0). The EIR found that with
the implementation of these mitigation measures potential flooding impacts
would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
• Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 50.0 reduced the impact of reduced
groundwater recharge areas to an insignificant level (Impact 3.5 / Z). The two
mitigation measures require that facilities be planned and management practices
selected that protect and enhance water quality and that Zone 7 programs for
groundwater recharge be supported.
• Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 -55.0 reduced the impact of non-point source
pollution into local waterways, including urban runoff, non-stormwater
discharges, subsurface drainages and construction runoff (Impact 3.5 / AA). With
the implementation of mitigation measures requiring each development to
City of Dublin Page 69
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~ p ~ ~ y~~~.~
prepare project-specific water quality investigations addressing this issue, the
development of a community-based non-point-source control education program
and other requirements, this potential impact and potential cumulative impact
would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
2000 MN17. The 2000 MND identified two additional impacts and mitigation measures
related to Hydrology and Water Quality that would be applicable to the Grafton Plaza
Project.
Mitigation Measure 5 requires developers of specific development projects within Area
H to prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) to reduce construction
and post-construction water quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation
Measure 6 requires project developers within Area H to prepare and submit drainage
and hydrology studies to the City of Dublin Public Works Departrnent that summarized
historic drainage flows from the site, estimated increases in the amount of stormwater
as a result of project development and the ability of downstream facilities to
accommodate increased drainage flows.
Project Im~acts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. The issue of
water quality standards was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This was Impact
3.5/AA, non-point sources of water pollution. Water quality was also addressed
in the 2000 MND. Project implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0
through 55.0 and MND Mitigation Measure 5 ensure that the Project development
and improvements will reflect the most current water quality standards and
waste discharge requirements. No new or more severe water quality impacts
beyond those previously identified will result from the Project.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. The
Project site has been slated for future urban uses since adoption of the 1993
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and the site rezoning
in 2000. Impact 3.5 / Z contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR noted that the Eastern
Dublin area already has minimal recharge capabilities and that approval of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan could reduce the amount of undeveloped land in the
region used for groundwater recharge. Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 50.0
require local water supply agencies to plan facilities and undertake management
to protect and enhance water quality and to support Zone 7's on-going water
recharge efforts. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed development of the Project site
and the related loss of potential recharge area, so the Project would result in no
new or more severe impacts than previously analyzed.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur? LS. No streams exist on or adjacent to the Project
site that would be impacted by the proposed Project under either of the two
Project development Options. Although new impervious surfaces would be
added to the site in the future to accommodate such new urban uses as plazas,
roadways, driveways and similar surfaces, adherence to Eastern Dublin
City of Dublin Page 70
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
1 ~~ ~ ~~~
Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0 requires preparation of a storm drain master plan for
each development proposal to control runoff. Each storm drain master plan must
contain a number of items, including but not limited to hydrologic studies,
documenting of existing conditions, design-level analysis of effects on existing
creeks and watersheds and recommended features to minimize runoff within
existing creeks and channels. The storm drain master plan will be_ prepared to
City of Dublin and Zone 7 standards and will be reviewed and approved by both
agencies. Future individual development proposals on the Project site must also
comply with C.3 hydromodification standards as required by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board to minimize peak stormwater flows from development
sites. With adherence to Eastern Dublin mitigation measures and more recent
water quality standards, the Project would result in no new or more severe
impacts than previously analyzed.
d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or substantially increase surface water runoff that
would result in flooding, either on or off the project site? LS. The Project site was
designated for urban development in the prior EIR and MND. As discussed in
subsections "b" and "c" the proposed Project is required to comply with the
Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND mitigation measures identified above that will
reduce impacts related to flooding potential, alteration of drainage patterns and
runoff to a less-than-significant level. No new impacts beyond those identified in
earlier CEQA documents would be created.
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add
substantial amounts of polluted runoff? LS. The Project developer is required by
Eastern Dublin Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0 and 2000 MND Mitigation Measure 5
to prepare a storm drain master plan and other studies in conjunction with
development proposals to ensure that adequate on-site and downstream drainage
facilities can or will be provided to accommodate any post-construction increases
in storm drainage from a site. The Project proposes the same amount of
development intensity as approved in 2000 and there would therefore not be a
substantial increase in the quantity of stormwater runoff that. Implementation of
adopted mitigation measures ensures that future development on the Grafton
Plaza site would be safely accommodated in drainage facilities.
With adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR and MND mitigation measures, the Project
would result in no new or more severe impacts than previously analyzed with
respect to stormwater runoff increases or increases in polluted runoff from the
site.
As discussed in subsection "a," above, the Project would not result in new or
more severe impacts regarding pollutant runoff.
f) Substantially degrade water quality? LS. Refer to item "a," above.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate
Map? NI. The Project site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard zone as identified
City of Dublin Page 71
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~~~ y~
by the FEMA LOMR documentation. This is identified in the Environmental
Setting section of this Initial Study and no impact would result with regard to this
topic and no additional analysis is required.
h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood
flow, including dam failures? NI. Refer to item "g," above.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. The Project site is located
well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water that could be
impacted by a tsunami. The water quality basin on the southern portion of the site
would not contain water much of the year, only after heavy rainfall, and would be
separated from future Grafton Plaza buildings to minimize any potential damage
from a seiche. The site and surrounding properties all have a gentle slope to the
south, without any major hillsides or other areas that could cause mudflows on or
from the site. Therefore, no impact would result regarding this topic.
10. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Settin~
Existing land uses
The Project site is currently vacant and contains a water quality basin on the southerly
portion of the site. No structures exist on the site.
Regulatory setting
Land use on the Project site is regulated by the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (EDSP). The General Plan and EDSP presently designate the Project site
as Campus Office, which allows the development of offices and similar land uses in a
"campus" like setting. Residential uses are also allowed if certain findings are made by
the City of Dublin. The Applicant has requested amendments to both the General Plan
and EDSP to redesignate the site to "Mixed Use 2/Campus Office." This designation
would allow development of either Options 1 or 2 as described in the Project
Description setting of this Initial Study.
The propose.d Project would also make certain changes to planning subareas that have
been established in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Rezoning to the PD-Planned Development district would include approval of a Stage 1
Development Plan that also provides for the future development of either Option 1 or
Option 2.
Project Im~acts
a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The Project site is located adjacent to
the I-580 freeway and adjacent to a commercial development, Grafton Station. A
Kaiser Hospital and associated medical facilities have been proposed just east of
the site. Based on existing and planned land uses in the Project vicinity, no
City of Dublin Page 72
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
t~~ ~~
,
established communities would be disrupted and no new impacts would result
that have not been identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 NIND. No
additional analysis is required regarding this topic.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. The Project
Applicant has submitted an application to change General Plan and Specific Plan
land use regulations as applied to the site that would ensure consistency between
applicable land use regulations and the proposed Project, so that no conflicts and
no impacts would occur. The Applicant will also be required to comply with all
other land use policies and regulations.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI.
The Project site is not located within a habitat conservation plan area or natural
community conservation plan area. There are no impacts with regard to this topic
and no additional analysis is required.
11. Mineral Resources
Environmental Settin~
Neither the General Plan, the EDSP, the Eastern Dublin EIR nor the 2000 MND identify
the presence of significant mineral resources on the site.
Project Im~acts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI.
None of the City of Dublin land use regulatory documents or applicable
environmental reviews indicates that significant deposits of minerals exist on the
Project site, so no impacts would occur.
12. Noise
Environmental Settin~
Potential noise impacts from development on the Eastern Dublin Planning Area were
analyzed in Section 3.10 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This section of the Initial Study
provides a site-specific analysis for the proposed Grafton Plaza Project and is based on
an acoustic report prepared for a previous larger version of the Grafton Plaza
development proposal. The previous version of the Project has since been withdrawn
in favor of the current Project, and the report remains adequate for analysis of the
current, smaller, Project. This report is incorporated by reference into this document
and is available for review at the City of Dublin Community Development Department
during normal business hours. ~
Environmental Noise Fundamentals. Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is
commonly measured with an instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level
meter "captures" sound with a microphone and converts it into a number called a
City of Dublin Page 73
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
/o ~ L~.~v
sound level. Sound levels are expressed in units of decibels (dB).
To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the way humans
perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is used. A-weighting de-emphasizes low-
frequency and very high-frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing. The
use of A-weighting is required by most local agencies as well as other federal and state
noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is often
used when the A-weighted sound level is reported.
Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many
descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual
descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken together,
they can more accurately represent the noise environment. There are four descriptors
that are commonly used in environmental studies; the L,,,aw Leq, L~ and DNL (or
CNEL).
The maximum instantaneous noise level (L,maX) is often used to identify the loudness of
a single event such as a car pass-by or airplane flyover. To express the average noise
level, the Leq (equivalent noise level) is used. The Leq can be measured over any length
of time but is typically reported for periods of 15 minutes to 1 hour. The background
noise level (or residual noise level) is the sound level during the quietest moments. It is
usually generated by steady sources such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified
with a descriptor called the L90 which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the
time.
To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound Level
(Ldn/DNL) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These descriptors
are averages like the Leq except they include a 10 dBA penalty for noises that occur
during nighttime hours (and a 5 dBA penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to
account for peoples increased sensitivity during these hours.
In environmental noise, a change in the noise level of 3 dBA is considered a just
noticeable difference. A 5 dBA change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A 10 dBA
change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness.
Existing Noise Measurements. Noise measurements were made by the firm of
Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz as part of the analysis earlier referenced to
quantify the existing noise environment on the Project site and at existing land
uses that could be affected by noise generated by the Project. These
measurements included one continuous long-term noise measurement and three
short-term 15-minute measurements. The noise measurement locations are
shown in Exhibit 7. Table 9 shows the results of the short-term measurements.
Measurement Locations 1 and A(as depicted on Exhibit 7) are at the south boundary
of the proposed development area adjacent to the water quality basin. These locations
are the closest to I-580. The measurements were conducted with the microphone at a
height of 24 feet above the ground. This height represents potential Project residences
Ciry of Dublin ~ Page 74
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
l~~~r~~
~
on the first few floors, as well as the podium level outdoor use area. Based on the
long-term noise measurement, the existing CNEL is 71 dBA.
The measurement at Location 2 represents the noise exposure at the existing multi-
family residential development (the Terraces) across Dublin Boulevard from the
Project site. The measurement at Location 3 represents the existing noise exposure at
the portions of the Project site along Dublin Boulevard.
The measurement results from Location A(see Exhibit 7) show the variation of
freeway noise levels over the day. The noise level does not decrease dramatically
during the nighttime hours and the peak noise hours start very early in the morning
(about 4:00 A.M.). Due to these high early morning noise levels, the CNEL (which has a
10 dBA penalty for nighttime / early morning noise) is about 3 dBA greater than the Leq
during the noisiest hour.
During the short-term attended (staffed) on-site measurements, noise from general
aviation aircraft were audible at times and the Leq of individual events ranged from 56
to 59 dBA. During the long-term unattended (unstaffed) noise measurement the
presence of noise from aircraft activity was not distinguishable due to the
predominance of noise from freeway traffic.
No noise from Parks Reserve Forces Training Area or the Alameda County Jail was
discernible during the noise measurements at the Project site.
Table 9. Existing Noise Measurement Results
A-wei hted Sound Level, dB A
Location Time
Ley* L,o Lso L9o CNEL
At south boundary of
A
development area, 24 16 June 2008 -
---
---
___
___
71
feet above ground 17 June 2008
1 At south property line
with water quality basin, 5 March 2008
62
64
61
59
71**
24 feet above ground 1:15 -1:30 P.M.
At existing homes across 5 March 2008 •
2 Dublin Blvd.,
5 feet above ground 1:45 - 2:00 P.M. 64 67 55 51 66**
50 feet south of Dublin 5 March 2008
3
*C`__ Boulevard edge, 5 feet
above ground
T___•. 2;15 - 2:30 P.M. 54 56 53 51 63*"
~CC ~~~~~runmentai ivoise runaamentats ror ctetinihons ot noise descriptars
'"* Estimated based on comparison with long-term noise measurement data.
Source: Rosen, Goldberg Der & Lewitz, 2008
City of Dublin Page 75
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
1~~ c~~:~
Existing source of noise near the site include:
Interstate 580. The existing CNEL at the site from traffic on I-580 is represented by
the measured CNEL of 71 dBA at Location A. Based on existing traffic data from
Caltrans and future traffic projections prepared for the Project, the traffic volume
on I-580 is expected to increase by 75% by the year 2030. This would increase the
CNEL at the site to 73 dBA.
Noise projections for the I-580 freeway are based on the long-term noise
measurements completed by RGDL with increases in freeway noise based on
projected traffic increases on the freeway anticipated by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission.
Dublin Boulevard. The existing traffic volumes and noise levels along Dublin
Boulevard are relatively low compared to those that would occur after the buildout
of the nearby vacant lands. Future traffic on Dublin Boulevard would generate an
estimated CNEL of 71 ~dBA at the estimated setback of the future buildings.
Noise projections along Dublin Boulevard are based on calculations of future noise
using the Federal Highway Administration Noise Projection Model (TNM 2.5)
along with anticipated traffic increases as documented in TJKM's traffic analysis of
the Project (see Section 15 of this Initial Study).
Livermore Munici~al Airport. The Livermore Municipal Airport is located to the
southeast of the site. The Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan identifies
both an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) General Referral Area (Map XXI)
and an ALUC Height Referral Area (Map XXII). The Project site lies in both ALUC
referral areas. With adoption of AB 2776 in 2004, subdividers of residential property
within two miles of any existing or proposed airports are required to disclose the
presence such airports to prospective buyers. The two mile disclosure area is also
deemed to be the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for Livermore Municipal Airport
(source: Cindy Horvath, Alameda County ALUC, 3/14/OS). The Alameda County
ALUC is also preparing an updated AIA map for Livermore Municipal Airport
(Cindy Horvath, 7/ 21 / 09).
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area and Alameda Coun , Tail. Camp Parks Reserve
Forces Training Center is located about 7500 feet to the northwest of the Project site.
According to the Eastern Dublin EIR, activities at Parks RFTA that generate noise
are small weapons training and helicopters. An Environmental Noise Management
Plan was prepared in December 2000 by the Department of the Army. The Plan
identifies noise levels from the Parks RFTA and possible effects on surrounding
areas. The Project site is located outside of the Suggested Noise Disclosure Area for
Camp Parks. Also, no noise from Parks RFTA or the Alameda County Jail was
discernible during the noise measurements at the Project site.
City of Dublin Page 76
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~l ~ y~
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of potentially
significant impacts and mitigation measures related to noise. These include:
IM 3.10/A (Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise) identified
future vehicular traffic associated with development proposed in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan as potentially significant to future residents of Eastern
Dublin. This impact would be mitigated to a level of insignificance through
adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/ 1.0 that requires acoustic studies for all
future residential development in the Eastern Dublin area. The goal of the study
is to ensure that interior noise levels of future dwellings will be 45 CNEL or less.
IM 3.10/B (Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise)
was considered a significant and unavoidable impact, even after application of
Mitigation Measure 3.10/2.0, since it was unknown if existing residential
dwellings could be shielded from significant noise levels.
IM 3.10/C (Exposure of Existing and Proposed Development to Airport Noise)
was considered an insignificant impact and no mitigation was required.
IM 3.10/D (Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from
Future Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area and
the County Jail) identified potentially significant noise for future residents
within 6000 feet of Parks RFTA. This impact would be reduced through
adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0 that requires acoustic studies for
development near Parks IZFTA for the Alameda County Government facility;
however, reduction of noise from Parks RFTA may not be feasible, so this
impact would be significant and unavoidable.
IM 3.10/E (Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction
Noise) would be a potentially significant impact related to noise associated with
construction of the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan improvements,
including but not limited to buildings, roads, and utilities. Adherence to
Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 would reduce construction noise impacts
to a level of insignificance through preparation and submittal of Construction
Noise Management Plans and compliance with local noise standards.
IM 3.10/F (Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses
Permitted by Plan Policies Supporting Mixed-Use Development) would result
from close proximity of different land use types that may result in potentially
significant impacts. Mitigation Measures 3.10/6.0 requires the preparation of
noise management plans for all mixed-use developments within the Eastern
Dublin area. This measure would reduce noise conflicts in mixed-use
development to a level of insignificance.
Ciry of Dublin Page 77
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
,~ ~ ~ ~~
No supplemental noise mitigation measures were included in the site-specific 2000
MND.
Standards of Si~nificance. The following standards have been adopted as part of the
Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan and have been used to identify significant
levels of noise beyond that previously identified in previous CEQA documents.
Table 10. City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility Standards (Ldn dBA)
Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly
Acce table Acce table Unacce table Unacceptable
Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 Over 75
Lodging (60 units 60-70 70-80 Over 80 NA
or less)
Schools, 60-70 70-80 Over 80 NA
churches, nursing
homes (60 units
or less)
Neighborhood 60 or less 60-65 65-70 Over 70
arks
Offices, retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 Over 80
commercial
Industrial 70 or less 70-75 Over 75 NA
Source: Table 9-1, City of Dublin Noise Element of the General Plan.
Normally acceptable means that noise compatibility is acceptable, based on
the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal, conventional
construction, without any special insulation requirements.
Conditionally acceptable means new construction should only be
undertaken after a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is made
and needed noise reduction features included in project design.
Normally unacceptable means new construction or development should
generally be discouraged. If new development or construction does proceed,
a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and
incorporated into design.
Clearly unacceptable means that new construction or development should
not be undertaken.
The 2007 California Building Code (Chapter 12, Appendix Section 1207.11.2),
requires that multi-family housing or lodging facilities exposed to an Ld„ in excess
of 60 dB have an acoustical study prepared to show how interior noise levels will
be controlled to 45 dB Ld„ or less. This requirement is consistent with City of
Dublin General Plan policies.
City of Dublin Page 78
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
1!~ ~C' ~~
The City's Noise ordinance is located in Chapter 5.28 of the Municipal Code and
regulates unreasonable noise.
Pro~ect Impacts
a,c) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or othe~plicable standard and result in substantial
increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? LS/M. The following supplemental
noise impacts have been identified based on the Project-specific acoustic analysis
prepared by Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz.
Traffic noise impacts on residents. Development Option 1 includes future
residences on a site that is exposed to noise levels from traffic on Dublin
Boulevard and I-580 that are considered "conditionally acceptable" and
"normally unacceptable" based on the criteria in the Dublin General Plan (see
Table 10). This would be a potentially significant impact
Adherence to the following measure will reduce this supplemental impact to a
less-than-significant level by requiring that a detailed acoustic study be prepared
at the time Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development (SDR) reviews are
submitted for each building within the Grafton Plaza Project containing
residential use.
Supplemental Miti~ation Measure NOISE-1. A detailed acoustical
study shall be submitted with each Stage 2 Development Plan and Site
Development Review application for each building that contains a
residential component, including hotel uses, if proposed. The study shall
be prepared by a qualified acoustic specialist (as approved by the Dublin
Community Development Director) and shall show how the project
meets applicable City noise exposure standards.
In terms of the potential for increased noise on existing residences along Dublin
Boulevard, including but not limited to The Terraces complex on the north side of
Dublin Boulevard and across from the Project site, no new or more significant
impacts are anticipated with construction of the Grafton Plaza Project. Since
future tr-affic volumes predicted for the Grafton Plaza project would not
significantly exceed future volumes predicted in the Eastern Dublin EIR (see
Section 15 of this Initial Study), future noise impacts on these residential
complexes would not be a new or more severe impact than previously analyzed.
Commercial noise impacts. Operation of the proposed Project would expose
future commercial development within the Project under both Options to noise
levels related to vehicle traffic identified as "conditionally acceptable," which
includes noise levels between 70 and 75 decibels (see Table 10). As shown on
Table 9 of this Initial Study, future noise levels are expected to be 71 decibels for
portions of the Project site. This anticipated noise level would exceed the City's
noise exposure level of non-residential uses (see Table 10) and would be a
potentially significant supplemental impact. Adherence to Supplemental
City of Dublin Page 79
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~~ ~~
~
Mitigation Measure Noise-1 will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level.
Noise impacts from mixed use develo~ment. Future development that could
occur on all or a portion of the Project site under Option 1 could include a mix of
residential uses and non-residential uses, including but not limited to offices, .
retail establishments, hotels and other uses. The intermixing of uses and activities
on the Grafton Plaza site could result in potentially significant noise impacts
between the uses, especially impacting future residential uses which have a lower
threshold of significance than non-residential uses. (see Eastern Dublin Impact
3.10/F) Such noise sources include but are not limited to mechanical noise, noise
from delivery vehicles, noise generated by site visitors and other sources.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/6.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring future
developers to prepare and implement noise management plans for all mixed-use
developments.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? LS.
The topic of significant groundborne vibration was not addressed in either the
Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND. However, the general type, design and
construction methods that are proposed for structures within this Project site are
similar to other mid- and low-rise structures throughout the office, commercial
and mixed-use portion of the Eastern Dublin planning area. A less-than-
significant impact is therefore anticipated.
d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? LS. The Project is required to adhere to construction
noise mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to minimize
impacts of construction noise (Impact 3.10/E). These are Mitigation Measures
3.10/4.0 and 5.0, which require all project developers in the EDSP area to prepare
and adhere to Construction Noise Management Programs, which require limiting
grading and other noise generating activities to the shortest period of time as
possible, minimizing truck access through residential areas and limiting the hours
and days of construction activities. With adherence to these measures, no
supplemental impacts would result from construction and no supplemental
mitigation measures are required.
e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to
excessive noise levels? LS. The Project site is located within the Livermore Municipal
Airport General Referral Area and Height Referral Area (also referred to as the
"Airport Influence Area" per conversation with Cindy Horvath of the Alameda
County Airport Land Use Commission, 7/23/09).
The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed noise from aircraft flyovers and found that
noise from aircraft would not exceed a CNEL of 60 dBA in the Eastern Dublin
area (see Impact 3.10 / C). The future aircraft noise contours (CNEL contours) have
not changed since the Eastern Dublin EIR. However, the regulatory framework
City of Dublin Page 80
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~~~~. ~
has changed. Alameda County has adopted an AirportProtection Area (APA)
around the Livermore Municipal Airport and the California Assembly has
adopted AB 2776 which requires disclosure of aircraft flyover noise if a new
subdivision or condominium is within a designated AIA.
The proposed Project is located outside the APA but within ~~ AIA of the
Livermore Municipal Airport. AB 2776 requires that residential subdividers
within an AIA provide full disclosure to land purchasers regarding the presence
of noise from aircraft overflights. Though aircraft flyovers would be audible at the
site, future residences on the site under the Option 1, mixed-use scenario, would
not be exposed to future aircraft noise in excess of CNEL 60 dBA and no new or
more severe impact would exist with respect to this topic.
In addition, the developer of the Grafton Plaza Project is required to refer Stage 2
Development Plans and Site Development Review applications to the Alameda
County Airport Land Use Commission prior to issuance of any building permits
by the City of Dublin to ensure consistency with the Alameda County Airport
Land Use Plan and applicable noise standards.
Gity of Dublin Page 81
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
c~.~
~
EXHIBIT 7-NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
CITY OF D UBLIN
GRAFTON PLAZA N o R T~
INITIAL STUDY "Ts
OIACKAY ~C SI~S
~. ~.,. ,~
09-30-2009 4:11pm Connie GoldadeP~i84bA-iZ1AIXED-USE~PLANNING\CE(!A\INITIAI.STUDY~D(H7-NOISEMFISUREMEHTS.DWG ~`~a ~~°~0
I I ~ ~.~ r~a.~
13. Population and Housing
Environmental Settin~
Section 3.2 of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR addressed Population, Housing and
Employment. The EIR included a general description of expected Bay Area and Tri-
Valley population growth, but noted that "[this] section does not analyze these
projections in terms of potential environmental impacts because the physical
environmental effects associated with population, employment and housing are
addressed in the appropriate environmental analysis ... of this EIR."
This section of the Initial Study updates Section 3.2 of the Eastern Dublin EIR that
discussed the demographic, employment and housing context of the Eastern Dublin
project. It contains an updated general description of expected Bay Area growth as
well as more detailed population and housing development projections for the Tri-
Valley subregion and for the City of Dublin.
The physical environmental (secondary) effects associated with population,
employment and housing are addressed as applicable in sections 3.1 and 3.3 through
3.12 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, as updated in the 2000 MND and in this Initial Study.
Regional Overview. The Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) Projections 2007
provides current population, household, income and employment forecasts for the
nine-county San Francisco Bay Area Region. In order to place the proposed Project in
its overall regional context, several findings of ABAG's projections are summarized in
this section.
Population. ABAG expects the nine-county San Francisco Bay Region to add nearly 1.3
million new residents between 2000 and 2020, reaching a total estimated population of
8,069,700. This represents an increase of about 18 percent over the 20-year forecast
period from 2000 to 2020.
The ratio of population to household growth has differed significantly in the region
over the past several decades. Between 1960 and 1970 household growth in the Bay
Area was approximately one-third of population growth: i.e., an additional household
was added for every three new residents. In the 1970s, the number of new residents
added was only slightly higher than the number of new households. In the 1980s, the
pattern of the 1960s was reestablished -- one new household was formed per every
three new residents. Reduced housing affordability affects household size by reducing
the household formation rate.
Housing. ABAG estimates that the increase of 475,740 new households expected in the
region by 2020 will create a demand for at least 23,000 new dwellings each year.
Employment. ABAG predicts that job growth in the Bay Area will be in a broad variety
of sectors located throughout the Bay Area. The region is expected to add
approximately 527,240 jobs by year 2020, an increase of over 26,000 new jobs annually.
City of Dublin Page 83
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~ ~ ~~
~
Most of this growth is projected to occur in services (business and professional, health
and recreation, social and personal), manufacturing, and retail trade, with more than
50 percent of new jobs in the services sector.
Previous CEQA documents
The Eastern Dublin EIR discusses population, regional housing needs, and
jobs/housing balance. The 2000 MND addressed the reconfiguration of Campus Office
and General Commercial land uses in Area H. Growth inducement was identified as a
"less than significant" impact and displacement of existing dwellings from the Project
site was identified as "no impact" since Area H, which includes the Project site, was
vacant.
Project Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS. The
Project site has been designated for intensive urban uses since certification of the
Eastern Dublin EIR, which analyzed the growth inducing impact of providing
water and sewer service to the area (see Impact 3.5/T). The current configuration
of land uses and related maximum densities were established in the 2000 General
Plan and Specific Plan Amendments and in the related PD zoning for Area H. The
proposed Project somewhat expands the range of permitted commercial uses on
the site under Option 1 but retains the overall urban intensity anticipated on the
, site. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated than
analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI.
The Project site currently contains no dwelling units and no impact would result
with regard to displacement of dwellings or population on the site. No additional
analysis is needed regarding this topic.
14. Public Services
Environmental Settin~
The following provide essential services to the Project site:
Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County
Fire Department. The Departrnent provides fire suppression, emergency
medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services
and hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 18, located at
4800 Fallon Road. Qne engine company is based at this station.
• Police Protection. Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin
Police Services Department.
• Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational
services for properties in the Eastern Dublin area.
City of Dublin Page 84
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
i~8 ~~
• Librar,y Services. Alameda County Library service.
• Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities
are the responsibility of the City of Dublin.
Solid Waste and Rec,ycling. Residential and commercial solid waste pick up
and recycling is provided by Amador Valley Industries.
Previous CEQA documents
Impacts and mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing fire and
police protection applicable to this Project include:
Impacts 3.4/A and B identified a potentially significant impact with police
services demand and accessibility to the Eastern Dublin area. This impact
was reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation
Measure 3.4 / 1.0 that provides additional personnel and facilities and
revision to police beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City
standards for police protection service in Eastern Dublin. Mitigation
Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0 also reduces impacts to the Police Department by
requiring incorporation of safety requirements into the requirements of
future development projects, appropriate budgeting of police services by the
City and police review of individual development projects in the Eastern
Dublin area.
Impact 3.4/C identified a potentially significant impact with regard to
increased demand for fire services in Eastern Dublin. This impact was
reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure
3.4/6.0 through 9.0. These measures require the timing of facilities to
coincide with new service demand from development, establishment of
appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up-front costs of capital fire
improvements, acquisition of future fire stations in Eastern Dublin, and
incorporation of Fire Department safety recommendations into the design of
all future individual development projects in Eastern Dublin.
Impacts 3.4/O and P identified an impact with respect to increasing the
quantity of solid waste and an impact on solid waste disposal facilities.
Adherence to Mitigation Measures3.4/37.0 through 40.O.reduced this impact
by requiring an Eastern Dublin Solid Waste Management Plan, updating the
City' Solid Waste Recycling Plan and ensuring the availability of solid waste
landfills when development projects are approved.
2000 MND. The 2000 MND addressed the potential for development on Area H and
related increases in services demand. No new or more severe significant impacts or
supplemental mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 CEQA document for
police, fire or other services since the Area H project largely reallocated rather than
expanded applicable land uses.
City of Dublin Page 85
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
t1 ~' ~~~
~
The proposed Grafton Plaza Project will be required to comply with the above
mitigation measures.
Pro~,ect Impacts
a) Fire protection? LS. The site is currently vacant (with the exception of the water
quality pond) and approval and construction of the proposed Project could result
in an increase in the number of calls for service for fire, rescue and emergency
rescue services since there would be an increase in the number of residents,
employees and visitors to the site from current conditions. These impacts were
analyzed and mitigated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no further Area H specific
fire protection impacts were identified in the 2000 MND. The Project would not
increase the potential amount of development beyond that analyzed in the 2000
MND. The Project Applicant will be required to meet existing Eastern Dublin EIR
mitigation measures 3.4/6.0 through 3.4/9.0 relating to fire service. The
requirement of each measure is summarized above. With adherence to the above
mitigation measures, there would be no new or more severe impacts to fire
services than have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents.
b) Police protection? LS. Similar to fire protection, there would be an increase in police
calls for service should the proposed Project be approved. This impact was
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR as Impact 3.4/A and B and no further Area H
specific impacts were identified in the 2000 MND. The Project would not increase
the potential amount of development on the site beyond that analyzed in the 2000
MND. With adherence to Eastern Dublin police protection mitigation measures,
summarized above, no new or more severe impacts to police services are
anticipated than have been previously analyzed.
c) Schools? NI. No impacts would result to school service should the proposed
Project be approved since payment of mandated statutory impact fees at the time
of issuance of building permits will provide mitigation of educational impacts
pursuant to CEQA. No additional analysis is needed regarding this topic.
d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? NI The
2000 MND identified maintenance of public facilities as a less than
significant impact for future development of Area H(p. 39). Maintenance
of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City of Dublin.
New public facilities will be required to be designed to meet City of Dublin
standards, so that long-term maintenance is not anticipated to result in any
new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in previous
environmental documents. The Project developer will be required to pay
Public Facilities Fees to the City of Dublin to assist in constructing new and
upgraded public infrastructure to support the proposed Project.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.4/O (demand for utility
extensions) and 3.4/S (consumption of non-renewable resources) as
City of Dublin Page 86
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
1 ~'--~ ~~~ ~
.,-~
significant and unavoidable impacts when approving the underlying
Eastern Dublin project.
e) Solid waste generation? NI. See item 17 "e" and "f," below.
15. Recreation
Environmental Settin~
No neighborhood or community parks and / or recreation services or facilities are
located on the Project site or designated on the site in the General Plan, the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan or the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
The City of Dublin offers a range of park, recreation and cultural services. The nearest
City of Dublin community park to the Project site is Emerald Glen Park, located on the
southwest corner of Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive, west of the Project area.
Emerald Glen Park is 48.2 acres with 42 acres of developed park consisting of the
following amenities: children's play areas; baseball, soccer and cricket fields;
basketball, tennis and Bocce courts; skate park; group picnic area; and large grassy
open space areas.
Fallon Sports Park, a 60-acre community sports park, is located east of the Project area.
Construction of Phase 1(27 acres) and is underway and is anticipated to be complete in
summer 2010. This facility is planned to include ball fields, several child play areas,
picnic facilities, basketball, volleyball and tennis courts, a BMX track and bocce ball
courts.
Local park facilities near the Project site includes Devany Square, a 1.9-acre
neighborhood square bordered by Finnian Way, Chancery Lane and Parnell Way and
Bray Commons, a 4.8-acre neighborhood park located on Keegan Street between
Finnian Way and McGuire Way. Bray Commons includes children's play areas, picnic
areas, basketball and volleyball courts, dog park for small dogs and large grassy open
space area.
The 11-acre water quality basin located in the southern portion of the Project area
contains a publicly accessible recreational trail around the perimeter of the water
quality basin that allows for walking and bicycling to the general public.
The City of Dublin also maintains a large number of other park and recreational
facilities within the community and offers an extensive recreation program to
residents.
Regional park facilities are provided by the East Ba~ Regional Park District, which
maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
City of Dublin Page 87
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~?~ y~,
~
Pro~ect Im~acts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? LS. Urban
development of the Project site was planned and anticipated in the Eastern
Dublin EIR. The proposed Project could increase the use of nearby City and
regional recreational facilities, since it would increase the on-site permanent
population on the site, especially under Option 1(Mixed-Use). This could include
both residents as well as employees associated with non-residential uses.
However, the Project Applicant is required to comply with Eastern Dublin EIR
mitigation measures for Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.4/ L, including payment of
public facilities fees to assist the City to purchase and/or improve parks
throughout the community that could be used by Project residents and/or
employees. The fee also applies to non-residential development. There is no new
or more severe impact regarding this topic and no additional analysis is needed
on this topic.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? LS. See item "a," above. Since the proposed Grafton Plaza Project will be
subject to Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, including payment of public
facility impact fees that includes funding of neighborhood and community parks,
impacts related to provision or construction of recreational facilities would be less-
than-significant.
16. Transportation/Traffic
Environmental Settin~
Local roadways serving the Project site include Dublin Boulevard, which forms the
northerly boundary of the site, and Grafton Street, the westerly boundary of the site.
Regional roadway access is provided by Tassajara Road, located to the west of the site,
and the I-580 freeway, south of the site. Additional regional roadway access is
provided by Fallon Road, east of the Project site that also intersects with I-580.
Public transit service to Dublin and surrounding Tri-Valley cities is provided by
WHEELS bus service, operated by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
(LAVTA).
The Eastern Dublin Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station is located west of the
Project site and provides access to the regional mass transit system. A second BART
station also west of the I-680 freeway is under construction.
Pedestrian access in the Project area is provided by sidewalks located within public or
private rights-of-way of nearby streets.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR including the following impacts and
mitigation measures related to transportation and circulation.
City of Dublin Page 88
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~~ ~.. ~ ~~~
• Mitigation Measures 3.3 / 1.0 and 3.3 / 4.0 were adopted which reduced impacts
on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on I-680 north of I-580 to
a level of insignificance (Impact 3.3/A and D).
Mitigation Measures 3.3/2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 5.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on
the remaining I-580 freeway segments and the I-580/680 interchange (Impacts
3.3/B, C and E). Even with mitigations, however, significant cumulative impacts
remained on I-580 freeway segments between I-680 and Dougherty Road and, at
the build-out scenario of 2010, on other segments of I-580 (Impact 3.3/B and E).
Mitigation Measures 3.3/6.0, 8.0, 10.0 and 12.0 were adopted to reduce impacts
to the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound
Freeway Ramps, Tassajara Road. I-580 Westbound Freeway Ramps, Airway
Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard intersections and along El Charro Road to a level
of insignificance. These mitigations include construction of additional lanes at
intersections, coordination with Caltrans and the neighboring cities of
Pleasanton and Livermore to resfiripe, widen or modify on-ramps and off-ramps
and interchange intersections, and coordination with Caltrans to modify certain
interchanges. Development projects within the Eastern Dublin project area are
also required to contribute a proportionate share to the multi-jurisdictional
improvements through the Eastern Dublin traffic impact fee program and the
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee program (Impacts 3.6/F, H, j and
L).
• Mitigation Measure 3.3/7.0 reduced the impact to the Hacienda Drive/I-580
Eastbound Ramps (Impact 3.3 / G) to a less-than-significant level by restriping
this intersection and undertaking similar improvements at this location.
• Mitigation Measure 3.3/9.0 partially mitigated impacts at the Santa Rita Road/I-
580 Freeway Eastbound Ramps (IM 3.3/I) by widening existing ramps and
limiting left-turn lanes during peak periods. Even with these mitigation
measures, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
• Mitigation Measure 3.3 / 11.0 reduced the impact at the Airway Boulevard / I-580
Westbound Ramps (IM 3.3/K) to a less-than-significant level by widening the
existing overcrossing to add additional vehicle storage capacity and additional
travel lanes.
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/ 13.0 and 14.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on
identified intersections with Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Impact
3.3/M and N). The identified improvements reduced Tassajara Road impacts to
less than significant but Dublin Boulevard irnpacts remained significant and
unavoidable due to road widening limitations.
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/ 15.0, 15.3 and 16.0 and 16.1 generally require
coordination with transit providers to extend transit services and coincide
City of Dublin Page 89
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
ia3
~
pedestrian and bicycle paths with signals at major street crossings (Impact 33/O
and P).
2000 MND. The 2000 MND site-specific analysis of Area H required additional
transportation improvements for updated and site-specific transportation impacts.
Mitigation Measure 8 includes a number or roadway improvements to the Iron Horse
Parkway / Dublin intersection, the Dublin Boulevard / Dougherty Road intersection, the
Hacienda Drive/The Boulevard intersection, the Tassajara Road/I-580 WB ramps
intersection, the Santa Rita Road / I-580 Eastbound Ramp / Pimlico Drive intersection,
the Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound ramp intersection, the Tassajara Road/Dublin
Boulevard intersection and the Tassajara Road/ I-580 westbound ramp intersection.
Mitigation Measure 9 requires widening of Tassajara Road.
Project Impacts
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street
capacity? LS/M. The following analysis is based on an analysis of traffic of the
Revised Grafton Plaza Development in Eastern Dublin, prepared by TJKM
Transportation Consultants dated November 2, 2009. This document is
incorporated by reference in this Initial Study and is included as Appendix 3.
Tri~ Generation. Project trips were estimated based on the trip rates from Trip
Generation (7th Edition), published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE). TJKM estimated internal trip capture and pass-by discounts for the
proposed land uses based on the methodologies in the Trip Generation Handbook
(March 2001) published by ITE. Internal trip capture reductions are applied at
mixed-use developments like the Project to reflect the portion of trips between
complementary uses (e.g. between retail and residential) within the site that
would be walking trips rather than vehicle trips. Without this internal trip
reduction vehicle trip generation would be overestimated, because the standard
ITE trip rates are based on data from isolated individual land use sites where such
non-vehicle interactions do not occur. Pass-by trip reductions are applied to retail
uses based on ITE data, which document a percentage of trips in and out of retail
sites that are already passing by on an adjacent roadway and merely divert to and
from the site driveway, and therefore do not result in additional vehicle trips on
the surrounding roadway network.
With the assumed mix of office and retail shown in Table 11, Option I is expected
to generate 482 trips (287 in, 195 out) in the a.m. and 951 trips (420 in, 531 out) in
the p.m. peak hour. The Option 1 Project trip generation is shown in Table 11
below.
Option 2 in the current GPA, EDSPA, and Stage I Planned Development Rezone
application proposes 496,519 sq. ft. of non-residential Campus Office uses, which
corresponds to the previously approved Stage 1 Planned Development for the site.
Option 2 would generate more a.m. peak hour trips than Option 1, with 676 trips
(595 in, 81 out), but fewer p.m. peak hour trips with 635 trips (108 in, 527 out).
City of Dublin Page 90
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
/a~ ~~~ ~°~
~
The Project trip distribution and assignment to the surrounding roadway network
shown on Exhibit 1 in Appendix 3 was based on the City traffic model's
distribution, as described in Attachment E(Exhibits 3 and 4) of Appendix 3.
Table 11. Project Trip Generation for Grafton Plaza Option 1
Land Use Size / Daily A.M. Street Peak P.M. Street Peak
(ITE Code) Units Rate Trips Rate In:Ou
% In Out Total Rate n:0ut
% In Out Total
Office Buildings (710)' 85.3 ksf 13.84 1,180 1.94 88:12 145 20 165 2.04 17:83 30 145 174
InternalTrips (negative) (5O) (4) ("l) (i) (7) (h) (7)
Office Net-Total 1,130 141 19 160 29 139 168
Retail (820)' 1~ f 57.24 9,330 129 61:39 128 82 210 5.30 48:52 415 449 864
InternalTrips (nc~uti~~e~) (2"16) ("(li) (7) (2i) (14) (l5) (29)
Pass-ByTrips (~~eynti~~e) -5/0 (456) -25% -25% (7(~D) (lU9) (2f~9)
Retail Net-Total 8,658 112 75 187 301 325 626
Flats/Condos (231) 235 DU 5.86Z 1,377 0.67 25:75 39 118 157 0.78 58:42 106 77 183
InternalTrips (~ie~nt~iz~c~) (~194} (5) (1,') (22) f1(~) (1(1J (?61
Residential Net-Total 1,183 34 101 135 90 67 157
Internal Capture % of
Office, Retail, and
Residential
4%
9%
5%
Grand Total 10,97 287 195 482 420 531 951
Source: Trip Generation (7th Edition), Institute of Transportation Engineers (2003).
Notes: du = dwelling unit
Ksf = 1000 square feet
') Regression equations were used per ITE guidelines
2) Daily rate for low rise condos and flats is not available in ITE guidelines and the
daily rate for condominium/townhouse (ITE 230) is used instead.
Level of Service (LOS) im~act anal,~. TJKM performed level of service
(LOS) analyses using the HCM 2000 LOS methodology at the study
intersections, as detailed in Attachment E of Appendix 3, for the following
time horizons/scenarios:
a) Existing / Existing Plus Project
b) Short-Term Cumulative (2015) / Plus Project
c) Long-Term Cumulative (2030) / Plus Project
Standards of Significance. The City of Dublin General Plan Circulation Element
requires that the City strive for LOS D at intersections. An intersection operating
at an acceptable level of service that would deteriorate to unacceptable levels with
the addition of project or cumulative traffic would be a significant impact.
City of Dublin Page 91
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
1a~5 i~~
~
For Routes of Regional Significance, the Dublin General Plan requires the City to
make a good faith effort to maintain LOS D or better on these major
thoroughfares.
Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions. Table 12 summarizes the results of
the LOS analyses for existing and existing plus Project conditions, as detailed in
Attachment E. With the addition of Project traffic, all study intersections would
continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours.
Table 12. Existing & Existing + Project Level of Service
,~ Existing Existing + Project
ID
Intersection
Control ~n ~
O~ A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
a ~ Hour Hour Hour Hour
~; Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
(sec) (sec) (sec) (sec)
~ Dublin Blvd. Doug erty
Rd.l
Signal
D
26.9
C
36.5
D
27.2
C
36.4
D
2 Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr. Signal D 18.7 B 28.3 C 18.9 B 30.8 C
3 Dublin Blvd./Tassajara Rd. Signal D 19.3 B 20.8 C 19.7 B 28.3 C
4 Tassajara Rd. I-580 WB
Ram s Signal D 7.3 A 8.5 A 7.2 A 8.3 A
Santa Rita Rd. I-580 EB
5
Ram s Signal D 29.2 C 34.4 C 33.6 C 33.8 C
6 Dublin Blvd./Brannigan St. Signal D 16.5 B 15.9 B 11.6 B 13.7 B
7 Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. Signal D 13.8 B 15.7 B 27.1 C 26.5 C
8 Dublin Blvd./Keegan St. Signal D 12.4 B 13.6 B 13.3 B 12.5 B
9 Dublin Blvd./Fallon Rd. 3 Signal D - - - - 8.9 A 16.5 B
10 Fallon Rd./I-580 WB Ramps Signal D 3.8(10.2) A(B) 2.4() 0.1 A(B) 6.8 A 4.7 A
~ ~ El C arro Rd. I-580 EB Signal D 8.7(14.1) A(B) 6'2~) 3'8 A(B) 7
1 A 3
1 A
Ram s . .
~ 2 DublinBlvd./EastProject
A
3 One-
Way
D
-
-
-
-
1.3(9.3)
A(A) 3.1(118
'
A(B)
ccess Sto ~
El Charro Rd. Jack London
~ 3
Blvd. (Future Intersection) _ D
Jack London Blvd./Isabel Mid
~ 4 Z
Ave Signal level 13.8 B 21.8 C 13.8 B 22.1 C
. DZ
North Canyons
~ 5
Pkw /Airwa Blvd. Signal E 11.1 B 11.1 B 12.4 B 28.0 B
16 Airway Blvd./Isabel Ave. Signal E 26.3 C 19.2 B 26.3 C 22.1 C
~ ~ Airway Blvd. I-580 EB
Ra Signal E 28.2 C 60.6 E 28.1 C 61.8 E
m s
1 g Airway Blvd. I-580 WB
Ram s Signal E 5.9 A 4.9 A 6 A 5.8 A
City of Dublin Page 92
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
1~ i~
Notes: LOS = Level of Service
X.X = Average delay in seconds per vehicle
X(X) = Intersection level of service (Level of service for the worst-case approach)
X.X (X.X) = Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall at unsignalized
intersection (Delay in seconds per vehicle to minor approach)
Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
'LOS reflects recently completed improvements
2According to the Livermore Generai Plan Circulation Element Goal CIR-4,
Objective CIR 4.1, Policy P4(3), this intersection may exceed Mid LOS D
standard due to the presence of regional cut-through traffic.
3lntersections 9 and 12 would be built or exist with project and would be existing
under "Plus Project" conditions.
All "Plus ProjecY' results were calculated for the larger project no longer proposed,
as documented in Attachment E of Appendix 3.
Source: TJKM Transportation, 2009
~~
Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative and Plus Project. Table 13 summarizes the
results of the LOS analyses for Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative conditions
with and without the Project, as detailed in Attachments A-E. With the addition
of Project traffic, all study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable
levels of service during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
City of Dublin Page 93
initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
1a ~ ~~,
Table 13. Intersection Level of Service - Short-Term
(Year 2015) Cumulative Conditions
~ Short-Term Cumulative Short-Term Cumulative +
Pro'ect
ID Intersection Contro! O~
W~ A.M. Penk
Hour P.M. Peak
Hour A.M. Peak
Hour P.M. Peak
Hour
~ De[ay
sec LOS Delay
sec LOS De[ay
sec LOS Delay
(sec LOS
1 Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Rd.~ Signal D 29.1 C 38.5 D 29.2 C 38.5 D
2 Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr. Signal D 18.1 B 21.8 C 18.4 B 21.6 C
3 DublinBlvd./TassajaraRd.3 Signal D 19.9 B 45.5 D 17.8 B 45.1 D
4 Tassajara Rd./I-580 WB Ramps Signal D 15.3 B 24.2 C 16.8 B 24.6 C
5 Santa Rita Rd./I-580 EB Ramps~ Signal D 44.8 D 41.2 D 48.2 D 43.7 D
6 Dublin Blvd./Brannigan St. Signal D 15.0 B 21.2 C 15.7 B 22.2 C
7 Dublin Blvd./Grafton St. Signal D 12.4 B 15.7 B 21.1 C 24.8 C
8 Dublin Blvd./Keegan St. Signal D 9.7 A 23.0 C 9.9 A 24.1 C
9 Dublin Blvd./Fallon Rd. Signal D 16.7 B 28.8 C 19.5 B 32.6 C
] 0 Fallon Rd./I-580 WB Ramps Signal D ] 0.6 B 17.2 B 12.0 B 19.1 B
1 1 E1 Charro Rd./I-580 EB Ramps Signal D 12.8 B 46.7 D 11.0 B 53.8 D
12 Dublin Bivd./East Project
Access One-way
sto D _ 0.5(103 A~~ 0.9(10.2 A(B)
13 El Charro Rd./Jack London Blvd. Signal D 14.5 B 16.3 B 14.6 B 16.4 B
14 Jack London Blvd./Isabel Ave.Z Signal ~eM~ DZ 16.6 B 16.6 B 16.7 B 16.7 B
~ 5 North Canyons Pkwy/Airway
Blvd. Signal E 23.9 C 34.2 C 25.0 C 34.2 C
16 Airway Blvd./Isabel Ave. Signal E 21.0 C 25.7 C 21.2 C 25.8 C
17 Airway Blvd./I-580 EB Ramps Signal E 38.2 D 35.8 D 40.8 D 30.5 C
18 Airway Blvd./I-580 WB Ramps Signal E 7.0 A 5.8 A 7.2 A 5.8 A
Notes: LOS = Level of Service
X.X = Average delay in seconds per vehicle
X(X) = Intersection level of service (Level of service for the worst-case approach)
X.X (X.X) = Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall at unsignalized
intersection (Delay in seconds per vehicle to minor approach)
Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
' LOS reflects recently completed improvements
2According to the Livermore General Plan Circulation Element Goal CIR-4,
Objective CIR 4.1, Policy P4(3), this intersection may exceed Mid LOS D
standard due to the presence of regional cut-through traffic.
3 For "Plus Project": Study Intersections 3 and 5 show updated LOS results
calculated for Option 1, and the analysis worksheets are Attachments A-D; the
remaining study intersections were calculated for the larger project no longer
proposed, as documented in Attachment E of Appendix 3.
Source: TJKM Transportation, 2009
City of Dublin Page 94
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
i~ ~, ~~
Long-Term (Year 2030) Cumulative and Plus Project. Table 14 summarizes the
results of the LOS analyses for Long-Term (Year 2030) Cumulative conditions
with and without the Project, as detailed in Attachments A-E of Appendix _.
Under this scenario, the three intersections with unacceptable level of service
conditions in the Long-Term Cumulative scenario without the Project, Dublin
Boulevard / Tassajara Road in the City of Dublin, Airway Boulevard / Isabel
Avenue in the City of Livermore, and Santa Rita Road / I-580 Eastbound ramps
in the City of Pleasanton, would continue to operate at unacceptable conditions
with the addition of Project traffic. All other study intersections would operate
at acceptable levels of service.
City of Dublin Page 95
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~a9 _ ~~
Table 14. Intersection Level of Service - Long-Term
(Year 2030) Cumulative Conditions
Long-Term Cumu[ative Long-Term Cumulative +
'
~ Pro
ect
ID
Intersection
Control °
O '~ A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
.~ ~ Hour Hour Hour Hour
~ Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
sec sec (sec (sec
1 Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Rd.~ Signal D 43.4 D 52.2 D 46.3 D 49.2 D
2 Dubfin Blvd./Hacienda Dr. Signal D 30.1 C 32.4 C 31.6 C 33.6 C
DublinBlvd./TassajaraRd.b 53.9 D 63.3 E 65.5 E 89.4 F
-------------------------------------------------------
W~th recommended
Signal
D ------------- -------- ------------- ------ ------------ ------ ------------ --------
im rovementsj 40.6 D 46.3 D 44.5 D 49.0 D
4 Tassajara Rd./I-580 WB Ramps Signal D 19.3 B 24.8 C 27.5 C 25.8 C
Santa Rita Rd./I-580 EB Rampsb 55.1 E 73.5 E 61.2 E 80.7 F
-------------------------------------------------------
With recommended
Signal
D ------------- -------- ------------- ------- ----------- ------- ------------- --------
/m rovementsa 34.1 C 39.8 D 40.5 D 47.5 D
6 Dublin Blvd./Brannigan St. Signal D 17.1 B 28.7 C 19.2 B 33.4 C
7 Dublin Blvd./Grafton St. Signal D 15.9 B 24.9 C 26.5 C 46.4 D
8 Dublin Blvd./Keegan St. Signal D 17.9 B 38.6 D 18.3 B 45.3 D
9 Dublin Blvd./Fallon Rd. (Future Signal D 25.3 C 51.3 D 28
7 C 54
0 D
Intersection . .
10 Fallon Rd./I-580 WB Ramps Signal D 8.8 A 39.0 D 9.3 A 51.4 D
1 1 EI Charro Rd./I-580 EB Ramps Signal D 9.5 A 19.4 B 9.4 A 19.2 B
~ 2 Dublin Blvd./East Project Access One-Way D _ _ _ 0.4(10.5 A~B~ 1.3(17.0 A(C)
(Future Intersection Sto
13 El Charro Rd./Jack London Blvd. Signal D 33.4 C 48.1 D 33
7 C 50
9 D
Future Intersection . .
14 Jack London Blvd./Isabel Ave.Z Signal 1eM~ DZ 52.8 D 51.4 D 52.0 D 53.8 D
15 North Canyons Pkwy/Airway Signal E 40.7 D 43.2 D 41
8 D 43
3 D
Bivd. . .
16 Airway Blvd./Isabel Ave. Signal E 51.6 D 125.4 FS 52.4 D 125.6 F'S
17 Airway Blvd./I-580 EB Ramps Signal E 45.0 D 28.3 C 38.5 D 28.4 C
18 Airway Blvd./I-580 WB Ramps Signal E 14.8 B 13.0 B 14.6 B 13.0 B
Notes: LOS = Level of Service
X.X = Average delay in seconds per vehicle
X(X) = Intersection level of service (Level of service for the worst-case approach)
X.X (X.X) = Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall at unsignalized
intersection (Delay in seconds per vehicle to minor approach)
Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
~ LOS reflects recently completed improvements
2According to the Livermore General Plan Circulation Element Goal CIR-4,
Objective CIR 4.1, Policy P4(3), this intersection may exceed Mid LOS D
standard due to the presence of regional cut-through traffic.
3Add a second northbound right-turn lane to the planned lanes, and program the
traffic signal with overlap phasing to progress the northbound right-turn and the
westbound left-turn movements concurrently.
City of Dublin Page 96
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
1 ~3c~ t, f~.~.~
c~
4 Add a second southbound left-turn lane.
SUltimate intersection being designed by City of Livermore. No additional
improvements are feasible. Impacts are not significant under City of Livermore
standards because delay from project increases only by 0.2 seconds.
6For "Plus Project": Study Intersections 3 and 5 show updated LOS results
calculated for Option 1, and the analysis worksheets are Attachments A-D; the
remaining study intersections were calculated for the larger project no longer
proposed, as documented ih Attachment E of Appendix 3.
Source: TJKM Transportation, 2009
Under Long-Term Cumulative (2030) conditions, the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard / Tassaj ara Road would operate at unacceptable LOS E conditions
during the p.m. peak hour. The addition of Project traffic would exacerbate this
condition to result in deterioration to LOS F during the p.m. peak hour, and also
result in a.m. peak hour operations deteriorating from LOS D to unacceptable
LOS E conditions. This would be a significant supplemental impact and
adherence to the following supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this to
a less-than-significant level.
Su~plemental Mitigation Measure TRA-1. Improvement of the Dublin
Boulevard / Tassajara Road intersection to LOS D or better require the
addition of a second northbound right-turn lane to planned
improvements. Also, the existing traffic signal shall be programmed
with overlap signal phasing to progress the northbound right-turn and
westbound left-turn movements concurrently. The second northbound
lane shall be added to the planned improvements included in the next
update of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF) program, so
that contribution by the Project applicant to the EDTIF would constitute
full mitigation. Otherwise, arrangement of another mechanism to fund
the improvement is required to provide for contribution by the
applicant in proportion to the Project's contribution to this impact.
Under Long-Term Cumulative (2030) conditions, the intersection of Santa Rita
Road/I-580 Eastbound ramps would operate at unacceptable LOS E conditions
during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The addition of Project traffic would
exacerbate this condition to result in deterioration to LOS F during the p.m. peak
hour, and also result in a.m. peak hour operations continuing at unacceptable
LOS E conditions. This would be a second significant supplemental traffic impact
and adherence to the following supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this
to a less-than-significant level.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure TRA-2. Improvement of the Santa
Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound ramps to LOS D or better during the a.m.
and p.m. peak hours require the addition of a second southbound left-
turn lane to current conditions.
a) This improvement is already planned to be included in the current
update of the City of Pleasanton Traffic Development Impact Fee. If
City of Dublin Page 97
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
1~ ~ ~~
the improvement is included in the Pleasanton update prior to
issuance of building permits for the project, no mitigation is required
from the Project.
b) If the improvement has not been included in the Pleasanton update
prior to the issuance of building for the Project, arrangement of
another mechanism to fund the improvement is required to provide
for contxibution by the applicant in proportion to the Project's
contribution to this impact. This mechanism may include
reimbursement provisions as appropriate.
Additionally, the Airway Boulevard/Isabel Avenue intersection in Livermore
was found to exceed the acceptable LOS standard during the p.m. peak hour in
Long-Term Cumulative (2030) conditions with or without the Project. However,
the increase in delay at this intersection with the project would be only 0.2
seconds, and would not result in a significant impact according to City of
Livermore standards.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County
CMA for designated roads)? LS. The Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency (ACCMA) requires the City to conduct a traffic impact analysis of the
Project for the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways and transit
systems, including MTS arterial, freeway, and State highway segments, as well as
BART, LAVTA, and ACE transit systems. Analysis of potential impacts on MTS
roadways and transit systems is summarized in the following sections and tables,
as detailed in Attachment E of Appendix 3.
Standards of Significance. The following standard for Alameda County
Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) facilities within or adjacent to
the City of Dublin was used to analyze the potential for significant impacts
beyond those previously identified:
The addition of project trips causes the volume-to-capacity (v/c)
ratio to increase by more than 0.02 on a segment that operates at
Level of Service (LOS) F.
MTS Arterial Impact Analysis. Table 15 summarizes the results of the analysis of
Project impacts on various segments of Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Santa
Rita Road, San Ramon Road, Dougherty Road and Hopyard Road in the vicinity
of the Project. The analysis consists of ineasuring the levels of service (LOS) on
these roadway segments during the p.m. peak hour under Short-Term (Year 2015)
Cumulative and Long-Term (Year 2030) Cumulative traffic conditions with and
without the Project. The LOS analysis is based on the volume-to-capacity ratio
(v/ c) for roadway segments.
As shown in the table, there are little or no increases in the v/ c(less than 0.01) on
these segments with the addition of Project volumes, compared with the projected
City of Dublin Page 98
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
I~ ~j~-,.~
v/c ratios without the project. Therefore, because the Project contribution creates
less than a 0.02 increase in the v/c ratio on these segments, the Project will have
no significant impact on the MTS arterial system in the vicinity of the Project
under Short Term Cumulative (2015) and Long Term Cumulative (2030)
Conditions.
City of Dublin Pa e 99
9
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~ ~ ~ ~~
Table 15. Years 2015 and 2030 P.M. Peak Hour
MTS Arterial Roadway Level of Service
~
~
~ Year2015
No Pro'ect Year2015
lus Pro'ect ~n
z
:~' Year2030
No Pro'ect Year2030
lus Pro'ect
Location a
~ ~
V p.M,
Peak
Volum
V/C
LOS p,M,
Peak
Volume
V/C
LOS a
~ ~
V P.M.
Peak
Volum
V/C
LOS P.M.
Peak
Volum
V/C
LOS
Dublin Boulevard
Between Tassa'ara Road and Fallon Road
Eastbound 3 ,000 2,157 0.72 C 2,534 0.84 D 3 ,000 2,293 0.76 C 2,672 0.89 D
Westbound 3 ,000 11 0.00 A 311 0.10 A 3 ,000 15 0.01 A 289 0.10 A
Between Hacienda Drive and Tassa'ara Road
Eastbound 3 ,000 2,271 0.76 C 2,316 0.77 C 3 3,000 2,431 0.81 D 2,472 0.82 D
Westbound 3 ,000 221 0.07 A 256 0.09 A 3 ,000 387 0.13 A 446 0.15 A
Between Dou her Road and Hacienda Drive
Eastbound 3 ,000 1,864 0.62 B 1,882 0.63 B 3 ,000 3,061 1.02 F 3,082 1.03 F
Westbound 3 ,000 1,360 0.45 A 1,388 0.46 A 3 ,000 2,869 0.96 E 2,904 0.97 E
Between Dou her Road and Villa e Pkzu
Eastbound 3 ,000 2,320 0.77 C 2,330 0.78 C 3 ,000 3,062 1.02 F 3,074 1.02 F
Westbound 3 ,000 2,238 0.75 C 2,260 0.75 C 3 ,000 3,043 1.01 F 3,065 1.02 F
Tassajara Road
Between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard
Northbound 4 ,000 977 0.24 A 1,057 0.26 A 4 ,000 2,009 0.50 A 2,106 0.53 A
Southbound 4 ,000 964 0.24 A 1,180 0.30 A 4 ,000 1,655 0.41 A 1,818 0.45 A
Between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive
Northbound 3 ,000 1,022 0.34 A 1,073 0.36 A 3 ,000 1,742 0.58 A 1,790 0.60 B
Southbound 3 ,000 701 0.23 A 728 0.24 A 3 ,000 1,058 0.35 A 1,088 0.36 A
North o Gleason Drive
Northbound 3 ,000 932 0.31 A 976 0.33 A 3 ,000 1,669 0.56 A 1,711 0.57 A
Southbound 3 ,000 472 0.16 A 498 0.17 A 3 ,000 730 0.24 A 753 0.25 A
San Ramon Road
Between 1-580 and Amador Vall Boulevard
Northbound 3 ,000 3,154 1.05 F 3,162 1.05 F 3 ,000 4,409 1.47 F 4,416 1.47 F
Southbound 3 ,000 1,763 0.59 A 1,765 0.59 A 3 3,000 2,404 0.80 D 2,406 0.80 D
Santa Rita Road
South o 1-580
Northbound 3 ,000 1,911 0.64 B 1,950 0.65 B 3 ,000 1,792 0.60 B 1,836 0.61 B
Southbound 3 ,000 1,028 0.34 A 1,093 0.36 A 3 3,000 1,300 0.43 A 1,359 0.45 A
Dou he Road
Between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard
Northbound 4 ,000 2,986 0.75 C 2,993 0.75 C 4 ,000 2,986 0.75 C 2,986 0.75 C
Southbound 4 ,000 2,017 0.50 A 2,018 0.50 A 4 4,000 2,134 0.53 A 2,134 0.53 A
Ho yard Road
South o 1-580
Northbound 3 ,000 2,925 0.98 E 2,928 0.98 E 3 3,000 2,925 0.98 E 2,928 0.98 E
Southbound 3 ,000 2,894 0.96 E 2,895 0.97 E 3 3,000 3,003 1.00 F 3,003 1.00 F
Note: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
All "Plus Project" results were calculated for the larger project no longer proposed,
as documented in Attachment E of Appendix 3
Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2009.
City of Dublin Page 100
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
/~~ ~
Freeway/State Highway Impact Analysis. Tables 16 and 17 summarize the
results of the analysis of Project impacts on various segments of I-580, I-680
and SR 84 in the vianity of the Project. The analysis consists of ineasuring
the levels of service on these freeway and State highway segments under
Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative and Long-Term (Year 2030)
Cumulative traffic conditions with and without the Project. The LOS
analysis is based on the volume-to-capacity ratio for basic freeway sections
and multilane highways.
With the Project trips added to No Project mainline freeway volumes and
SR-84, the projected LOS on I-580, I-680, and SR-84 would remain
unchanged and v/c ratios would increase by no more than 0.014.
Therefore, because the addition of project trips causes less than a 0.02
increase in the v/c ratio on those segments that operate at LOS F, the
Project would have no significant impact., the Project would have no
significant impact on freeway and state highway facilities in the vicinity of
the Project under 2015 and 2030 conditions.
City of Dublin Page 101
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
T~~ ~ ~~
Table 16. Short-Term (2015) Cumulative Freeway Analysis
y Year 201 S No Project Year 201 S with Project
No of Lanes u
g
n
A.M. Peak
P.M. Peak
A.M. Peak
P.M. Peak
V VoL V/C LOS Vo~ v/C LOS VoL v/C LOS VoL I~/C LOS
I-580, East of I-680
Eastbound 4 8,000 5,089 0.64 C 8,230 1.03 F 5,263 0.66 C 8,267 1.03 F
Westbound 5 10,000 ~~5~ g 1.12 F 5,886 0.59 C ~ 1~ ~ 1. ] 2 F 5,999 0.60 C
I-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive
Eastbound 6+aux. 13,000 6,373 0.49 B ~~685 0.84 D 6,559 0.50 B 106g9 0.84 D
Westbound 4+aux. 9,000 9,457 1.05 F 5,975 0.66 C 9,483 1.05 F 6,097 0.68 C
I-580, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road
Eastbound 5 10,000 4,261 0.43 B ~~998 1.10 F 4,450 0.45 B ~ 19 ~ 1.10 F
Westbound 4+aux. 9,000 8,391 0.93 E 4,295 0.48 B 8,421 0.94 E 4,428 0.49 B
1-580, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
Eastbound 4+ aux. 9,000 4,476 0.50 B ~~6 2 1.1 1 F 4,478 0.50 B ~~8 3 1.12 F
Westbound 4+ aux. 9,000 ~~2 g 1.12 F 4,597 0.51 B ~~208 1.12 F 4,600 0.51 B
I-580, Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard
Eastbound 4+aux. 9,000 4,186 0.47 B ~~613 1.13 F 4,263 0.47 B ~~~ ~ 1.14 F
Westbound 4+aux. 9,000 11i89 1.32 F 4,323 0.48 B 122 ~ 1.33 F 4,424 0.49 B
I-680, Alcosta Boulevard to I-580
Northbound 4 8,000 5,853 0.73 C 7,360 0.92 D 5,858 0.73 C 7,384 0.92 D
Southbound 4 8,000 7,213 0.90 D 5,480 0.69 C 7,265 0.91 D 5,487 0.69 C
I-680, South of I-580
Northbound 3 6,000 4,041 0.67 C 8,272 1.38 F 4,051 0.68 C 8,277 ].38 F
Southbound 3+aux. 7,000 6,585 0.94 E 4,232 0.60 C 6,587 0.94 E 4,240 0.61 C
SR 84, South of I-580 (Analyzed as an azterial with a capacity of 1,000 veh/hr/lane)
Northbound 2 2,000 2,524 1.26 F 1,762 0.88 D 2,542 ].27 F 1,767 0.88 D
Southbound 2 2,000 2,260 ].13 F 2,345~ 1.17' F 2,262 1.13 F 2,373~ 1.19~ F
Source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-l, Levels of Service for Basic Freeway Sections
Maximum Service Flow rate for freeway segments=2000 vehicles/hr/lane, aux. =Auxiliary Lane
If number of lanes on freeway segment= N+aux., capacity of segment= (N*2000+1000)
vehicles/hr
Note: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
~SR 84 Southbound P.M. Peak:
Volume increase of2,373-2,345 = 28 = 1.2% is less than 2% significance threshold;
V/C: No Project= 1.1725, with Project= 1.1865; increase of.014 is less than 0.02.
All "with Project" results were calculated for the farger project no longer proposed, as
documented in Attachment E of Appendix 3.
City of Dublin Page 102
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
1?~ : ~.~..~
~
Table 17. Long-Term (2030) Cumulative Freeway Analysis
~ Year 2030 No Project Yenr 2030 with Project
No of Lanes q A
M
Peak P.M. Penk A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
.
.
V t~ob V/C LOS VoL Y/C LOS Vol v/C LOS VoL [~/C LOS
I-580, East of I-680
Eastbound 4 8,000 6,464 0.81 D 9,960 1.25 F 6,616 0.83 D 10~ 0 1.25 F
Westbound 5 10,000 15~ 2 1.57 F 6,681 0.67 C I5~ 6 1.58 F 6,766 0.68 C
I-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive
Eastbound 6+aux. 13
000 024
8 0.62 C ~2259 0.97 E 8,180 0.63 C 12;64 0.97 E
, ,
Westbound 4+ aux. 9,000 ~ 3486 1.54 F 7,067 0.79 D ~ 34 ~ 1.54 F 7,152 0.79 D
I-580, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road
Eastbound 5 10,000 6,528 0.65 C 12g 2 1.20 F 6,689 0.67 C 123 ~ 1.21 F
Westbound 4+aux. 9,000 12;~3 1.41 F 6,353 0.71 C 12;~6 1.42 F 6,451 0.72 C
I-580, Tassajara Road to Failon Road
Eastbound 4+aux. 9
000 6
351 0.71 C 12~ 8 ].39 F 6,354 0.71 C 12148 1.39 E
, ,
Westbound 4+aux. 9,000 14Q 9 1.61 F 6,711 0.75 C 144 9 1.61 F 6,716 0.75 C
1-580, Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard
Eastbound 4+aux. 9,000 6,637 0.74 C 12397 1.44 F 6,681 0.74 C ~34 4 1.45 F
Westbound 4+aux. 9,000 15,
72 1.75 F 6,432 0.71 C ~ 54 g 1.75 F 6,490 0.72 C
~
I-680, Alcosta Boulevard to I-580
Northbound 4 8,000 6,646 0.83 D 9,029 1.13 F 6,652 0.83 D 9,040 1.13 F
Southbound 4 8,000 9,591 1.20 F 5,989 0.75 C 9,628 1.20 F 5,997 0.75 C
1-680, South of I-580
Northbound 3 6
000 3
791 0.63 C ~~5 9 1.68 F 3,798 0.63 C ~ 0,10 1.68 F
, ,
Southbound 3+aux. 7,000 8,685 1.24 F 4,512 0.64 C 8,687 1.24 F 4,515 0.65 C
SR 84, South of I-580 (Analyzed as an arterial with a capacity of 1,000 veh/hr/lane) I
Northbound 2 2,000 3,753 1.88 F 3,198 1.60 F 3,773 1.89 F 3,208 1.60 F
Southbound 2 2,000 3,549 1.77 F 2,965 1.48 F 3,553 1.78 F 2,985 1.49 F
Source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-1, Levels of Service for Basic Freeway Sections
Maximum Service Flow rate for freeway segments=2000 vehicles/hr/lane, aux. =Auxiliary Lane
If number of lanes on freeway segmenr N+aux., capacity of segment= (N*2000+1000)
vehicles/hr
Note: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
All "with Project" results in Table VIII were calculated for the larger project no longer
proposed, as documented in Attachment E of Appendix _.
City of Dublin Page 103
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
l37 t.~-~
~
c) Change in air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed Project would have no irnpact on
air traffic patterns, since it involves a proposed mixed-use or campus office
development.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS. Approval
of the proposed Project will be reviewed by the Dublin Public Works Department
and Alameda County Fire Departrnent to ensure that all City standards for
turning radii, sight line distances and other on-site traffic safety criteria are met.
No new or more severe impacts would result.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI. The proposed Grafton Plaza Project
would not include any barriers or impedances to local or city-wide emergeney
evacuation routes as required by the City of Dublin Comprehensive Emergency
Management Plan so no impact would result regarding this topic.
f) Inadequate parking capacity? LS/M. The amount of parking proposed on the Project
site is not known at this time, since final land uses on the Project site are not
known. Lack of sufficient parking would be a potentially significant impact, since
insufficient parking on the Grafton Plaza site could result in spill over of parked
vehicles on adjacent properties. The following measure is recommended to reduce
this impact to a less-than-significant level:
Supplemental Miti~ation Measure TRA-3. Future uses within the
Grafton Plaza Project shall either comply with City of Dublin off-street
parking requirements in effect at the time Stage 2 Development Plan(s)
are submitted, or, if City standards cannot be met, provide a shared
parking analysis demonstrating that suitable parking can be provided at
all times of the day and days of the week.
g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? NI. The proposed Project would
include construction of sidewalks on adjacent street frontages to facilitate
pedestrian access. Bicyclists could use adjacent roads as well to access Tassajara
Road and other roads, so that no impacts to this topic would result
17. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Settin~
Sewer service. The Eastern Dublin EIR examined wastewater collection, treatrnent, and
disposal issues for the Project area. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) was
identified as the future provider of collection and treatrnent services for the Project area
with disposal provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency
(LAVWMA), a joint powers authority composed of Livermore, Pleasanton and DSRSD.
LAVWMA operates a pipeline that carries treated wastewater over the Dublin grade
and into East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) facilities for eventual discharge into
San Francisco Bay.
City of Dublin Page 104
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~ ~ , ~,~...~
~
Wastewater collection system. DSRSD owns and maintains a system of underground
sewer mains throughout its service area, including Dublin. A 30-inch diameter sewer
line currently exists within Dublin Boulevard just north of the Project site. A 10-inch
diameter sewer service line is currently stubbed into the Project site.
Wastewater treatment. Wastewater is collected as described above and conveyed to the
District's Wastewater Treatrnent Plan (WWTP) located south of Stoneridge Drive in
Pleasanton. The WWTP also treats wastewater from the City of Pleasanton.
DSRSD recently completed the first stage of its planned expansion to serve additional
growth in its service area. This expansion added 5.5 million gallon per day (mgd) of
average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity to the treatrnent plant for a total of 17.0
mgd ADWF. Recent flows into the WWTP as of June, 2008, was appraximately 10.7
mgd (Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 7/08).
Wastewater disposal. The Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency
(LAVWMA) pipeline disposes of treated wastewater into San Francisco Bay via East
Bay Dischargers facilities.
LAVWMA, the joint powers agency, was created in 1974 by the cities of Livermore and
Pleasanton, and DSRSD. Effluent from the wastewater treatment plants operated by
the City of Livermore and DSRSD is conveyed to LAVWMA regulating reservoirs in
Pleasanton and then via a 16-mile export pipeline to the East Bay Dischargers
Authority (EBDA) pipeline in San Leandro. The EBDA pipeline conveys the effluent
for ultimate discharge to San Francisco Bay.
Water service. Water supply and distribution impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.5,
Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage, of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This Initial Study
analyzes the Project's impacts when evaluated against new information concerning
water supply subsequent to the earlier analyses, including the 2000 MND.
Water demand and supply. The City of Dublin is supplied by water provided by the
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), headquartered in Dublin. DSRSD owns
and operates a water distribution system, including transmission lines, pump stations
and water turnouts. DSRSD obtains water from Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District, which is discussed below. DSRSD was
formed in 1953, formerly known as the Valley Community Services District.
Treated water is supplied to DSRSD by Zone 7 from various turnouts in the Dublin
area. Water received from the turnouts is distributed throughout Dublin via a grid of
underground water transmission lines, delivering water to residences, businesses and
other customers within the District's service area. ~
The District also provides recycled (reclaimed) water for irrigation and other non-
potable uses. DSRSD Ordinance No. 280 requires recycled water use for approved
customer categories for all new land uses, including commercial, multi-family
City of Dublin Page 105
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~3`~ m ~~-a
~
residential and institutional irrigation uses within the DSRSD potable water service
area. New development within the Eastern Dublin area has been required to install
dual water systems and a recycled water distribution system has been installed within
the major streets, including Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street immediately west of
the site. A Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Ord. No. 980) has also been adopted
by DSRSD to minimize use of potable water for irrigation purposes.
DSRSD's Urban Water Management Plan (May 2005) includes a projection of future
potable and reclaimed water use through the year 2025. This projection is shown on
Table 18, following.
Table 18. Projected DSRSD Water Demand
(Potable & Reclaimed) (Acre-Feet/Year)
Demand Source 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Potable Water
Dublin 9,300 10,600 11,900 13,700 13,700 13,700
Dougherty
Valle 1,250 2,800 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400
Subtotal 10,550 13,400 15,300 17,100 17,100 17,100
Rec cled Water 2,000 2,700 3,250 3,700 3,700 3,700
Total 12,550 16,100 18,550 20,800 20,800 20,800
Source: DSRSD Urban Water Management Plan, 2005 Update
DSRSD and Zone 7 are responsible for planning to supply sufficient water to meet
the anticipated growth in demand. DSRSD plans to use a combination of potable and
recycled water supplies as well as conservation of water resources.
The wholesale supplier of water to DSRSD is Zone 7. Zone 7 relies on a combination
of supplies to meet retail water needs. Existing water sources include:
State Water Project Su~plies: In a typical year, Zone 7 gets approximately 70 to
80 percent of its water supply from water conveyed through the Sacramento-
San joaquin Delta by the State Water Project. Zone 7 has a 75-year contract with
the California Departrnent of Water Resources (DWR) to receive water from the
State Water Project (SWP). The entitlement under this contract is 46,000 acre-feet
annually. SWP water is delivered to Zone 7 from the Feather River Watershed
via the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This water is then transported to Zone 7
through the California Aqueduct to the South Bay Aqueduct and Lake Del
Valle. Water enters the Zone 7 system from the South Bay Aqueduct and from
Lake Del Valle at two Zone 7 treatrnent plants: the Patterson Pass Treatment
Plant and the Del Val1e Water Treatrnent Plant.
Zone 7 reached its full entitlement of 46,000 acre-feet per year in 1997. To meet
anticipated demand, Zone 7 has acquired additional entitlements from other
water agencies equal to 34,619 acre-feet annually. With regard to all of these
SWP entitlements, actual water deliveries vary, depending on hydrologic
City of Dublin Page 106
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
l ~ ~~' ~i~--~-~
conditions, requests by other contractors, delivery capacity and
environmental / regulatory requirements.
Historically, for planning purposes Zone 7 anticipated a long-term annual
average delivery of 75.6% of its entitlement. Recently, however, SWP water
deliveries have been restricted by a short-term federal court order restricting
Delta pumping, which is designed to protect the Delta Smelt, an endangered
species, and additional species-related restrictions on the State Water ProjecYs
ability to deliver water from the Delta are possible. Zone 7 now anticipates a
long-term annual average delivery to be approximately 66% of its entitlements.
Bvron-Bethan,~~ation District: Since 1994, Zone 7 has been receiving water
via a short-term water transfer from the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District. Zone
7 has made arrangements with this District to make this a long-term (15) year
arrangement. The agreement calls for delivery of 2,000 acre- feet per year. As
this water supply is delivered through the South Bay Aqueduct via the Delta, it
could potentially be impacted by court and regulatory restrictions on Delta
pumping.
Local Surface Water: Lake Del Valle is a local storage reservoir operated
as part of the SWP. However, Zone 7 has rights to 9,300 acre-feet of water
per year from the lake's watershed.
Local Groundwater: Zone 7 and DSRSD use the local underground aquifer basin
as a storage facility for imported water. The aquifer is also naturally recharged
by rainwater falling in the watershed area. It is estimated that a safe yield of
13,400 acre-feet of water per year can be ~vithdrawn from the basin. DSRSD
operates pumping facilities near the intersection of Stoneridge Drive and
Johnson Drive in Pleasanton, although the yield from these pumps is low.
Although the restrictions on State Water Project deliveries from the Delta have
created significant uncertainties about future water supplies, DSRSD and Zone 7
indicate that Zone 7 has sufficient supplies to serve projected demand through 2015.
In the meantime, as a substantial portion of the State's water supplies are derived
from the Delta, various state and federal efforts are underway to ensure that water
deliveries from the Delta are maintained while at the same time protecting species
that rely on the Delta. These efforts include near-term (or interim) projects, such as
the Franks Tract Project, which would install a physical barrier in the Delta that
would serve to reduce the impact of pumping on Delta Smelt, and long-term
projects, such as the construction of dual- or isolated-conveyance system. Such a
dual- or isolated-conveyance system would involve the construction of a canal
between an intake at the Sacramento River upstream of the Delta and the SWP
pumps at the southern end of the Delta, which would allow SWP water to be
conveyed separately from the Delta.
Ultimately, if future water supplies prove insufficient to meet demand, Zone 7 and
DSRSD are exploring a number of alternatives to either reduce demand or increase
City of Dublin Page 107
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
ly~ 4~
~
supply sufficiently to meet projected demand through buildout of their constituent
agencies' general plans. These alternatives include:
Zone 7 acquiring additional SWP entitlements from other water agencies.
Zone 7 altering its 100% Reliability Policy, which requires Zone 7 to have
adequate supplies available to meet 100% of customer demand at all times.
Altering this policy would free up existing water supplies that are presently set
aside to meet the policy.
Permanent conservation, such as replacing existing potable-water landscape
irrigation systems with recycled water systems and retrofitting existing
structures with water conserving fixtures. Offsetting existing demand would
free up water supplies for future demand.
Both DSIZSD and Zone 7 have adopted contingency plans for water cutbacks in the
event of a drought.
Zone 7 and DSRSD currently charge~s connection and other fees on new
development within the District's service area. Fees are used for construction of
planned water system capital improvements including storage, pumping,
transmission and on-going system water maintenance and improvements.
Both recycled and potable water pipes have been constructed within Grafton Street
immediately west of the Project site.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified
overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact.
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a
level of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with
DSRSD to develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water
resources and that all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area connect to
the DSIZSD water system. Impact 3.5/Q identified an increase in water demand as a
potentially significant impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant
level based on implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0-31.0. These mitigation
measures require implementation of water conservation measures in individual
development projects and construction of new system-wide water improvements
which are funded by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in
the Eastern Dublin EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity
(Impact 3.5/R). This impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance
through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 32.0-33.0, which requires
improvement to the Zone 7 water system.
Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially
significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an
City of Dublin Page 108
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~i~ ~ y~.~
~
insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/34.0-38.0. These
mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a"will
serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5/T identified a potentially
significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of
population in the project area through provision of a water distribution system. The
Eastern Dublin EIR found that this was a significant and unavoidable impact.
Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5 / B(lack of a
wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be
mitigated through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 1.0-5.0. These measures
require DSRSD to prepare an area-wide wastewater collection system master plan,
requires all new development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system,
discourages on-site wastewater treatrnent, requires a"will-serve" letter from DSRSD
and requires that all sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards.
Impact 3.5 / C noted an impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with
capacity to serve new development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since
the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to
accommodate sewer demand from the Specific Plan project only. Impact 3.5/G found
that lack of wastewater disposal capacity was a significant impact. An upgraded
wastewater disposal facility is presently being constructed by the Livermore Amador
Valley Water Management Agency to provide adequate disposal capacity. Impact
3.5/E identified lack of future wastewater treatrnent plant capacity as a potentially
significant impact, which could be reduced to an insignificant level through adherence
to Mitigation Measure 3.5/8.0, which requires that wastewater treatment and disposal
be made available to meet anticipated development in Eastern Dublin.
2000 MND. The 2000 MND addressed water and wastewater issues, and solid waste
disposal for Area H. No additional impacts or mitigation measures with respect to
these topics or utilities or service systems were included in the 2000 MND.
All mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will apply to the
proposed Project.
Project Impacts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? LS. The Project site is
located within the service area of DSRSD and the Project Applicant would request
wastewater service from the District in order to serve the proposed Project.
Applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will apply to
this Project to ensure that adequate funding is supplied to DSRSD so that
wastewater facilities are consistent with wastewater discharge requirements
mandated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. These Mitigation
Measures include 3.5 / 7.0, 7.1, 8.0 and 9.0. Since the Project would not increase the
amount of development intensity on the site greater than currently designated in
the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, no new or more
severe significant impacts are anticipated with regard to exceedances of Regional
Water Quality Control Board wastewater treatment requirements. No new or
City of Dublin Page 109
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
'`7~ ~a't.t?
~
more severe significant impacts are anticipated beyond those analyzed in
previous CEQA documents.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities?
LS. In terms of wastewater facilities, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts
3.5 / A, B, C, D, E and G associated with the planned development of the largely
undeveloped Eastern Dublin area and wastewater systems. Impact 3.5 / A cited
indirect impacts resulting from lack of a wastewater service provider to the
Eastern Dublin area. Impact 3.5/B noted lack of a wastewater collection systern in
the Eastern Dublin area, Impact 3.5/C found an impact with extension of a sewer
trunk with capacity to serve future developments in Eastern Dublin. Impacts
3.5/D and E noted lack of wastewater treatrnent capacity to serve proposed
development in Eastern Dublin. Impact G identified a lack of current wastewater
disposal capacity.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0 through 9.0 and 10.0 through14.0 were included to
reduce wastewater treatment impacts to an insignificant level by requiring
extension of public wastewater systems to the Eastern Dublin area, requiring
wastewater collection master plans for new development projects, requiring new
development projects to be connected to a public sewer system and promoting
use of recycled water for irrigation. As noted in the Environmental Setting
section, the Project site and the remainder of Eastern Dublin has been annexed to
DSRSD, so a public wastewater system is available in the area.
With respect to wastewater generation and treatrnent Table 19, below,
summarizes the estimated amount of wastewater that would be generated from
the Project at full buildout under both development options.
City of Dublin Page 110
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
l~~ ~~~
Table 19. Estimated Grafton Plaza Project Wastewater Generation
Dwelling Units Generation Factor Est. Wastewater
Land Use Square Footage (gallons per day) Generation
( allons er da )
O tion 1-Mixed Use
High Density 248,259 165/unit 38,775
Residential (235 dwellings)
Commercial Retail & 248,260 0.10/sq. ft. 24,826
Office
Subtotal 63,601
O tion 2- Cam us O'ce
Commercial Retail & 496,519 0.10/sq. ft. 49,652
Office
Source: DSRSD, Wastewater Master Plan, 2005
As shown in Table 19, Option 1 would generate a greater quantity of wastewater
(63,601 gallons per day) than Option 2(49,652 gallons per day), due to the higher
wastewater generation from residential uses. Neither of the development options
are anticipated to result in new or more significant impacts than analyzed in
previous CEQA documents since the amount of development proposed in the
Project under either option would not exceed General Plan or Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan land use assumptions which have been used by DSRSD as the basis
of wastewater planning (see Section 2, Land Use Projections, DSRSD Wastewater
Collection System Master Plan Update, 2005). A residential option has been part
of the Campus Office land use designation since adoption of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan in 1993. Also, as described in the Environmental Setting section, the
DSRSD WWTP has a significant excess treatrnent capacity.
With respect to wastewater treatrnent, Eastern Dublin EIR noted Impacts 3.5/G
and I regarding lack of wastewater treatrnent and disposal facilities. Eastern
Dublin Mitigation Measures 3.5/11.0 through 14.0 and 3.5/17.0 reduced this
impact to a level of insignificance. These measures require expansion of the
treated wastewater export pipeline from Eastern Dublin, promote reuse of treated
wastewater for irrigation, require development projects to receive a will-serve
letter from DSRSD, and require engineering redundancy to minimize the risk of
pump station failure. These measures have been implemented and a larger export
pipeline was completed in 2005 under the auspices of the Livermore Amador
Valley Wastewater Treatment Authority (LAVWTA). DSRSD has commenced
construction of a recycled water system in the Eastern Dublin area. The proposed
Project will be required to connect to this system when a recycled pipeline is
constructed near the Project site.
For Project compliance with the above Eastern Dublin mitigation measures, when
a development project is proposed the Project developer will be required to
City of Dublin Page 111
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
I~~ ~a ~~
~
prepare and implement a wastewater master plan, pay necessary fees and
construct local, Project-specific wastewater facilities to DSRSD standards and
specifications. No new or expanded wastewater treatment or disposal facilities
beyond those existing or planned would be required as a result of the Project.
In terms of a water facilities, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/R that
cited a need for additional water treatment plant capacity and Impact S, lack of a
water distribution system. Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 32.0 and 33.0 reduced Impact
3.5/ R to a level of insignificance by requiring construction of new water
treatrnent facilities to serve planned development in the Eastern Dublin area,
including upgrades to the Del Valle Water Treatment Plan, installation of ozone
facilities, installation of a water clarifier at the Patterson Pass water treatment
plans by Zone 7 and construction of new water chlorination and fluoridation
stations at Zone 7 water turnouts. Distribution mitigation measures for Impact
3.5/S called for water system planning, system improvements designed and built
to DSRSD standards and for development to obtain will-serve letters from
DSRSD.
Table 20, below, summarizes anticipated water demand from the Project at
buildout, using DSRSD standard water generation rates.
Table 20. Estimated Grafton Plaza Potable Water Demand
Dwelling Units Generation Factor Est. Wastewater
Land Use Square Footage (gallons per day) Generation
( allons er da )
O tion 1-Mixed Use '
High Density 248,259 165/unit 38,775
Residential (235 dwellings) '
Commercial Retail & 248,260 0.10/sq. ft. 24,826
Office
Subtotal 63,601
O tion 2- Cam us O'ce
Commercial Retail & 496,519 0.10/sq. ft. 49,652
Office
Notes:
1) Water demand factors assume use of recycled water for exterior landscape irrigation.
2) The above factors do not include exterior irrigation water.
Source: DSRSD, Urban Water Master Plan, 2005
The Project developer will be required to pay water fees to DSRSD to assist in
funding these and other water facility upgrades. With adherence to these
measures, no new or more severe impacts with respect to wastewater or water
facilities not previously analyzed are anticipated.
City of Dublin Page 112
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
l ~~ ~ ~pz.;~
c) Require new storm drainage facilities? LS. See item 9 e in the Hydrology and Water
Quality section.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified
Impacts 3.5 / Q and T with respect to water supply. Impact Q cited an increase in
water demand based on buildout of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Impact T
noted inducement of substantial growth and population concentration in Eastern
Dublin with development of a water distribution system. The Eastern Dublin EIR
included Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 26.0 through 31.0 to assist in reducing the
water demand impact to a level of insignificance. These measures require water
conservation and recycling conditions on development and improvements to the
Zone 7 system. However, the Eastern Dublin EIR also identified that inducement
of a substantial population growth in Eastern Dublin as a result of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan was a significant and unavoidable impact and could not be
fully mitigated.
The proposed Project will be required to meet all water system mitigation
measures set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce water supply impacts to an
insignificant level. Inducement of a substantial population increase based on an
increase in the regional water supply will remain significant and unavoidable. No
new or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified will result from
the Project.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? LS. See responses to "b,"
above.
f) Solid waste disposal? NI. The Project area is within the franchise area of Amador
Valley Industries, a company that provides residential and commercial solid
waste pick-up and recycling services. Impacts related to solid waste disposal were
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (see Impacts 3.4/O and P regarding increased
waste production and increased demand for waste disposal facilities.) Mitigation
Measures 3.4/37.0-40.0 call for solid waste planning and diversion. No new or
more severe significant impacts would result with regard to this topic that have
not been previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND. No
additional analysis is requ.ired.
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI.
The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local
solid waste regulations should the proposed Project be approved. No impacts are
anticipated in this regard.
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
City of Dublin Page 113
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~-7 y y~
~
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? No. Potential impacts related to substantial reduction of fish or wildlife
species or their respective habitats, to reduction of the range or number of
endangered plant or animal species or the elimination of examples of major
period of California history or prehistory in the Eastern Dublin area have been
analyzed and mitigated in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 MND. The
proposed Project would cause no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts on biological or cultural resources beyond those identified in previous
environmental reviews.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incrementaY effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future
projects). Yes. Significant and unavoidable impacts have been identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR with regard to cumulative air quality, transportation and
other issues for the overall Eastern Dublin project, of which the Grafton Plaza
Project is a component. The proposed Grafton Plaza Project would not result in
additional or more significant cumulative impacts than have been previously
analyzed by the City.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which wiil cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been identified
in this Initial Study.
Ciry of Dublin Page 114
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
}~ G~ ~, , ~~
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, Project Manager
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial
Study:
City of Dublin
Jeri Ram, AICP, Community Development Director
Michael Porto, Planning Consultant
Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist
Diane Lowart, Parks and Community Services Director
Jamie Bourgeois, Senior Transportation Engineer
Kathleen Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney
Val Guzman, Police Services Department
Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Website
Applicant Representatives
Marty Inderbitzen, Applicant attorney
Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates
Connie Goldade, MacKay & Somps
References
Cit,y of Dublin Com~rehensive Management Plan, undated
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 11 / 18 / 08
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Im~act Report,
Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, David Gates &
Associates, 1996
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2004 update
Wastewater Collection Svstem Master Plan U~date, DSRSD, MWH Engineers,
june 2005
Urban Water Master Plan, DSRSD, West Yost Associates, May 2005
City of Dublin Page 115
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~~i ~~ ~
~
Appendix 1
Biological Resource Letter
city ot uublin Page 116
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
~ ~ P'~ y.~~ ~~~ ~~~
-_;
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS
19 Mazch 2008
Mike Porto
Martha Aja
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Biological Resources Update for Dublin Ranch Area H
Dear Mr. Porto and Ms. Aja:
H. T. Harvey & Associates was asked to provide an update of the existing biological conditions
on the Dublin Ranch Area H and a summary of the biological mitigation conducted for
development of the area. The purpose of this update and summary is to assist you•with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) update for the parcel in light of a specific
development proposal on Planning Area H of the Dublin Ranch. ~
In brief, biological resources have changed in Area H, but these changes have removed and
mitigated for sensitive habitats and reduced the potential of the remaining habitat to support
important wildlife species. Mitigation for loss of habitat and loss of individuals of protected
species has been completed. There are no remaining important biological resources in Area H.
Area H was initially filled, at least in all areas slated for construction. Construction, including
buildings, parking lots, and a stormwater detention basin, altered much of Area H. The
remaining portion was disturbed by fill, and general construction activity. All California red-
legged frogs were removed prior to the disturbance, and surveys of all burrows on the site
deternuned that California tiger salamanders were not present. .
At this time, there are no California ground squinels (Spermophilus beecheyi) burrows within
Area H. The lack of burrows means that there is no habitat for burrowing owls to nest and no
prey or denning opportunities for San Joaquin kit fox or American badger. There is some
opportunity for nesting birds, (which was covered in the prior CEQA documents) however, not
for raptors and not for other currently listed as a CDFG Species of Special Concern.
As you are aware, our firm prepared an Ecological Impacts and Mitigation Report in 1999 that
included this area and has since coordinated the implementation of the biological mitigation for
the entire Dublin Ranch site. This balance of this letter describes a brief chronology of the
mitigation implementation activities that have occurred since our 1999 report.
Area H(in combination with Areas B, C, and F; collectively called Dublin Ranch) was the
subject of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) permits for fill of wetlands and jurisdictional waters in the drainages. Associated
with the USACE permit was an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation for
California red-legged frogs (Rana draytonii), California tiger salamanders (Ambystoma
californiense), and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). The biological mitigation and
983 University Avenue, Building D~ Los Gatos, CA 95032 • Ph: 408.458.3200 • Fax: 408.458.3210 ~
~ s~ ~ ~~
M. Porto and M. Aja
Dublin Ranch Area H
18 Mazch 2008
Page 2 of 2
monitoring program for biological resources included CEQA, ESA, and Clean Water Act and
Fish and Game Code compliance measures and was implemented for Dublin Ranch beginning in
June of 2003. This program exceeded the CEQA compliance mitigation requirements.
The program included pre-construction surveys and avoidance measures for special-status
species called out during CEQA review (e.g., construction initiation during the dry season, hand
removal of seasonal wetland vegetation, construction monitoring) and additional measures for
species listed under the ESA. In addition the program included compensation for lost habitat for
listed species and for lost seasonal wetlands (including those within Area I-n. Compensatory
mitigation for habitat and seasonal wetland loss was primarily implemented at the Lin Livermore
Conservation Area with the construction. Two additional Conservation Areas were established
to complete compensatory mitigation for all species and habitat loss for Dublin Ranch. ,
Mitigation for the impacts in Area H was accomplished by construction of seasonal wetlands,
ultimately at a ratio greater than 2:1 (created:impact), and California red-legged frog foraging
habitat at the Lin Livermore Conservation Area. This mitigation has been implemented and is in
the fourth year of a monitoring program to document its success, which has all indications of
being completely successful. Additionally, the Biological Opinion allows for continuted
relocation of red-legged frogs from the Area H detention basin, in the very unlikely event that a
frog is washed or otherwise finds its way into the basin.
In Area H, prior to construction of the storm drainage and water quality systems, California red-
legged frogs were removed and relocated, all burrows were searched for California tiger
salamanders, and pre-construction surveys were conducted for nesting birds (including
burrowing owls [Athene cunicularia]), San Joaquin kit foxes, and their dens, and American
badger (Taxidea tczYUS), and their dens. A few California red-legged frogs were found in ditches
and wetlands in Area H and were relocated to mitigation conservation areas; no California tiger
salamanders were found, and none of the other special-status species or sign of them were
detected. Burrowing owls were found nearby but never in Area H during pre-construction
surveys that continued monthly through February 2007.
In summary, in our opinion, there are no new or remaining biological issues that would require
further CEQA analysis.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 458-3201 or rduke@harveyecology.com, or Julie
HIingmann of my staff at (408) 458-3225 or jklingmann@harveyecology.com, if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
: ,,~ ~r,E'
Ron Duke
cc: Jerry Haag,
JLK/SCR, H. T. Harvey & Associates
File # 555-53
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
~::~; e., {; !/ ~..-~.:~
~ ' F ~
~~
Appendix 2
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
~ny or uuonn Page 117
Initial Study/Grafton Piaza December 2009
PA 07-006
Projeck Graflon Plaza Mixed Use
Spreadsheet to Calculate Electrical Power Emissions and IXher Greenhouse Gases for Bay Area Projects
URBEMIS ANNUAL C02 EMISSIONS FROM:
CONSTRUCTION
VEHICLES:
AREASOURCES
ELECTRICITY
CONSTRUCTION
OPERATION'
Vehir.tes
Area Sources
Eiectricity
75925 TONS
5879.69 TONS/YEAR
899.67 TONS/YEAR
1,935.13 TONS/YEAR
Tvns Metric Tor~::
757.60 608J9
Tansiyear Mehic Tons per year
5901 ]5 S:i54.03
9G3.?2 879.Z5
7938.23 i758.35
4.06 C02 EQUIV.TONSNEAR
N20 ANNUAL EMISSIONS
1.98 C02 EQUIV. TONS
18.59 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR
3.79 C02 E~UIV.TONS/YEAR
2.76 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR
8743.70 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR
7932.23 C02 EQUIV.TONNESlYEAR
CH4 and N20 emission fadors from Table 3 in BAAQMD's "Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions", December 2008.
CH4 assumed to have a Global Warming Potential of 21 times that of C02.
N20 assumed to have a Global Wartning Potenlial of 310 times that of C02.
Electrical Power Usage ~ ~
Amounls Unitsl1000 sq. ft. Usage/Unit Usage mW-hr/year
235 Residences 6.92
248 Office 12.84
Reslauran[ 35.62
Retail ~ 13.84
Grocerv 46.96
Ref. Warehouse _ 22.36
Warehouse 6.04
Schools . 6.82
Colleqes 10.44
Hospitals 2 ~ _p
Lodginq 10.87
Misc. cmrcl. ~2
Residential Rate from Califomia Electricity Consumption by County, 2005 Ihtlp:Uwww.enerav.ca.qov/electricilvtelectricitv bv county 2005 htrnll
Commercial Electriciry Use, PG&E systemwide; kWH per conditioned sq. ft./yr; from CEC: http:lMrww.consumerenergycenler.org/pv4newbuildings/downloads/II-6A.pdf
' Calif. Climate Adion Repistry (CCAR) Prolocol ver 3.0
25.14 C02 EQUIV.TONSNEAR
TONS/YEAR ~ C02 EQ TONS/YEA
1,935.73 1,935.13
0.0161 0.34
0.0089 2.76
.~r
V '
~•' V
..'"'.~+±s
~
~
CH4 ANNUA~ EMISSIONS
0.38 C02 EQUIV. TONS
3.47 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR
0.26 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR
0.34 C02 EQUIV.TONSNEAR
16262
3184.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ibs./MWh (from CCAR Protocnl)
4810.52 804.54 CO,
0.0067 CH,
0.0037 NO,
Projed: Grakon Plaza Office
Spreadsheet fo Calculale Electrical Power Emissions and Ofher Greenhouse Gases for Bay Area Projeds
URBEMIS ANNUAL C02 EMISSIONS FROM:
CH4 ANNUAL EMISSIONS
CONSTRUCTION 696.43 TONS 0.35 C02 EQUIV. TONS
VEHICLES: 6636.23 TONS/YEAR 3.92 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR
AREASOURCES ~ 725.87 TONS/VEAR D.21 C02E~UIV.TONSNEAR
ELECTRICITY 2,567.08 TONS/YEAR 0.45 C02 E~UIV.TONS/YEAR
Tons Metric Tors 4.57 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR
CONSTRUCTION: 698 Su 631."aU
OPERRTipN: Tons/ycar hletric Tons per year
Vehicles fi661.13 6042.94
Area Sourr.es 729.14 961.47
Electrir..ity 2571.19 2332 57
9961.45 C02 EQl1iV.TONS/YEAR
9036.97 C02 EQUIV.TONNESlYEAR
CH4 and N20 emission fadors from Table 3 in BAAQMD's "Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions', Decembe~ 2008.
CH4 assumed to have a Global Warming Potential of 21 times that of C02.
N20 assumed to have a Global Warming Potential of 310 times that of C02.
Electrical Power Usage
Amounts Units/1000 sq. fl. Usage/Unit Usage mW-hdyear
N2D ANNUAL EMISSIONS
1.87 C02 EQUIV. TONS
20.98 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR
3.06 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR
3.66 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR
0~ Residences 6.92 0
497 Office 12.84 6381.48
Restaurant 35.62 0
Retail 13.84 0
Grocery 46.96 0
Ref. Warehouse 22.36 0
warehouse 6.04 0
Schools 6.82 0
ColleAes 10.44 0
Hospilals 21.2 0
Lodging 10.87 0
Misa cmrcl. 12 0
' Ibs./MWh (from CCAR Protocol)
6381.48 804.54 CO,
0.0067 CH.
' 0.0037 NO,
Residen6al Rate from Calrfomia Electricity Consumplion by County, 2005 ~://www.enerqy.p.qov/electricitv/electricitv bv countv 2005.html)
Commercial Elecfricity Use, PG&E syslemwide; kWH per condiGoned sq. ft.lyr; from CEC: http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/pv4newbuildings/downloads/II-6A.pdf
' Cal'rf. Climate Acfion Repistry (CCAR) Protocol ver 3.0
27.70 C02 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR
TONSlYEAR C02 EQ TONS/YEA
2.567.08 2.567.08
0.0214 0.45
0.0118 3.66
V '
~
~
~
~
Page: 1
5/8/2009 11:43:56 AM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
File Name:
Project Name: Grafton Pfaza Mixed Use Construction
Project Location: Alameda County
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
C02
2010 TOTALS (tonstyear unmitigated) 759.25
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
C02
-~,,,,
~
~
~
-rs
~
Page: 2
5/8/200911:43:56 AM
2010 759.25
Fine Grading 01/01/2010- 48.16
02/28/2010
Fine Grading Dust 0.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 46.07
Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00
Fine Grading Worker Trips 2.09
Asphalt 02/01/2010-02/28/2010 18.61
Paving Off-Gas 0.00
Paving Ott Road Diesel 14.18
Paving On Road Diesel 2.14
Paving Worker Trips 2.29
Building 03/01/2010-12/31/2010 685.87
Building Off Road Diesel 778.33
Building Vendor Trips 139.78
Building Worker Trips 367.76
Coating 11 /01 /2010-12/31 /2010 6.60
Architectural Coating 0.00
Coating Worker Trips 6.60
Phase Assumotions
Phase: Fine Grading 1/1/2010 - 2/28/2010 - Default Fine Site Grading Description
Totai Acres Disturbed: 14.34
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 3.58
Fugitive Dust Level oi Detail: Default
20 Ibs per acre-day
~
V '
~
'~
~
~
Page: 3
5/8/2009 11:43:56 AM
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/LoadersBackhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (789 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Paving 2/1/20~0 - 2/28/2010 - Default Paving Description
Acres to be Paved: 3.58
Off-Road Equipment:
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.561oad factor for 6 hours per day
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Tractors/LoadersBackhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 3/1/2010 - 12/31/2010 - Default Building Construction Description
Off-Road Equipment: ,
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/LoadersBackhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load tactor for 8 hours per day
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Architectural Coating 11l1/2010 - 12/31/2010 - Default Architectural Coating Description
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specities a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31Y2040 specities a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
U/ '
V
~
c°~
~
Page: 1
5/8/2009 11:51:35 AM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
File Name:
Project Name: Grafton Plaza Mixed Use Project
Project Location: Alameda County
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Fieport:
AREA SOUACE EMISSION ESTIMATES
~?
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 899_67
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
C02
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 5,879.69
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSfON ESTIMATES
~?
TOTALS (tonstyear, unmitigated) 6,779.36
~~~
~vl
~"~'°°~~
~
~
Page: 1
5/B/2009 11:48:00 AM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
File Name:
Project Name: Grafton Plaza Mixed Use Project
Project Location: Alameda County
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 15.04 3.47 5.23 0.00 0.02 0.02
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 33.78 42.75 398.33 0.33 58.75 11.39
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG ~ CO S02 PM10 PM2.5
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 48.82 46.22 403.56 0.33 58.77 11.41
'~ 1
~
~
~
~
Page: 2
SB/2009 11:48:00 AM
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES S ummer Pounds P er Day, Unmitigated
Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5
Natural Gas 026 3.43 2.14 0.00 0.01 0.01
Hearth - No Summer Emissions
Landscape 0.25 0.04 3.09 0.00 0.01 0.01
Consumer Products 11.50
Architectural Coatings 3.03
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 15.04 3.47 5.23 0.00 0.02 0.02
Area Source Changes to Detaults
Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source ' ROG NOX
CondoRownhouse general 12.35 14.63
Office park 21.43 2g.12
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 33.78 42.75
Operational Settings:
Does not include correction for passby trips
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer
CO S02 PM10 PM25
137.09 0.11 20.11 3.90
2fi1.24 0.22 38.64 7.49
398.33 0.33 58.75 11.39
'i
~'''
"~
,..~.~„ °~.
~
~
Page: 3
5/8/2009 11:48:00 AM
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Land Use Type
Condoftownhouse general
Office park
Vehicle Type
Light Auto
Light Truck < 3750 Ibs
LightTruck 3751-57501bs
Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs
Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs
Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs
Other Bus
Urban Bus
Motorcycle
School Bus
Motor Home
Summary of Land Uses
Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT
7.17 5.80 dwelling units 235.00 1,363.00 11,653.24
10.77 1000 sq ft 248.00 2,670.96 22,387.99
4,033.96 34,041.23
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Percent Type Non-Cat alyst Catalyst Diesei
54.4 1.3 98.3 0.4
12.4 2.4 95.2 2.4
19.7 0.5 99.5 0.0
6.3 0_0 98.4 1.6
0.8 0.0 75.0 25.0
0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0
1.3 0.0 15.4 84.6
0.8 0.0 0.0 100.0
0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
2.9 69.0 31.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.6 0.0 83.3 16.7
"r`
*:~',^--,
..v..~
~"~?'3
~
~
Page: 4
5Jg/2009 11:48:00 AM
Urban Trip Length (miles)
Rural Trip Length (miles)
Trip speeds (mph)
% of Trips - Residential
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
Ottice park
Travel Conditions
Aesidential
Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other
10.8 7.3 7.5
16.8 7.1 7.9
35.0 35.0 35.0
32.9 18.0 49.1
Commerciai
Commute Non-Work Customer
9.5 7.4 7.4
1 4.7 6.6 6.6
35.0 35.0 35.0
48.0 24.0 28.0
\
~
~
~
`
~
Page: 1
5/8/2009 11:51:04 AM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
File Name:
Project Name: Grafton Plaza Mixed Use Project
Project Location: Alameda County
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO S02 PM10
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 48.07 6.29 124.08 0.36 1926
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
• ROG NOx CO S02 PM10
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 35.45 62.55 422.17 029 58.75
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
R~C NOx CO Q PM10
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 83.52 68.84 546.25 0.65 78.01
PM2.5
18.54
PM2.5
11.39
PM2.5
29.93
",~
~
~
~p
1~
~
Page: 2
5!8/2009 11:51:04 AM
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source ROG NOx
Natural Gas 0.26 3.43
Hearth 33.28 2.86
Landscaping - No Winter Emissions
Consumer Products 11.50
Architectural Coatings 3.03
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 48.07 6.29
CO S02 PM10 PM2.5
2.14 0.00 0.01 0.01
121.94 0.36 19.25 18.53
124.08 0.36 19.26 18.54
Area Source Changes to Defaults
Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day; Unmitigated
Source ~ ROG NOX
Condo/townhouse general 12.26 21.41
Office park 23.19 41.14
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 35.45 62.55
Operational Settings:
Does not include correction for passby trips
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 40 Season: Winter
CO S02 PM10 PM25
145.63 0.10 20.11 3.90
276.54 0.19 38.64 7.49
422.17 0.29 58.75 11.39
~
~
~
~i..
~
Page: 3
5/8/2009 11:51:04 AM
Emfac: Version : Emtac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Land Use Type
CondoRownhouse general
Ottice park
Vehicle Type
Light Auto
Light Truck < 3750 Ibs
Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs
Med Truck 5751-5500 Ibs
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs
Med-HeavyTruck 14,001-33,000 Ibs
Heavy-Heavy T~uck 33,001-60,000 Ibs
Other Bus
Urban Bus
Motorcycle
School Bus
Motor Home
Summarv of Land Uses
Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT
7.17 5.80 dwelling units 235.00 1,363.00 11,65324
10.77 1000 sq ft 248.00 2,670.96 22,387.99
4,033.96 34,041.23
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
54.4 1.3 98.3 0.4
12.4 2.4 95.2 2.4
19.7 0.5 99.5 0.0
6.3 0.0 98.4 1.6
0.8 0.0 75.0 25.0
0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0
1.3 0.0 15.4 84.6
0.8 0.0 0.0 100.0
0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
2.9 69.0 31.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.6 0.0 83.3 16.7
~~
~{~.
~,1 j
~
~
~
Page: 4
5/8l2009 11:51:04 AM
Urban Trip Length (miles)
Rural Trip Length (miles)
Trip speeds (mph)
% of Trips - Residential
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
Office park
Travel Conditions
Residential
Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other
10.8 7.3 7.5
16.8 7.1 7.9
35.0 35.0 35.0
32.9 18.0 49.1
Commercial
Commute Non-Work Customer
9.5 7.4 7.4
14.7 6.6 6.6
35.0 35.0 35.0
48.0 24.0 28.0
~
~
~
~
~
Page: 1
5/13/2009 1:40:29 PM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
File Name~ C:\Documents and Settings\Don Ballanti~Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Grafton Alt. 2 Operation.urb924
Project Name: Grafton Office Alternative Construction
Project Location: Alameda County
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
C02
2010 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 696.43
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
~
~
s~~
V
~
Page: 2
5/13/2009 1:40:29 PM
2oy o 696.43
Fine Grading 01/01/2010- 48.16
02/28/2010
Fine Grading Dust 0.00
Fine Grading Otf Road Diesel 46.07
Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00
Fine Grading Worker Trips 2.09
Asphatt 02/01/2010-02/28/2010 18.61
Paving Ofi-Gas 0.00
Paving Oft Road Diesel 14.18
Paving On Road Diesel 2.14
Paving Worker Trips 2.29
Building 03/01/2010-72l31/2010 623.32
Building OH Road Diesel 178.33
Building Vendor Trips 8826
Building Worker Trips 356.73
Coating 11 /01 /2010-12/31 /2010 6.33
Architectural Coating 0.00
Coating Worker Trips 6.33
Phase Assum~tions
Phase: Fine Grading 1/1 /2010 - 2/28/2010 - Default Fine Site Grading Description
Totai Acres Disturbed: 14.33
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 3.56
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default ~
~
20 Ibs per acre-day ~
~
~
~
Page: 3
5/13/2009 1:40:29 PM
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0.
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operaling at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Traclors/LoadersBackhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for S hours per day
Phase: Paving 2!1/2010 - 2/28/2010 - Default Paving Description
Acres to be Paved: 3.58
Ott-Road Equipment:
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 3/1/2010 - 12/31/2010 - Default Building Construction Description
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load tactor for 6 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for S hours per day
1 Tractors/~oadersBackhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Architectural Coating 11/1 /2010 - 12/31/2010 - Default Architectural Coating Description
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 1 213 1 /20 40 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1l2005 ends 12/31l2040 specifies a VOC of 250
~
~
~
~
~
Page: 1
5/12/2009 11:55:20 AM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
File Name:
Project Name: Grafton Office Alternative
Project Location: Alameda County
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
~2
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) ~25 g~
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
C02
TOTALS (tonstyear, unmitigated) 6,636.23
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
02
TOTALS (tonstyear, unmitigated) 7,362.10
~
Q
m":~`^;~
~
~
Page: 2
5/12/2009 11:55:20 AM
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
Source
Natural Gas
Hearth
Landscape
Consumer Products
Architectural Coatings
TOTALS (tonsyear, unmitigated)
C02
725.62
0.00
0.25
725.87
Area Source Changes to Defaults
Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
Source ~ C02
Office park 6,636.23
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 6,636.23
Operational Settings:
Does not include correction for passby trips
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Analysis Year: 2010 Season: Annual ~-
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ~
~
~
~~
;~
Page: 3
5/12/2009 11:55:20 AM
Summarv of Land Uses
Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT
Office park 923 1000 sq ft 497.00 4,587.31 38,450.83
4,587.31 38,450.83
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
Light Auto 54.4 1.3 98.3 0.4
Light Truck < 3750 Ibs 12•4 2•4 95'2 2'4
Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs 19.7 0.5 99.5 0.0
Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs 6.3 0.0 98.4 1.6
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs 0.8 0.0 75.0 25.0
Lite-HeavyTruck 10,001-14,000 Ibs 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0
Med-HeavyTruck 14,001-33,000 Ibs 1.3 0.0 15.4 84.6
Heavy-Heary Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs 0.8 0.0 0.0 100.0
Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Motorcycle 2.9 69.0 31.0 0.0
School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Motor Home 0.6 0.0 83.3 16.7
'~
Travel Conditions
Residential Commercial ~~
~C~
Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer ~
Urban Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4
~
~
Page: 4
5/12/2009 11:55:20 AM
Rural Trip Length (miles)
Trip speeds (mph)
% of Trips - Residential
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
~ttice park
Travel Conditions
Residential
Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other
16.8 7.1 7.9
35.0 35.0 35.0
32.9 18.0 49.1
Commercial
Commute Non-Work Customer
14.7 6.6 6.6
35.0 35.0 35.0
48.0 24.0 28.0
~_
~./~
~
~
~
Page: 1
5/1 2/2009 1 1:54:30 AM
Urbemis 2007 Version 92.4
Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
File Name:
Project Name: Grafton Office Alternative
Project Location: Alameda County
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 3.27 3.33 4.33 0.00 0.02 0.02
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 37.57 48.29 448.67 0.38 66.36 12.86
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 40.84 51.62 453.00 0.38 66.38 12.88
~
~
~
~
~
~
Page: 2
5/1 2/2009 1 1:54:30 AM
Area Source Unmftigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5
Natural Gas 0.24 3.31 2.78 0.00 0.01 0.01
Hearth - No Summer Emissions
Landscape 0.12 0.02 1.55 0.00 0.01 0.01
Consumer Products 0.00
Architectural Coatings 2.91
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 3.27 3.33 4.33 0.00 0.02 0.02
Area Source Changes to Defautts
Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source ' ROG NOX
Office park 37.57 48.29
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 37.57 48.29
Operational Settings
Does not include correction for passby trips
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips
A~alysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
CO S02 PM10 PM25
448.67 0.38 66.36 12.86
448.67 0.38 66.36 12.86
i
~
~
~
~
~
Page: 3
5/1 2/2009 1 1:54:30 AM
Summarv of Land Uses
Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT
Office park 9.23 1000 sq ft 497.00 4,587.31 38,450.83
4,587.31 38,450.83
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Cataiyst Catalyst Diesel
Light Auto 54.4 1.3 98.3 0.4
Light Truck < 3750 Ibs 12.4 2.4 95.2 2.4
Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs 19.7 0.5 99.5 0.0
Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs 6.3 0.0 98.4 1.6
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs 0.8 0.0 75.0 25.0
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0
Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs 1.3 0.0 15.4 84.6
Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs 0.8 0.0 0.0 100.0
Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Motorcycle 2.9 69.0 31.0 0.0
School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Motor Home 0.6 0.0 83.3 i6,7
Travel Conditions
Residential Commercial
Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer
Urban Trip Length (miles) 70.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4
~.
~
~
~
~
~
Page: 4
5/12/2009 11:54:30 AM
Rural Trip Length (miles)
Trip speeds (mph)
% of Trips - Residential
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
Office park
Travel Conditions
Residential
Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other
16.8 7.1 7.9
35.0 35.0 35.0
32.9 18.0 49.1
Commercial
Commute Non-Work Customer
14.7 6.6 6.6
35.0 35.0 35.0
48.0 24.0 28.0
~~..
~
~
~
~
~
Page: 1
5/12/2009 11:53:54 AM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
File Name:
Project Name: Grafton Office Alternative
Project Location: Alameda County
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
AREA SQURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 3.15 3.31 2.78 0.00 0.01 0.01
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 39.82 70.65 474.95 0.33 66.36 12.86
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx ~ S~Q2 pM10 pM2.5
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 42.97 73.96 477.73 0.33 66.37 12.87
~
~
~
~
~
Page: 2
5/12/2009 11:53:54 AM
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source ROG NOx
Natural Gas 0.24 3.31
Hearth 0.00 O.DO
Landscaping - No Winter Emissions
Consumer Products 0.00
Architectural Coatings 2-91
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 3.15 3.31
CO S02 PM10 PM2.5
2.7g 0.00 0.01 0.01
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2,7g 0.00 0.01 0.01
Area Source Chanaes to Defautts
Operafional Unmitigated Detail Report:
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
ource ROG NOX
Office park 39.82 70.65
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 39.82 70.65
CO S02 PM10 PM25
474.95 0.33 66.36 12.86
474.95 0.33 66.36 12_$6
Operationai Settings:
Does not include correction for passby trips
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 40 Season: Winter
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
~
~
~
~
~
Page: 3
5/12/2009 11:53:54 AM
Summarv oi Land Uses
Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT
Office park
9.23 1000 sq ft 497.00 4,587.31
38,450.83
4,587.31 38,450.83
Vehicl_ e F~eet Mix
Vehicle Type
Percent T e
YP
Non-Catalyst
Catalyst
Diesel
Light Auto
54.4
1.3
98.3
0
4
Light Truck < 3750 Ibs .
12 4
2.4
95.2
2
4
Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs .
19.7
0.5
99-5
0
0
Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs .
6.3
~-~
98.4
1
6
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10
000 Ibs .
, 0.8
0.0
75.0
25
0
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14
000 Ibs .
,
Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33
000 Ibs 0.6
~~~
50.0
50.0
,
Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60
000 ibs 1 3
0.0
15.4
84.6
,
Other Bus 0 8
OA
0.0
100.0
Urban Bus 0 y
0.0
0.0
100.0
Motorcycle o 1
0.0
0.0
100.0
2 9
69.0
31.0
0
0
School Bus .
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
Motor Home .
0.6
0.0
83.3
16.7
Travel Conditions
Residentiai Commercial
Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute
Non-Work
Customer
Urban Trip Length (miles) 10
8
.
7.3
7.5 9.5
7.4
7.4
~.
~~
~
~
~
Page: 4
5/12/2009 11:53:54 AM
Rural Trip Length (miles)
Trip speeds (mph)
% of Trips - Residential
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
Office park
Travel Conditions
Residential
Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other
16.8 7.1 7.9
35.0 35.0 35.0
32.9 18.0 49.1
Commercial
Commute Non-Work Customer
1 4.7 6.6 6.6
35.0 35.0 35.0
48.0 24.0 28.0
~M
vN
~
~
~
J ~~ y~
Appendix 3
Traffic Analysis
City of Dublin Page 118
Initial Study/Grafton Plaza December 2009
PA 07-006
183 ~~
~
TJKM
~
I
Transportation
Consulrants
Pleasancon
3875 Hopyard Road
Suice 200
Pleasamm~, CA
94588-8526
925.463.0611
925.463.3690 fax
Fresno
516 W. Shaw Avenue
Sui[e 200
Fresno, CA
9370425 I 5
559.325.7530
559.221.4940 fau
Suramenco
980 Ninch Sveet
16~ Floor
Sacramento, CA
95814-2736
916.449.9095
Sanca Rosa
1400 N. Duaon Avenue
Suite 21
Sanca Rosa, CA
95401-4643
~o~s~s.saoo
707.575.5888 fax
YaionTh4t Mae~Yarr Communky
November 2, 2009
Ms. Jaime2~,~$ourgeois, P.E.
Public W~ks Department
City of Dr~blin
100 Civic~t~za
Dublin, C}~ 94568
Via E-mai~ jaimee.bourgeois(a~ci.dublin.ca.us
Subject: Traffic Study of Revised Grafton Plaza Development in East Dublin (General
Plan Amendment (GPA), Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
(EDSPA), and Stage I Planned Development Rezone)
Dear Ms. Bourgeois:
TJKM Transportation Consultants is pleased to provide this letter report to the City of Dublin.
TJKM conducted a traffic impact study for the proposed Grafton Plaza Development, located in the
southeast quadrant of the Dublin Boulevard/Grafton Street intersection within Dublin Ranch Area H.
The Project description is identified as Option I in the General Plan Amendment (GPA), Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (EDSPA), and Stage I Planned Development Rezone application.
Option I proposes a mix of 248,260 square feet (sq. ft.) of non-residential uses and approximately
235 total residential units not exceeding 248,259 sq.ft., for a total floor area of 496,519 sq. ft. The
residential unit total is expected to include approximately 12 Live/Work and 10 Shopkeeper
dwelling units, and the retail areas for those units are included in the total non-residential use area.
Option I allows for a change to the land uses previously approved as a Stage I Planned
Development for the site, which corresponds to Option 2 in the current application.
The current project description has a significantly smaller floor area, 496,5 I 9 sq. ft., than the
previously but no longer proposed I,128,000 sq. ft. project that TJKM analyzed in an administrative
draft report last year. For purposes of the traffic analysis for Option I, TJKM assumed a mix of
uses in the non-residential portion that maximizes the peak trip generation without exceeding the
trip generation of the larger project previously analyzed by TJKM. The resulting mix consists of
85,260 sq. ft. of office use and 163,000 sq. ft. of retail uses. Table I below details the land use areas
of the currently proposed project Options and the larger project previously analyzed.
Table I: Comparative Project Land Uses (thousand square feet of floor area)
Option 1 Option 2 Previous Project
Office 85.3 496.5 292.0
Retail I 63.0 0 77.2
d
l
R 248.2 0 6 I 2.8
esi
entia (235 du) ' 0 (470 du)
Hotel 0 0 I 35.0
Spa 0 0 I I.0
Total Area (ks~ 496.5 496.5 I I 28.0
Notes: ksf = I,000 square feet
du = dwelling uniu
Option I Office and Retail areas assume a mix of 248.3 ksf total that maximizes trip generation without
exceeding Previous Project.
Option 2 corresponds to the previously approved Stage I Planned Developmentforthe site
Previous Project is no longer proposed
cjl<m@ykm.com
www.tjkm.com
i $~ ~ c~~
Ms. faimee Bourgeois, P.E.
TJKM November 2, 2009
Transportation page 2
Consultants
~~ .
,
d~ ~~,~
`~ ~~- ~~..
J
.,~..
~~~ ~,~.
~
~~r:
i
The current project description has a significantly smaller floor area than the previously but no
longer proposed project that TJKM analyzed in an administrative draft report last year, which is
attached as Attachment E. As a result, the current Option I Project would generate fewer peak
hour trips than the previously proposed project analyzed in Attachment E, and the resulting LOS
and traffic impacts would be similar or improved from those presented in that report. Several
intersections where unacceptable LOS impacts were determined in the previous report were
reevaluated using the current Option I Project trip generation, and those results are presented
herein. For the other intersections and highway segments, the results presented herein are the
same as those provided in the report for the larger project no longer proposed at the site, included
as Attachment E, where more detailed analysis and findings are presented. The previous report was
thoroughly reviewed by City staff last year, and staff's comments have been addressed in the
Attachment E version.
Project Trip Generation and Distribution
The Project trips were estimated based on the trip rates from Trip Generation (7th Edition),
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). TJKM estimated internal trip capture
and pass-by discounts for the proposed land uses based on the methodologies in the Trip Generation
Handbook (March 2001) published by ITE. Internal trip capture reductions are applied at mixed-use
developments like the Project to reflect the portion of trips between complementary uses (e.g.
between retail and residential) within the site that would be walking trips rather than vehicle trips.
Without this internal trip reduction vehicle trip generation would be overestimated, because the
standard ITE trip rates are based on data from isolated individual land use sites where such non-
vehicle interactions do not occur. Pass-by trip reductions are applied to retail uses based on ITE
data, which document a percentage of trips in and out of retail sites that are already passing by on
an adjacent roadway and merely divert to and from the site driveway, and therefore do not result
in additional vehicle trips on the surrounding roadway network.
With the assumed mix of office and retail shown in Table I, Option I is expected to generate
482 trips (287 in, 195 out) in the a.m. and 951 trips (420 in, 53 I out) in the p.m. peak hour. The
Option I Project trip generation is shown in Table II below.
Option 2 in the current GPA, EDSPA, and Stage I Planned Development Rezone application
proposes 496,519 sq. ft. of non-residential Campus Office uses, which corresponds to the
previously approved Stage I Planned Development for the site. Option 2 would generate more a.m.
peak hour trips than Option I, with 676 trips (595 in, 8 I out), but fewer p.m. peak hour trips with
635 trips ( I 08 in, 527 out).
The project trip distribution and assignment to the surrounding roadway network shown on Exhibit I
was based on the City traffic model's distribution, as described in Attachment E(Exhibits 3 and 4).
i ~ 5 ~~,
~
TJKM
Transportacion
Consulcan~s
Ms. ~aimee 8ourgeois, P.E.
November 2, 2009
Page 3
al
4
I
B
4
~~
4)
6
3
~)
7
I
~~ ~~..f~
~
Ms. Jaimee Bourgeois, P.E.
T)KM November 2, 2009
Transportacion Page 4
Consultana
Intersection LOS Analysis
TJKM performed level of service (LOS) analyses using the HCM 2000 LOS methodology at the
study intersections, as detailed in Attachment E, for the following time horizons/scenarios:
I. Existing / Existing Plus Project
2. Short-Term Cumulative (2015) / Plus Project
3. Long-Term Cumulative (2030) / Plus Project
Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions
Table III summarizes the results of the LOS analyses for existing and existing plus project
conditions, as detailed in Attachment E. With the addition of project traffic, all study intersections
would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Short-Term (Year 201 S) Cumulative and Plus Project
Table IV summarizes the results of the LOS analyses for Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative
conditions with and without the Project, as detailed in Attachments A-E. With the addition of
project traffic, all study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service
during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Long-Term (Year 2030) Cumulative and Plus Project
Table V summarizes the results of the LOS analyses for Long-Term (Year 2030) Cumulative
conditions with and without the Project, as detailed in Attachments A-E. Under this scenario, the
three intersections with unacceptable level of service conditions in the Long-Term Cumulative
scenario without the Project, Dublin Boulevard / Tassajara Road in the City of Dublin, Airway
Boulevard / Isabel Avenue in the City of Livermore, and Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound ramps in
the City of Pleasanton, would continue to operate at unacceptable conditions with the addition of
project traffic. All other study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service.
~,~
'~~~ ~
TJKM
Transporta~ion
Consultancs
Ms. Jaimee Bourgeois, P.E.
November 2, 2009
Page 5
Tahle I11: Existing / ExistinQ olus Proiect Level of Service
Existing Existing + Project
ID
Intersection
Control ~ a
Q o
.M. Peak Hou P.M. Peak
Hour A.M. Peak
Hour P.M. Peak
Hour
~n Delay
(sec) LOS Delay
(sec) LOS Delay
(sec) LOS Delay
(sec) LOS
I Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Rd.~ Signal D 26.9 C 36.5 D 27.2 C 36.4 D
2 Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr. Signal D 18.7 B 28.3 C 18.9 B 30.8 C
3 Dublin Blvd./Tassajara Rd. Signal D 193 B 20.8 C 19.7 B 28.3 C
4 Tassajara Rd./I-580 WB Ramps Signai D 7.3 A 8.5 A 7.2 A 8.3 A
5 Santa Rita RdJI-580 EB Ramps Signal D 29.2 C 34.4 C 33.6 C 33.8 C
6 Dublin Blvd./Brannigan St. Signal D 16.5 B 15.9 B I 1.6 B 13.7 B
7 Dublin Blvd./Grafton St. Signal D 13.8 B 15.7 B 27.1 C 26.5 C
8 Dublin BIvdJKeegan St. Signal D 12.4 B 13.6 B 13.3 B 12.5 B
9 Dublin Bivd./Fallon Rd. 3 Signal D - - - - 8.9 A 16.5 B
10 Fallon Rd./I-580 WB Ramps Signal D 3.8(10.2) A(B) 2.4(10.1) A(B) 6.8 A 4.7 A
I I EI Charro Rd./I-580 EB Ramps Signal D 6.7(14.1) A(B) 6.2( I 3.8) A(B) 7. I A 3. I A
12 Dublin Blvd./East Project Access3 O SL P ay p . _ _ I.3(9.3) A(A) 3.1( I I.8) A(B)
~ 3 EI Charro Rd./Jack London Blvd.
(Future Intersection) p _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
14 ack London Blvd./Isabel Ave?
~ Si nal
g Mid
level DZ ~ 3 8 g 21.8 C 13.8 B 22.1 C
I 5 North Canyons Pkwy/Airway Blvd. Signal E I I. I B I I. I B 12.4 B 28.0 B
16 Airway Blvd./Isabel Ave. Signal E 26.3 C 19.2 B 26.3 C 22.1 C
17 Airway Blvd./I-580 EB Ramps Signal E 28.2 C 60.6 E 26.1 C 61.8 E
18 Airway Blvd./I-580 WB Ramps Signal E 5.9 A 4.9 A 6 A 5.8 A
Notes: LOS = Level of Service
X.X = Average delay in seconds per vehicle
X(X) = Intersection level of service (Level of service for the worst-case approach)
X.X (X.X) = Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall at unsignalized intersection (Delay in seconds per
vehicle to minor approach)
Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
~LOS reflecu recently compieted improvemenu
2Accordin to the Livermore General Plan Circulation Element Goal CIR-4, Objective CIR 4.1,
Policy P4~3), this intersection may exceed Mid LOS D standard due to the presence of regional
cut-throu~h traffic.
3lntersections 9 and 12 would be built or exist with project and would be existing under "Plus
Pro~ect" conditions.
All `Plus Project" results in Table III were calculated for the larger project no longer proposed,
as documented in Attachment E.
i ~~ t~ ~~_,~
Ms. Jaimee Bourgeois, P.E
TJKM November 2, 2009
Transportation poge 6
Consultana
Table IV: Intersection Level of Service - Short-Term (Year 20 I 5) Cumulative
Conditions
~ Short-Term Cumulative Short-Term Cumulative +
Pro%ect
ID Intersection Conuol O o A~ H ur~k P Hourak A H ur~k P Hourak
~% Delay
(sec) LOS Delay
(sec) LOS Delay
sec) LOS Delay
(sec) LOS
I Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Rd.~ Signal D 29.1 C 38.5 D 29.2 C 38.5 D
2 Dublin Bivd./Hacienda Dr. Signal D IS.I B 21.8 C 18.4 B 21.6 C
3 Dublin Blvd./Tassajara Rd.3 Signal D 19.9 B 45.5 D 17.8 B 45.1 D
4 Tassajara RdJI-580 WB Ramps Signal D 15.3 B 24.2 C 16.8 B 24.6 C
5 Santa Rita Rd./I-580 EB Ramps; Signal D 44.8 D 41.2 D 48.2 D 43.7 D
6 Dubiin Blvd./Brannigan St. Signal D 15.0 B 21.2 C 15.7 B 22.2 C
7 Dublin Bivd./Grafton St. Signal D 12.4 B 15.7 B 21.1 C 24.8 C
S Dublin Blvd./Keegan St. Signal D 9.7 A 23.0 C 9.9 A 24.1 C
9 Dublin Blvd./Fallon Rd. Signal D t 6.7 B 28.8 C 19.5 B 32.6 C
10 Fallon Rd./I-580 WB Ramps Signal D 10.6 B 17.2 B 12.0 B 19.1 B
I I EI Charro Rd./I-580 EB Ramps Signal D 12.8 B 46.7 D I I.0 B 53.8 D
12 Dublin Bivd./East Pro'ect Access
~ One-way
stop p _ _ _
-
0.5(10.3)
A(B)
0.9(101)
A(B)
13 EI Charro Rd./Jack London Blvd. Signal D 14.5 B 16.3 B 14.6 B 16.4 B
14 Jack London Blvd./lsabel Ave.z Signal M~ p2ve1 16.6 B 16.6 B 16.7 B 16.7 B
I 5 North Canyons Pkwy/Ain~vay Blvd. Signal E 23.9 C 34.2 C 25.0 C 34.2 C
16 Airway 81vd./Isabel Ave. Signal E 21.0 C 25.7 C 21.2 C 25.6 C
17 Airway Blvd./I-580 EB Ramps Signal E 38.2 D 35.8 D 40.8 D 30.5 C
18 Airway Blvd./I-580 WB Ramps Signal E 7.0 A 5.8 A 7.2 A 5.8 A
Notes. LOS - Level of Service
X.X = Average delay in seconds per vehicle
X(X) = Intersection level of service (Level of service for the worst-case approach)
X.X (X.X) = Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall at unsignalized intersection (Delay in seconds per
vehicle to minor approach)
Bold values indicate unaccepuble LOS conditions
~ LOS reflects recently completed improvemenu
ZAccordin to the Livermore General Plan Circulation Element Goal CIR-4, Objective CIR 4.1,
Policy P4(3), this intersection may exceed Mid LOS D standard due to the presence of regional
cut-through traffic.
3 For "Plus Prjoject": $tudy Intersections 3 and 5 show updated LOS results calculated for Option
I, and the analysis worksheets are Attachments A-D; the remaining study intersections were
calculated for the larger project no longer proposed, as documented in Attachment E.
i~_~~ ~ ~,~..,,~
TJKM
Transportacion
Consultants
Ms. Jaimee Bourgeois, P.E
November 2, 2009
Page 7
Table V: Intersection Level of Service - Long-Term (Year 2030) Cumulative
Conditions
Long-Term Cumulotive ~ong-Term C umulative +
~ Proj ect
ID Intenection Control O A~
ak P
ak ak
A ak
P
o Hour Hour Hour Hour
~n Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
(sec) (sec) (sec) (sec)
I Dubiin Blvd./Dougherty Rd.~ 5ignal D 43.4 D 52.2 D 46.3 D 49.2 D
2 Dublin BIvdJHacienda Dr. Signal D 30.1 C 32.4 C 31.6 C 33.6 C
Dublin BIvdJTassajara Rd.6 53.9 D 63.3 E 65.5 E 89.4 F
3 --------•--------------------------- Si nal
g D ------- -- --------- ----- ---- ----- ------- ------
With recommended improvemenu3 40.6 D 46.3 D 44.5 D 49.0 D
4 Tassajara Rd./I-5B0 WB Ramps 5ignal D 19.3 B 24.8 C 27.5 C 25.8 C
Santa Rita Rd.ll-580 EB Rampsb 55. I E 73.5 E 61.2 E 80.7 F
5 ------------------------------------------ Si nal
g D ----------- --------- -- ----- --- -------- ----
Wiih recommended Improvements4 34.1 C 39.8 D 40.5 D 47.5 D
6 Dublin Blvd./Brannigan St. Signal D 17.1 B 28.7 C 19.2 B 33.4 C
7 Dublin BIvd./Grafton St. Signal D I5.9 B 24.9 C 26.5 C 46.4 D
8 Dublin BIvdJKeegan St. Signal D 17.9 B 38.6 D 18.3 B 45.3 D
9 Dublin BIvdJFallon Rd. (Future Signal D 25.3 C 51.3 D 28.7 C 54.0 D
Intersection)
10 Fallon Rd./I-580 WB Ramps Signal D 8.8 A 39.0 D 9.3 A 51.4 D
I I EI Charro Rd./I-580 EB Ramps Signal D 9.5 A 19.4 B 9.4 A 19.2 B
~ 2 Dublin Bivd./East Project Access One-Way D - - - - 0.4( I 0.5) A(8) I.3(17.0) A(C)
(Futurelntersection) Stop
~ 3 EI Charro Rd./Jack London Blvd. Signal D 33.4 C 48.1 D 33.7 C 50.9 D
(Future Intersection)
14 Jack London Blvd./Isabel Ave? Signal M~ pzve1 52.8 D 51.4 D 52.0 D 53.8 D
15 North Canyons Pkwy/Airway Blvd. Signal E 40.7 D 43.2 D 41.8 D 43.3 D
16 Airway Blvd./lsabel Ave. Signal E 51.6 D 125.4 FS 52.4 D 125.6 FS
17 Airway BlvdJl-580 EB Ramps Signal E 45.0 D 28.3 C 38.5 D 28.4 C
18 Airway Blvd./I-580 WB Ramps Signal E 14.6 B 13.0 B 14.6 B 13.0 B
Notes: LOS = Level of Service
X.X = Average delay in seconds per vehicle
X(X) = Intersection level of service (Level of service for the worst-case approach)
X.X (X.X) = Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall at unsignalized intersection (Delay in seconds per
vehicle to minor approach)
Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
~ LOS reflecu recently completed improvements
ZAccordin to the Livermore General Plan Circulation Element Goal CIR-4, Objective CIR 4.1,
Policy P4~3), this intersection may exceed Mid LOS D standard due to the presence of regional
cut-through traffic. •
3Add a second northbound right-turn lane to the pianned lanes, and program the traffic signal
with overlap phasing to progress the northbound right-turn and the westbound left-turn
movements concurrently.
4 Add a second southbound left-turn lane.
SUltimate intersection being designed by City of Livermore. No additional improvements are
feasible. Impacts are not significant because delay from project increases only by 0.2 seconds.
bFor "Plus Prjoject": Study Intersections 3 and 5 show updated LOS results calculated for Option
I, and the analysis worksheets are Attachments A-D; the remaining study intersections were
calculated for the larger project no longer proposed, as documented in Attachment E.
~~~ ~~ ~~
.f.
Ms. Jarmee Bourgeois, P.E
TJKM /.~ovember 2, 2009
Transportacion Poge 8
Consultancs
Impact I
Under Long-Term Cumulative (2030) conditions, the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara
Road will operate at unacceptable LOS E conditions during the p.m. peak hour. The addition of
project traffic will exacerbate this condition to result in deterioration to LOS F during the p.m.
peak hour, and also result in a.m. peak hour operations deteriorating from LOS D to unacceptable
LOS E conditions. The impact is significant.
Mitigation Measure I
Improvements to improve operations to LOS D vr better require the addition of a second
northbound right-turn lane to planned improvements, which will mitigate conditions to acceptable
levels of service. Also, the traffic signal will need to be programmed with overlap signal phasing to
progress the northbound right-turn and westbound left-turn movements concurrently. This
improvement should be added to the planned improvements included in the next update of the
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF) program, so that contribution by the project applicant to
the EDTIF would constitute full mitigation. Otherwise, arrangement of another mechanism to fund
the improvement will be needed to provide for contribution by the applicant in proportion to the
project's contribution to this impact. Contribution by the Applicant to the EDTIF program or other
funding program will reduce the impacts to less than significant levels.
ImPact 2
Under Long-Term Cumulative (2030) conditions, the intersection of Santa Rita Road/I-580
Eastbound ramps will operate at unacceptable LOS E conditions during the a.m. and p.m, peak
hours. The addition of project traffic will exacerbate this condition to result in deterioration to
LOS F during the p.m. peak hour, and also result in a.m, peak hour operations continuing at
unacceptable LOS E conditions. The impact is significant.
Mitigation Measure 2
Improvements to improve operations to LOS D or better require the addition of a second
southbound left-turn lane to current conditions, which will mitigate conditions to acceptable levels
of service. This improvement is already planned to be included in the current update of the City of
Pleasanton Traffic Development Impact Fee. Contribution by the applicant to fund the fair-share
costs of the planned Pleasanton project, or a contribution to the City of Pleasanton Traffic
Development Impact Fee program or other funding program will reduce the impacts to less than
significant levels.
Additionally, the Airway Blvd./Isabel Avenue intersection in Livermore was found to exceed the
acceptable LOS standard in Long-Term Cumulative (2030) Conditions. However, the increase in
delay at this intersection with the project would be only 0.2 seconds, and would not result in a
significant impact according to City of Livermore standards.
Alameda County Congestion Management Plan
The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency requires the City to conduct a traffic impact
analysis of the Project for the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways and transit
systems, including MTS arterial, freeway, and State highway segments, as well as BART, LAVTA, and
ACE transit systems. Analysis of potential impacts on MTS roadways and transit systems is
summarized in the following sections and tables, as detailed in Attachment E.
MTS Arterial Impact Analysis
Table VI summarizes the results of the analysis of Project impacts on various segments of Dublin
Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Santa Rita Road, San Ramon Road, Dougherty Road and Hopyard Road
in the vicinity of the Project The analysis consists of ineasuring the levels of service (LOS) on these
roadway segments during the p.m. peak hour under Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative and Long-
~'~~ ~ ~~
~
Ms. Jaimee Bourgeois, P.E.
TJKM November 2, 2009
Transporta~ion page q
Consuitana
Term (Year- 2030) Cumulative traffic conditions with and without the Project. The LOS analysis is
based on the volume-to-capacity ratio for roadway segments.
As shown in the table, there are little or no increases in vlc (i.e. less than 0.01) on these segments
with the addition of Project volumes, compared with the projected v/c ratios without the project.
Therefore, because the projea contribution creates less than a 0.02 increase in the v/c ratio on
these segments, the Project will have no significant impact on the MTS arterial system in the
vicinity of the Project under Short Term Cumulative (2015) and Long Term Cumulative (2030)
Conditions.
Table VI: Years 2015 and 2030 P.M. peak hour MTS Arterial Levels of Service
N
e
~ Year2015
No Project Year2015
plus Project N
e
~ Year2030
No Project Year2030
plus Project
Location ~.°i
o
~ o
V P.M.
Peak
Volume
V/C
LOS P.M.
Peak
Volume
V/C
LOS -~+
o
~ o
V P.M.
Peak
Volume
V/C
LOS P.M.
Peak
Volume
V/C
LOS
Dublin Boulevard
Between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road
Eastbound 3 3,000 2, I 57 0.72 C 2,534 0.64 D 3 3,000 2,293 0.76 C 2,672 0.89 D
Westbound 3 3,000 II 0.00 A 311 0.10 A 3 3,000 15 0.01 A 289 0.10 A
Between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road
Eastbound 3 3,000 2,271 0.76 C 2,316 0.77 C 3 3,000 2,431 0.81 D 2,472 0.82 D
Westbound 3 3,000 221 0.07 A 256 0.09 A 3 3,000 387 0.13 A 446 0.15 A
Between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive
Eastbound 3 3,000 1,864 0.62 B 1,882 0.63 B 3 3,000 3,061 1.02 F 3,082 1.03 F
Westbound 3 3,000 1,360 0.45 A 1,388 0.46 A 3 3,000 2,869 0.96 E 2,904 0.97 E
Between Dougherty Road and Village Pkwy
Eastbound 3 3,000 2,320 0.77 C 2,330 0.78 C 3 3,000 3,062 1.02 F 3,074 1.02 F
Westbound 3 3,000 2,238 0.75 C 2,260 0.75 C 3 3,000 3,043 I.01 F 3,065 1.02 F
Tassajara Road
Between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard
Northbound 4 4,000 977 0.24 A 1,057 0.26 A 4 4,000 2,009 0.50 A 2,106 0.53 A
Southbound 4 4,000 964 0.24 A I,I80 0.30 A 4 4,000 1,655 0.41 A 1,818 0.45 A
Between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive
Northbound 3 3,000 1,022 0.34 A 1,073 0.36 A 3 3,000 1,742 0.58 A 1,790 0.60 B
Southbound 3 3,000 701 0.23 A 728 0.24 A 3 3,000 1,058 0.35 A 1,088 0.36 A
North of Gleason Drive
Northbound 3 3,000 932 0.31 A 976 0.33 A 3 3,000 1,669 0.56 A 1,711 0.57 A
Southbound 3 3,000 472 0.16 A 498 0.17 A 3 3,000 730 0.24 A 753 0.25 A
San Ramon Road
Between 1-580 and Amador Valley Boulevard
Northbound 3 3,000 3, I 54 I.05 F 3, I 62 I.05 F 3 3,000 4,409 I.47 F 4,416 I.47 F
Southbound 3 3,000 I,763 0.59 A I,765 0.59 A 3 3,000 2,404 0.80 D 2,406 0.80 D
Santa Rita Road
South of I-580
Northbound 3 3,000 1,911 0.64 B 1,950 0.65 B 3 3,000 1,792 0.60 B 1,836 0.61 B
Southbound 3 3,000 1,028 0.34 A 1,093 0.36 A 3 3,000 1,300 0.43 A 1,359 0.45 A
Dougherty Road
Between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard
Northbound 4 4,000 2,986 0.75 C 2,993 0.75 C 4 4,000 2,986 0.75 C 2,986 0.75 C
Southbound 4 4,000 2,017 0.50 A 2,01 S 0.50 A 4 4,000 2, I 34 0.53 A 2, I 34 0.53 A
Hopyard Road
South of I-580
Northbound 3 3,000 2,925 0.98 E 2,928 0.98 E 3 3,000 2,925 0.98 E 2,928 0.98 E
Southbound 3 3,000 2,894 0.96 E 2,895 0.97 E 3 3,000 3,003 I.00 F 3,003 I.00 F
Note: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
All "Plus Project" results in Table VI were calculated for the larger project no longer proposed,
as documented in Attachment E.
/`~.~ . ~~.~
~
Ms. Jaimee Bourgeois, P.E
TJKM November 2, 2009
Transporta~ion poge 10
Consultan~s
Freeway/State Highway Im~pact Anclysis
Tables VII and VIII summarize the results of the analysis of Project impacts on various segments of
I-580, I-680 and SR 84 in the vicinity of the Projec~t. The analysis consists of ineasuring the levels of
service on these freeway and State highway segmenu under Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative
and Long-Term (Year 2030) Cumulative traffic conditions with and without the Project. The LOS
analysis is based on the volume-to-capacity ratio for basic freeway sections and multilane highways.
With the Project trips added to No Project mainline freeway volumes and SR-84, the projected
LOS on I-580, I-680, and SR-84 would remain unchanged and v/c ratios would increase by no more
than 0.014. Therefore, because the project contribution is less than a two percent increase of the
total volume on these segments, the Project will have no significant impact on freeway and state
highway facilities in the vicinity of the Project under 2015 and 2030 conditions.
Transit Systems Impact Analysis
Potential impacts of the Project on BART, LAVTA, and ACE transit systems were analyzed, as
documented in Attachment E. The Project will have no significant impact on transit systems.
Other Impact Analyses
Potential impacts of the Project on pedestrian and bicycle circulation and construction traffic
impacts were analyzed, as documented in Attachment E. The Project will have no significant
impact on pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Construction tra~c was determined to cause a
temporary, significant impact, which would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by a
Construction Traffic Management Plan, and no other mitigation would be required.
19 ~ ~,,a,,,~
~
Ms. Jaimee Bourgeois, P.E
TJKM November 2, 2009
Transportacion page I I
Consultants
Table VII: Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative Conditions Freeway Analysis
~, Year 2015 No Project Year 2015 with Project
No of Lanes g A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
V Vol. VIC LOS Vol. V!C LOS Vol. VIC LOS . Vol. VIC LOS
I-580, East of I-680
Eastbound 4 8,000 5,089 0.64 C 8,230 1.03 F 5,263 0.66 C 8,267 1.03 F
Westbound 5 10,000 11,185 1.12 F 5,886 0.59 C 11,210 1.12 F 5,999 0.60 C
1-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive
Eastbound 6+ aux. 13,000 6,373 0.49 B 10,856 0.84 D 6,559 0.50 B 10,896 0.84 D
Westbound 4+ aux. 9,000 9,457 1.05 F 5,975 0.66 C 9,483 1.05 F 6,097 0.68 C
1-580, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road
Eastbound 5 10,000 4,261 0.43 B 10,989 I.10 F 4,450 0.45 B 11,019 I.10 F
Westbound 4+ aux. 9,000 8,391 0.93 E 4,295 0.48 B 8,421 0.94 E 4,428 0.49 B
I-580, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
Eastbound 4+ aux. 9,000 4,476 0.50 B 10,026 I.I I F 4,478 0.50 B 10,038 1.12 F
Westbound 4+ aux. 9,000 10,082 1.12 F 4,597 0.51 B 10,082 I.12 F 4,600 0.5I B
I-580, Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard
Eastbound 4+aux. 9,000 4,186 0.47 B 10,136 I.I 3 F 4,263 0.47 B 10,300 I.14 F
Westbound 4+aux. 9,000 11,891 1.32 F 4,323 0.48 B 12,012 1.33 F 4,424 0.49 B
I-680, Alcosta Boulevard to I-580
Northbound 4 8,000 5,853 0.73 C 7,360 0.92 D 5,858 0.73 C 7,384 0.92 D
Southbound 4 8,000 7,213 0.90 D 5,480 0.69 C 7,265 0.91 D 5,487 0.69 C
I-680, South of I-580
Northbound 3 6,000 4,041 0.67 C 6,272 1.38 F 4,051 0.68 C 8,277 1.38 F
Southbound 3+aux. 7,000 6,585 0.94 E 4,232 0.60 C 6,587 0.94 E 4,240 0.61 C
SR 84, South of 1-580 (Analyzed as an arterial with a capacity of I,000 veh/hrllane)
Norchbound 2 2,000 2,524 1.26 F 1,762 0.88 D 2,542 1.27 F 1,767 0.88 D
Southbound 2 2,000 2,260 1.13 F 2,345~ 1.17~ F 2,262 1.13 F 2,373~ 1.19~ F
Source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-I, Levels of 5ervice for Basic Freeway Sections
Maximum Service Flow rate for freeway segments=2000 vehicles/hr/lane, aux. =Auxiliary Lane
If number of lanes on freeway segment= N+aux., capacity of segment= (N*2000+1000) vehicles/hr
Note: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
~SR 84 Southbound P.M. Peak:
Volume increase of 2,373-2,345 = 28 = I.2% is less than 2% significance threshold;
V/C: No Project = I.1725, with Project = I.1865; increase of .014 is less than 0.02.
All "with Project" results in Table VII were calculated for the larger project no longer proposed,
as documented in Attachment E.
) i~-r ~..~
~
Ms. faimee Bourgeois, P.E.
TJKM November 2, 2009
Transportacion poge ~2
Consultants
Table VI11: Long-Term (Year 2030) Cumulative Conditions Frepwa.. o~ai..~c~
-
~
'u --
Year 2030 No Project --- - - -----. - --._.,...
Year 2030 with Projea
No o f Lanes g A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
U Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS
1-580, East of I-680
Eastbound 4 8,000 6,464 0.81 D 9,960 1.25 F 6,616 0.83 D 10,007 1.25 F
Westbound 5 10,000 15,724 1.57 F 6,681 0.67 C 15,764 1.58 F 6,766 0.68 C
1-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive
Eastbound 6+ aux. I 3,000 8,024 0.62 C 12,592 0.97 E 8,180 0.63 C 12,641 0.97 E
Westbound 4+ aux. 9,000 I 3,864 1.54 F 7,067 0.79 D 13,904 1.54 F 7,152 0.79 D
I-580, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road
Eastbound 5 10,000 6,528 0.65 C 12,028 1.20 F 6,689 0.67 C 12,073 1.21 F
Westbound 4+ aux. 9,000 12,73 I 1.41 F 6,353 0.71 C 12,761 1.42 F 6,45 I 0.72 C
I-580, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
Eastbound 4+ aux. 9,000 6,351 0.71 C 12,480 1.39 F 6,354 0.71 C 12,48I 1.39 F
Westbound 4+aux. 9,000 I4,490 I.61 F 6,71I 0.75 C 14,494 1.6I F 6,7f6 0.75 C
I-580, Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard
Eastbound 4+aux. 9,000 6,637 0.74 C 12,973 1.44 F 6,681 0.74 C 13,044 1.45 F
Westbound 4+aux. 9,000 15,720 1.75 F 6,432 0.71 C 15,784 1.75 F 6,490 0.72 C
I-680, Alcosta Boulevard to 1-580
Northbound 4 8,000 6,646 0.83 D 9,029 1.13 F 6,652 0.83 D 9,040 1.13 F
Southbound 4 8,000 9,591 1.20 F 5,989 0.75 C 9,628 1.20 F 5,997 0.75 C
1-680, South of I-580
Northbound 3 6,000 3,791 0.63 C 10,095 1.68 F 3,798 0.63 C 10,101 1.68 F
Southbound 3+aux. 7,000 8,685 1.24 F 4,512 0.64 C 8,687 1:24 F 4,515 0.65 C
SR 84, South of 1-580 (Analyzed as an arterial with a capaciry of I,000 veh/hr/lane)
Northbound 2 2,000 3,753 I.88 F 3,198 I.60 F 3,773 1.89 F 3,208 I.60 F
Southbound
C.... 10 2
0[ u:_L. 2,000
. ~__ 3,549 1.77 F 2,965 1.48 F 3,553 1.78 F 2,985 1.49 F
-~• -+ ~ ~~~~~WG~' \.df)dCILr 1'Idf1Ud1~ I dOIE .~-I, ~eveis or aervice tor tsasic rreeway Sections
Maximum Service Flow rate for freeway segmenu=2000 vehicles/hr/lane, aux. =Auxiliary Lane
If number of lanes on freeway segment= N+aux., capacity of segment= (N*2000+ 1000) vehicles/hr
Note:Bold values indicate unaccepuble LOS conditions
All "with Project" results in Table VIII were calculated for the larger project no longer proposed,
as documented in Attachment E.
195~ t.~~~
Ms. Joimee Bourgeois, P.E.
TJKM November 2, 2009
Transportacion Poge 13
Consultants _ _ _
Summary
Unacceptable LOS impacts were determined in the Long-Term (Year 2030) Cumulative conditions
with the Project at two intersections: Dublin Blvd./Tassajara Road, and Santa Rita Road/ Eastbound
I-580 Off-Ramp . These impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant levei with the
described mitigation requirements. With the exception of a temporary construction traffic
impact, which can also be mitigated, no other significant traffic impacts would result with the
Project. A detailed site plan, which has not been prepared for the currently proposed Project at
this time, should be reviewed in detail regarding traffic, pedestrian and bicycle circulation when
developed.
Based on these findings, the currently proposed Grafton Plaza Project would not result in any
significant, unavoidable traffic impacts.
Please contact either Chris Kinzel or me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
~ ~ ~~ `~~" V" \
Richard K. Haygood, P.E.
Senior Associate
cc: Mike Porto - City of Dublin
Martha Aja - City of Dublin
Jerry Haag
Attachments:
Exhibit I
Attachments A - D
J:\Jurisdiction\D\Du61in\157-001 On-calATask 123 Revised Grafton Ploza~Report\LR I 10209.doc
~~~~ ~~
City of Dublin - Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Exhibit
Short-Term (Year 2015) ProjectTripAssignment - ~
Intersection #I
Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Rd. Intersection #2
Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr. Intersection #3
Dublin BIvd./Tassajara Rd. Intersection #4
Tassajara Rd./l•580WB Ramps Intersection #5
Sanu Ria Rd.ll-580 EB Ramps/
Pimli co Dr.
~
~"
o ~
t_1 (p)
~
`~
~ (~)
~°
" ~.2 (28)
° v .-.
om
„
v
iv
~
~~
I
1 L ~-3 (25)
~3 (0) I
y ~.7 (25)
r 1 (~) ~--9 (25)
~ ~65 (160) I
I
/~ i
~- 17 (3) W w ao
~
6 (6)----
0(1)~
~
19 (29)~
7I
28 (70)-- ~
* ~ 2 (15)
- o
v ~
~
v I
N
" 55(33)~I ?
a
~
~
~ ~
Incersection #6 Intersection #7 Intersection #8 Intersettion #9 Intersection #10
Dublin Blvd./Brannigan Sc Dublin Blvd./Grafton Sc Dublin Blvd.(Keegan St. Dublin Blvd./Fallon Rd. Fallon RdJI-580WB Ramps
^ " ~
^
~
~L~ (~.3~
F N .--.
I~. N
1 ~
~ ?
N
....
76 (213) ~156 (229) ~ f--150 (221) ~ i ~107 (98)
113(161)~ 46(130)~ ~~j~
78 (48)
~ 6(11)~f 18(61)~I ~ •
~ ~ ~ y
~ 92 (262)-~ 65 (167)~ ~
O
N.-M
~vV $(~z~~I ~
~c00
~ ~
~
^
N
N
In~ersection #I I Intersection #12 Intersection #13
EI Charro Rd./1-580 EB Ramps
N Dublin Blvd./ProjectAccess Jack London Blvd./El Charro Rd.
~
N ~
' .N..
~~
-156 (229)
N r
t0 ~
N ht7
~ 1 ~ R_4 (32)
1 ~ ~35~~ ~
48 (197)~- 2 (26) ~I
~
~
N ,..,
~
N
n
~ N
~
~
~
~ O
K
CENTRALPKWY
¢ ~
O '"'
'~
~<
`` "-" -
.
~ Q ~
o
p DUBLIN BWD . Y ¢ Q
a ~ 3 ~~~NN~qN yyy a
m N
~ ~ ~
~ y~ W W
,s 12 W 9
~ z ~ h~ 7 ~ 8
o ~ Q 4 ~i
~+~ a
FRD. 10
:1
y~ ~ ~ PIMLICO DR.
A9 a 5 tie
= 11
,~
°
o
?
~
~.~a Grafton
5
= Plaza --
~13
o~
~~
a
;
~~
LEGEND
-
w~
N
• Existing Study Intersectio
XX AM Peak HourVolume Not to Scale
n
(XX)PM Peak HourVolume
••-- Future Roadway
I D/-OU 1 I 1'1 /- 6/ 1/U9 - M F'
`~~~ `T~
TJKM
Transportation
Consultancs
I~ ~ ~ ~~.~
Grafton Plaza EIR 2015 No Proj AM Peak
3: Dublin Blvd. & Tassajara Rd. 4/2~~2009
-' -- ~ ~ '-- ~ ~ t r~ ~- • •~
Lane Configurations ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~' ~ ttft ~`r
Ideal Flow (~ahpi) 190'0 1900 1900 1900 1,~00 15Q0 19Q:~ 1900 18:0~0 19~0 1900 1'9:00
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4
0
Lane Util. Factar 0.97 0.95 0,8$ 0.94 0;,~5 p:94 0:95 ~.'E~p 1:Q0 0:$6 .
0:88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0
85
Flt Protected 0:95 1.00 1.~0 0.95 1:Q~ 0:95 1,00 1:00 0.:95 1;00 .
9;Q0
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 2787 4990 3435 4990 3539 1583 1770 6408 2787
Flt Permitted 0:95 1.00 1:~0 0:95 1.00 0';95 1:00 1''00 O:g5 1:00 1:00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 2787 4990 3435 4990 3539 1583 1770 6408 2787
Volume{vph) 7 76 61 355 285 70 217 544 647 93 1'S64 14
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0
97
Adj. Flow (vph) 7 78 63 366 294 72 224 561 667 96 1612 .
14
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 2 0 25 0 0 0 394 0 0 8
Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 78 61 366 341 0 224 561 273 96 1612 6
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 2 3 1 6 3 8 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G(s)
0.7
10:6
20.7
7:9
17.8
4:6
27:4
27:4
4.6
27.4 4
27
4
Effective Green, g(s) 1.2 12.1 21.2 8.4 19.3 5.1 28.9 28.9 5.1 28.9 .
28
9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.17 0.30 0.12 0.27 0.07 0.41 0.41 0.07 0.41 .
0.41
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5
5
Vehie~e Extension (s) 2.0 3:0 2.0 3 0 2 0 4 0 4 0 2 0 4 0 .
4 0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 58 607 838 595 940 361 1451 649 128 2627 1142
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0:02 OA2 c0.07 c0.10 0.04 0.16 0.17 c0.05 c0_25
v/s Ratio Perm 0
00
v/c Ratio 0,12 0.13 0.07 0.62 :0.36 0.62 0.39 0.42 0.75 0.61 .
0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 34.1 24.7 17.6 29.5 20.6 31.8 14.6 14.8 32.1 16.4 12
3
Progression Factoc 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1:00 T';00 .
1.Otl
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.2 2.4 0.2 0.6 19.4 0.5 0
0
Delay (s) 34.5 24.8 17.7 30,8 20:9 34.1 14.8 15.4 51.5 16:9 .
42;3
Level of Service C C B C C C B B D B B
Approach Delay (s) 22.2 25.9 18:1 1'8.8
Approach LOS C
~, C B B
_ .
HCM Average Control Delay
19.9 ;.
HCM Level of Service ,
B
HCM Volumeto Capacity, ratio ~.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.5 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utitizatian 63.5% 1CU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Graup
J:\JURISDICTIONID\Dublin1157-001 On-call\Task 120 Rev
TJKM Transportation Consultants
Grafton Plaza\Synchro12015~2015 no proj AM.sy7
KH, VG, MP, FY
Page 1
~ ~ `~~ L~~Z..'v
Grafton Plaza EIR 2015 No Proj AM Peak
5: I-580 EB Off-ramp & I-580 WB On Ramp 4/27/2009
~ -- ~i ~ ~ ~ t ~ /' ~- ~ *~
Lane Configurations ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~`~` ~~ ~ ~`~' ~
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 4:900 1900 1-900 1'900 'F900 1900 1`90b
Total Losttime (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. FacEor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.:88 1.00 0.95 1,00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1:00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1583 3433 1583 1583 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0:95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1':00 1:00
Satd Flow(perm) 3433 1863 1583 3433 1583 1583 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583
Volume {vph) 873 301 95 ';13 56 226 436 830 12 138 1932 98
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Adj. Flow (vph) 891 307 97 13 57 231 445 847 12 141 1971 100
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 183 0 1 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 891 307 97 13 57 48 445 858 0 141 1971 100
Turn Type Prot Free Protcustomcustom Prot Prot Free
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 7 4 5 7 6 6 5 2
Permitted Phases Free Free
Actuated Green, G(s) 38.0 38.0 143.8 9.8 29:8 29.8 64.0 64.0 16.0 84A 143:8
Effective Green, g(s) 38.0 38.0 143.8 9.8 29.8 29.8 64.0 64.0 16.0 84.0 143.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.26 1,00 0:07 0,29 0,21 0.45 '0.45 0.11 0.58 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 `3.0 3.Q 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 907 492 1583 234 328 328 1575 1240 197 2067 1583
v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 0.16 0.00 c0_04 0:03 0:13 0.31 0.08 c0_56
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.98 0.62 0;06 0.06 0.17 0.15 0.28 0.69 0.72 0.95 0.06
Uniform Delay, d1 52.6 46.6 0.0 62.7 46.9 46.6 25.3 32.0 61.7 28.1 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 25.4 2.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 3.2 11.7 11.5 0.1
Delay (s) 78.0 49.1 0.1 62.8 47.1 46.8 25.8 352 73.4 39.6 0.1
Level of Service E D A E D D C D E D A
Approach Delay (s) 65.3 ' 32A ' 40.0
Approach LOS E C D
HCM Average Control Delay 44.8 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 143.8 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.0% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
J:\JURISDICTIONID\Dublin\157-001 On-call\Task 120 Rev. Grafton Plaza\Synchro~2015~2015 no proj AM.sy7
KH, VG, MP, FY
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 2
~ ~ ~~
Grafton Plaza EIR 2015 No Proj PM Peak
3: Dublin Bivd. & Tassalara Rd. 4/2~/20os
~` -- ~ ~ '_' ~ `~ t r' ~- 1 ~
Lane Configurations -~~ ~-~ ~r~r t~~t~ ~,~, ~~~ ~,,~ ~ ~ ttrt ~~
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1.900 1900 1SQ0 1900 1900 1900 1900 19QQ 1900 19Q0 190€} 'f900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4A 4A 4.0 4
0
L.ane Util. Factor 0.97 0:95 0..88 0.94 ~,~5 ~:~94 0:~5 . 'f•._00 1:00 0:86 .
'0:8'8
Frt 1,00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0
85
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.Q0 0.95 1.00 0.95 1 A~ fi:00 0~95 1:00 .
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 2787 4990 3291 4990 3539 1583 1770 6408 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1:00 0:95 1.00 0:95 1':00 1:00 0:95 1.00 1
00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 2787 4990 3291 4990 3539 1583 1770 6408 .
2787
Volume (vph) 110 484 269 735 180 158 145 1094 739 189 579 11
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0
97
Adj. Flow (vph) 113 499 277 758 186 163 149 1128 762 195 597 .
11
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 128 0 113 0 0 0 225 0 0 6
Lane Group Flow (vph) 113 499 149 758 236 0 149 1128 537 195 '597 5
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 2 3 1- 6' 3 8 g 7 q
Permitted Phases
4
Actuated Green, G(s) 7:4 21.8 34.0 19,5 33.9 6:7 40.6 40.6 14.5 48.4 48.4
Effective Green, g(s) 7.9 23.3 34.5 20.0 35.4 7.2 42.1 42.1 15.0 49.9 49
9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.20 0.30 0.17 0.30 0.06 0:36' 0.36 0:13 0:43 .
0:43
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2 0 4 0 4 0 2 0 4 0 4 0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 233 708 826 857 1001 309 1280 573 228 2747 1195
v/s Ratio Frot 0.03 c0.14 0:05 c0.15 0.07 0.03 D,32 c0.34 c0.11 0.09
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0:48 0.70 0.18 0.88 0.24 0:48 0.88 0;94 0.86 0:22 0:00
Uniform Delay, d1 52.3 43.3 30.4 47.1 30.4 52.8 34.8 35.9 49.6 20.9 19.0
Progression'Factor 1:00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.a0 1.00 1,00 1:00 1:00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 3.2 0.1 10.5 0.1 0.4 7.6 23.3 24.7 0.1 0.0
Delay (s) 52.9 46.5 30.5 'S7.6 30.5 :53.2 42.4 59:2 74.3 21.0 19.0
Level of Service D D C E C D D E E C B
Approach Delay (s) 42.4 49.0 49.5 33.9
Approach LOS
~,u
~
- D D D C
s
.. t., ,
HCM Average Control Delay ~.
45.5 ,
.
HCM Level of Service ~ ,
D
:
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 116.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.4% )C U Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
J:IJURISDICTION\D\Dublin\157-001 On-caIllTask 120 Rev
TJKM Transportation Consultants
Grafton Plaza\Synchro12015~2015 no proj PM.sy7
KH, VG, MP, FY
Page 3
~-~ l ~ ~--~
~
,
Grafton Plaza EIR 2015 No Proj PM Peak
5: I-580 EB Off-ramp & I-580 WB On Ramp 4/27/2009
Lane Configurations ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ j- ~~ ~~ -~ ~~ ~
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1`900 1900 1900 :19Q0 1900 1'900 1900 1900 19~0 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.95 '0:95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected D.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1:Q0 1>.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1583 3433 1583 1583 3539 3539 1770 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1;00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1s00 1.00 Q:95. 1-.00 1.0~
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1583 3433 1583 1583 3539 3539 1770 3539 1583
Volume (uph) 551 192 :85 25 1'D7 429 1152 1~525 17 262 1617 2'17
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Adj. Flow (~ph) 562 196 87 26 109 438 1176 1556 17 267 1650 221
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 212 0 1 0 0 0 0
Lane Group flow (vph) 562 196 87 26 109 226 1176 1572 0 267 1650 221
Turn Type Prot Free Protcustomcustom Prot Prot Free
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 7 4 5 7 6 6 5 2
Permitted Phases Free Free
Actuated Green, G(s) 21.0 21.0 127.5 13.4 36.4 36.4 58,1 58.1 19.0 81.1 127.5
Effective Green, g(s) 21.0 21.0 127.5 13.4 36.4 36.4 58.1 58.1 19.0 81.1 127.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0:'16 0:16 1.00 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.46 0.46 0.15 0:64 1.Q0
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3A 3.0 3:0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 565 307 1583 361 452 452 1613 1613 264 2251 1583
v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.11 0:01 0.07 c0.14 0.33 c0:44 c0.15 0.47
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.99 0.64 0.05 0.07 0.24 0.50 0:73 0.97 1.01 Q:73 0.14
Uniform Delay, d1 53.2 49.7 0.0 51.4 35.0 38.0 28.3 34.0 54.2 15.8 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 36.3 4.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.9 2.9 17.2 58.3 2.2 0.2
Delay{s) 89.5 54._0 0.1 51.5 35.2 38.8 31.2 51.2 1'12:6 1;8:0 0:2
Level of Service F D A D D D C D F B A
Approach Delay {s) 72,0 42.6 27:9 "
Approach LOS E D C
_, ,
„
_
;
_ . ,
HCM Average Control Delay _
, , ,. .
41.2 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 127.5 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.6% tCU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
J:IJURISDICTION\D1Dublin\157-001 On-caIllTask 120 Rev. Grafton Plaza\Synchro~2015~2015 no proj PM.sy7
KH, VG, MP, FY
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 4
~ -- ~- ~ ~ ~ T ~' ~ ~- ~ ~
`~'""p~ ~ ~~'~
TJKM
Transportacion
Consultan[s
~~~~~ ~~
Grafton Plaza EIR 2015 + Proj AM Peak
3: Dublin Blvd. & Tassajara Rd. 5/29/2009
~ -•z ~'- ~~ fi r~ ~ 1 ~
Lane Configurations -~~ ~~ ~'j~ ~~~ ~-~, ~~~ ~~ ~ -~ ftf f ~~
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19'QO 1900 1900 1900 '~9~Q0 19~0 19(~0 1:gp0~ 19f10 1~9t~0 1940 190:~
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0:9T 0.95 ~';88 0,:94 0.:95 0:94 0.95 .1.U0 1.00 0.86 0.8'S
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Profiected Q:95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1~00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0::95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 2787 4990 3435 4990 3539 1583 1770 6408 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0:95 1.00 b.95 1.00 1.00 0:95 1.00 1';00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 2787 4990 3435 4990 3539 1583 1770 6408 2787
Volume (uph) 7 1 ~4 61 420 294 72 217 ~44 732 93 1564 14
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 7 1'07 '63 433 3Q3 74 224 561 755 96 1612 14
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 2 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 107 61 433 352 0 224 561 ' 755 96 1612 6
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot Prot Free Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 2 3 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases Free 4
Actuated Green, G(s) 0.7 10.6 20.7 7.9 17.8 4.6 27.4 70.5 4.6 27:4 27.4
Effective Green, g(s) 1.2 12.1 21.2 8.4 19.3 5.1 28.9 70.5 5.1 28.9 28.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0:77 0:30 0.12 0,27 0:07 Os49' 1.00 0:07 0;41 0:41
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3:0 2:0 3.0 2.0 ~4A 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 58 607 838 595 940 361 1451 1583 128 2627 1142
v/s Ratio Prot 0:00 0.03 0:02 c0:09 0:1Q 0.:04 0.16 ` 0.05 c0.25
v/s Ratio Perm c0.48 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.12 0.18 0:07 0:73 0,37 0.62 0.39 0:48 0.75 0.61 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 34.1 24.9 17.6 29.9 20.7 31.8 14.6 0.0 32.1 16.4 12.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 0.0 3.8 0.3 2.4 0.2 1.0 19.4 0.5 0.0
Delay (s) 34:5 25.1 17.7 33.7 21.0 34.1 14.8 1.0 51:5 16.9 1-2.3
Level of Service C C B C C C B A D B B
Approach Delay (s) 22.8 27:8 10.9 1'8;8
Approach LOS C C B B
HCM Average Control Delay 17.8 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Wolume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.5 S um of lost time (s) 4.0
Intersection Capacity Uti lization 51.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
KH, VG, MP, FY Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 1
~~ ~ ~~~~
Grafton Plaza EIR 2015 + Proj AM Peak
5: I-580 EB Off-ramp & I-580 WB On Ramp 5/29/2009
-' ~. ~ j ~ ~ t ~' ~ ~- 1 ~
Lane Configurations -~~ ~ ~ -~~ ~ ~r ~~ ~r~+ -~ ,~~, ~r
Ideal Flow (~phpl) 1900 1.90Q 1900 1900 1g00 1900 1900 19Q0 1900 'f900 '~900 1`900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Larte Util. Factor 0.97 1:00 1.DQ 0;97 1;00 1.00 Q.95 *0:95 1::~0 D.95 1s.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1:Q0 0:95 1:00 1.00 1:00 1.00 0:95 1.00 1:00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1583 3433 1583 1583 3539 3539 1770 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1:00 1'.00 0.95 1.00 1:00 1:00 1.00 0:95 1.00 t:00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1583 3433 1583 1583 3539 3539 1770 3539 1583
Volume (vph) 928 301 95 13 58 226 447 830 12 156 1950 106
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Adj. Flow (vph) 947 307 97 13 59 231 456 847 12 459 1990 108
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 180 0 1 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 947 307 97 93 59 51 456 858 0 159 1'990 108
Turn Type . Prot Free Protcustomcustom Prot Prot Free
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 7 4 5 7 6 6 5 2
Permitted Phases Free Free
Actuated Green, G(s) 41.0 4'1.0 143.8 9.8 31.5 '31.5 59.3 59:3 17.7 81.:0 143.8
Effective Green, g(s) 41.0 41.0 143.8 9.8 31.5 31.5 59.3 59.3 17.7 81.0 143.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0:29 0.29 1.00 0.07 0:22 0.22' 0.41 0:41. 0.12 0.56 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 979 531 1583 234 347 347 1459 1459 218 1993 1583
v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 0.16 0.00 c0.04 -0:03 0.93 0.24 0.09 c0.56
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.97 0.58 0.06 0.06 0:17 D:15 0:31 0.59 0.73 1;00 0:07
Uniform Delay, d1 50.7 44.0 0.0 62.7 45.5 45.3 28.5 32.8 60.7 31.3 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1,00 1':00 1.;00 1::00 1:00 1.00 1:b0 1:00 1'.00 fi:00
Incremental Delay, d2 21.0 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 1.7 11.5 19.8 0.1
Delay (s) 71.7 4'S.5 0:.1 62.8 45:8 45~5 29.1 34.5 72.3 5'1.1 0.1
Level of Service E D A E D D C C E D A
Approach Delay (s) 60.6 32.6 5Q.2
Approach LOS E C D
HCM Average Control Delay 48.2 ~ HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.:93:
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 143.8 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Ut ilization 87.0%o ICU Leuel of Ser~ice' E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
KH, VG, MP, FY Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 2
o? ~~~' ~~t~
Grafton Plaza EIR 2015 + Proj PM Peak
3: Dublin Blvd. & Tassajara Rd. 5~29~2oos
~' -• ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ t r~ ~- 1 ~
Lane Configurations ~'~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~'~, ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ritt ~~
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1-900 1`900 1900 1900 1900 1'900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0:97 0;95 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.94 Os95 1:00 1.OD 0.86 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1:00 0:95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 2787 4990 3286 4990 3539 1583 1770 6408 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1:'00 0:95 1;00 1,00 0.95 1:00 1:00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 2787 4990 3286 4990 3539 1583 1770 6408 2787
Volume (vph} 110 554 269 895 205 1:86 145 1094 8'~4 205 579 11
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph} 113 571 277 923 241 1~2 149 1128 839 211 597 11
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 131 0 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Lane Group Flow (vph) ~ 13 571 146 923 287 0 149 1128 839 211 597 5
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot Prot Free Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 2 3 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases Free 4
Actuated Green, G(s) 6.D 27.6 40.5 27.5 49.1 7.4 46:7 139.4 17.6 56.9 56.9
Effective Green, g(s) 6.5 29.1 41.0 28.0 50.6 7.9 48.2 139.4 18.1 58.4 58.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0:05 021 0.29 0.20 0136 0.06 0`35 1;.00 0.13 Q:42 A.42
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2A 3.0 2.0 3A 2.Q 4A 2:0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 160 739 820 1002 1193 283 1224 1583 230 2685 1168
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.16 0:05 c0.18 0:09 0.03 c0.32 c0.12 0:09
v/s Ratio Perm 0.53 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.77 0.18 0.92 024 0.53 0.92 0.53 0.92 0.22 0.00
Uniform Delay, d1 65.5 52.0 36.7 54.6 31.0 63.9 43.8 0.0 59.9 26.0 23.6
Progression Factor 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1-.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 11.0 5.0 0.1 13.1 0.1 0.8 11.6 1.3 36.7 0.1 0.0
Delay (s) 76.5 57;1 36.8 67.7 31:1 64J 55.3 1.3 96.6 26.0 23.6
Level of Service E E D E C E E A F C C
Approach Delay (s) 53.5 5~:6 34.6 44:2
Approach LOS D E C D
HCM Average Control Delay 45.1 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0:89
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 139.4 S um of lo st time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Uti kization 87.3% ICU Leve l of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Growp
KH, VG, MP, FY Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 3
C~ ~ ~~
_~
Grafton Plaza EIR 2015 + Proj PM Peak
5: I-580 EB Off-ramp & I-580 WB On Ramp 5/29/2009
~ -~ ~ ~' '~ ~ T ~' ~`' ~- j ~
Lane Configurations
~-~
~
~ -
-~~ -
~
~r
~~
~r~r
~
~,~,
~r
Pdeal Flow (vphpl} 19Q0 1.900 1900 19Q0 1900 1900 19(30 19Q0 1900 'F900 49:0~ 9900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4A 4A 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.OQ 1:00 O:J7 1:D0 1.00 Q:9~ "0;95. 1:00. Q:95 t_00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
FIt Protected 0.95 1.00 't.00 0.95 1:00 1.00 1":00 1.On Q:95 1:00 1.b0
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1583 3433 1583 1583 3539 3539 1770 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1'.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1583 3433 1583 1583 3539 3539 1770 3539 1583
Volume (vph) 584 192 85 25 122 429 1176 1525 17 265 1660 227
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Adj. Flow (vph) 596 196 87 26 124 438 1200 1556 17 270 1694 232
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 214 0 1 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 596 196 87 26 124 224 1200 15:72 0 :270 1`694 232
Turn Type Prot Free Protcustomcustom Prot Prot Free
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 7 4 57 6 ' 6 - 5 2
Permitted Phases Free Free
Actuated Green, G(s) 25:0 25.0 145.1 14<:1 40,1 40:1 71:0 71.0 22;0 97.0 148.1
Effective Green, g(s) 25.0 25.0 148.1 14.1 40.1 40.1 71.0 71.0 22.0 97.0 148.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 1:00 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.48 0:48 0.15 0:65 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.q 3.0 3:0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 580 314 1583 327 429 429 1697 .1697 263 2318 1583
v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0:11 0:01 0.08 c0.14 0.34 c0:44 c0.15 0.48
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.15
v/c Ratio 1:03 0:62 0.05 -0>08 0:29 0.52 0:71 A.93 1.03 0.73 0.15
Uniform Delay, d1 61.5 57.2 0.0 61.1 42.7 45.9 30.4 36.1 63.0 16.9 0.0
Progression Factor 1.Q0 1:00 1.00 1:00 1::00 . 1.Q0 1.:00 1.~0 ~~00 1=:00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 44.6 3.8 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.2 2.5 10.2 62.5 2.1 02
Delay (s) 106.1 61.0 0.1 61.2 43.1 47-0 32.9 46.3 1-25.6 19.0 0.2
Level of Service F E A E D D C D F B A
Approach Delay (s) 85.6 40.5 30.1
Approach LOS F D C
~
HCM Average Control Delay 43.7 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycie Length (s) 148.1 S um of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity lJfii lization 88.7%o ICU Levei of Service E:
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
KH, VG, MP, FY Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 4
~7 ~ !-~~:~
TJKM
Transportacion
Consulcan[s
~~~ ~ '"~~
Grafton Plaza EIR 2030 No Proj AM Peak
3: Dublin Blvd. & Tassajara Rd. 4~27/2009
.~ --. ~, ~- .-- ~ ~, r ~ ~ l .~
Lane Configurations ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ftft ~r r~t~ tfft ~r~r
Ideal Flow (~phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1;900 1900 1'900 1=900 19Q0 19Q0 1:900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane UtiL Factor 0:97 0;.9'1 0;~38- 0:94 0:`91 9:;~0
. ~::9~ 0:$C 1:00 0:97 0:86 0:88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.q'~ 1.00 i1;95 1:`~0 1:FSQ 0:95 1:00 'T;00 0::95 1,00 9.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 1583 3433 6408 2787
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1:00 Q.95 1;00 1:D0 0:95 1:OQ 1.00 0.95 1.Q0 1:00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 1583 3433 6408 2787
Volume (vph) 3D 376 65 307 1443 82 962 797 1044 151 1655 12
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 31 388 67 316 4488 85 992 822 1076 156 1706 12
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 63 0 0 7
Lane Group Flow (vph) 31 388 67 316 1488 37 992 822 1013 956 1706 5
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Prot pt+ov Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 2 3, 1 6 3 8 8 1 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G(s) 2:3 32:5 65:3 7:9 38.1 38.1 27.3 61.7 75.1 5.8 40:2 40.2
Effective Green, g(s) 2.8 34.0 65.8 8.4 39.6 39.6 27.8 63.2 75.6 6.3 41.7 41.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.27 0:51 0.07 0.31 0.31 0:22 0.49 0,59 O:D5 0:33 0.33
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 75 1352 1434 328 1574 490 1085 3166 936 169 2089 909
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.08 0:02 0.06 e0.29 c0.20 0.13 c0.64 0.05 0.27
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio D.49 0.29 0.05 0.96 0:95 0':08 0.91 0.26 'i:.~8- ' 0.92 0:82 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 61.7 37.3 15.4 59.6 43.1 31.2 48.9 18.8 26.2 60.6 39.6 29.1
Progression'.Factor 1.Q0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.:00 1_00 1:00 1:Q0 1:p0 1;00 1`.DO 1.:00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.1 0.0 39.5 12.0 0.1 11.4 0.1 54.4 46.6 2.7 0.0
Delay (s) 63.1 37.4 15.5 99:1 55.1 31.3 60.3 18.8 80.6 107.2 42:3 29.1
Level of Service E D B F E C E B F F D C
Approach Delay (s) 36.0 61.4 56.1 47.6
Approach LOS
~ D
.. E E
- D
~
~
HCM Average Control Delay
~,;a
53.9 , ,
e
~. . ~ -
HCM Level of Service
D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1:03
Actuated Cycle Length ( s) 127.9 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersectiorr Capacity Ut ilization 87.3% ICU LeVel of'Senrice E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Criticat Lane Group
J:\JURISDICTION\D\Dublin\157-001 On-caIllTask 120 Rev. Grafton Plaza\Synchro12030~2030 No Project AM.sy7
KH, VG, MP, FY
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 1
~ ~~~ .~ , ~~~
~
Grafton Plaza EIR 2030 No Proj AM Peak MIT
3: Dublin Blvd. & Tassajara Rd. 4~27/2009
~ ~ ~ ~ '_' !- ~1 ~ /` ~- ~ ~
Lane Configurations ~~ ~~+~ j~~ ~-~~ ~~~ ~ ~~t~ ffft ~r~r ~t~ ffff ~r~r
Ideal Flow (vphpq 190Q 1900 19QQ 1_90Q 1.;900 1900 1900 1'900 1900 1~00 '1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Faetor 0:97 0:91 0:88 0.94 0:91 3.00 0.94 0:86 0.88 0.97 0.86 '0:88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1:00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1:00 1:00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787
Volume (vph) 30 376 65 307 14~i3 82 9G2 797 1'044 1~51 1655 12
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 31 388 67 316 1488 85 992 822 1A76 156 1706 12
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 146 0 0 8
Lane Group Flow (vph) 31 388 67 316 4488 33 992 822 930 156 1706 4
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Prot pt+ov Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 2 3 1 6 3 8 8 1 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G(s) 2.3 30.6 59.7 7.7 36.0 36.0 23.6 48.4 61.6 8.6 33.4 33.4
Effective Green, g(s) 2.8 32.1 60.2 8.2 37.5 37.5 24.1 49.9 62.1 9.1 34.9 34.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.28 0.52 0.07 0.33 0.33 0:21 0.43 0.54 0;08 -0.30 0;30
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5
Vehicle Extension (s), 2A 3:0 '2.0 3.0 3.0 2:0 :4A 2A 4.0' 4.D
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 83 1416 1455 355 1654 515 1043 2773 1501 271 1940 844
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0:08 0.02 c0.'06 c0.29 c0.20 0.13 c0.33 0.05 c0.27
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0,37 0.27 0.05 0.89 0.90 0.06 0::95 0.30 0.62 0.58 0.88 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 55.4 32.5 13.5 53.1 37.1 26.8 45.0 21.3 18.4 51.2 38.2 28.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.1 0.0 22.6 7.0 0.1 17.2 0.1 0.9 1.8 5.1 0.0
Delay (s) 56:4 32.6 13.5 75.7 44.1 26.9 62.2 21.4 19.3 53.1 43.3 28.1
Level of Service E C B E D C E C B D D C
Approach Delay (s) 31.5 48.6 34.6 44.0
Approach LOS C D C D
. .
HCM Average Control Delay ~
40.6 m..
HCM Level of Service
D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Q.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 115.3 S um of lo st time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utitization 86.8% ICU Leve l of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
J:\JURISDICTION\D\Dublin\157-001 On-cali\Task 120 Rev. Grafton Plaza\Synchro~2030~2030 No Project AM_mit.sy7
KH, VG, MP, FY
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 2
~~ ~~
~
Buildout No Project With Stoneridge
5: EB 580 off to Santa Rita & Santa Rita
2030 No Proj AM Peak Hour
4/27/2009
~ -• ~ ~ '- ~ ~ t r~ ~- 1 ~
Lane Configurations ~~ ~ ~ -~~ ~'~- ttf~ ~ ~~
Ideal Flow (~phpl) 1900 1900 1900 '~:900 1900 1900 1900 190~ 1900 19'00 1900 1'900
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3A 3A 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane UtiL Faetqr 0:97 1.00 1.DQ 0.97 > 0.88 0:~86. 1..~aQ Q:95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Fipb; ped/bikes 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.Q0 1.00 1;a~ 1:00 1~00 `
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1,00 1.:00 0~95 1.00 1;00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3547 1925 1587 3547 2880 6298 1829 3657
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3547 1925 1587 3547 2880 6298 1829 3657
Volume (vph) 675 127 623 63 0 548 0 971 306 332 1658 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 750 141 692 70 0 609 0 1079 340 369 1842 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 750 141 692 70 -0 609 0 1357 0 369 1842 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 61 8 45
Turn Type Prot freec ustom custom Frot
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 6 5 2
Permitted Phases Free 7 5 4
Actuated Green, G(s) 20.7 28.1 90.0 4.0 19.8 29.2 8.0 42.6
Effective Green, g(s) 21.8 30.5 90.0 5.5 24:6 31.6 10.4 45.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.34 1.00 0.06 0.27 0.35 0.12 0.50
Clearance Time (s) 4.1 5.4 4.5 5.4 5.4 5:4
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vphj 859 652 1587 217 787 2211 211 1829
v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.07 0.02 c0.21 0.22 c0.20 c0.50
v/s Ratio Perm 0.44 _ . ;= ;
v!c Ratio 0.87 0.22 0.44 0.32 0.77 0.61 1.75 1.01
Uniform Delay, d1 32.8 21:2 0.0 _4~.5 ' ,30.4 24.2 39.8 '22.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 9.5 0.4 0.9 0.3 4.4 1.3 355.8 22:8
Delay (s) 422 21.3 0.9 40.8 34.5 25.4 395.6 45.3
Level of Service D C A D ;C C F D
Approach Delay (s) 22.3 35.1 25.4 103.8
Approach LOS C p C , F
HCM Average Control Delay 55.~ HGM Level of Service . E,
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03
Actwated Cycle Length (s) 90:0 Sum .of tosfi time (s} 'F2.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.5% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
J:\JURISDICTION\D\Dublin\157-001 On-call\Task 120 Rev. Grafton Plaza\Synchro120301#5 2030\BO_NoProject_WithStoneri~
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 3
`~' 11 ~ 1~~.,~A
Buildout No Project With Stoneridge 2030 No Proj AM Peak Hour Mit
5: EB 580 off to Santa Rita & Santa Rita 4/27/2009
~` -- Z ~ ~- t ~ T ~ ~ 1 ~
~ Lane Configurations
~~
~
~
~~
~~
ftt~
~~
~~
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 19Q0 1g00 1'9Q0 'I'900 1'900 1'9~a 1`900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
LaneUtil. Factor 0:97 1.00 1`.00 0.97 0;88 0.86 0::97 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/6ikes 1.00 1..00 1:00 1.Q0 1.00 1.Q0 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1:00 1.00 0.~5 1':00 1:00 0:9b 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3547 1925 1587 3547 2880 6298 3547 3657
Flt Ferrnitted 0.95' 1.00 1.Q0 0:95 ' 1.00 1;.00 Q.95 . 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3547 1925 1587 3547 2880 6298 3547 3657
Volume (vph) 675 127 623 63 0 548 0 971 '3Q6 332 1658 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 750 441 692 70 0 609 0 1079 340 369 1842 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 750 141 692 70 0 609 0 1357 0 369 1842 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 61 8 45
Tum Type Prot Freecustom custom Prot
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 6 5 2
Permitted Phases Free 7 5 4
Actuated Green, G(s) 20.7 28.1 90.0 4.0 19.8 29.2 8.0 42.6
Effective Green, g(s) 21.8 30.5 90A 5;5 24.6 31:6 10:4 45.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.34 1.00 0.06 0.27 0.35 0.12 0.50
Clearance Time (s) 4:1 5:4 4.5 5.4 5.4 5.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 859 652 1587 217 787 2211 410 1829
v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.07 0.02 c0.21 0.22 0.10 c0.50
v/s Ratio Perm 0.44
v/c Ratio 0.87 0.22 0.44 0.32 0.77 0.61 0.90 1.01
Uniform Delay, d1 32.8 21:2 0.0 40.5 30.1 24.2 39:3 22.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 9.5 0.1 0.9 0.3 4:4 1.3 24:8 22.8
Delay (s) 42.2 21.3 0.9 40.8 34.5 25.4 61.1 45.3
Level of Service D G A D C' _ C E D
Approach Delay (s)
22.3
35.1 ,.
25.4
47.9
Approach LOS C 'D C D
HCM Average Control Delay 34.1 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.5% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group ~
J:\JURISDICTION\D\Dublin\157-001 On-caIllTask 120 Rev. Grafton Plaza\Synchro~2030\#5 2030\BO_NoProject_WithStoneric
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 4
a J~z ~r~
~
Grafton Plaza EIR 2030 No Proj PM Peak
3: Dublin Blvd. & Tassajara Rd. 4/2~/2009
~ -- ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ t l~ ~ ,~ '~
Lane Configurations '~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ +~~~ ~ -~~~ ttft ~ ~~ ftrt ~r~r
Idealflow (vphpl) 7900 19Q0 1900 1900 19~~ 1900 1900 1900 1~00 1900 1900 'f=900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4A 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 Q.91 0:88 ~.9~E 0.91 1.00 E~.~4 0,86 1:OQ D.:97 0::86 ~:88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0:95' 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 9:DO 1.00 0.95 1:00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 1583 3433 6408 2787
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0:95 1.A0 1:00 0.95 1'.00 1;00 0:95 1':00 1:00
Satd.Flow (perm) 3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 1583 3433 6408 2787
Volurne (vph) 279 660 1006 `741 494 336 829 1547 972 445 327 104
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 288 680 1037 764 509 346 855 1595 1002 459 337 107
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 138 0 0 176 0 0 9 0 0 76
Lane Group Flow (vph) 288 680 899 764 509 170 855 1595 993 459 337 31
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Prot pt+ov Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 2 3 1 6 3 8 '8' 1 `7 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G(s) 16.3 34.7 71.1 21:5 39.9 39'.9 30:9 54r5 81.5 1:8.5 42.1 42.1
Effective Green, g(s) 16.8 36.2 71.6 22.0 41.4 41.4 31.4 56.0 82.0 19.0 43.6 43.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0,24 0.48 0.15 0.28 0:28 0.21 0.38 0.55 0.13 0,29 0.29
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2:0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3A 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4,0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 387 1234 1337 736 1411 439 1050 2405 870 437 1873 814
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 D.13 c0.32 0.15 0.10 0.17 0.25 c0.63 e0.13 0:05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.74 0,55 0.67 1,Q4 0.36 0.39 0.81 0:66 1.'14 1:05 0:18 0:04
Uniform Delay, d1 64.1 49.4 29.8 63.6 43.3 43.6 56.1 38.8 33.6 65.1 39.4 37.8
Progression Factor 1.00 t:00 1.00 1.00 1;00 1:00 1..00 1.00 1.0~ 1.00 1;00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 6.7 0.5 1.3 43.4 0.2 0.6 4.7 0.8 77.4 56.9 0.1 0.0
Delay (s) 70.8 49.9 31.1 107.0 43.4 44.2 60.8 39:5 111.0 1:22:0 39:5 37.8
Level of Service E D C F D D E D F F D D
Approach Delay (s) 432 73.6 65.5 81.2
Approach LOS
~ D E E F
,. . .
, ~... . - _,. -: . ~
HCM Average Control Delay
~~~
63.3 ~
. .
HCM Level of Service
~
E
HCM Volume to Capacity catiq 1.01
Actuated Cycle Length ( s) 149.2 S um of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Ut ilization 95.6% ICU Level of'Service : F'
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
J:\JURISDICTION\D1Dublin\157-001 On-call\Task 120 Rev. Grafton Plaza\Synchro~2030~2030 No Project PM.sy7
KH, VG, MP, FY
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 5
~ I~ ~ +~p~.~` .~. ,;
Grafton Plaza EIR 2030 No Proj PM Peak MIT
3: Dublin Blvd. & Tassajara Rd. 4~27~2009
~ -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I /~ ~' i ~
Lane Configurations '~~ ~~~ ~~' -~~~ ~~~ ~r ~~~ ffff ~r~r r~-~ fftf ~r~r
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1'-900 1'900 1900 1'900 1.900 1900 1900 1900` 190D
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0:97 0:91 0.88 0.94' D.9h 1.00 0:94 0.86 0.88 0.97 Q.86 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1,00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0:95 1:00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.:95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1:00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.OQ 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd.Flow (perm) 3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787
Volume (vph) 279 660 ` 1006 74.1 494 336 829 1547 ;972 445 327 104
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 288 680 1037 764 509 346 855 1595 10~2 459 337 107
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 135 0 0 227 0 0 32 0 0 78
Lane Group Flow (vph) 288 680 902 764 5Q9 119 855 1595 970 459 337 29
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Prot pt+ov Prot Perm
Pcotected" Phases 5 2 2 3 1 6 3 8 8 1 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G(s) 14.3 32.3 59.6 19:5 37.5 37.5 21.8 35.3 60.3 19.1 32.6 32.6
Effective Green, g(s) 14.8 33.8 60.1 20.0 39.0 39.0 22.3 36.8 60.8 19.6 34.1 34.1
Actuated g!C Ratio 0.12 0.27 0.48 0.16 A.31 0.31 0.18 0.29 D.48 0.16 0.27 0:27
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3:0 !:3.0 2A 4A - 2.0 ' 4 0 4:0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 403 1362 1327 791 1571 489 882 1869 1343 533 1731 753
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0,13 c0.32 c0. ~-5 0.1A c0.17 e0.25 b.35 0.13 0.05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.50 0.68 0.97 0.32 0.24 0.97 0.85 O:Z2 0.86 0:19 0:04
Uniform Delay, d1 53.7 39.0 25.6 52.8 33.5 32.6 51.6 42.2 26.0 52.0 35.5 34.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1;00 1.00 1_.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 0.3 1.4 23.6 0.1 0.3 22.7 4.2 2.1 13.0 0.1 0.0
Delay (s) 58.6 39.3 27.1 76.3 33:6 32.8 74:3 46:3 28.1 64:9 35.5 34.0
Level of Service E D C E C C E D C E D C
Approach Delay (s) 35:8 53.6 48.0- 50:3
Approach LOS D D D D
HCM Average Control Delay 46.3 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 126.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Gapacity Utilization 75.3% ICU Leve l of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
J:\JURISDICTION\D\Dublin\157-001 On-call\Task 120 Rev
TJKM Transportation Consultants
Grafton Plaza\Synchro~2030~2030 No Project PM_mit.sy7
KH, VG, MP, FY
Page 6
~ ~~ ~~
~
Buildout No Project With Stoneridge 2030 No Proj PM Peak Hour
5: EB 580 off to Santa Rita & Santa Rita 4/2~~20os
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ i ~
Lane Configurations -~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ jft'~ ~ '~'~
Ideai Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 190D 1800 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 '~900 190~ 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane UtiL Factor 0:97 1.Q0 ?.(l0 ~.97 0.88 0.:86 ' 1.00 0.~5
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99
__ 1.00 1.00
Flpb, pedfbikes 1.00 1.00 1:00 '1.D0 1.OQ 1:Q0 1.00 1:00'
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1:00 0:95 1:OQ
Satd. Flow (prot) 3547 1925 1587 3547 2880 6418 1829 3657
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 0:95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3547 1925 1587 3547 2880 6418 1829 3657
Volume (vph) 533 1_89 382 62 0 549 0 1980 340 464 1210 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 592 210 424 69 0 61q 0 22Q0 378 516 1344 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 592 210 424 69 ! 0 610 ' 0 2548 0 516 1'344 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 61 8 45
Tum Type Prot Freec ustom custom Rrot
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 6 5 2
Permitted Phases Free 7 5 4
Actuated Green, G(s) 18.3 26.3 100.0 4.0 24.1 37.3 11.7 54.4
Effective Green, g(s) 19.4 28.7 100.0 5.5 28.9 39.7 14.1 56.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.29 1.00 0.06 0.29 0.40 0.14 0.57
Clearance Time (s) 4.1 5.4 4:5 5.4 5.4 5.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 688 552 1'587 195 :832 2548 258 2077
v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.11 0.02 c0.21 c0.40 c0.28 0.37
v/s Ratio Perm 0:27
v/c Ratio 0.86 0.38 0.27 0.35 0.73 1.00 2.00 0.65
Unifocm Defay,`d1 39.0 28.5 0:0 45.:5 32:1' 30c1 43.0 14:8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 10.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 2.9 17.9 463.5 1.0
Delay (s) 49.3 28.7 0.4 45.9 35.0 48.0 506.5 15.7
Level of Secvice D C A D C D F B
Approach Delay (s) 28.9 36.1 48.0 151.9
Approach LOS C <D D F
HCM Average Gontrol Delay 73;5 ' HeM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.A Sum of tost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.0% ICU Level of 5ervice F
Analysis Period (min) 15 ~
c Critical Lane Group
Synchro 6 Report
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 7
~ -~ ,~ ~
~
Buildout No Project With Stoneridge 2030 No Proj PM Peak Hour Mit.
5: EB 580 off 4o Santa Rita & Santa Rita 4/27/2009
~ -- ~ { '- ~ ~ t ~' `- j .~
Lane Configurations -~~ ~ ~ t~~ ~r~r fff~ ~~ ,~,~
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1.900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.88 0.86 0.97 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1:00 1:00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0:95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Q:95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3547 1925 1587 3547 2880 6418 3547 3657
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 = 1.00 1 sDQ 0.95 1:00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3547 1925 1587 3547 2880 6418 3547 3657
Volume (vph) 533 189 382 62 0 549 0 1980 340 464 121`Q 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (uph) 592 210 424 69 0 610 0 2200 378 516 1344 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 592 210 424 69 0 610 0 2548 0 516 1344 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 61 8 45
Tum Type Prot Freecustom custom Prot
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 6 5 2
Permitted Phases Free 7 5 4
Actuated Green, G(s) 18.3 26.3 100.0 4.0 24.1 37.3 11.7 54.4
Effective Green, g(s) 19.4 28.7 1'OOA 5.5 28.9 39,7 14.1 56:8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.29 1.00 0.06 0.29 0.40 0.14 0.57
Clearance Time (s) 4.1 5.4 4.5 5:4 5.4 5:4
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 5 0 1 8 5 0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 688 552 1587 195 832 2548 500 2077
v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.11 0.02 c0.21 c0.40 c0.15 0.37
v/s Ratio Perm 0,27
v/c Ratio 0.86 0.38 0.27 0.35 0.73 1.00 1.03 0.65
Uniform Delay, d1 39.0 28.5 0.0 45.5 32.1 30.1 43.0 94.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 10.4 02 0.4 0.4: "2,9 17.9 48.7 1.0
Delay (s) 49.3 28.7 0.4 45.9 35.0 48.0 91.7 15.7
Level of Service D C A D : C D f B
Approach Delay (s) 28.9 36.1 48.0 36.8
Approach LOS C D D D
HGM Average Control Delay 39.8 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum;of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.2% ICU Level of Senrice D
Analysis Period (min) 15 _
c Critical Lane Group ~
J:\JURISDICTION\D\Dublin\157-001 On-call\Task 120 Rev. Grafton Plaza\Synchro12030\#5 2030\BO_NoProject_WithStoneric
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 8
~ /~ ~~+~
~
TJKM
Transportacion
Consultancs
~~ ~
~~~ `~ ~~
Grafton Plaza EIR 2030 + Proj AM Peak
3: Dublin Blvd. & Tassaiara Rd. a~27~20os
~ -- ~ r '- ~ ~ t r~ ~- 1 •~
Lane Configurations ~~ ~~~ ~j~ ~~~ ~~+~ j~ ~~~ f f ft ~ ~~ ttrt ~~
tdeal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 4900 1900 1`900 190Q 1900 1900 1900 1900
Totai Losttime (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4
0
Lane Uti{. Factor 0.97 0:91 0.88 0.94 A.91' 1.00 0.94 Q.g6 1.Q0 0.97 0.86 .
0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0:95 1.00 1.00 q,95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 p:95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 1583 3433 6408 2787
Fit Permitted 0:95 1.00 1:00 0:95 1.00 '4.00 0.95 1.00 1.OD 0:95 1 A0 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 1583 3433 6408 2787
Volume (vph) 30 398 65 435 :1482 102 962 787 1'125 ;206 1655' 12
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 31 410 67 448 1528 105 992 822 1460 212 1706 12
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 1 0 0 50 0 0 39 0 0 7
Lane Group Flow (vph) 31 410 66 448 4528 55 992 822 1121 212 1706 5
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Prot pt+ov Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 2 3 1 6 3 8 8 1 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G(s) 3.2 34.6 71.9 13.5 44.9 44:9 31.8 71.6 90,6 9.5 49.3 49.3
Effective Green, g(s) 3.7 36.1 72.4 14.0 46.4 46.4 32.3 73.1 91.1 10.0 50.8 50.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0:24 0:49 O.A9 0:31 '0:31 0.22 A.49 0:61 0.07 0,34 0:34
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5
5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2:0 3.0 2.0 3 0 3 0 2 0 `4 0 2 0 4 0 .
4 0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 85 1230 1352 468 1581 492 1080 3140 967 230 2182 949
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.09 c0:30 c0.20 0:13 c0.71 0.06 0.27
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0
00
v/c Ratio 0.36 0.33 0.05 0.96 0.97 0.11 0.92 0.26 1.16 0.92 0.78 .
0:01
Uniform Delay, d1 71.6 46.6 20.2 67.3 50.6 36.7 57.2 22.3 29.0 69.2 44.2 32
5
Progression Factor 1:00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1:00- 1:00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 .
1:00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.2 0.0 30.4 15.3 0.1 11.9 0.1 83.5 38.0 2.0 0
0
Delay (s) 72.6 46.8 20.3 97.7 65.9 36.8 69.1 22.3 112:6 107~2 46.2 .
"32;5
Level of Service E D C F E D E C F F D C
Approach DelaY (s) 44.9 : 71.3 : 73.1 52.8i
Approach LOS p E E p
HCM Average Control Delay 65.5 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Gapacity ratio 1.09
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 149.2 Sum of lost time (s) g.p
Intersection Capaeity Utifization 93.9% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
J:\JURISDICTION\D\Dublin\157-001 On-call\Task 120 Rev
TJKM Transportation Consultants
Grafton Plaza\Synchro12030~2030 + Proj AM.sy7
KH, VG, MP, FY
Page 1
~ ~ '~7'~
~
Grafton Plaza EIR 2030 + Proj AM Peak mit
3: Dublin Blvd. & Tassajara Rd. 4/27/2009
Lane Configurations ~~j ~~~ ~~ ~-~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~j f f tt ~i~ ~~ tttt ~~
Ideai Flow (vphpl)
1900 _
19a0
19~0
13~0 _
1.9Q0 _
1900
1,900
1g00
1900
1900
19'00
1900
Total Losttime (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 ~:8$ Q:~4 ~.91 1,OQ 0::94
__ Q:86 0:88
, ~:9~ 0:86 0€88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
FIt Protected 0.95 1:00 1::00 0.95 1.00 1.(10 0:;95 1.00 1.00 0:95 1.t70 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787
FltPermitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0:95 1.00 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd.Flow(perm) 3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787
Volume (vph) 30 398 65 435 1482 102 962 797 1125 206 1655 1:2
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 31 41 Q 67 448 1528 405 992 822 1160 212 1706 12
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 1 0 0 63 0 0 129 0 0 8
Lane Group Flow (vph) 31 410 66 448 1528 -42 992 822 1031 212 1706 4
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Prot pt+ov Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 2 3 1 6 3 8 8 1' 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G(s) 2.2 28.9 55.1 10.6 37.3 37.3 20.7 43.8 59.9 10.1 33.2 33.2
Effective Green, g(s) 2.7 30.4 55.6 11.1 38.8 38.8 21.2 45.3 60.4 10.6 34.7 34.7
Actuated g/C°Ratio 0.02 0.27 0.49 O.TO 0.34 0.34 0.19 0.40 0.53 0.09 0.31 0.31
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 82 1363 1366 488 1740 542 933 2560 1484 321 1961 853
v/s Ratio Prot Q.01 0.08 0.02 c0.:09 c0:30 e0.20 ':0.13 c0:37 Q.06 c0:27
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.38 0:30 0;05 0:92 0:88 0:'08 ' 1.06 0.:32' 0.70 0:66 0:87 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 54.5 33.0 15.1 50.7 35.1 25.2 46.1 23.5 19.7 49.7 37.2 27.4
Frogression Factor 1.00 1:00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1:00 1:00 1;00 1:00 1:00 1:00 9.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.1 0.0 21.8 5.4 0.1 47.8 0.1 1.5 3.9 4.6 0.0
Delay (s) 55.6 33.2 15.1 72.5 40:5 25.3 93.9 23.6 21.2 53:6 41:8 27.4
Level of Service E C B E D C F C C D D C
Approach Delay (s) 32.2 46.6 46.1 43.0
Approach LOS C D D D
HCM Average Control Delay 44.5 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0:88 ,' .
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 113.4 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Uti4ization 87.6%o ICU Leuel of Se rv~ee E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
J:\JURISDICTION\D\Dublin\157-001 On-call\Task 120 Rev. Grafton Plaza\Synchro~2030~2030 + Proj AM_mit.sy7
KH, VG, MP, FY
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 2
~ --- ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~` ~` i ~
~ ~~`~ ~~^ :.. _~
~
Buildout No Project With Stoneridge
5: EB 580 off to Santa Rita & Santa Rita
2030 Plus Proj AM Peak Hour
4/27/2009
-' -. ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ t ~ ~- 1 ~
Lane Configurations ~~ ~ ~ -~~ ~r~r tft~ ~ ~,~,
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1~00 '1900 19D0 1900 1900 "1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Util. Factor 0_97 1.00 1.00 0:97 0:88 0.86 1.00 0:95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.Q0 ,1:00 :1,00 1.~0 1:00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 ' 1:00 1.00 0:'95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3547 1925 1587 3547 2880 6298 1829 3657
FIt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 -0.95 1:00 1.00 0:95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3547 1925 1587 3547 2880 6298 1829 3657
Volume (vph) 747 127 623 63 0 550 0 973 306 333 1703 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 830 141 692 70 0 611 0 1081 340 370 1892 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 83q 141 692 70 0 611 D 4358 0 370 1892 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 61 8 45
Turn Type Prot Freecustom. custom Prot
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 6 5 2
Permitted Phases Free T 5 4
Actuated Green, G(s)
~ 21.0 28.9 90.0 4.0 20.3 28.4 8.0 41.8
Effective Green, g(s) 22.1 31.3 90.0 5:5 25.1, 30.8 10.4 44.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.35 1.00 0.06 0.28 0.34 0.12 0.49
Clearance Time (s) 4.1 5:4 4.5 5.4 5.4 5:4
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 871 669 1587 21'7 803 2155 211 1796
v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 0.07 0.02 c0.21 0.22 c0.20 c0.52
v/s Ratio Perm 0:44
v/c Ratio 0.95 0.21 0.44 0.32 0.76 0.63 1.75 1.05
Uniform Delay, d1 33.4 20.7 A.0 40.5 29.7' 24:8 39.8 22.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 19.7 0.1 0:9 0.3 3.9'' 1:4 357:9 36:9
Delay (s) 53.2 20.7 0.9 40.8 33.6 26.2 397.7 59.8
Level of Service D C A D C : C F E
Approach Delay (s) 28.6 34.3 26.2 115.1
Approach LOS C : C C F
HCM Average Cantrol Delay 61,2 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum~of losttime (sj 12.0 _
Intersection Capacity Utifization 75.1% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Reriod (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group ~
J:WURISDICTION\D\Dublin1157-001 On-call\Task 120 Rev. Grafton Plaza\Synchro~2030\#5 2030\BO NoProject_WithStoneric
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 3
a~° ~~
~
Buildout No Project With Stoneridge 2030 Plus Proj AM Peak Hour Mit
5: EB 580 off to Santa Rita & Santa Rita 4/27/2009
.~ --. ~ ,~ ~ '~ ~ t ~ ~- 1 ~
Lane Configurations `~~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~~ f ft'~, ~~ ~~
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1.900 1900 19Q0 1900 19~0 1900 1:9QQ '1900 19~?0 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.Q0 1.~0 0.97 0:88 0';86 0.97 0<95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1:00 1.00 1:00 1:00 1:~0 ' 1:.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 4.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3547 1925 1587 3547 2880 6298 3547 3657
Flt Fermitted 0:95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1::00 0:95 1.00 ~
Satd. Flow (perm) 3547 1925 1587 3547 2880 6298 3547 3657
Volume (vph) 747 127 623 63 0 550 0 973 306 333 1703 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 830 141 692 70 0 611 0 1081 340 370 1`892 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 830 141 692 70 0 611 0 1358 0 370 1592 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 61 8 45
Turn Type Prot Freecustom custom Prot
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 6 5 2
Permitted Phases Free 7 5 4
Actuated Green, G(s) 21.0 28.9 90.0 4.0 20.3 28.4 8.0 41.8
Effective Green, g(s) 22.1 31.3 90.0 5:5 25.1 30.8 10.4 44.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.35 1.00 0.06 0.28 0.34 0.12 0.49
Clearance Time (s) 4.1 5.4 4.5 '5 4 5:4 5=:4
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 871 669 1587 217 803 2155 410 1,796
v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 0.07 0.02 c0.21 0.22 0.10 c0.52
v!s Ratio Perm 0.44
v/c Ratio 0.95 0.21 0.44 0.32 0.76 0.63 0.90 1.05
Uniform Delay, d1 33:4 20:7 0.0 40.5 29.7 24':8 39.3 22.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 19.7 0.1 0.9 0.3 3.9 1.4 22.1 36.9
Delay (s) 53.2 20.7 0.9 40.8 33.6 26.2 61.4 59.8
Level of Service D C A D C C f E
Approach Delay (s) 28.6 34.3 26.2 60.1
Approach LOS C C C 'E
HCM Average Control Delay 40.5 HGM-Le~el of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9:0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.1% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period' (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
J:\JURISDICTION\D\Dublin\157-001 On-call\Task 120 Rev. Grafton Plaza\Synchro~2030\#5 2030\BO_NoProject_WithStoneric
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 4
~,~ ~~.~,~~
Grafton Plaza EIR 2030 + Proj PM Peak
3: Dublin Bivd. & Tassaiara Rd. 4/2~/2009
~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~1 I /~' ~ i ~
Lane Configurations -~~ ~~~ ~~ -~'~~ ~~~ ~ ~-~~ f'~f f ~ ~~ 1ft1 ~~
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 4900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0:97 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.94 0;86 1.00 0.97 0.86 0:88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0:95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1:00 1.00 0:95 1.00 L00 0:95 1.00 1_00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 1583 3433 6408 2787
Flt Permitted 0:95 1.00 1:00 0.95 1`-:00 `1.00 0:95 1.00 1 A~ 0:95 1.00 1:00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 1583 3433 6408 2787
Volume (vph) 279 714 1006 923 57Q 369 544 1547 1r163 445 327 104
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 288 736 1037 9b2 588 380 561 1595 1199 459 337 107
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 184 0 0 149 0 0 6 0 0 71
Lane Group Flow (vph) 288 736 853 952 588 231 561 1595 1193 459 337 36
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Prot pt+ov Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 2 3 1 6 3 8 8 1 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G{s) 14.7 34.7 63.3 22.5 42.5 42.5 23.1 56.5 84.5- 15.5 48.9 48.9
Effective Green, g(s) 15.2 36.2 63.8 23.0 44.0 44.0 23.6 58.0 85.0 16.0 50.4 50.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.24 0:43 0:15 - 0:29 0.29 0.16 0.39 0.57 0:11 0.34 0.34
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2A 3':0 3:0 2 0 4 0 2 0 4 0 4 0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 350 1234 1192 769 1500 467 789 2491 902 368 2165 941
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.14 c0.31 0.19 0.12 0.11 0.25 c0.75 c0.13 0.05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.60 0.72 1.24 0.39 0.50 0.71 0.64 1.32 1.25 0.46 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 65.7 50.0 35.2 63.1 41.9 43.4 59.6 37.1 32.1 66.6 34.5 33.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00
incremental Delay, d2 13.8 0.8 2.1 118.1 0.2 0.8 2.5 0.6 152.9 132.1 0.0 0.0
Delay (s) 79.5 50.:8 37.3 981.2 42.1 44.3 62.1 37.7 1`85.0 198.7 34.6 33.2
Level of Service E D D F D D E D F F C C
Approach Delay (s) 48:0 111,.5' 94.5 117.8
Approach LOS
~:~ D F F F
HCM Average Control Delay 89.4 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.16
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 149.2 S um of lo st time ( s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.5% ICU Levek:of Service G
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
J:\JURISDICTION\D\Dublin\157-001 On-call\Task 120 Rev
TJKM Transportation Consultants
Grafton Plaza\Synchro~2030~2030 + Proj PM.sy7
KH, VG, MP, FY
Page 5
aa~ ~~
~
Grafton Plaza EIR 2030 + Proj PM Peak mit
3: Dublin Blvd. & Tassajara Rd. 4~2~~2oos
~ -• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T r~ ~ 1 ~
LaneConfigurations -~~ ~~~ ~~ ~-~~ ~~+~ j~ ~-~-~ fftt ~~ ~~ Yttr ~~-
ldeal Flow (vphpl) 1900' 1'900 1900 1~500 1900 1900 1900 Y900 1900 1'900 19~0 'f`900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Utif. Facfor 0.97 ~:91 0.88 O.J4 0:9'f 1..0~ Q:g~ Q:8'6 0.$8 Q.97 0:86 0:88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Fit Protected 0'95 1.00 1.00 0~95 1:00 1:00 0.95 1.00 1:00 0:95 1:t70 1:00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787
Flt Permitted 0:95 1:00 1:00 0:95 1:00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1:'00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787
Volume (vph) 279 714 1006 923 570 369 544 1547 1163 445 327 104
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 288 736 1037 952 588 38Q 561 1595 1199 459 337 107
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 137 0 0 190 0 0 21 0 0 77
Lane Group Flow (vph) 288 736 900 952 588 190 561 1595 1178 459 337 30
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Prot pt+ov Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 ~ 3 1 6 -3 8 8 1 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G(s) 14.5 33.4 55:9 23`.9 42.8 42:8 17.0 34.5 63.9 17A 34.5 34.5
Effective Green, g(s) 15.0 34.9 56.4 24.4 44.3 44.3 17.5 36.0 64.4 17.5 36.0 36.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.27 0.44 0.19 0.34 0.34 0.14 0.28 0.50 0.14 028 0:28
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5
Vehicle fxtension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2,0 4.0 2:0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 400 1378 1220 945 1749 544 678 1791 1394 466 1791 779
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0 14 c0..32 c0.19 0;12 0.:11 c025 0.42 c~:13 0,05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.01
v/c Ratio 0:72 0.53 0.74 1:01 0.'3.4 0:35 0~83 0:89 0.85 0:98 A:19 0:04
Uniform Delay, d1 54.9 40.0 30.1 52.2 31.3 31.5 54.2 44.5 27.9 55.5 35.3 33.8
Progression Factor 1:00 1.00 1:00 1:00 ~:00 1.00 9.D0 1.a0 1.00 1-:00 1;00 1.:00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.1 0.4 2.4 31.1 0.1 0.4 7.8 6.2 5.1 37.4 0.1 0.0
Delay (s) 60.0 40:4 32.4 83.3 31.5 31.9 62'.0 50:7 33A 92.9 35.4 33.8
Level of Service E D C F C C E D C F D C
Approach Delay (s) 39.1 57.3 46.2 64.4
Approach LOS D E D E
~ :,_.. , ..~.
HCM Average Control Delay
49.0
HCM Level of Service
D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89
Actuated Cycle Length ( s) 128.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity:Ut ilization 79.8% ' ICU Leve) of Service `D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
J:\JURISDICTION\D\Dublin\157-001 On-call\Task 120 Rev. Grafton Plaza\Synchro12030~2030 + Proj PM_mit.sy7
KH, VG, MP, FY
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 6
~~z~' ,~ ~,~,~...,~~
~
Buildout No Project With Stoneridge 2030 Plus Proj PM Peak Hour
5: EB 580 off to Santa Rita & Santa Rita 4i27/2o09
'~ -- ~ ~ ~ ~` ~1 ~ I~ ~* ~ ~
Lane Configurations ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ tti'~ ~ ~`~`
Ideal Flow (.uphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 t:9Q0 1',900 1900 1900 19Q0 190b 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 9.00 1.00 0.97 Q.88 0.:86 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes :1:00 1:00 1.00 1.0. Q 1.00- 1.00 1:00 1,Q0
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1:00 0.95 ' 1.00 `1,00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3547 1925 1587 3547 2880 6419 1829 3657
Flt Permitted 0:95 1:00 1:00 0:95 1.00 1.00 Q.95 1:Q0
Satd. Flow (perm) 3547 1925 1587 3547 2880 6419 1829 3657
Volume (vph) 617 189 382 62 0 553 0 1988 340 466 1274 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 686 210 424 69 0 614 0 2209 378 518 1446 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 686 210 424 69 0 614 0 2556 0 548 1416 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 61 8 45
Turn Type Prot Freecustom eustom Peot
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 6 5 2
Permitted Phases Free 7 5 4
Actuated Green, G(s) 21.0 28.3 100.0 4.0 23.4 35.3 11.7 52.4
Effective Green, g(s) 22.1 30.7 100.0 5.5 : 282 37:7 14.1 54.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.31 1.00 0.06 0.28 0.38 0.14 0.55
Clearance Time (s) 4.1 5.4 4.5 5.4 5.4 5.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.0 1.8 5 0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 784 591 1587 195 812 2420 258 2004
v!s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.11 0.02 c0.21 c0.40 c0.28 0.39
v/s Ratio Perm 0,27
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.36 0.27 0.35 0.76 1.06 2.01 0.71
Uniform Delay, d1 37.6 27.0 D.0 45.5 32:8 31:1 43A 16.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 10.4 0.1 Q.4 0.4 3.6 35.4 467:0 1.5
Delay (s) 48.0 27.1 0.4 45.9 36.4 66.5 509.9 18.1
Level of Service D C A D D E F g
Approach Delay (s) 29.4 37.3 66.5 149.9
Appraach LOS C D E F
i
HGM Average Control Delay 80:7 HCM LeveF of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.12
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Surti of lost time (s): 12.0
Intersection Capacity Uti lization 91.2% IC U Level of Service F
Analysis Period'{min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
J:\JURISDICTION\D\Dublin1157-001 On-call\Task 120 Rev. Grafton Plaza\Synchro12030~#5 2030\BO_NoProject_WithStoneric
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 7
c~ ~L f ~ca~-~
~
Buildout No Project With Stoneridge 2030 Plus Proj PM Peak Hour Mit
5: EB 580 off to Santa Rita & Santa Rita 4~27~2oos
~ --- ~ i' '~ ~ `~ t r` `. j .I
Lane Configurations '~~ ~ ~ -~~ ~~ ftf~, ~~ ~~
tdealflow (vphpl) 1900 19p0 '1900 1"90Q 1900 1900 'F900 19~0 1900 'f9f~0 'f~OD 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Util. Factor 0:97 1.OD 1;00 ~:~7 Q.88 ~0,86 0:97 0:95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1:Q0 1:00 1.00 1:00' 1.00 1:.00 1:00 1:00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0:95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3547 1925 1587 3547 2880 6419 3547 3657
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 9.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3547 1925 1587 3547 2880 6419 3547 3657
Volume (vph) 617 189 382 62 0 553 0 1988 340 466 1.274 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 686 210 424 69 0 614 ,'0 2209 378 518 1416 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 686 210 424 69 :0 614 0 2556 0 518 1416 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 61 8 45
Turn Type Prot Freecustom custom Prot
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 6 5 2
Permitted Phases Free 7 5 4
Actuated Green, G(s) 21.0 28.3 100.0 4.0 23.4 35.3 11.7 52.4
Effective Green, g(s) 22.1 30.7 100.0 5.5 28.2 37.7 14.1 54.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.31 1.00 0.06 0.28 0.38 0.14 0.55
Clearance Time (s) 4:1 5:4 4.5 5.4 5:4 5.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 784 591 1587 195 ` 812 2420 500 2Q04
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.11 0.02 c0.21 c0.40 c0.15 0.39
v/s Ratio Perm 0.27
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.36 0.27 0.35 0.76 1.06 1.04 0.71
Uniform'-Delay, d1 37.6 27.0 0.0 45.5 32.8 31.1 43.0 16.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 10.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 3.6 35.4 49:9 1.5
Delay (s) 48.0 27:1 0.4 45.9 36.4 66.5 92.8 18.1
Level of Service D C A D D E f B
Approach Delay (s) 29.4 37.3 66.5 38.1
Approach LOS C D E Q
_ . , _ ~. .
HCM Average Controf Delay ,
47:5
HCM Level of Service
'-D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96
Actuated Cycl.e Length (s) 100.0 S um af fost time (s) 12.Q
Intersection Capacity Ut ilization 82.8% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15 ~
c Critical Lane Group
Synchro 6 Report
TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 8
~~ ~ ~ ~~~
~
Traffic Impact Analysis for Previous
(Withdrawn) Project
~?~ ~ ` ~~,~,~U
~ U
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study
Introduction
Transportation and Circulation was analyzed in Chapter 3.3 of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and in the 2000 Mitigated Negative
Declaration. This traffic study examines the proposed Project to determine if any new or
more significant impacts would exist regarding traffic or circulation issues as a result of
changed conditions, including but not limited to increased urban development in the
Tri-Valley area and beyond, proposed changes to the mix of land use quantities in the
proposed Project that were included in previous EIRs, and the City's use of an updated
traffic model that could yield different results than identified in earlier EIRs.
Information and analysis included in the following report was prepared by TJKM
Transportation Consultants in July 2008 and updated in May 2009. Technical
information, including Level of Service calculations, is included as an appendix.
Environmental Setting
Existing roadways
Existing roadways serving the Project area include:
Interstate 580 (1-580) is an eight-lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local
cities such as Livermore and Pleasanton as well as regional origins and destinations
such as Oakland, Hayward and Tracy. In the vicinity of the proposed Project, I-580
carries between 195,000 and 218,000 vehicles per day (vpd) (according to Caltrans 2007
Traffic Volumes on California State Highways) with interchanges at San Ramon
Road/FootYtill Road, I-680, Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara
Road/Santa Rita Road, Fallon Road/El Charro Road, and Airway Boulevard.
Interstate 680 (I-680) is a six-to-eight lane north-south freeway through Alameda and
Contra Costa Counties serving such communities as Dublin, Pleasanton, and San
Ramon. I-680 provides access to the south to Fremont, Milpitas and San Jose, and north
to San Ramon, Danville, Walnut Creek and beyond. In the vicinity of the City of
Dublin, I-680 carries between 153,000 and 168,000 vpd (Caltrans, 200~.
Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial in the City of Dublin. West of Dougherty
Road Dublin Boulevard is a four- to six-lane divided road fronted largely by retail and
commercial uses. Between Dougheriy Road and Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard is a
six-lane divided arterial fronted primarily by residential and commercial uses and
vacant lands. Dublin Boulevard extends east of Tassajara Road to Lockhart Street as a
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 1
City of Dublin May 2009
~~' `~ ~ ~~C,~J?~
four- to five-lane roadway fronted by new mixed-use development. A future extension
of Dublin Boulevard eastward to Fallon Road is planned to open when improvements
to the I-580/Fallon Road interchange are completed in 2009. This new section of Dublin
Boulevard is expected to be operational as a four-lane street to accommodate initial
Project traffic volumes.
Tassajara Road connects with Santa Rita Road at I-580 to the south and continues north
to the Town of Danville. It is four to six lanes wide between I-580 and North Dublin
Ranch Drive. Between North Dublin Ranch Drive and the County Line, it carries from
two to four lanes. North of the Contra Costa County line, it is named Camino Tassajara.
Camino Tassajara has a new major intersection with Windemere Parkway, allowing
traffic from the Dougherty Valley residential areas to utilize Camino Tassajara as well
as Tassajara Road in Dublin.
Santa Rita Road is a major north-south six-lane divided urban arterial in the City of
Pleasanton. It connects Tassajara Road at the I-580 interchange south with Main Street.
It serves the east side of Pleasanton, including the Hacienda Business Park, and
provides access to the downtown Pleasanton area.
Hacienda Drive is a north-south arterial that provides access to I-580. North of I-580,
Hacienda Drive is a three- to five-lane arterial extending from Gleason Drive southerly
to Dublin Boulevard, and six-to-seven lanes from Dublin Boulevard to I-580. It is
primarily fronted by commercial, office and residential uses. South of I-580, Hacienda
Drive is a six-lane divided major arterial serving Hacienda Business Park in the City of
Pleasanton.
Grafton Street, Brannigan Street, Keegan Street and Lockhart Street are two- to four-lane
north-south collector streets located in the project vicinity. These roads are being
constructed in phases as the adjoining land uses are developed. Keegan Street currenfly
extends from Dublin Boulevard to Central Boulevard, while the other three extend from
Dublin Boulevard to north of Gleason Drive. The area served by these streets is
primarily medium to high-density resideniial and retail development. Brannigan Street
serves as a buffer between existing multi-family development on the east side of the
street and future non-residential development to the west. Grafton Street is the central
north-south spine of the Dublin Ranch area and will function as a"main street" with
abutting retail, office and residential uses. All four of these streets have signalized
intersections with Dublin Boulevard and will provide acCess to the land between Dublin
Boulevard and I-580, including the proposed Project, which is served by the extension
of Grafton Street.
Fallon Road is a north-south arterial extending from I-580 to about two miles north of
I-580. It will be extended to connect to Tassajara Road on the north prior to 2015. It is
now two to four lanes in width but as a part of on-going development in east Dublin, it
vratton Plaza Traffic Study Page 2
City of Dublin May 2009
~~ ~ ~' `7~o~c.~
~
will eventually be widened to eight lanes near I-580, six lanes near Dublin Boulevard,
and four lanes to the north. It connects with the I-580 interchange that is currendy being
widened to four lanes and will include signalized ramp intersections. South of I-580 the
roadway is named El Charro Road and is currently a private roadway south of
Friesman Road. In the near-term, prior to 2015, it will be extended southerly to intersect
with the planned western extension of Jack London Boulevard. In the long-term it is
planned to be extended as a public street to connect with Stanley Boulevard.
North Canyons Parkway is a four-lane major east-west arterial. North Canyons Parkway
is primarily fronted by office and commercial uses. Currently, it also serves as the prime
access to Las Positas College and residential uses in northwest Livermore. It is on the
same alignment as Dublin Boulevard; eventually the two streets will be extended and
connect.
Airtvay Boulevard/Isabel Avenue (SR 84) is an arterial in the Project vicinity. It provides
access to traffic from the I-580/ Airway Boulevard interchange to the residential and
commercial uses in northwest Livermore and also to the Livermore Airport and the
Las Positas Golf Course to the south of the I-580 freeway. It connects to I-680 via the
extension of Isabel Avenue, Vallecitos Road.
Existing transit service
Transit service to the Project area is provided by the following:
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LA VTA - Wheels): "Wheels" is the fixed-route
bus transit service provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
(LAVTA) for the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. Bus
lines that currently provide service to east Dublin include routes 1AV/1BV,1C,1,12,
50, 51, 54, and 202.
Route 1 consists of four weekday routes and one Saturday route that provide service
between the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station and the Dublin Ranch Village area at
approximate 30-minute headways. Route 1 operates on weekdays between 6:00 a.m.
and 9:00 p.m., and on Saturdays from 7:30 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 3:20 p.m. to
6:00 p.m.
Route 12 provides service between the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and the
Livermore Transit Center at approximate 30-minute headways on weekdays between
5:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Route 12 provides service on weekends between 7:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m. at one hour headways.
Route 50 provides service between the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Hacienda
Business Park via the Tassajara/Koll Center Park & Ride, with weekday morning and
afternoon service at 15-minute headways.
Grafton Plaza Tra~c Study rage s
City of Dublin May 2009
~9~y~
Route 51 provides service between the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Santa Rita
Jail via Hacienda Drive at approximate 30-minute headways on weekends between
8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
Route 54 provides weekday service in the morning and afternoon matching ACE train
arrivals and departures, connecting between the Pleasanton ACE Station and the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station with intermediate stops, including the Tassajara/Koll
Center Park & Ride.
Route 202 provides school service connecting Fallon Road to Wells Middle School and
Dublin High School once each in the morning and afternoon periods. It is expected that
some of the existing LAVTA routes will be modified after Dublin Boulevard is extended
to connect with Fallon Road directly and I-580 directly.
Direct Access Response Transit (DART) is also available in the Dublin area, providing
service during off-peak hours. LAVTA has also approved a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
project connecting Livermore with the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station via Dublin
Boulevard. Design of the BRT is underway, and service is expected to begin in late 2009
or early 2010. This service would operate on Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the
Proposed Project.
BART: The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District provides regional rail transit service,
and operates trains between the Dublin/Pleasanton station near Hacienda Drive and
the Oakland-San Francisco area. BART runs at 15- to 20-minute headways between
4:00 a.m. and midnight on weekdays. Saturday service is available every 20 minutes
between 6:00 a.m. and 12:45 a.m. Service is also available on Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to
12:45 a.m. with 20-minute headways. The Dublin-Pleasanton station is accessible by
private auto, taxi cabs, buses, and private shuttles as well as by pedestrians and
bicyclists. The parking areas have a capacity of approximately 2,580 parking stalis on
the north side of I-580 (i.e., Dublin side), consisting of approximately 1,510 stalls in the
parking garage that opened in May 2008 and 1,070 surface parking stalls, in addition to
approximately 1,260 more parking stalls on the south side of I-580 (i.e., Pleasanton side).
The garage that just opened is intended to replace the surface stalls, so fihe 1,070 surface
stalls will be eliminated in 2009 to make room for development.
A new West Dublin-Pleasanton station is under construction and is expected to be
operational by 2010. It will have a garage on the Dublin side of the BART line with an
approximate capacity of 710 stalls. The Dublin garage is nearly completed and will
open (at least for shuttle service to the existing station) prior to the removal of the
1,070 surface stalls described in the preceding paragraph. The current parking demand
on the Dublin side is 2,135 stalls, as of July 1, 2008 (TJKM field studies). The combined
supply with the removal of the 1,070 surface stalls and the addition of the new West
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 4
City of Dublin May 2009
~~~ ~~ ~~
Dublin station garage will be 2,220 stalls, leaving a surplus of 85 stalls. The 1,260 surface
stalls in Pleasanton are fully occupied on each work day.
In addition, long-range planning studies of potentially extending BART lines to
Livermore are being conducted. The studies also will examine alternative means of
improving transit service to Livermore in the BART corridor until funds are available to
construct the BART extension.
ACE: Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) offers an alternative to the automobile for
regional commute trips between Tracy and the Tri-Valley (Livermore and Pleasanton)
and the South Bay area including Fremont, Santa Clara and San Jose. ACE trains provide
westbound service to the South Bay area in the morning and eastbound service in the
evening. There is one ACE station in Pleasanton near the intersection of Bernal Avenue
and Pleasanton Avenue. Livermore has two ACE stations, one in Downtown near the
Livermore Avenue/ Railroad Avenue intersection and the other on Vasco Road, at the
Vasco Road/Brisa Street intersection. In the morning, westbound trains stop at
Pleasanton at approximately 5:35 a.m., 6:50 a.m., 7:55 a.m., and 10:45 a.m. In the
afternoon and evening, eastbound trains stop at Pleasanton at approximately 12:56 p.m.,
4:26 p.m., 5:26 p.m., and 6:26 p.m. The current ACE ridership is 3,700 riders per day,
which is estimated by the ACE staff to be from 70 to 75 percent of capacity.
Existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities
According to the City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan, Fehr and Peers, 2007, Dublin
Boulevard will have Class II Bike Lanes on both sides of the street throughout most of
east Dublin extending to N. Canyon Parkway in Livermore. In areas where the ultimate
six lanes have been built Class II lanes currently exist. Specifically, in the westbound
direction, bike lanes exist between Lockhart Street and Brannigan Street; in the
eastbound direction bike lanes exist between Brannigan Street and Keegan Street. On
the north side of Dublin Boulevard intermittent sidewalks have been constructed
between Keegan Street and Brannigan Street. In the eastbound direction, sidewalks exist
between Brannigan Street and Grafton Street.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures from Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR, certified in 1993, analyzed the following impacts:
Freewavs. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant, significant cumulative, and
significant unavoidable adverse unpacts related to daily traffic volumes on I-580 for
Year 2010 with and without build-out of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General
Plan Amendment (SP/ GPA) and under a Year 2010 cumulative build-out scenario
(Impacts 3.3/A, B, C, D, and E). The significance criteria for freeway segments were
operations that exceed level of service (LOS) E.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 5
City of Dublin May 2009
~- ~
~ .' ~+~ ~ ~ ~ -l ~
Mitigation measures (3.3/1.0 and 3.3/4.0) were adopted which reduced impacts on
I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on I-680 north of I-580 to a level of
insignificance. Other mitigations (3.3/2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 5.0) were adopted to reduce
impacts on the remaining I-580 freeway segments and the I-580/ 680 interchange. Even
with mitigations, however, significant 2010 cumulative unpacts remained on I-580
freeway segments between I-680 and Dougherty Road and, at the cumulative build-out
scenario of 2010, on other segments of I-580. Upon certification of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan EIR and approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93), for these significant
unavoidable cumulative impacts (Impacts 3.3/B and E).
All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP
continue to apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed Grafton
Plaza Project.
Intersections and Roads. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR evaluated levels of
service and PM peak hour traffic volumes at 18 intersections on roads and I-580 ramps.
The significance criteria for intersections were operations that exceed LOS D.
Mitigation measures were identified for each intersection that was projected to exceed
the LOS D standard in each scenario. T'he following scenarios were analyzed:
1. Year 2010 without the Eastern Dublin Project
2. Year 2010 with the Eastern Dublin Project
3. Cumulative Buildout with the Eastern Dublin Project
Mitigation measures (3.3/6.0 - 8.0,10 -12) for impacts 3.3/F, G, H, J, K, and L were
adopted to reduce impacts to each of these intersections to a level of insignificance.
These mitigations include construction of additional lanes at intersections, coordination
with Calirans and the neighboring cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to restripe, widen
or modify on-ramps and off-ramps and interchange intersections, and coordination
with Caltrans to modify certain interchanges. Development projects within the Eastern
Dublin Project area contribute a proportionate share to the multi-jurisdictional
improvements through the Eastern Dublin traffic impaet fee program and the Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fee program (discussed below).
Other mitigation measures (MMs 3.3/13.0 and 14.0) were adopted to reduce impacts on
other identified intersections on Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Impacts 3.3/M, I~.
All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/ SP
continue to apply to implementing actions and projects within Eastern Dublin, such as
the proposed Grafton Plaza Project. Individual development projects within the
GPA/SP contribute a proportionate share to fund these improvements through
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 6
City of Dublin May 2009
~ ~. ~ `~
payment of traffic impact fees or construction of the required improvements for a credit
against payment of such fees. Even with mitigations, however, significant cumulative
impacts remained on several identified intersections: Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound
ramps (Impact 3.3/I), Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard/
Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M). Upon certification of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
EIR and approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of
Overriding Consideration (Resolution No. 53-93), for these significant unavoidable year
2010 and cumulative buildout impacts.
Transit, Pedestrians and Bic clY ists• The Eastern Dublin EIR identified signiticant
impacts related to transit service extensions and the provision of safe street crossings for
pedestrians and bicycles (Impacts 3.3/O and P). Mitigation measures 3.3/15.0 - 15.3
and 16.0 - 16.1 were adopted which reduced these impacts to a level of insignificance.
These mitigations generally require coordination with transit providers to extend transit
services (for which the GPA/SP projects contribute a proportionate share through
payment of traffic impact fees) and coincide pedestrian and bicycle paths with signals at
major street crossings. All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern
Dublin GPA/SP and Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to implementing actions and
projects such as the proposed Grafton Plaza Project.
Fee Pro r~ ams• Prior to approval of any development in Eastern Dublin, in January 1995
the City adopted (and has since updated) the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
Program which consisted of three "categories": Category 1 was, in general, to pay for
required transportation improvements in the SP/GPA project area; Category 2 was, in
general, to pay for required improvements in other areas of Dublin; and Category 3 was
to pay for regional improvements to which development in Eastern Dublin should
contribute. The improvements for which the fee is collected included those
improvements assumed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR, those improvements
necessary for Eastern Dublin to develop, and those improvements identified in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR as mitigation measures. In June 1998, the City adopted
the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee, in conjunction with the cities of
Pleasanton, Livermore, and San Ramon; the Town of Danville; and the Counties of
Alameda and Contra Costa to fund regional improvements. This fee replaced the
Category 3 fee. In addition, the City has adopted a Freeway Interchange Fee to
reimburse Pleasanton for funding construction of certain interchanges on I-580 that also
benefit Eastern Dublin. All development projects in Eastern Dublin are required to pay
these fees at building permit or construct the improvements included in the fee
programs.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study rage i
City of Dublin May 2009
a ~ ~ ~ ~~~~
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Introduction. The current Project proposes types and quantities of land uses that are
different than those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND. The Grafton
Plaza Project is a part of Areas C and H that were analyzed in the previous CEQA
documents. Areas C and H are bounded by I-580, Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard
and Fallon Road. Areas C and H now include five separate land properties: Dublin
Land Company, Grafton Station, Grafton Plaza (the Project analyzed in this EIR),
Kaiser, and Fallon General Commercial. The currently approved land uses for Areas C
and H included 2,161,840 square feet of service uses and 1,200,670 square feet of retail
uses.
The land use types and sizes in the five properties are as follows:
Dublin Land Company Retai1260,270 square feet
Grafton Station
Lowes 139,410 square feet
Retai1163,600 square feet
Restaurants 10,000 square feet
Kaiser
Hospita1390,000 square feet (completed by 2015); 555,000 square feet (total
completed by 2030)
Medical Offices 230,000 square feet (2015); 455,000 square feet (2030)
Fallon General Commercial
Discount Supercenter 154,000 square feet
Retai1227,300 square feet
See Table 2 for details of the Grafton Plaza project.
Of the projects listed above, only the Grafton Station project has final approvals. The
types and sizes of land uses for Dublin Land Company, Kaiser and Fallon General
Commercial are based on the latest available information.
The traffic forecasts developed for this Grafton Plaza Traffic Study employ the Dublin
Traffic Model (DTM) to assess potential traffic and circulation impacts of Grafton Plaza.
DTM is an updated traffic forecasting model from those previously used by the City of
Dublin. Results from this model may lead to different results than previous analyses.
The use of this model is described in a subsequent paragraph.
The intersection operations analysis used in this traffic study employs the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for LOS at signalized intersections to
assess potential traffic and circulation impacts, which is a different methodology from
that previously used by the City of Dublin, Results from this methodology may lead to
~ranon riaza i rattic Study Page 8
City of Dublin May 2009
a~3~/ ~~ i-1~.=~
~~
different results at signalized intersections than previous analyses. The use of this
methodology is described below.
This section assesses whether significant new or intensified traffic impacts beyond those
previously identified may result from increased regional traffic, from changes in the
type and quantity of land uses within the proposed Project, from the use of the updated
traffic model, or from use of the current level of service (HCM) methodology.
Standards of Significance. The following standards of significance are used in this
traffic study.
Citv of Dublin Intersections. An impact to a study intersection would be significant if an
intersection operating at an acceptable level of service would deteriorate to
unacceptable levels with the addition of project or cumulative traffic. The City of
Dublin General Plan Circulation Element and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy
standards require that the City strive for LOS D at intersections. Therefore, any study
intersections operating below LOS D are considered potentially significantly impacted
and will be evaluated for mitigation.
Citv of Pleasanton Intersections. According to the adopted 1996 Circulation Element of
the City of Pleasanton General Plan, LOS D is the Citywide traffic operational
threshold. There are exceptions to meeting this threshold within the Downtown Area;
however, none of the study intersections are located within Downtown Pleasanton.
Therefore, this study will evaluate for mitigation those study intersections that exceed
the LOS D threshold. The September 2008 Draft Circulation Element allows gateway
intersections, such as the ramp intersections along I-580, to exceed the LOS D standard,
but this document has not yet been approved so its policies cannot be applied.
City of Livermore Intersections. According to the City of Livermore Adopted 2004
General Plan, the intersection Level of Service standard is mid-level D(= 45 seconds
delay per vehicle), except in the Downtown Area and near freeway interchanges. The
upper limit of acceptable level of service at selected intersections near freeway
interchanges is LOS E. The General Plan specifies that it would be acceptable for the
following study intersections to operate at LOS E; North Canyons Parkway/Airway
Boulevard, Airway Boulevard/Isabel Avenue, Airway Boulevard / I-580 WB Ramps,
and Airway Boulevard / I-580 EB Ramps. Additionally, the City recognizes that certain
intersections located along east/west major arterials, including the jack London
Boulevard / Isabel Avenue intersection, carry a high percentage of regional cut-
through traffic, and may operate below the City's established LOS standard. For
intersections operating unacceptably without the proposed project, the City of
Livermore has defined significant impacts as those that result in an increase of five
seconds or more to the average delay. This same cri~erion is applied in this analysis.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study rayc a
City of Dublin May 2009
~ ~ ~_ ~-~ y,~- c~
MTS Arterial and Freewa ~ Segments. The Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency's (CMA) 2007 Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires analysis of
Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) arterial, freeway, and transit facilities that
are potentially impacted by the Project. Because the proposed project is expected to
generate more than 100 p.m, peak hour trips (net new), the 2007 CMP also requires a
traffic impact analysis that includes use of the Alameda Countywide Transportation
Demand Model for analyzing 2015 and 2030 traffic conditions. Potential impacts due to
Project traffic on MTS roadways were evaluated. The MTS roadway system in the
vicinity of the project includes I-580, I-680, SR-84, Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road,
Santa Rita Road, San Ramon Road, Dougherty Road, and Hopyard Road. The CMA
does not have a policy for determining a threshold of significance for segments
operating unacceptably without the project. Rather, professional judgment is required
to determine project level impacts. Therefore, for the purpose of this traffic impact
assessment, if a roadway or freeway segment operates unacceptably without the
project, the impacts of the proposed project are considered significant if the contribution
of project traffic is a two percent increase over total traffic without the project.
Public Transit. Public transit impacts would be significant if the demand for public
transit service increases above that which local transit operators or agencies could
accommodate. In addition, an impact would be significant if the project conflicts with
adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. An impact
is also significant if the project disrupts existing transit service or does not provide
amenities necessary to accommodate transit demand.
Par~ A significant impact would occur if the proposed project did not provide
sufficient parking to meet expected demand.
Traffic Safetv. A significant traffic safety impact would include a project design feature,
such as a sharp curve or potentially hazardous intersection that would not be consistent
with City of Dublin engineering design standards or standards published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) or Caltrans.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. Pedestrian and bike impacts would be sig-nificant if
the project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, pedestrian facilities and bicycle racks). The
architectural design of the project must include a pedestrian oriented design that
provides safe and strong pedestrian connections between uses, through parking areas
and along street corridors.
Analysis Scenarios. The following scenarios were analyzed:
1. Existing Conditions
2. Existing plus Project Conditions
3. Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative Conditions
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 10
City of Dublin May 2009
a3~ ~ y~~
4. Short-Term Cumulative plus Project Conditions
5. Short-Term Cumulative plus Alternative 1 Conditions
6. Long-Term (Year 2030) Cumulative Conditions
7. Long-Term Cumulative plus Project Conditions
8. Long-Term Cumulative plus Alternative 1 Conditions
Land use assumptions for scenarios 3 through 8 are described below. Year 2015 was
selected as a short-term cumulative horizon year as it coincides with anticipated
completion of approved and pending projects in Dublin, as well as the implementation
of the proposed Project. The Short-Term Cumulative plus Project Conditions scenario
includes trips from the Project in order to obtain the worst-case scenario for Short-Term
Year 2015 and determine if roadway improvements planned for the study area will be
adequate to maintain acceptable levels of service at adjacent intersections in Year 2015.
To obtain an alternative project scenario for Short-Term Year 2015 and determine the
relative impact of the Alternative 1 project on levels of service at adjacent intersections
in Year 2015, Short-Term Cumulative plus Alternative 1 Conditions were analyzed. A
total of 18 intersections were included in the study for the level of service analysis.
Scenarios 6, 7, and 8 are used in the analysis to determine long-term cumulative traffic
impacts in Year 2030 of the full Buildout of the General Plans for the City of Dublin and
surrounding communities (Scenario 6). Scenario 7 adds the Project to Scenario 6, and
Scenario 8 adds the Alternative 1 project to Scenario 6.
Level of Service Analysis Methodology
Signalized Intersections. Peak hour intersection conditions are reported as average
control delays with corresponding levels of service. Level of service ratings are
qualitative descriptions of intersection operations and are reported using an A through
F letter rating system to describe travel delay and congestion. Level of Service (LOS) A
indicates free flow conditions with little or no delay, while LOS F indicates jammed
conditions with excessive delays and long backups. T'he operating conditions at
signalized study intersections were evaluated using the 2000 Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) Signalized Intersections methodology. This method provides an overall
intersection level of service. A detailed description of the methodology is included in
the appendix.
The 2000 HCM method for calculating signalized intersection LOS is different from the
method used in prior traffic studies for projects within Dublin. The HCM method is
based on calculating the average number of seconds of delay incurred by individual
motorists based on an analysis of signalized intersection operations. This is considered
an improvement over the previous method, which primarily determined the ratio of the
traffic volumes to the theoretical capacity of approaches to intersections.
Grafton Plaza Traffc Study rayC ~ ~
City of Dublin May 2009
~3~ ~~ ~~
Unsignalized Intersections. Level of Service was evaluated using the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) Unsignalized Intersections methodology at STOP-controlled
intersections. The method ranks level of service on an A though F scale similar to that
used for signalized intersections, using average delay in seconds for stopping
movements as its measure of effectiveness. The detailed description of this
methodology is included in the appendix.
Dublin Traffic Model. The new Dublin Traffic Model (DTM) was used as the traffic
forecasting tool. This model includes both Short Term Cumulative (2015) Conditions
and General Plan Buildout or Long Term Cumulative (2030) Conditions. The 2015
scenario reflects an interpolation between 2004 and 20301and use conditions, except at
several key traffic analysis zones (TAZs) in the vicinity of the Project where more
specific assumptions based on expected project phasing were used, in consultation with
City Staff. The use of 2015 is intended to approximate "approved and pending
development" conditions. The DTM was built on the CCTA model framework and its
assumptions. The DTM is a refinement of the CCTA model and reflects the latest
information on future land use projections and street networks in the City of Dublin.
However, the CCTA Model is based on the regional San Francisco Bay Area
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) travel demand model, with greater
local detail in the area covering Contra Costa County and Tri-Valley. The CCTA Model
serves as a valuable tool for transportation planning and traffic forecasting along the
I-580 and I-680 transportation corridors. Local jurisdictions and congestion
management agencies in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties have used this model
extensively in preparing traffic impact studies and general plan updates. For example,
the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) used the CCTA
Model for the Tri-Valley Triangle Study in the cities of Dublin, Livermore, and
Pleasanton.
In order to forecast traffic generated by land uses, the DTM divides the region into
traffic analysis zones (TAZs) which contain information on existing and/or projected
land uses that are located within a particular TAZ. Each TAZ is connected to the
adjacent street network via a connector, which provides access to and from the TAZ.
Depending on the type of land uses allocated to each zone, the TAZ will generate a
certain combination of outbound trips (trip production) and inbound trips (trip
attraction) during the analysis period(s). For example, a residential TAZ would generate
a net production of trips in the a.m. peak hour and a net attraction of trips in the p.m.
peak hour. Conversely, a TAZ that contains office development would generate a net
attraction of trips in the a.m. peak hour and a net production of trips in the p.m, peak
hour.
The DTM was calibrated to account for local project area conditions prior to generating
the future travel demand forecasts. A model calibration is a process that includes
revisions of network attributes and adjustrnents of the model estimated demands to
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 12
City of Dublin May 2009
d ~ ~ ~~' +~{d~~
rr
more closely match existing traffic counts. The model was calibrated to existing turning
counts collected in the City of Dublin between 2002 and 2004. The model roadway
network was modified to include all the future study intersections for purposes of
forecasting future traffic volumes. Based on the City's collected counts, the a.m. and
p.m. turning movement volumes were entered into the "existing condition" portion of
the model. The calibration for the study area also included revising the roadway details
(lanes, speed and capacity) as well as the travel patterns specific to the Dublin area,
The planned roadway improvements listed in subsequent paragraphs, except those
outside of the City of Dublin, are funded by the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, or
will be constructed by developers were included in the model conditions of their
respective development project. The City's fee program and mitigation measures under
the eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND ensure that necessary roadway improvements
are in place to accommodate traffic from individual projects.
Some of the study intersections are located in Pleasanton and Livermore. Each of these
two agencies has its own traffic model, which is highly calibrated to evaluate
intersections within/ near its boundaries. TJKM consulted with the staff and recent
traffic model output from these two agencies and, where appropriate, used the local
model results in this analysis.
In Pleasanton, recent information utilized included the September 2008 Draft
Circulation Element, the 2008 Staples Ranch DEIR, and the 2007-2008 Capital
Improvement Program, each of which describes planned improvements for various
intersections in Pleasanton. The 2007 El Charro Specific Plan EIR was used as a resource
for analyzing the five study intersections in Livermore. In these cases, Project only
volumes were added to forecasts from the other agencies, These documents were
utilized for both the Short Term (2015) and Long Term (2030) conditions.
This traffic analysis includes a comprehensive analysis of roadways and transportation
systems that could be affected by implementation of the proposed project. The analysis
includes all relevant components of the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact
Studies.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 13
City of Dublin May 2009
0?3~ ~ f y~
~..-~
Existing Conditions. The existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement counts
were collected for 13 existing intersections from Apri12008 to May 29, 2008 on clear
days with area schools in normal session. The intersections of Dougherty Road/Dublin
Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive were counted in May of 2007. (The
remaining three of the 18 study intersections are not yet under construction or open to
traffic.) Exhibit 1 shows the existing lane geometry at the 15 existing study intersections.
Exhibit 2 shows the existing peak hour turning movement volumes at these study
intersections. Study intersections and the jurisdictions in which they are located
include:
1. Dougherty Road / Dublin Boulevard (Dublin)
2. Dublin Boulevard / Hacienda Drive (Dublin)
3. Dublin Boulevard / Tassajara Road (Dublin)
4. Tassajara Road / Westbound I-580 Off Ramp (Pleasanton/Caltrans)
5. Santa Rita Road / Eastbound I-580 Off Ramp-Pimlico Dr. (Pleasanton/Caltrans)
6. Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street (Dublin)
7. Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street (Dublin)
8. Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street (Dublin)
9. Dublin Boulevard / Fallon Road (Future Intersection) (Dublin)
10. Fallon Road / Westbound I-580 Ramps (Dublin/Caltrans)
11. El Charro Road / Eastbourid I-580 Ramps (Pleasanton/Caltrans)
12. Dublin Boulevard / East Project Access (Future Intersection) (Dublin)
13. El Charro Road / Jack London Blvd. (Future Intersection) (Pleasanton)
14. Isabel Avenue /Jack London Boulevard (Livermore)
15. North Canyons Parkway / Airway Boulevard (Livermore)
16. Isabel Avenue / Airway Boulevard (Livermore)
17. Airway Boulevard / Eastbound I-580 Ramps (Livermore/Caltrans)
18. Airway Boulevard / Westbound I-580 Ramps (Livermore/Caltrans)
Table 1 summarizes the results of the intersection level of service analysis for existing
conditions. Detailed calculations are in the appendix. Currently, all existing study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service during the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours.
~ranon riaza i ramc 5tudy Page 14
City of Dublin May 2009
~~ ~ r;~ ~~,~~ ~ f~.:~
,~
Table 1. Existing Intersection Levels of Service
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection Control Sta dard Delay LOS Delay LOS
(sec) (sec)
1 ublin Boulevard / Dougherty Roadl Signal D 26.9 C 36.5 D
2 ublin Boulevard / Hacienda Drive Signal D 18.7 B 28.3 C
3 ublin Boulevard / Tassajara Road Signal D 19.3 B 20.8 C
4 assajara Road / I-580 WB Ramps Signal D 7.3 A 8.5 A
5 anta Rita Road / I-580 EB Ramps Signal D 29.2 C 34.4 C
6 ublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street Signal D 16.5 B 15.9 B
7 ublin Boulevard / Grafton Street Signal D 13.8 B 15.7 B
8 ublin Boulevard / Keegan Street Signal D 12.4 B 13.6 B
9 ublin Boulevard / Fallon Road _ D _ _ _ _
Future Intersection
10 allon Road / I-580 WB Ramps ~ toWay D 3.8(10.2) A(B) 2.4(10.1) A(B)
11 1 Charro Road / I-580 EB Ramps ~ t Way D 8.7(14.1) A(B) 6.2(13.8) A(B)
12 ublin Boulevard / East Project Access
D
Future Intersection
1 Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive/
13 ack London Boulevard (Future - D - - - -
ntersection
14 ack London Boulevard / Isabel
Signal Mid level
13.8
B
21.8
C
venuez DZ
15 orth Canyons Parkway /Airway Signal E 11.1 B 11.1 B
Boulevard
16 irway Boulevard / Isabel Avenue Signal E 26.3 C 19.2 B
17 irway Boulevard / I-580 EB Ramps Signal E 28.2 C 60.6 E
18 irway Boulevard / I-580 WB Ramps Signal E 5.9 A 4.9 A I~
Notes: LOS= Level of Service
X.X= Average delay in seconds per vehicle.
X(X) = Intersection level of service (Level of service for the worst-case approach)
X.X (X.X) = Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall at unsignalized intersection (Delay in
seconds per vehicle to minor approach)
Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
1LOS reflects recently completed improvements
2According to the Livermore General Plan Circulation Element Goal CIR-4, Objective CIR 4.1,
Policy P4(3), this intersection may exceed Mid LOS D standard due to the presence of regional
cut-through traffic.
Grafton Piaza Traffic Study Page 15
City of Dublin May 2009
~~1 ~ ~~
Project Trip Generation. The trip generation for the proposed Project was estimated
based on standard rates provided in Trip Generation, 7~ Edition, published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 2 summarizes the trip generation
estimation for the proposed Grafton Plaza Project, which is expected to generate 820
a.m. peak hour trips and 1,072 p.m. peak hour trips.
Table 2. Proiect Trin Generai-inn
Use (ITE Code) Da ily A.M. Street Peak P. M. Street Peak
Grafton Plaza Mixed Use
Development Size Units
Rate
Trips
Rate In
o~a Out
%
In
Out
otai
Rate
In %
Oat
In
Out
Total
"Boutique" Hotel and
Ancilla Uses 310 l 100 rooms 8.92 892 0.67 58 42 39 28 67 0.7 49 51 34 36 70
Spa (492)2 11 ksf 24.7 272 0.91 42 58 4 6 10 3.04 51 49 17 16 33
Class'A' Office Buildings
710 3 29Z ksf 10.43 3,046 1.51 88 12 388 53 441 1.39 17 83 69 337 406
Office Intemal Capture -115 -5 -2 -7 -2 -11 -13
Office Net Total 2,931 383 51 434 67 326 393
Conventional Retail (820) 3 39.2 ksf 74.35 2,915 1.74 61 39 42 26 68 6.84 48 52 129 139 268
Shopkeeper Retail (820) 3 38 ksf 74.35 2,825 1.74 61 39 40 26 66 6.84 48 52 125 135 260
Retail Subtotal 5,740 82 52 134 254 274 528
Retail Internal Capture -394 -13 -8 -21 -20 -21 -41
Pass-by Reduction (Daily 5%, PM 25%) -267 - - - -59 -63 -122
Retail Net Total 5,079 69 44 113 175 190 365
Residential Tower Units (232) 293 du 4.18 1,225 0.34 19 81 19 81 100 0.38 62 38 69 42 ill
Flats/Condos (231) 132 du 5.86 4 774 0.67 25 75 22 66 88 0.78 58 42 60 43 103
Live-Work Dwelling
Units 230 5 24 du 7.24 174 0.61 17 83 3 12 15 0.69 67 33 11 6 17
Shopkeeper Dwelling Unitss 21 du 7.24 152 0.61 17 83 2 11 13 0.69 67 33 9 5 14
Residential Subtotal 2,325 46 170 216 149 96 245
Residential Internal Capture -325 -6 -14 -20 -22 -12 -34
Residential Net Total 2,000 40 156 196 127 84 211
Internal Capture % of Office, Retail,
and Residential g% 6% ~/o
Grafton Plaza Mixed Use Total 1,17 535 285 820 420 652 1,072
Notes. du - dwelling umt; ksf =1000 square feet
~Hotel trip rates assume 100% occupancy of rooms, which accounts for 35,000 square feet of
ancillary uses.
zSpa Trip rates used are assumed to be 75°/a of ITE Land Use 492 (Health Club) because a high .
percentage of the membership is expected to be people who work or live within the Mixed-Use
Project or Hotel guests.
3 Regression equations were used per ITE guidelines.
4Daily rate for low rise condos and flats is not available in ITE guidelines and the daily rate for
condominium/townhouse (TTE 230) is used instead.
SLive-Work/Shopkeeper dwelling units are based on condominium rates as the closest similar
land use, which represents a worst-case scenario as most home-to-work trips will be internal for
these units. This assumption has been applied to an approved project in the City of South
Pasadena (Live Work Project at 145 Pasadena Avenue).
Equation rates were applied per ITE criteria: Daily: Ln(T)=0.85 Ln(X)+2,55; AM peak: Ln(T)=0.80
Ln(X)+0.26; PM peak: Ln(T)=0.82 Ln(X)+0.32; where T= the number of vehicle trips and X=
number of dwelling units.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 16
City of Dublin May 2009
a ~~ ~ ~~
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment. Trip distribution and assignment
assumptions for the proposed Project were based on the updated Dublin Traffic Model
for Year 2015 described in the subsequent Short-Term Cumulative section, with trip
assignments adjusted to reflect differences between the existing and Year 2015 roadway
network. Exhibits 3 and 4 show the distribution of Project trips during the a.m. and p.m.
peak periods, respectively. E~ibit 5 shows the Existing plus Project peak hour turning
movement volumes at the existing study intersections.
Table 3 summarizes the results of the intersection level of service analysis for Existing
plus Project Conditions. Detailed calculations are in the appendix. With the addition of
project traffic, all 17 study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels
of service during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 17
City of Dublin May 2009
ay~~ ~~
Table 3. Exisfin~ Plns Prn;o~+ T o~,o~ „~ co,..,;,,,,
--- a va v~avuc
Existing
Existing + Project
ID
Intersection
Control LOS
Standard A.M. Peak
Hour P.M. Peak
Hour A.M. Peak
Hour P.M. Peak
Hour
1
blin Boulevard / Dougherty Road'
ignal
D Delay
sec)
26.9
LOS
C Delay
sec
36.5
LOS
D Delay
sec
27.2
LOS
C Delay
sec
36,4
LOS
D
2 ublin Boulevard / Hacienda Drive Signal D 18.7 B 28.3 C 18.9 B 30.8 C
3 ublin Boulevard / Tassajara Road Signal D 19.3 B 20.8 C 19.7 B 28.3 C
4 assajara Road / I-580 WB Ramps Signal D 73 A 8.5 A 7.2 A 8.3 A
5 Santa Rita Road / I-580 EB Ramps Signal D 29.2 C 34.4 C 33.6 C 33.8 C
6 ublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street Signal D 16.5 B 15.9 B 11.6 B 13.7 B
7 ublin Boulevard / Grafton Street Signal D 13.8 B 15.7 B 27.1 C 26.5 C
8 ublin Boulevard / Keegan Street Signal D 12.4 B 13.6 B 13.3 B 12.5 B
9 ublin Boulevard / Fallon Road 3 Signal D - - - - 8.9 A 16.5 B
10 allon Road / I-580 WB Ramps Signai D 3.8(10.2) A(B) 2.4(10.1) A(B) 6.8 A 4.7 A
1 I 1 Chano Road / I-580 EB Ramps Signal D 8,7(14.]) A(B) 6.2(13.8) A(B) 7.1 A 3.] A
12 ublin Boulevard / East Project Access3 One-Way
Sto D _ _ _ _
1.3(9.3)
A(A)
3.1(11.8)
A(B)
13 ~ Charro Road / Jack London
oulevard Future Intersection _
D
"
'
'
-
-
-
-
-
~ 4 ack London Boulevard / Isabel
venue2
Signal Mid level
DZ
13.8
B
21.8
C
13.8
B
22.1
C
15 orth Canyons Parkway /Airway
oulevard Signal E 11. ] B 11.1 B 12.4 B 28.0 B
16 irway Boulevard / Isabel Avenue Signal E 26.3 C 19.2 B 26.3 C 22.1 C
17 irway Boulevard / I-580 EB Ramps Signal E 28.2 C 60.6 E 28.1 C 61.8 E
] 8 irway Boulevard / I-580 WB Ramps
T~T..~o~. T (lC - 7 ,...,.7 ..[ c_~-_-- Signal E 5.9 A 4.9 A 6 A 5.8 A
v~w. ,~vv - ~cvca vl ~7c1v11C
X.X = Average delay in seconds per vehicle
X(X) = Intersection level of service (Level of service for the worst-case approach)
X.X (X.X) = Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall at unsignalized intersection (Delay in seconds
per vehicle to minor approach)
Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
1LOS reflects recenfly completed improvements
2According to the Livermore General Plan Circulation Element Goal CIR-4, Objective CIR 4.1,
Policy P4(3), this intersection may exceed Mid LOS D standard due to the presence of regional
cut-through traffic.
3lntersections 9 and 12 would be built or exist with project and wouid be existing under "Plus Project"
conditions.
Short-Term (Year 2015) Curnulative Conditions. The DTM was used for the future
Year 2015 forecasts. Under Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative conditions, the
proposed Project site is assumed to be vacant for purposes of the traffic analysis.
Short-Term Cumulative Land Uses. The land uses for the TAZs within the City of
Dublin in Year 2015 were obtained by interpolation between actual Year 20041and uses
and the long-term future Year 2030 land uses, except at several key TAZs in the vicinity
of the Project where more specific assumptions based on expected development
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 18
City of Dublin May 2009
a~~~~ ~~
programs and schedules were used, in consultation with City Staff. The specific
exceptions to the interpolation for Year 2015 assumed an initial phase of the Camp
Parks Redevelopment Project (Dublin Crossing), and anticipated development
schedules for several parcels on the south side of Dublin Boulevard near the Project,
including partial buildout of the proposed Kaiser medical center and the Dublin Land
Company site, and full buildout of the Grafton Station and Fallon Gateway commercial
sites. The land uses for Year 2020 were used in the remaining areas outside the City of
Dublin as a conservative assumption. The 20201and use was obtained from the updated
CCTA traffic model, which is the parent model for the DTM. The DTM TAZ map and
20151and use information for each zone are on file with the City of Dublin.
Planned Roadway Improvements. Under Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative
conditions, the nettivork used in the analysis included all current roadways, plus the
following arterials and collectors contemplated in the Tri-Valley area, including the
following:
1. Dublin Boulevard between Lockhart Street and Fallon Road.
2. Fallon Road between the existing terminus at the Dublin Ranch Golf Course and
Tassajara Road.
3. Central Parkway between Lockhart Street and Fallon Road.
4. All collector roadways in Eastern Dublin within Dublin Ranch and areas to the
west consistent with approved developments.
5. Recent improvements to the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection and
adjacent roadway segments.
6. All collector and arterial improvements near the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station,
wit~un the Dublin Transit Center and the adjacent planned mixed use center to the
east.
7. Windemere Parkway connection with Camino Tassajara in Contra Costa County.
8. El Charro Road between I-580 and Jack London extension.
9. The Stoneridge Drive connection with El Charro Road in Pleasanton is not
included.
10. Jack London Boulevard extension between west of Isabel Avenue and El Charro
Road.
11. Widening of Route 84 (Isabel Avenue and Vallecitos Road) to six lanes north of
Stanley Boulevard and four lanes south of Stanley Boulevard to the Ruby Hills
south entrance at Vallecitos Road.
In addition, the following freeway and interchange improvements were also included:
12. The Phase I Fallon Road/I-580 interchange improvements currently under
construction.
13. The Isabel (Rt. 84)/I-580 interchange Stage I improvements. This includes the
removal of ramps at Portola Avenue.
14, Improvement of I-580 between Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road and Greenville
Road to include four mixed flow lanes, one HOV lane and one auxiliary lane in
each direction.
15. Construction of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 19
City of Dublin May 2009
~~~~~ ~~
~-
16. No extension of BART facilities east of the existing Dublin/Pleasanton station.
The roadway improvements included in the analysis of 2015 conditions have funding
sources in place. Projects 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are part of the East Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
program. Projects 5, 7,12 and 15 are completed or under construction. Projects 8 and 10
will be funded as a part of the El Charro Specific Plan in Livermore. Project 11 is fully
funded as a part of the ACTIA Measure B program. Project 13 is fully funded by a
combination of sources; construction coordination is provided by the City of Livermore.
Project 14 is funded by a variety of sources including Corridor Mobility Improvement
Account funding through Proposition 1B.
Exhibit 6 shows the Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative lane geometry at the study
intersections.
Short-Term Cumulative Levels of Service. Exhibit 7 shows the Short-Term Cumulative
peak hour turning movement volumes at the study intersections. Table 4 summarizes
the results of the intersection level of service analyses for Short-Term Cumulative
conditions using the HCM methodology now used by the City of Dublin. Detailed
calculations are in the appendix.
Under Short Terrn cumulative conditions without the Project, all study intersections are
expected to operate at acceptable levels of service.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 20
City of Dublin May 2009
~ ~~~~ ~ ~~
Table 4. Intersection Levels of Service - Short-Term Cumulative Conditions
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
ID Interse
ti l
C
t LOS Hour Hour
c
on on
ro Standard Delay Delay
LOS LOS
sec sec
~ Boulevard / Dougherty
D
1 ad Signal D 29.1 C 38.5 D
2 ublin Boulevard / Hacienda Drive Si al D 18.1 B 21.8 C
3 Dublin Boulevard / Tassa'ara Road Si al D 19.9 B 45.5 D
4 assa'ara Road / I-580 WB Ram s Si al D 15.3 B 24.2 C
5 anta Rita Road / I-580 EB Ram s Si nal D 44.8 D 41.2 D
Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan
6
treet Signal D 15.0 B 21.2 C
7 Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street Si al D 12.4 B 15.7 B
S ublin Boulevard / Kee an Street Si al D 9.7 A 23.0 C
9 Dublin Boulevard / Fallon Road - D 16.7 B 28.8 C
10 allon Road / I-580 WB Ram s Si al D 10.6 B 17.2 B
11 1 Charro Road / I-580 EB Ram s Si al D 12.8 B 46.7 D
12 ublin Boulevard / East Project One-way
ccess Future Intersection
Sto D _ _ _ _
El Charro Road / Jack London
13
Boulevard Signal D 14.5 B 16.3 B
14 ack London Boulevard / Isabel Mid level
venue2 Si al
~
DZ 16.6 B 16.6 B
15 North Canyons Parkway /Airway Signal E 23.9 C 34.2 C
Boulevard
16 Airwa Boulevard / Isabel Avenue Si al E 21.0 C 25.7 C
17 a
Boulevard / I-580 EB
A
s Signal E 38.2 D 35.8 D
am
18 was Boulevard / I-580 WB
Aar Signal E 7.0 A 5.8 A
ln
Notes: LOS = Level of Service
X.X = Average delay in seconds per vehicle
X(X) = Intersection level of service (Level of service for the worst-case approach)
X.X (X.X) = Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall at unsignalized intersection (Delay in
seconds per vehicle to minor approach)
Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS condirions
~ LOS reflects recently completed improvements
ZAccording to the Livermore General Plan Circulation Element Goal CIR-4, Objective CIR 4.1,
Policy P4(3), this intersection may exceed Mid LOS D standard due to the presence of regional
cut-through traffic.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 21
City of Dublin May 2009
_ _ ~~ 7 ~ y~v
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment. Trip distribution and assignment
assumptions for the proposed Project were taken from the updated Dublin Traffic
Model for Year 2015. The distribution of project trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours is shown in Exhibits 3 and 4, respectively. Trip assignments for each study
intersection are included in the Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative Plus Project peak
hour turning movement volumes shown in Exhibit 8.
Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative Plus Project Levels of Service. Exhibit 8 shows
the Short-Term Cumulative plus Project peak hour turning movement volumes at the
study intersections. Table 5 summarizes the results of the intersection level of service
analysis for Short-Term Cumulative plus Project conditions. Detailed level of service
calculations for this scenario are in the appendix.
Under this scenario, all 18 study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable
levels of service during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the addition of project traffic.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 22
City of Dublin May 2009
~ ~i~~ ~ ~
Table 5. Intersection Levels of Service - Short-Term Cumulative Plus Project
Conditions
Short-Term Cumulative Short-Term Cumulative +
Pro'ect
ID Intersection Control LOS A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Standard Hour Hour Hour Hour
Delay LOS Delay Delay LOS Delay LOS
sec sec LOS sec sec
1 ublin Boulevard / Dougherty Road~ Signal D 29.1 C 38.5 D 29.3 C 39.0 D
2 ublin Boulevard / Hacienda Drive Signal D 18.1 B 21.8 C 18.4 B 21.9 C
3 ublin Boulevard / Tassajara Road Signal D 19.9 B 45.5 D 18.1 B 47.9 D
4 assajara Road / I-580 WB Ramps Signal D 15.3 B 24.2 C 17.3 B 25.6 C
5 anta Rita Road / I-580 EB Ramps Signal D 44.8 D 41.2 D 51.3 D 45.6 D
6 ublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street Signal D 15.0 B 21.2 C 14.6 B 24.7 C
7 ublin Boulevard / Grafton Street Signal D 12.4 B 15.7 B 20.7 C 29.1 C
8 ublin Boulevard / Keegan 5treet Signal D 9.7 A 23 C 9.8 A 26.8 C
9 ublin Boulevard / Fallon Road Signal D 16.7 B 28.8 C 21.0 C 32.7 C
10 allon Road / I-580 WB Ramps Signal D 10.6 B 17,2 B 14.5 B 21.1 C
11 1 Charro Road / I-580 EB Ramps Signal D 12.8 B 46.7 D l 1.0 B 53.8 D
12 ublin Boulevard / East Project One-way
ccess
Sto D _ _ _ - 0.8(9.7) A(A) 1.1(11.4) A(B)
~ 3 1 Charro Road / Jack London
oulevard Signal D 14.5 B 163 B 15.5 B 16.6 B
~ 4 ack London Boulevard / Isabel Mid level
venue2 Signal DZ 16.6 B 16.6 B ] 8,7 B 16.8 B
~ 5 orth Canyons Pazkway /Airway
oulevard Signal E 23.9 C 34.2 C 35.3 D 34.2 C
16 irnay Boulevard / Isabel Avenue Signal E 21.0 C 25.7 C 24.0 C 30.6 C
17 irway Boulevard / I-580 EB Ramps Signal E 38.2 D 35.8 D 38.6 D 35.9 D
~ 8 a
Boulevard / I-580 WB
s Signal E 7.0 A 5.8 A 7.2 A 5
8 A
am .
Notes: LOS = Level of Service
X.X = Average delay in seconds per vehicle
X(X) = Intersection level of service (Level of service for the worst-case approach)
X.X (X.X) = Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall at unsignalized intersection (Delay in
seconds per vehicle to minor approach)
Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
~ LOS reflects recently completed improvements
2According to the Livermore General Plan Circulation Element Goal CIR-4, Objective CIR 4.1,
Policy P4(3), this intersection may exceed Mid LOS D standard due to the presence of regional
cut-through traffic.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Pa e 23
City of Dublin Ma 2009
Y
~ ~ `~ ~'' ~o~-'(~
Alternative 1 Trip Generation. The trip generation for the Alternative 1 project under
Short-Term Cumulative plus Alternative 1 conditions was estimated based on standard
rates provided in Trip Generation, 7~ Edition, published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 6 summarizes the trip generation estimation for
the Alternative 1 project, which is estimated to generate 541 a.m. peak hour trips and
536 p.m. peak hour trips. This compares with 820 a.m. trips and 1,072 p.m. peak hour
trips under the proposed project.
Because Alternative 1 generates less traffic than the Proposed Project and the Proposed
Project has no significant impacts under Existing Conditions, this report does not
quantitatively analyze Existing Conditions plus Alternative 1.
Table 6. Alternative 1 Trip Generation
Land Use Daily A.M. Street Peak P.M. Street Peak
ITE Code
( ) Size Units
Rate
Trips
Rate
~
~ot
In
Out
Total
Rate
~
Out
jn
Out
Total
o o
Office
Buildings 248 ksf 10.83 2,685 1.56 88 12 341 47 388 1.44 17 83 61 296 357
710
Internal Trips
(14) (2) 0 (2) 0 (2) (2)
ne ative
Office Net-
Total 2,671 339 47 386 61 294 355
Flats/Condos
235 du 5.86 1,377 0.67 25 75 39 118 157 0.78 58 42 106 77 183
231
Residential
Sub-Total 235 du 1,377 39 118 157 106 77 183
Internal Trips
(14) 0 (2) (2) (2) 0 (2)
ne ative
Residential
Net-Total ,363 39 116 155 104 77 181
Grand Total ,034 378 163 541 165 371 536
Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition, by ITE
du= Dwelling units
ksf= Thousand square feet
Alternative 1 Trip Distribution and Assignment. Trip distribution and assignxnent
assumptions for the Alternative 1 project were taken froni the DTM.
Short-Term Cumulative Plus Alternative 1 Levels of Service. Exhibit 9 shows the
forecasted turning movement volumes at the study intersections under the Short-Term
Cumulative plus Alterriative 1 scenario. Table 7 summarizes the results of the
intersection level of service analysis for Short-Term Cumulative plus Alternative 1
conditions. Detailed level of service calculations are in the appendix.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 24
City of Dublin May 2009
~~~ ~~
Under this scenario, a1118 study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable
levels of service during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the addition of the
Alternative 1 project traffic.
Table 7. Levels of Service - Short Term Curnulative + Alternative I
Short-Term Cumulative Short-Term Cumulative +
Alternate 1
ID Intersection Control LOS
Standar A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
d Hour Hour Hour Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS De1ay LOS Delay LOS
sec sec sec sec
~ in Boulevard / Dougherty Signal D 29.1 C 38.5 D 29.2 C 38.5 D
oad
2 ublin Boulevard / Hacienda Drive Signal D 18.1 B 21.8 C 18.4 B 21.6 C
3 ublin Boulevard / Tassajara Road Signal D 19.9 B 45.5 D 17.8 B 46.4 D
4 assajara Road / 1-580 WB Ramps Signal D 15.3 B 24.2 C 16.8 B 24.6 C
5 Santa Rita Road / I-580 EB Ramps Signal D 44.8 D 41.2 D 48.7 D 45.5 D
6 ublin Boulevard / Brannigan Signal D 15.0 B 21.2 C 15.7 B 22.2 C
treet
7 ublin Boulevard / Grafton Street Signal D 12.4 B 15.7 B 21.1 C 24.8 C
8 ublin Boulevard / Keegan Street Signal D 9.7 A 23.0 C 9.9 A 24.1 C
9 ublin Boulevard / Fallon Road Signal D 16.7 B 28.8 C 19.5 B 32.6 C
10 allon Road / I-580 WB Ramps Signal D 10.6 B 17.2 B 12.0 B 19.1 B
11 1 Charro Road / I-580 EB Ramps Signal D 12.8 B 46.7 D 12.7 B 49.1 D
12 ublin Boulevard / East Project One-way D - - - - 0.5(10.3) A(B) 0.9(10.2) A(B)
ccess sto
~ Charro Road / Jack London
13
oulevard Signal D 14.5 B 16.3 B 14.6 B 16.4 B
ack London Boulevard / Isabel M~d
14 Signal Z 16.6 B 16.6 B 16.7 B 16.7 B
venue level D
orth Canyons Parkway /Airway
~ 5
oulevard Signal E 23.9 C 34.2 C 25A C 34.2 C
16 irway Boulevard / Isabel Avenue Signal E 21.0 C 25.7 C 21.2 C 25.8 C
Boulevard / I-580 EB
a
17 am
s Signal E 38.2 D 35.8 D 40.8 D 30.5 C
a
Boulevard / I-580 WB
~ 8 s Signal E 7.0 A 5.8 A 7.2 A 5.8 A
am
Notes; LOS = Level of Service
X.X = Average delay in seconds per vehicle
X(X) = Intersecrion level of service (Level of service for the worst-case approach)
X.X (X.X) = Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall at unsignalized intersection (Delay in
seconds per vehicle to minor approach)
Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
1 LOS reflects recently completed improvements
zAccording to the Livermore General Plan Circulation Element Goal CIR-4, Objective CIR 4.1,
Policy P4(3), this intersecrion may exceed Mid LOS D standard due to the presence of regional
cut-through traffic.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 25
City of Dublin May 2009
~~~ ~ ~~
Long-Terrn (Year 2030) Cumulative Conditions. An analysis of Long-Term Cumulative
traffic conditions with General Plan buildout in the Dublin area and surrounding
communities in Year 2030 without the proposed Project follows.
Methodology. The DTM, as described above, was used for the future Year 2030 Long-
Term Cumulative forecasts. This scenario assumes buildout of the General Plans in the
cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, and the Dougherty Valley area in Contra
Costa County. The DTM land uses outside the City of Dublin were based on the latest
version of the CCTA's Traffic Model, whose land use forecasts are based on ABAG's
Projections 2005. The TAZ map for all Long-Term Cumulative scenarios is the same as
the TAZ map for the Year 2015 scenarios. The TAZ map and the detailed land uses by
TAZ are on file with the City of Dublin.
In order to be consistent with the forecasts of nearby agencies, TJKM examined the
current traffic forecast models for the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton. After
conferring with Livermore staff, it was decided to use volumes and lane assumptions
from the Livermore model for the five study intersections in the Airway/ Isabel corridor
in Livermore. The Pleasanton model was reviewed to ensure consistency with results
obtained from the DTM.
Modeling Network. The modeling network for Year 2030 Long term cumulative
conditions assumed the freeway, arterial, collector and other extensions and
improvements described for 2015 Short Term cumulative conditions, plus the following:
1. Dublin Boulevard between Fallon Road and North Canyons Parkway at Doolan
Road.
2. I-580 interchange improvements proposed at Hacienda Drive and Dougherty
Road, which are included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee program.
3. El Charro Road between Jack London Boulevard and Stanley Boulevard.
4. Busch Road connection with El Charro Road.
5. Stoneridge Drive connection with El Charro Road.
6. I-580 Phase II interchange improvements at El Charro/Fallon Roads.
7. The I-680/ West Las Positas interchange in Pleasanton is not included.
8. No extension of BART facilities east of the existing Dublin/Pleasanton station.
These planned improvements will be funded by fees from various sources. Projects 1, 2
and 6 above are included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee program, and
Projects 3, 4, 5 and 6 are included in the City of Pleasanton Traffic Development Impact
Fee program. Projects 1 and 6 are also included in the City of Livermore's traffic fee
program.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 26
City of Dublin May 2009
~~.~~3 :~~ t~~
Long-Term Cumulative Levels of Service. Exhibit 10 shows the Long-Term (Year 2030)
Cumulative lane geometry at the study intersections. Exhibit 11 shows the Long-Term
Cumulative turning movement volumes at the study intersections. Table 8 summarizes
the results of the intersection level of service analysis for Long-Term Cumulative
conditions. Detailed levels of service calculations for this scenario are in the appendix.
All study intersections except the intersections of Dublin Boulevard / Tassajara Road in
the City of Dublin, Airway Boulevard / Isabel Avenue in the City of Livermore and
Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound ramps in the City of Pleasanton operate at acceptable
levels of service.
The Dublin Boulevard / Tassajara Road intersection requires the addition of a second
northbound right-turn lane to planned improvements, which will result in acceptable
levels of service. The traffic signal will need to be programmed with overlap signal
phasing to progress the northbound right-turn and westbound left-turn movements
concurrently.
The Airway Boulevard / Isabel Avenue intersection is assumed to have three through
lanes, two left turn lanes and one right turn lane on both the north and south
approaches plus four westbound approach lanes and three eastbound approach lanes.
The intersection is assumed to be improved to its ultimate configuration and, according
to the El Charro Specific Plan FEIR (page 4-60), any additional lanes are not considered
feasible. The intersection operates at LOS F in 2030 without the proposed project in
Dublin.
The Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound ramp intersection requires a second southbound
left turn lane, which will result in acceptable levels of service. These improvements are
planned by the City of Pleasanton and are included in the pending update of its Traffic
Development Impact Fee,
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Pa e 27
City of Dublin Ma 2009
Y
~~~~~~~
Table 8. Intersection Levels of Service - Long-Term Cumulative Conditions
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection Control Sta dard Delay
(sec) LOS Delay
(sec) LOS
1 ublin Boulevard / Dou her Roadl Si nal D 43.4 D 52.2 D
2 ublin Boulevard / Hacienda Drive Si al D 30.1 C 32.4 C
3 Dublin Boulevard / Tassa'ara Road 53.9 D 63.3 E
ith recommended im rovernents3 Si al
~ D 40.6 D 46.3 D
4 assa~ara Road / I-580 WB Ram s Si nal D 19.3 B 24.8 C
5 anta Rita Road / I-580 EB Ram s 55.1 E 73.5 E
ith recommended im rovements4 Si al
~ D 34.1 C 39.8 D
6 ublin Boulevard / Branni an Street Si al D 17.1 B 28.7 C
7 ublin Boulevard / Grafton Street Si al D 15.9 B 24.9 C
8 ublin Boulevard / Kee an Street Si nal D 17.9 B 38.6 D
9 Dublin Boulevard / Fallon Road Si nal D 25.3 C 51.3 D
10 allon Road / I-580 WB Ram s Si al D 8.8 A 39.0 D
11 1 Charro Road / I-580 EB Ram s Si al D 9.5 A 19.4 B
12 ublin Boulevard / East Project Access
Future Intersection _ _ _ _ _ _
13 1 Charro Road / Jack London
Boulevard Signal D 33.4 C 48.1 D
14 ack London Boulevard / Isabel
venuez Si al
~ Mid level
Dz 52.8 D 51.4 D
15 North Canyons Parkway /Airway
oulevard Signal E 40.7 D 43.2 D
16 irwa Boulevard / Isabel Avenue Si nal E 51.6 D 125.4 F5
17 irwa Boulevard / I-580 EB Ram s Si al E 45.0 D 28.3 C
18 irwa Boulevard / I-580 WB Ram s Si al E 14.8 B 13.0 B
Notes: LOS = Level of Service
X.X = Average delay in seconds per vehicle
X(X) = Intersection level of service (Level of service for the worst-case approach)
X.X (X.X) = Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall at unsignalized intersection (Delay in
seconds per vehicle to minor approach)
Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
~ LOS reflects recenfly completed improvements
zAccording to the Livermore General Plan Circulation Element Goal CIR-4, Objective CIR 4.1,
Policy P4(3), this intersection may exceed Mid LOS D standard due to the presence of regional
cut-through traffic.
3Add a second northbound right-turn lane to the planned lanes, and program the traffic signal
with overlap phasing to progress the northbound right-turn and the westbound left-turn
movements concurrenfly.
4 Add a second southbound left-turn lane.
SUltimate intersection being designed by City of Livermore. No additional improvements are
feasible.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 28
City of Dublin May 2009
~~~ ~+~ ~~;~'' ~.,.~)
~
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment. Trip distribution and assignment
assumptions for the proposed Project were taken from the updated Dublin Traffic
Model for Year 2030. For Livermore intersections, project volumes were added to the
2030 volumes in the certified El Charro Specific Plan DEIR , January 2007.
Long-Term Cumulative Plus Project Levels of Service. Exhibit 12 shows the forecasted
turning movement volumes at the study intersections under the Long-Term Cumulative
plus Project scenario. Table 9 summarizes the results of the intersection level of service
analysis for Long-Term Cumulative plus Project conditions. Detailed calculations are in
the appendix.
Under this scenario, the three intersections with unacceptable level of service conditions
in the Long-Term Cumulative scenario without the Project, Dublin Boulevard /
Tassajara Road in the City of Dublin, Airway Boulevard / Isabel Avenue in the City of
Livermore, and Santa Rita Road/ I-580 Eastbound ramps in the City of Pleasanton,
continue to operate at unacceptable conditions with the addition of project traffic. All
other study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service.
Impact 1
Under Long-Term Cumulative (2030) conditions, the intersection of Dublin Boulevard /
Tassajara Road will operate at unacceptable LOS E conditions during the p.m. peak
hour. The addition of project traffic will exacerbate this condition to result in
deterioration to LOS F during the p.m. peak hour, and also result in a.m. peak hour
operations deteriorating from LOS D to unacceptable LOS E conditions. The impact is
significant.
Mitigation Measure 1
Improvements to improve operations to LOS D or better require the addition of a
second northbound right-turn lane to planned improvements, which will mitigate
conditions to acceptable levels of service. Also, the traffic signal will need to be
programmed with overlap signal phasing to progress the northbound right-turn and
westbound left-turn movements concurrenfly. This improvement should be added to
the planned improvements included in the next update of the Eastern Dublin Traffic
Impact Fee (EDTIF) program, so that contribution by the project applicant to the EDTIF
would constitute full mitigation. Otherwise, arrangement of another mechanism to fund
the improvement will be needed to provide for contribution by the applicant in
proportion to the project's contribution to this impact. Contribution by the applicant to
the EDTIF program or other funding program will reduce the impacts to less than
significant levels.
As noted under the Long-Term Cumulative scenario, there are no identified feasible
improvements for the Airway Boulevard and Isabel Avenue intersection according to
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 29
City of Dublin May 2009
~ 55 y~
~
the El Charro Specific Plan FEIR (page 4-60). At this location the project changes the
delay at the intersection from 125.4 seconds to 125.6 seconds, a difference of only 0,2
seconds. In accordance with the City of Livermore's significance criterion, this nominal
increase, which is less than an additional five seconds of delay, does not result in a
significant impac~.
Impact 2
Under Long-Term Cumulative (2030) conditions, the intersection of Santa Rita Road/
I-580 Eastbound ramps will operate at unacceptable LOS E conditions during the a.m.
and p.m. peak hours. The addition of project traffic will exacerbate this condition to
result in deterioration to LOS F during the p.m. peak hour, and also result in a.m. peak
hour operations continuing at unacceptable LOS E conditions. The impact is significant.
Mitigation Measure 2
Improvements to improve operations to LOS D or better require the addition of a
second southbound left-turn lane to current conditions, which will mitigate conditions
to acceptable levels of service. This improvement is already planned to included in the
current update of the City of Pleasanton Traffic Development Impact Fee. Contribution
by the applicant to fund the fair-share costs of the planned Pleasanton project, or a
contribution to the City of Pleasanton Traffic Development Impact Fee program or
other funding program will reduce the impacts to less than significant levels.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 30
City of Dublin May 2009
,~_.,~
~s;*~ ~ " :~`,~";" ) , ~? -~
~ ~i
~~
Table 9. Intersection Levels of Service - Long-Term Cumulative Plus Project
Conditions
Long-Term Cumulative Long-Term Cumulative +
'
Pro
ect
ID Intersection Control LOS A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Standard Hour Hour Aour Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
sec sec sec sec
1 ublin Boulevard / Dougherty Road~ Signal D 43.4 D 52.2 D 46.3 D 49.2 D
2 ublin Boulevard / Hacienda Drive Signal D 30.1 C 32.4 C 31.6 C 33.6 C
3 ublin Boulevard / Tassajara Road
---...- _____ ____---------
Si
l 53.9
------.. D 63.3
......................... E
_ 74.1 E 91.4 F
With recommended improvements' na
g D
40.6
D
46.3 _._..._,
D _
45.1 _-----
D - ._. ---.....
53.4
D
4 assajara Road / I-580 WB Ramps Signal D 193 B 24.8 C 27.5 C 25.8 C
Santa Rita Road / I-580 EB Ramps 55.1 E 73.5 E 65.3 E 80.6 F
5 With recommended improvements' Si al
~ D 34.1 C 39.8 D 44.9 D 47.7 D
6 ublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street Signal D 17.1 B 28.7 C 19.2 B 33.4 C
7 ublin Boulevard / Grafton Street Signa] D 15.9 B 24.9 C 26.5 C 46.4 D
8 ublin Boulevard / Keegan Street Signal D 17.9 B 38.6 D 18.3 B 45.3 D
9 ublin Boulevard / Fallon Road Signal D 25.3 C 51.3 D 28.7 C 54.0 D
Future Intersection
10 allon Road / I-580 WB Ramps Signal D 8.8 A 39,0 D 9.3 A 51.4 D
11 1 Charro Road / I-580 EB Ramps Signal D 9.5 A 19.4 B 9.4 A 19.2 B
ublin Boulevard / East Project One-Way
12
ccess Future Intersection
Sto D - - - - 0.4(10,5) A(B) 13(17.0) A(C)
~ Charro Road / Jack London
13
oulevard Future Intersection Signal D 33.4 C 48.1 D 33.7 C 50.9 D
ack London Boulevard / Isabel Mid 1
ve1
i4
venue Signal 2
D 52.8 D 51.4 D 52.0 D 53.8 D
orth Canyons Parkway /Airway
15
oulevard Signal E 40.7 D 43.2 D 41.8 D 43.3 D
16 irway Boulevard / Isabel Avenue Signal E 51.6 D 125.4 FS 52.4 D 125.6 FS
17 irway Boulevard / I-580 EB Ramps Signal E 45.0 D 28.3 C 38.5 D 28.4 C
18 irway Boulevard / I-580 WB Ramps Signal E 14.8 B 13.0 B 14.6 B 13.0 B
Notes: LOS = Level of Service
X.X = Average delay in seconds per vehicle
X(X) = Intersection level of service (Level of service for the worst-case approach)
X.X (X.X) = Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall at unsignalized intersection (Delay in
seconds per vehicle to minor approach)
Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
~ LOS reflects recently completed improvements
zAccording to the Livermore General Plan Circulation Element Goal CIR-4, Objective CIR 4.1,
Policy P4(3), this intersection may exceed Mid L05 D standard due to the presence of regional
cut-through traffic.
3Add a second northbound right-tum lane to the planned lanes, and program the traffic signal
with overlap phasing to progress the northbound right-turn and the westbound left-turn
movements concurrently.
4 Add a second southbound left-turn lane.
SUltunate intersection being designed by City of Livermore. No additional unprovements are
feasible. Impacts are not significant because delay from project increases only by 0.2 seconds.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 31
City of Dublin May 2009
a~~~ ,yow
,~
Long-Term Cumulative Plus Alternative 1 Levels of Service. Table 10 summarizes the
results of the intersection level of service analysis for Long-Term Cumulative plus
Alternative 1 conditions. Detailed calculations are in the appendix. Exhibit 13 shows the
forecasted turning movement volumes at the study intersections under the Long-Term
Cumulative plus Alternative 1 scenario.
Similar to the Long-Term Cumulative scenario plus the Project, all study intersections
except the intersections of Dublin Boulevard / Tassajara Road in the City of Dublin,
Airway Boulevard / Isabel Avenue in the City of Livermore and Santa Rita Road/I-580
Eastbound Ramps in the City of Pleasanton operate at acceptable levels of service under
Long-Term Cumulative plus Alternative 1 conditions. It should be noted that
Alternative 1 would not cause the Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road intersection or the
Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps intersection to deteriorate to LOS F conditions
during the p.m. peak hour like the proposed project.
The recommended improvements noted under the Long-Term Cumulative scenario are
expected to improve the intersection _of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road to operate
acceptably at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour under the Long-Term
Cumulative plus Alternative 1 conditions.
Impact 3
Under Long-Term Cumulative (2030) conditions, the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard/Tassajara Road will operate at unacceptable LOS E conditions during the
p.m. peak hour. The addition of Alternative 1 traffic will continue this LOS E condition
during the p.m. peak hour, and also result in a.m. peak hour operations deteriorating
from LOS D to unacceptable LOS E conditions. The impact is significant.
Mitigation Measure 3
Improvements to improve operations to LOS D or better require the addition of a
second northbound right-turn lane to planned improvements, which will accommodate
expected heavy peak traffic. The traffic signal will need to be programmed with overlap
signal phasing to progress the northbound right-turn and westbound left-turn
movements concurrently. If this improvement is added to the planned improvements
included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF) program, contribution by the
project applicant to the EDTIF would constitute full mitigation. Otherwise, arrangement
of another mechanism to fund the improvement will be needed to provide for
contribution by the applicant in proportion to the project's contribution to this impact.
Contribution by the applicant to the EDTIF program or other funding mechanism will
reduce the impacts to less than significant levels.
As noted under the Long-Term Cumulative scenario, there are no identified feasible
improvements for the Airway Boulevard and Isabel Avenue intersection. Alternative 1
Grafton Plaza Tra~c Study Page 32
City of Dublin May 2009
~.~ ~a....~
~
changes the delay at the intersection from 125.4 seconds to 125.5 seconds, a difference of
only 0.1 seconds. Similar to the proposed project, the nominal increase in average
intersection delay at Airway Boulevard/Isabel Avenue does not result in a significant
impact according to the City of Livermore's significance criterion.
Impact 4
Under Long-Term Cumulative (2030) conditions, the intersection of Santa Rita Road/
I-580 Eastbound ramps will operate at unacceptable LOS E conditions during the a.m.
and p.m. peak hours. The addition of Alternative 1 traffic will exacerbate this
condition, resulting in both a.m. and p.m. peak hour operations continuing at
unacceptable LOS E conditions. The impact is significant.
Mitigation Measure 4
Improvements to improve operations to LOS D or better require the addition of a
second southbound left-turn lane to current conditions, which will mitigate conditions
to acceptable levels of service. This improvement is already planned to included in the
current update of the City of Pleasanton Traffic Development Impact Fee. Contribution
by the applicant to fund the fair-share costs of the planned Pleasanton project, or a
contribution to the City of Pleasanton Traffic Development Impact Fee program or
other funding program will reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. Should
the City of Pleasanton reduce the acceptable standard to LOS E at this location, no
mitigation will be required.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 33
City of Dublin May 2009
~'~9 ~~
~
Table 10. Intersection Levels of Service - Long-Term Cumulative plus Alternative 1
Conditions
Long-Term Cumulative Long-Term Cumulative +
Alternative 1
ID Intersection Control LOS A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak Hour P
M
Peak Hour
Standard Hour Hour .
.
Delay LOS Delay LOS De1ay LOS Delay LOS
sec sec sec sec
ub
lin Boulevard / Dougherty
1 ~
~ Signal D 43.4 D 52.2 D 46.0 D 50.0 D
2 ublin Boulevard / Hacienda Drive Signal D 30.1 C 32.4 C. 31.6 C 33.0 C
ublin Boulevard / Tassajara Road 53.9 D 63
3 E 72
3 E 72
3 E
3 .__ _~----._._ __...__. ..._ _____
_ ,
Si
nal D -------- - --__.. .
__..._ . _ __ ..... .
..._....__._.. _
.
_
3
With recommended improvements g 40.6 D 46.3 D 43.6 D 48.9 D
4 assajara Road / I-580 WB Ramps Signal D 19.3 B 24.8 C 17.1 B 25.3 C
5 Santa Rita Road / I-580 EB Ramps 55.1 E 73.5 E 57.2 E 77.1 E
With recommended improvementsz Si nal
g D 34.1 C 39.8 D 36.5 D 43.6 D
6 ublin Boulevard / Brannigan
treet Signal D 17.1 B 28.7 C 17.9 B 30.2 C
7 ublin Boufevard / Grafton Street Signal D 15.9 B 24.9 C 31.4 C 34.1 C
8 ublin Boulevard / Keegan Street Signal D 17.9 B 38.6 D 18.5 B 39.3 D
9 ublin Boulevard / Fallon Road
Future Intersection Signal D 25.3 C 51.3 D 28.5 C 52.4 D
10 allon Road / I-580 WB Ramps Signal D 8.8 A 39.0 D 10.9 B 44.7 D
11 l Charro Road / I-580 EB Ramps Signal D 9.5 A 19.4 B 10.5 B 20.4 C
12 ublin Boulevard / East Project One-Way
ccess Future Intersection
Sto D _ _ _ _ 0.2(10.2) A(B) 0.7(123) A(B)
13 ~ Charro Road / Jack London
oufevard Future Intersection Signal D 33.4 C 48.1 D 33.6 C 50.2 D
14 ack London Boulevard / Isabel
venue2
Signal Mid level
DZ
52.8
D
51.4
D
51.7
D
53.6
D
15 orth Canyons Parkway /Airway
oulevard Signal E 40.7 D 43.2 D 41.5 D 43.3 D
16 irway Boulevard / Isabel Avenue Signal E 51.6 D 125.4 FS 52.1 D 125.5 FS
1 ~ am as Boulevard / I-580 EB Signal E 45.0 D 28.3 C 383 D 23.4 C
1 g a
a
Boulevard / I-580 WB
m
s Signal E 14.8 B 13.0 B 13.2 B 13.0 B
Notes: LUS = Level of Service
X.X = Average delay in seconds per vehicle
X(X) = Intersection level of service (Level of service for the worst-case approach)
X.X (X.X) = Average delay in seconds per vehicle overall at unsignalized intersection (Delay in
seconds per vehicle to minor approach)
Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
~ LOS reflects recently completed 'unprovements
zAccording to the Livermore General Plan Circulation Element Goal CIR-4, Objective CIR 4.1,
Policy P4(3), this intersection may exceed Mid LOS D standard due to the presence of regional
cut-through traffic.
3Add a second northbound right-turn lane to the planned lanes, and program the traffic signal
with overlap phasing to progress the northbound right-turn and the westbound left-turn
movements concurrently.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 34
City of Dublin May 2009
O~ ~~ ~~' ~,Z-Q
~
4Add a second southbound left-tum lane.
SUltimate intersection being designed by City of Livermore. No additional improvements are
feasible. Impacts are not significant because delay from project increases only by 0.1 seconds.
Consistency with Alameda County Congestion Management Plan. The proposed
Project is expected to generate more than 100 p.m. peak hour trips over existing
conditions. As a result, the Alameda County Congestion Management Program (CMP)
requires the City to conduct a traffic impact analysis of the Project using the Alameda
Countywide Transportation Demand Model for Years 2015 and 2030 conditions. The
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) requires that potential
impacts of the Project on adjacent Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadway
and transit systems be addressed as specified in the 2007 CMP.
The MTS roadway system in the vicinity of the Project includes I-580, I-680, SR 84,
Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, San Ramon Road, Tassajara Road, Santa Rita Road,
and Hopyard Road. The transit system in the Project area includes BART and LAVTA.
The recently updated Alameda Countywide Transportation Demand Model (CMA
Model) was used to forecast traffic volumes for the CMA Analysis. The volumes were
used to analyze the Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative Conditions and Long-Term
(Year 2030) Cumulative Conditions, as indicated below.
MTS Arterial Impacts. Table 11 summarizes the results of the analysis of Project
impacts on various segments of Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Santa Rita Road, San
Ramon Road, Dougherty Road and Hopyard Road in the vicinity of the Project. The
analysis consists of ineasuring the levels of service (LOS) on these roadway segments
during the p.m. peak hour under Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative and Long-Term
(Year 2030) Cumulative traffic conditions with and without the Project. The LOS
analysis is based on the volume-to-capacity ratio for roadway segments.
As shown in Table 11, all study roadway segments are expected to operate at acceptable
levels of service (LOS E or better) in the p.m. peak hour under 2015 and 2030 conditions
with and without the Project, except the following roadway segments:
Dublin Boulevard
• Between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive - eastbound direction (LOS F)
under 2030 conditions
• Between Dougherty Road and Village Parkway - tioth eastbound and westbound
directions (LOS F) under 2030 conditions
San Ramon Road
• Between I-580 and Amador Valley Boulevard - northbound direction (LOS F)
under both 2015 and 2030 conditions.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 35
City of Dublin May 2009
~?~/ ~.°.~~.~~
~
Hopyard Road
• South of I-580 - southbound direction (LOS F) under 2030 conditions.
As shown in the table, there are little or no increases in v/c (i.e. less than 0.01) on these
segments with the addition of Project volumes, compared with the projected v/c ratios
without the project. Therefore, because the project contribution creates less than a 0.02
increase in the v/c ratio on these segments, the Project will have no significant impact
on the MTS arterial system in the vicinity of the Project under Short Term Cumulative
(2015) and Long Term Cumulative (2030) Conditions.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 36
City of Dublin May 2009
a~ ~....~
~
T.,~,ie ~~ vo~r~ ~m ~ a„~ ~n~n P_M_ neak hour MTS Arterial Levels of Service
i ava~ i i.
~
~
Year 2015
No Pro'ect
Year 2015
lus Pro'ect
~,
~
•'~'
Year 2030
No Pro'ect
Year 2030
lus Pro'ect
Location •-~~
w
o
~ ~
V P.M.
Peak
Volvme
V/C
LOS P.M.
Peak
Volume
V/C
LOS w
o
~ `°
a
~ j P.M.
Peak
olume
V/C
LOS P.M.
Peak
Volume
V/C
LOS
Dublin Boulevard
Betweex Tassajara Road and Falloxi Road
Eastbound 3 3,000 2,157 0.72 C 2,534 0,84 D 3 3,000 2,293 0.76 C 2,672 0.89 D
Westbound 3 3,000 11 0.00 A 311 0.10 A 3 3,000 15 0.01 A 289 0.10 A
Betwee~i Hacienda Driae and Tassajara Road
Eastbound 3 3,000 2,271 0.76 C 2,316 0.77 C 3 3,000 2,431 0.81 D 2,472 0.82 D
Westbound 3 3,000 221 0.07 A 256 0.09 A 3 3,000 387 0.13 A 446 0.15 A
Between Dougherhj Road and Hacienda Drive
Eastbound 3 3,000 1,864 0.62 S 1,882 0.63 B 3 3,000 3,061 1.02 F 3,082 1.03 F
Westbound 3 3,000 1,360 0.45 A 1,388 0.46 A 3 3,000 2,869 0.96 E 2,904 0.97 E
Between Dougherhj Road ai~d Village Parkway
Eastbound 3 3,000 2,320 0.77 C 2,330 0.78 C 3 3,000 3,062 1.02 F 3,074 1.02 F
Westbound 3 3,000 2,238 0.75 C 2,260 0.75 C 3 3,000 3,043 1.01 F 3,065 1.02 F
Tassajara Road
Between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard
Northbound 4 4,000 977 0.24 A 1,057 0.26 A 4 4,000 2,009 0.50 A 2,106 0.53 A
Southbound 4 4,000 964 0.24 A 1,180 0.30 A 4 4,000 1,655 0.41 A 1,818 0.45 A
Betwee~i Dublix Boulevard and Gleason Drive
Northbound 3 3,000 1,022 0.34 A 1,073 0.36 A 3 3,000 1,742 0.58 A 1,790 0.60 B
Southbound 3 3,000 701 0.23 A 728 0.24 A 3 3,000 1,0~8 0.35 A 1,088 0.36 A
Nort-t of Gleasox Drive
Northbound 3 3,000 932 0.31 A 976 0.33 A 3 3,000 1,669 0.56 A 1,711 0.57 A
Southbound 3 3,000 472 0.16 A 498 0.17 A 3 3,000 730 0.24 A 753 0.25 A
San Ramon Road
Between I-580 axd Amador Valley Boulevard
Northbound 3 3,000 3,154 1.05 F 3,162 1.05 F 3 3,000 4,409 1.47 F 4,416 1.47 F
Southbound 3 3,000 1,763 0.59 A 1,765 0.59 A 3 3,000 2,404 0.80 D 2,406 0.80 D
Santa Rita Road
South of I-580
Northbound 3 3,000 1,911 0.64 B 1,950 0.65 9 3 3,000 1,792 0.60 B 1,836 0.61 B
Southbound 3 3,000 1,028 0.34 A 1,093 0.36 A 3 3,000 1,300 0.43 A 1,359 0.45 A
Dou herty Road
Betweeu I-580 and Dublin Boulevard
Northbound 4 4,000 2,986 0.75 C 2,993 0.75 C 4 4,000 2,986 0.75 C 2,986 0.75 C
Southbound 4 4,000 2,017 0.50 A 2,018 0.50 A 4 4,000 2,134 0.53 A 2,134 0.53 A
Hopyard Road
South of I-580
Northbound 3 3,000 2,925 0.98 E 2,928 0.98 E 3 3,000 2,925 0.98 E 2,928 0.98 E
Southbound 3 3,000 2,894 0.96 E 2,895 0.97 E 3 3,000 3,003 1.00 F 3,003 1.00 F
Note: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 37
City of Dublin May 2009
a ~ ~3~ ,~~~ .~.~
Freeway/State Highway Impacts. As required by the 2007 CMP, Project impacts on
I-580, I-680 and SR 84 were analyzed during the p.m. peak hour based on freeway
capacity standards described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The analysis was
also conducted during the a.m. peak hour to satisfy Caltrans' requirement for
assessment during both peaks. Tables 12 and 13 summarize the results of the analysis of
Project impacts on various segments of I-580, I-680 and SR 84 in the vicinity of the
Project. T'he analysis consists of ineasuring the levels of service on these freeway and
State highway segments under Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative and Long-Term
(Year 2030) Cumulative traffic conditions with and without the Project. The LOS
analysis is based on the volume-to-capacity ratio for basic freeway sections and
multilane highways.
As shown in Tables 12 and 13, specific segments of I-580, I-680, and SR 84 are expected
to operate at LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour under 2015 and 2030
conditions with and without the Project.
With the Project trips added to No Project mainline freeway volumes and SR-84, the
projected LOS on I-580, I-680, and SR-84 would remain unchanged and v/c ratios
would increase by no more than 0.014. Therefore, because the project contribution is
less than a two percent increase of the total volume on these segments, the Project will
have no significant impact on freeway and state highway facilities in the vicinity of the
Project under 2015 and 2030 conditions.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 38
City of Dublin May 2009
~=~'~`~~ ~ ~~~~
Tal~la 17_ S}tnrt_rrprm fYear 20151 Cumulative Conditions Freewav Analysis
~ Year 2015 No Project Year 2015 with Project
No of Lanes ...
~
A.M. Peak
P.M. Peak
A.M. Peak
P.M. Peak
V Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS
I-580, East of I-680
Eastbound 4 8,000 5,089 0.64 C 8,230 1.03 F 5,263 0.66 C 8,267 1.03 F
Westbound 5 10,000 11,185 1.12 F 5,886 0.59 C 11,210 1.12 F 5,999 0.60 C
I-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive
Eastbound 6+ aux. 13,000 6,373 0.49 B 10,856 0.84 D 6,559 0.50 B 10,896 0.84 D
Westbound 4+ aux. 9,000 9,457 1.05 F 5,975 0.66 C 9,483 1.05 F 6,097 0.68 C
I-580, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road
Eastbound 5 10,000 4,261 0.43 B 10,989 1.10 F 4,450 0.45 B 11,019 1.10 F
Westbound 4+ aux. 9,000 8,391 0.93 E 4,295 0.48 B 8,421 0.94 E 4,428 0.49 B
I-580, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
Eastbound 4+ aux. 9,000 4,476 0.50 B 10,026 1.11 F 4,478 0.50 B 10,038 1.12 F
Westbound 4+ aux. 9,000 10,082 1.12 F 4,597 0.51 B 10,082 1.12 F 4,600 0.51 B
I-580, Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard
Eastbound 4+aux. 9,000 4,186 0.47 B 10,136 1.13 F 4,263 0.47 B 10,300 1.14 F
Westbound 4+aux. 9,000 11,891 1.32 F 4,323 0.48 B 12,012 1.33 F 4,424 0.49 B
I-680, Alcosta Boulevard to I-580
Northbound 4 8,000 5,853 0.73 C 7,360 0.92 D 5,858 0.73 C 7,384 0.92 D
Southbound 4 8,000 7,213 0.90 D 5,480 0.69 C 7,265 0.91 D 5,487 0.69 C
I-680, South of I-580
Northbound 3 6,000 4,041 0.67 C 8,272 1.38 F 4,051 0.68 C 8,277 1.38 F
Southbound 3+aux. 7,000 6,585 0.94 E 4,232 0.60 C 6,587 0.94 E 4,240 0.61 C
SR 84, South of I-580 (Analyzed as an arterial with a capacity of 1,000 veh/hr/lane)
Northbound Z 2,000 2,524 1.26 F 1,762 0.88 D 2,542 1.27 F 1,767 0.88 D
Southbound 2 2,000 2,260 1.13 F 2,3451 1.171 F 2,262 1.13 F 2,3731 1.191 F
Source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-1, Levels ot 5ervice tor tsasic rreeway ~ecnons
Maximum Service Flow rate for freeway segments=2000 vehicles/hr/lane, aux. =Auxiliary Lane
If number of lanes on freeway segment= N+aux., capacity of segment= (N*2000+1000)
vehicles/ hr
Note: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
~SR 84 Southbound P.M. Peak:
Volume increase of 2,373-2,345 = 28 =1.2% is less than 2% significance threshold;
V/C: No Project =1.1725, with Project =1.1865; increase of .014 is less than 0.02.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 39
City of Dublin May 2009
a~~ ~ ~i~.~.~
Table 13. Long-Term (Year 20301 Cumulative c'n„~;~;.,,,~ F,.ooT.,,., ~...,~..,.:
-- L11ap1 ~71~7
,.~' Year 2030 No Project Year 2030 with Project
No of Lanes a A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
~
U Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS
I-580, East of I-680
Eastbound 4 8,000 6,464 0.81 D 9,960 1.25 F 6,616 0.83 D 10,007 1.25 F
Westbound 5 10,000 15,724 1.57 F 6,681 0.67 C 15,764 1.58 F 6,766 0.68 C
I-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive
Eastbound 6+ aux. 13,000 8,024 0.62 C 12,592 0.97 E 8,180 0.63 C 12,641 0.97 E
Westbound 4+ aux. 9,000 13,864 1.54 F 7,067 0.79 D 13,904 1.54 F 7,152 0.79 D
I-580, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road
Eastbound 5 10,000 6,528 0.65 C 12,028 1.20 F 6,689 0.67 C 12,073 1.21 F
Westbound 4+ aux. 9,000 12,731 1.41 F 6,353 0.71 C 12,761 1.42 F 6,451 0.72 C
I-580, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
Eastbound 4+ aux. 9,000 6,351 0.71 C 12,480 1.39 F 6,354 0.71 C 12,481 1.39 F
Westbound 4+ aux. 9,000 14,490 1.61 F 6,711 0.75 C 14,494 1.61 F 6,716 0.75 C
I-580, Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard
Eastbound 4+aux. 9,000 6,637 0.74 C 12,973 1.44 F 6,681 0.74 C 13,044 1.45 F
Westbound 4+aux. 9,000 15,720 1.75 F 6,432 0.71 C 15,784 1.75 F 6,490 0.72 C
I-6S0, Alcosta Boulevard to I-580
Northbound 4 8,000 6,646 0.83 D 9,029 1.13 F 6,652 0.83 D 9,040 1.13 F
Southbound 4 8,000 9,591 1.20 F 5,989 0.75 C 9,628 1.20 F 5,997 0.75 C
I-680, South of I-580
Northbound 3 6,000 3,791 0.63 C 10,095 1.68 F 3,798 0.63 C 10,101 1.68 F
Southbound 3+aux. 7,000 8,685 1.24 F 4,512 0,64 C 8,687 1.24 F 4,515 0.65 C
SR 84, South of I-580 (Analyzed as an arterial with a capacity of 1,000 veh/hr/lane)
Northbound 2 2,000 3,753 1.88 F 3,198 1.60 F 3,773 1.89 F 3,208 1.60 F
Southbound
Crnirro• '1QQr. ~-T 2
i..l.~.,.,.. / 2,000
-'.....,....~ 3,549
_ w.r____ 1.77
_i m F 2,965 1.48 F 3,553 1.78 F 2,985 1.49 F
--~~ ~~•b...•~y ~-aya~i~y ivlaiiual~ ~a~~e o-i, ~eveis or 5ervice ror ttasic Freeway Sections
Maximum Service Flow rate for freeway segments=2000 vehicles/hr/lane, aux. =Auxiliary Lane
If number of lanes on freeway segment= N+aux., capacity of segment= (N*2000+1000)
vehicles/hr
Note: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 40
City of Dublin May 2009
C.~-~ ~• .r ~~
~
Transit systems impacts
BART Train Capacitv. The potential impacts of the Project on BART were evaluated by
estimating increased ridership with the development of the proposed Project. Future
ridership projections used in the Eastern Dublin EIR were based on the assumption that
the East Dublin/Pleasanton station would be the only station constructed in the Tri-
Valley area. However, it is expected that the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station,
currently under construction, would also be available in the Tri-Valley area at the time
when the proposed Project is constructed. The Project consists of residential and
commercial uses including a hotel. It is anticipated that a small percentage of
commercial and retail employees would use BART to and from the site. These riders
would be entirely in the reverse commute direction (eastbound in the a.m., westbound
in the p.m.) since the Dublin/Pleasanton station is at the end of the line, and capacity
would be available to accommodate the added riders generated by these uses.
Based on BART data, it is assumed that approximately two percent of the Project
households would commute using BART. This assumption is consistent with current
BART ridership estimates within the Tri-Valley area containing the cities of Dublin,
Pleasanton, Livermore, and part of San Ramon. Approximately ten additional riders
from the proposed Project are estimated to use BART as calculated below.
Residential: 470 dwelling units x 1 rider/unit x 2% x 2 trips per day = 20 trips/day
(10 riders inbound to BART during the a.m. peak hour/10 riders outbound from
BART during the p.m. peak hour)
Currently, BART runs four 8-car trains to/from the Dublin/Pleasanton Station per hour
during the peak commute hours. Each BART train has a capacity of 560 seats, which
translates into 2,240 seats during the peak hour. At this station, approximately 1,063
riders enter the station and 325 exit the station (total of 1,388 riders) during the a.m.
peak hour. BART assumes a ridership load capacity of 1.35 persons per seat during the
peak commute periods to account for sitting and standing passengers. During the p.m.
peak hour, BART ridership is lower with a total of 1,266 riders (entering and exiting). ~
Adding ten more entering riders during the a.m. peak hour would result in 1,073 riders
in the peak commute direction (westbound). With the added ridership from the
proposed Project, load capacity would be 0.48 persons per seat (1,073 riders/2,240
seats), which is below BART's maxixnum load capacity of 1.35. During the p.m. peak
hour, the capacity would be even lower with the additional ten riders generated by the
proposed Project. No supplemental impacts are therefore anticipated to the BART system.
This analysis is conservative in that it assumes that all of the riders would use BART
during the peak one hour of the morning and evening commutes.
Grafton PIa2a Traffic Study Page 41
City of Dublin May 2009
a~7 y~
~
BART Station Parking - The potential impacts of the proposed Project on parking
demand at the Dublin-Pleasanton BART station were also evaluated based on the
estimated increased ridership with the Project as calculated above. A 1,510-space
parking garage at the station opened in May 2008, supplementing approximately 1,070
surface parking spaces on the Dublin side. These 1,070 surface stalls will be removed at
the time that the new west Dublin station opens with approximately 710 stalls. TJKM
measured the parking demand on the Dublin side to be 2,135 stalls on July 1, 2008.
Following these changes, the supply of parking in the two Dublin BART parking
garages will exceed the demand by about 85 stalls. (1,510 + 710 - 2,135 = 85) Assuming
all ten additional BART riders estimated with the Project park vehicles at the
Dublin/Pleasanton station, the additional parking demand would represent less than
one-half percent of the total parking capacity, and would be accommodated within the
unoccupied spaces currently available at the peak demand time at the station. No
supplemental impacts are therefore anticipated to the BART parking demand.
The Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that the GPA/SP Project would create a need for
substantial expansion of existing transit systems (LAVTA feeder service to BART),
resulting in a significant impact (IM 3.3/O). Mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin
EIR remain applicable to the Project (MM 3.3/15.2 and 3.3/15,3), The Project will
contribute toward the constructed park and ride lots through payment of the Eastern
Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and to improvements to transit service through payment of
the TVTD Fee.
LAVTA (Livermore Amador Vallev Transit Authority) - Wheels. Several Wheels bus
lines currently provide service to east Dublin, including lines 1AV/1BV,1C, and 1,
which run directly adjacent to the Project site on Dublin Boulevard, as well as lines 1E,
12, 50, 51, 54, and 202. These bus lines can be used by residents to connect to BART and
ACE Train services. LAVTA has also proposed a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project
connecting Livermore with the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station via Dublin Boulevard.
Bus stops for the BRT line are proposed on Dublin Boulevard at Grafton Street, adjacent
to the Project, facilitating access to the proposed BRT line for Project occupants and
employees. The proposed Project site plan incorporates a bus pull-out area along the
south curb of Dublin Boulevard east of Grafton Street.
It is assumed that LAVTA would continue to provide services after the Project is
constructed, and introduce new bus lines or reroute existing bus lines to accommodate
the riders from the Project as the need arises. It is also expected that LAVTA would
provide sufficient capacity to accommodate riders, as needed. A calculation is provided
to estimate the number of daily and monthly Wheels riders to be generated by the
proposed Project. Assuming that two percent of the residential uses are expected to use
Wheels transit:
• 470 dwelling units x 2% x 2 trips/day = approximately 20 daily riders.
• 20 daily riders x 20 working days per month = 400 monthly riders.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 42
City of Dublin May 2009
r~~~~~~
It is expected that the commercial employees/visitors would generate a minimal
number of riders,
The impacts of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, of
which the proposed Project is a part, on the need for expanded transit were adequately
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (see Chapter 3.3 of Eastern Dublin EIR) and,
mitigation measures were imposed to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
(See MM 3.3/15.0 [provide transit service within 0.25 mile]; MM 3.3/15.1 [provide
transit service at minimum frequency of 30 minutes during peak hours]; MM 3.3/15.2
[GPA/SP Project to contribute to capital and operating costs of transit service
extensions]; and MM 3.3/15.3 [coordinate with BART and LAVTA to provide bus
service to BART station].) These mitigation measures remain applicable to the Project
and, as shown above no supplemental impacts on LAVTA bus service would result from
approval of the proposed Project.
ACE (Altamont Commuter Express~. Providing commuter rail service from Stockton to
San Jose, ACE trains serve the Tri-Valley with one stop in Livermore and another at
Pleasanton. ACE currently operates four round trips per day. Based on available data,
ACE annual ridership is approximately 600,000. Ridership peaked in 2001 at
approximately 930,000 (2006 MTC Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operations).
The current ACE ridership is 3,700 riders per day, which is estimated by the ACE staff
to be from 70 to 75 percent of capacity.
No supplemental impacts are anticipated for the ACE system, because the project is
expected to marginally contribute riders to ACE train loading and ample capacity exists
on the ACE system.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Impacts
The site plan of the proposed project was reviewed for consistency with the City's
Bikeways Master Plan and the Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan, to determine any
impacts resulting from changes to existing and proposed bikeways. The proposed
project is consistent with both the City's and the County's bicycle plans, and will
preserve the existing Class II bike lanes on Dublin Boulevard, which will form the
northern boundary of the project site. Bicycle racks will be provided within the parking
structures and on site in accordance with City of Dublin Ordinance Section 8.76.070A2.
The site plan includes sidewalks for safe pedestrian circulation within the development
and along the project frontage on Dublin Boulevard. The existing traffic signal at
Grafton Street will provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians and bicyclists
crossing Dublin Boulevard between the project and adjacent land uses.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to the provision of safe
street crossings for pedestrians and bicycles (Impact 3.3/P). Mitigation measures 3.3/
16.0 - 16.1 were adopted which reduced these impacts to a level of insignificance.
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 43
City of Dublin May 2009
~ / `~ J ~i e~
~
Measure 3.3/16.1 would apply to the Project. This requires that pedestrian and bicycle
paths coincide with signals at major street crossings. All mitigation measures adopted
upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP and Eastern Dublin EIR continue to
apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed Grafton Plaza Project.
These mitigation measures remain applicable to the Project and no supplemental impacts
on bicycle and pedestrian circulation would result from approval of the proposed
Project.
Construction Traffic Impacts
Construction of the project will result in a number of heavy trucks travelling to and
from the site over a period of months. The heaviest volume of trucks will occur as dirt-
hauling operations during the excavation of the site for underground parking and
building foundations. The following analysis is based on information provided by
MacKay & Somps, the project applicant's civil engineer.
The construction schedule likely to be preferred by the project contractor is 7:30 a.m. (or
earlier) to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. With one crew working those hours in
a peak production scenario for excavation, approximately 300 dirt-hauling truck loads
per day would be generated, resulting in 600 iruck trip-ends per day (300 empty trucks
in, 3001oaded trucks out). That would result in about 75 truck trips per hour, consisting
of nearly 40 empty trucks coming in, being loaded, and leaving (40 out) in one hour.
With this schedule, the required excavation volume would take 65 crew days, or a
duration of approximately 11 weeks with one crew at peak production. Without
Saturday operations, this duration would extend to approximately three months.
If the City elects to prohibit hauling during morning and late afternoon peak commute
traffic hours, the daily production volume for one crew would be reduced significantly,
resulting in approximately 200 truck loads per day, or 400 daily truck trip-ends.
However, the hourly truck volume would remain at approximately 75 truck trips per
hour. Additionally, with this shortened daily schedule, the required excavation volume
would take over 100 crew days, or approximately four months duration with one
crew. Without Saturday operations, this duration would extend to approximately five
months. It should be noted that the specific haul route(s) are not known at this time; the
routes will be ascertained when the dirt receiving area is determined.
During some phases of building construction for the project, a large number of
construction workers are expected to be on the site daily. If adequate off-street parking
for these workers is not provided, they might park their vehicles on adjacent streets and
in nearby communities, which could result in traffic hazards or be considered an
intrusion of those communities.
The expected number of truck trips during construction could significantly impact
traffic conditions on some roadways during peak commute periods, if appropriate
Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Page 44
City of Dublin May 2009
~ ~C~ ~ ~/v~
management plans and monitoring are not provided. Similarly, construction worker
parking demand could significantly impact adjacent streets and communities if not
managed and monitored properly, Therefore, construction traffic and parking
conditions are anticipated to be a significant supplementai impact.
Impact 5
(Project temporary impact to local roadways). During construction of the proposed
Project, heavy truck trips generated by hauling materials to and from the site could
impact traffic conditions on some local roadways during peak commute periods, and
construction worker parking could result in traffic hazards on streets adjacent to the site
and intrusion of parking supplies in nearby communities. This is considered a
significant supplemental impact.
Mitigation Measure 5
(Project temporary impact to local roadways). Prior to the issuance of grading permits,
the Project developer shall prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan for
submittal to the City, which shall be subject to review and conditions as determined by
the Dublin City Engineer. The Construction Traffic Management Plan shall include the
following:
a) Map of haul routes for heavy trucks.
b) Hours of operation.
c) Detailed plan for any proposed truck staging on public right-of-way.
d) Parking plan for construction workers during each major phase of
construciion, including: number of vehicles expected to park; location(s) and
number of parking spaces available at arranged areas; description of shuttle
operations for any proposed "satellite" parking areas; and any proposed
carpool, transit, or other programs to reduce parking demand.
e) Map of construction staging areas.
f~ A program for monitoring public streets so that damage and debris attributed
to construction activity can be identified and corrected.
g) A program for community relations to notify adjacent residents and business
owners of major construction activities and to identify strategies for
minimizing disturbances,
h) A set of traffic control rneasures including traffic control plans as needed for
lane closures, detours, etc.
This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through adherence to the
preceding measure.
Grafton Plaza Tra~c Study Page 45
City of Dublin May 2009
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~.~~~
~
City of Dublin - Grafton Plaza Traffic Study
Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls
Exhibit
I
Intersection #I Intersection #2 Intersection #3
Dublin Blvd.lDougherty Rd. Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr. Dublin Blvd./Tassajara Rd.
~
~ ~-
~ ~~ I~
~1111
~11
~~11
-~
~
-~
Overlap~
~
Intersxtion #6
Dublin Blvd./Branni¢an St.
In~ersection #I I
EI Charro Rd./I-580 EB
~
~
~
Overfap~
Incersection #7
Dublin Blvd./Grafton St.
~
~--
F
Y~ r
~ I I*~
~
~
~
Intersection #12
Dublin Blvd./E. ProjectAccess
Fucure Projea Access
Intersection #16 Intersection #17
Airway Blvd./IsabelAve. Airway Blvd./Kitcy Hawk Rd./
Intersection #4 Intersection #5
•a Rd./I-580 WB Ramps Santa Riu Rd./I-580 EB Ramps/
$ Pimlico Dr.
m
~
~
Overtap~
Intersection #8
Dublin Blvd./Keegan St. Intersection #9
Dublin Blvd./Fallon Rd. Intersection #10
Fallon Rd.ll-580WB Ramp:
~
~
~
~"-"
~y ~
Future Signalized
I
ntersection
~~
~;
--;
~:
--~;
Intersxtion #13
=k London Blvd./EI Charro Rd. Intersecdon #14
fack London Blvd./IsabelAve. Intersection #15
N. Cyn. Pkwy./Airway Blvd.
Future Signalized
Incersection
Intersection #18
Blvd./I-580 WB
DU6lIN
0
~ g
0
~
o _
LEGEND _`
• Existing Study Intersection
~ Future Stud Intersection N O R T H
Y Not to Scale
~ Traffic Signal
~-. Stop Sign
---~ Lane built but not in use
--- Future Roadway
g~o -----•-
. p
, . ,
9 , o~ 3
.__'._...,-' ''• ~, ~
•--•-••-
~'~- -----
~o ~ °
~ ~~~ NITTY N~WK FD
Grafton
Plaza ----• -----•--• •--• .~p~,~ a~~o.
~' "-'~ 13
~
. , W. JACK LONOON BLVD.
157-001 T117 - 6/1/09 - MP
~ r ~ ~ s~ ~ ! "~„" `~'
City of Dublin - Grafton PlazaTraffic Study Exhibit
ExistingTurning MovementVolumes 2
In[ersection #I
Dublin Blvd.lDougherty Rd.
~
^~ ~
rn
~ V ~
~ ~ ° 1L 163 (394)
`rI ~ "I' ~---297 (846)
1~ 1 L r-2,6 ~3~2>
27 (87)~ ~ t ~
209 (853)--~
285 (528)~ ~ ~ rn
N ~~
~ N ~
~
Interseccion #6
Dublin Blvd./Brannigan St.
~
V
~ `Q-' `~-' ~_ ~ 2 ~7~
~ l ~ f-289)(149)
~~
40(113)~I -~1~
78 (310)---- .~.
51 (73)~- ~~~
o~
v
Intersection #2
Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr.
~V ~
` ~~
~~N R_40(14)
I I ~-404 (512)
1~1k ~,~8~,96>
42 (239) ~I ~ ~ ~
186 (1,113)---
116 (4B8)~ ~ ~ ~
4l') CO
M R ~
Intersettion #7
Dublin Blvd./Grafton Sc
000 I~-Q /,Z'
000 `
~ ~ ~ F 31(5)123)
~3
5 (35) ~I ~ 1 ~
50 (583) ~ m o ~
( ) ~o~
Incersection #II Intersection #12
EI Charro Rd.ll-580 EB Ramps Dublin Blvd./E,. ProjectAccess
.-.O~
~ n
~ .N..
N fmpI
1 y Future Project Access
57 (10)~I f ~
79 (5)-- N in
71 (13)~ "~
~ N
Intersection #16
Airway Blvd./IsabelAve.
v ci
~~
~-~n c~ 1L474 (720)
~ 1 ~, •--, Bo20~ ~
~63
z°~-"'~1~'
76 (77)-i
365 (638)~ ~a N o
rnMm
mv~
ouOL~N elvo
Intersection # 17
Airway Blvd./Kitty Hawk Rd.!
n1 in V
~~
~ N N ~ 635 (373)
~ ~ ~ ~-~i ~aao~
~4 (23)
441 (273)~I -~ 1 I
118 (52)~
290(308)~ ~ ~ °
`.~~
oa
~
Intersection #3 Intersection #4
Dublin Blvd./Tassajara Rd. Tassajara Rd.ll-580W8 Ram~
.~
N
.-. O~
ovfDi~ r ~
~~
~ N1
m ~ o ~ 10 (15) tD th
~ 262 (386)
~89 (94)
~ 1 ~, ~3~9 c„o, ~ ~ ~435 (440)
64 (384)~I ~ 1 ~ ~
55(275)---
136(585)~ ~oN ~~
N~t7
N
T
1~ Ov
v
C
,~ ~~
N ~
Intersettion #8 Intersection #9
Dublin BIvd./Keegan Sc. Dublin Blvd./Fallon Rd.
a
0/ t`7
N~
~ ~
~3~~~
f-6 (19)
Future Signalized
Intersection
35 (191) ~~
15 (90)---;
Intersection #13 Intersecdon #14
< London Blvd./EI Charro Rd. Jack London Blvd./lubel Ave.
N
.-.
N n
.-.'-~ N
-`~-N n
_392 (178)
m v Ico
~ ~ y ~9 (5~
~zo4 (tt4)
Fucure Signalized
Intersection 6 (~)~
' ~ 1 I
1D
( 0)~ ~ v
~
~ ~
T N7
r
Intersection #18
~ Blvd./I-580 WB Ram~
mn
N (~D
~t~n ~L25~(29~~
<~~~~~~
~ 1. ~ 735 (205)
rn~
~~
Intersection #5
Sanu Riu Rd./1-580 EB Ramps/
Pimlico Dr.
~ ~ N
MG~D N
' ~ O
`V ~ ~ 46 (41)
~~ ~,ea~zoo>
Ir 169 (148)
280(121)~- t~l-
96 (95)-1
533 (78) ~ m ~ o
O ~ ~
~ ~
Intersection #10
Fallon Rd./I-580 WB Ramps
N ~
~ N
M N ~86 (SE)
°D H 14 (8)
~ 1 ~2, ~23,
m v~i
Intersettion #15
N. Cyn. Pkwv./Airwar Blvd.
00 O I~.~ ~'~
oIoNI ~5(6)
~l~y ~693(1,361)
5(13)~ 111
25 (40) ~ ~ o ~
M ~C
~ t~1 ~
~ A
m N
N ~
p %' '••---
GENTRALPItWY $ 3 ~ ~' ~
a 3 ~, ,. 6
~ ' o
~ `~d~ ~ ~~ Ni ~ ~' ~3 •- ~
a av~., -•.
a 3 y ~ 3''-- ,8 ~'•. ~
ro 's ~ ~ ~Z ~,..1.-".• 1O ,`'..• d~
8 °~-"--'------•-
4 ~i.._ . . ~ ° '--
LEGEND
• Existing Study Intersection
O Future Study Intersection
XX AM Peak HourVolume
(XX) PM Peak HourVolume
•---- Future Roadway
* Right turn volumes don't go through intersection
Grafton
Plaza
N O R T H
Not to Scale
- Kmr nnwK no ~
AIRWAY BIVD
W JACK LONOON 8LV0
157-001 T117 - 6/1/09 - MP
a~~ ~~~
City of Dublin - Grafton PlazaTraftic Study Exhibit
AM Peal< Hour ProjectTrip Distribution 3
° 1~
ENTRALPKWY
y
~
~
~~O ........
..........
~ ~ ...................
°¢ 'd o
~ P
O
~O\O
~ Z
~ ~ ~ N \O
^^ry~
5% ~
~UBLiN BIVD. {- a ~ o ~
r.. x ,
10% H 2 % ~'''•••.. `,
-
P~
~
~ -........
°z
~`
RO
4%
~
11 %
.: ~ •-- ~ ~ 43°/a
~
o
19 /o
ai
~ ~
MUCO oR 30%
G rafton
Q P° Plaza
o
w $o'Q
~ h
P~~(Pa
5
e e
~1 ~
~
(J ~0 ~ W JACK LONDON BLVD.
a
a
O
¢
a
~
LEGEND _`
0 o
x x To/from area served by several streets N O R T H
Not co 5cale
X Tolfrom nearby development parceis
Xy/o
~~t.C~ l~~
City of Dublin - Grafton PlazaTraffic Study Exhibit
PM Peal< Hour ProjectTrip Distribution 4
~11~
T
~~ ...........
....................
CENTRFLPKWY in
C Z =
~ ~p
~
~O\o
_
`0
~ ~
~ N
~ _
1
^~j .
~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
~O y ;
~-
DUBLIN BLVO.
O
17/o
N
~ "•. '
~'•..........."
~
Pw
N ~
O°/ 4%
~ ~
~R~ O
2~ Q
~
2f0% 24%
8~~0 PIMLICODR ~ ZS~IO
G rafton
~
a
~o
Plaza
i o-C`P
~ g~~o
,a~P e • I ~
'n ~
~
~I
90 W.JACKLONDONBLVD.
0
~
~
Q
~
LEGEND _
X K Tolfrom area served by several streeu N O R T H
Not co Scale
x~ To/from nearby development parcels
X°/a
~
157-001 T117 - 6/1/09 - RH
~ -~~~~ y~
City of Dublin - Grafton Plaza Traffic Study
Existing + ProjectTurning MovementVolumes
Exhibit
5
Intersection #I
Dublin Blvd./DouRhertr Rd.
~Nv
n ? ° 1L 163 (419)
~I ~I I" ~ 308 (730)
-C+y ~216(334)
27 (87)~I ~ t ~
224 (865)--
285 (528)~ N c`DC ~
Na ~~
N N p
~
Intersettion #6
Dublin Blvd./Brannigan St.
~
C --~ N
~o~w 1L33(51)
°'i~j ~ H46')(694)
J1~ r1
30(113)~I ~t~
426 (475)~ l.
51 (73)~ ic ~~
.- o
a
Intersxtion #I I
EI Charro RdJI-580 EB
~
^N
(p v
~.. ~
~~
1 ~,
77 (10)~/ * ~
0 (0)~ ~
71 (20)~ ~~
mm
I~ N
Intersection #16
Airway Blvd.llsabelAve.
I~ .-.
/D ~
"1~ N R_4~4 ~~26~
Y i ~ ~--16~20~)
r63 )
2 (12)~ -~ I I
76(79)---
365 (638) ~ ~ N a
rnm<c
`~v~
~DUBL~IN~_ BLVD~-
1~~ R
Intersection #2
Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr.
0
~'1 R CD
~ ~~
o c~v u> R_40 (24)
cOI "' I`~ ~--455 (653)
1~ 1 Y r-,~8,223>
42 (239) ~II ~ ~ ~
224 (1,143)--
116(488)~ o v °o_
IM~~
Intersection #7
Dublin Blvd./Grafton Sc
M
O~~ R_~~7~
~-371 (
~1~ ~29z~
5 (35) ~I !~ * j~
319 (313)---- ! !
150(152)~ mN~
-rno
~
fntersection #12
Dublin Blvd./E. ProjectAccess
~--603 (701)
135 (281)-- j~
197 (77)~- ~
~
~
~
N
In~ersection #I7
Airway Blvd./Kitty Hawk Rd./
I-580 EB Ramps
.
n c7
~`.~
ro
~ o o> ~635 (377)
~ y ~ ~-71 (480)
~4 (23)
441 (310) _7I ~ f ~
118 (52)-~ !
290 (308) ~ ~ ~ °
~.~
o co
~o
~
C
~.~-'" __"• I
~ "~..._____.~' ~
~O
_ 2
r ~
O
-r•-•- r
. . '•- ~
K
9 ~
, ~
, .• , q~~
•. ~
--'-'-' •-._.
--'---'-'----
10 ' o ,_
.-. CO
`..m..
M r`~i ~81 (56)
N" ~,a~o~
,~ 1 ~z, ~8,
on
Intersection #15
N. Cyn. Pkwy./Airwar Blvd.
ovo ~3~~~
oIoI<Iv ~5(6)
Il i L ~693 (1,365)
5 (13)~ ~ ~ j~
25 (40)-Y ~ ~ o
~n ~-n
'- ~ co
GD O
~ M
M ~
~~a Grafton ~
Plaza ,_.....~ -------••----•----
~'~ 13
_ o
N O R T H ~
Not to Scale w~~ck~oNOONa~w
intersection
LEGEND
• Existing $tudy Intersection
O Future Study Intersection
XX AM Peak HourVolume
(XX)PM Peak HourVolume
----- Future Roadway
* Right turn volumes don't g
IG9 l111~ T~~7 ci~inn •~n
Incersection #3
Dublin Blvd./Tassajara Rd.
(D c~0 .-.
O v~
v~ c~v o ~ 15 (46)
tO °J I"' F139 (282)
~ ~ L ~437 (475)
64 (384)~I ~ ? ~
95(323)---
116(585)~- ~oo°~
N r~7 M
Intersxtion #8
Dublin Blvd./Keegan St.
N
N
.r... ^
`~~ ~3(1)
~ ~ f--52 (83)
205(503)~~
84 (155) ~;
Intersection #4 Intersettion #5
Tassajara Rd./1-580 WB Ramps Santa Ria Rd./I•580 EB Ramps/
~ Pimlico Dr.
~ N
~ ~ ~ m ~
l~ OD t")
~
~
c0 In
^ ~
~
1
~.247 (409) .
.. ~ .
_.
~ ~ ~
• Ir435 (440) ~ j 46 (41)
~ 183 (203)
~ Ir 169 (148)
° 441 (171)~
96
95
~ t~~
,~
,~ (
)
533 (78) ~1 m ~ o
~O W ~...
n ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
Intersection #9 Incersection #10
Dublin Blvd./Fallon Rd. Fallon Rd /~-580 WB Ram~=
~ O
~.. d
N N
,~ 1
10 (32) ~1
150 (110)~
~~
Intersection #13 Interseccion #14
London Blvd./EI Charro Rd. Jack London Blvd./Isabel Ave.
N .-.
.-.1~ ~
•.• N
%N r~
`° v `° 1L392 (188)
~ ~ ~ ~--29 (6)
r
Future Signalized 204 (1~4)
Intersection 6 (7) ~I
6 (7)---- ~ * 7~
,.., I I
10(10)~ `On~
~ ~. ~..
m ~
n
Intersection # I 8
Blvd./I-580 WB Ram
n ~n
~ ^
`° ~ ~ 257 (291)
v M ~ ~ (.~ 1
~ j 1rt35~(205)
11
O N
~ f~D
~~
~ N
~ Q1
~' °T~„ ,, ; ~a~.~
~
City of Dublin - Grafton Plaza TrafFic Study Exhibit
ShortTerm Cumulative 20 I 5 Lane Configurations and Traff'ic Controls 6
Intersection #I Inxersection #2
Dublin 81vd./Dougherq Rd. Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr,
~~ ~ _
1
,~11
~ '~'~'~1?t~'~' ~ '~'~'~tt~'~'
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
Overtap~ Overlap~
Intersettion #6 Incersection #7
Dublin Blvd./Brannigan St. Dublin Blvd./Grafton St.
R-- ~--
~-- 'H
~ ~--
~y ~ ~y ~
~ '~'~ t ~' ~ '~'~ t ~'
~ ~
Tr ~
~
Intersection #II Intersection #12
EI Charro Rd./I-580 EB Ramps Dublin Blvd./E. ProjectAcces
~•
~
~
~rT ~~:
~ T~ ~ ~
~ ~
IL
Intersection #16 Intersection #17
Airway BIvdJlsabelAve. Airway 81vd./Kitty Hawk Rd./
I-580 EB Ram s
~Overlap ~~ ~Overlap
,~ 111 ~~, ~ 'r
~ '~'~t11~' ~ '~?t~
Overlap~ ~ ~
~ ~
~UtlLIN
CENRtALPMNY.
_
N O R T H
LEGEND Not to Sca~e
• Existing Study Intersection
~ Traffic Signal
~ $top Sign
In
Dublin
Intersection #4 Intersection #5
Rd. Tassajara Rd./1-580 WB Ramps Santa Riu Rd.ll-580 EB Ramps/
~ Pimlico Dr.
~~-~1~~ , ~111~ ~
tt ~' ' -=-
~
m
LL
~
I
Intersection #9 Intersection #10
Dublin Blvd./Fallon Rd. Fallon Rd./1-580WB Ramps
,~ 11
~ '~'~?
~
Intersection #14 Intersxtion #15
Jack London Blvd.llsabel Ave. N. Cyn. Pkwy./Airway Blvd.
n ~Overlap
m
t ~.-
i ~'-
~lul~~ ~
Intersection #8
Dublin Blvd./Keegan St
~
~--
~
~--
~~ ~
~ ~~~
~
-~
~
~
Intersection #13
s Jack London Blvd./EI Charro Rd.
I ~Overlap
-~
~
~~
Intersection # I S
~ BlvdJl-580 WB
~
~
Overlap ~
~
---•.
Y "-•------°•.
~o
s
~
¢
-.~~ i
9 •. i 2
.~ ~ ~
a4~ N.C
•" ' """'""""'"-•
10 ~ .... 5 18
~,
11 17
Grafton
Plaza
~ '
;i
~'
~~
Ji
NL JAGK LONOON
~IRWAY
157-001 T117 - 1112/09 - RH
~~~ ~~~
City of Dublin - Grafton PlazaTraffic Study
Short-Term (Year 20I5) CumufativeTurning MovementVolumes
Intersettion #18
Airway BlvdJl-580 WB Ramps
rnm
m '-
N ~
~ ~ 1L463 (435)
~~ ~-12(1)
,~ 1 r-,so ~zz,>
Intersection #I
Dublin B1vd./DouAherty Rd.
Intenection #2
Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr.
rn~
O N V~
~ v <~~
` rn ~ R_ 8~ ~4a~
I" I`~ f--286 (294)
1~ 1 51 r---, 48 (,, 9,
64 (204) ~I ~ * ~
143 (568)--- ,~! ...
84 (239)'~ N ~ ~
C1 l[1 O
~~~
Intersection #3 Intersection #4
Dublin Blvd./Tassajara Rd. Tassajara Rd.ll-580WB Ramp
rn
~
~~
~ ~ ~
~
~ ~
W
~ `2 cn ~70 (158) ,~j ~
II I°i
~!'Y ~1 ~-285 (180)
~355 (735) °- o
~ ~ ~476 (519)
~1,262 (1,4(
7(110)~
76 (484)~ ~*~
:.. ~
61(269)~ a o M ^
a o
h
I~ .r.., I~
ry
~ ro
v<D
~
~ p~W
N
Intersection #8 Intersection #9
Dublin Blvd./Keegan St. Dublin Blvd./Fallon Rd.
~orn
m v N `~
~ ~f
o v ~ 1L48 (72) "o
~ 1 ~ ~-515 (703) ~ ~
r-5 ~,6> ,~ y
30(276)~I 51 (253)~I ~~
z471($99>~
~ ) `~^° tO ~
~~~. 278 (1,239)~ i: ~
m ~n
° °
~~~ -
rn~
~"
~
v
Intersection #13 Intersection #14
c London Blvd./El Charro Rd. Jack London Blvd.llsabel Ave.
N ~1n ~
~ ~ ~
N N ? ~ ~ v
N N M ~334 (375) Q ~ ~ ~400 (237)
~ 1~ ~-209 278)
r-- °' N
~ 1~ t---292 (249)
, 59 c8,> , ~ 195 (194)
125(216).~I ~t~ 181(211)~ ~t~
151 (258)-- ^~ m 95 (96)-~ ;~ a ^
49(1)~ :~.N°v 157(209)~ :~.°'~
t0 e- W ~
O
~
n
N .
..
N~N
Intersection #5
Santa Riw Rd./I-580 EB Ramps/
'N
~ v~
o ~ ~ ~62(184)
II I`~ ~--368 (795
~f i S1 ~151 (464
38 (50) ~I ~ t ~
509 (569)-~ ,-..-..~
8'I 6 (960) ~- ~ o c`~o
N ~~
O ~
~ ~ N
~
Intersection #6
Dublin Blvd./Branni¢an St.
NcPp N
Y7 ~ .- ~ 39 ~28~
~I ~I Im ~-598 (973)
~f i y ~ 143 (189)
44 (124) _71) ~ ~ ~
597 (891) -~
175 (397) ~ vo m
I^~~
Incersettion #I I
EI Charro Rd.ll-580 EB
~
~~
~ ~
m v
o^
~•
423 (235)~1 Z ~
658 (943)-y ~ o
CS
~ N
O
Intersection #Ib
Airway Blvd./IsabelAve.
n
m~
~~
~ N
~~o rn R..492 (27'
<o ~ °' F 197 (99'
~ r-69 css,
3(13)~I ~?~
102(112)~ oco~
404 (679)~ ~v~-
NN~
~D O
~ Y
BlVO
Incersection #7
Dublin Blvd./Grafton St
~ ~m
N V
N „"N ~LS (1
ICiY ~5(8
61 (114).~I ~ f j~
675 (1,128)-- ! ~
5(86)~ va0i~v
"~~
~
Intersection #12
Dublin Blvd./ProjettAccess
705 (1,212)
~--660 (1,070)
Intersection #17
Airway Blvd./Kitty Hawk Rd./
I-580 EB Ramps
~a
N N ~-.
t~] 1~ r
~~
v o ~ 1C_470 (408)
~ i ~' F59 (373)
r'g (1g)
618 (286)~I ?
225.(87) ~ ~ N ~
378 (368)~ ~~,co
~ O
f~ N
~
N tp
~~
~-I~
Exhibit
7
~
f~ ."... t~D
v N .~,..
m m L 226 (429)
~ +~ ~-56 (107)
~r-13 25)
873 (551).~I ? i-
301 (192)~ c~~nn
95 (85)~ ~ v~i =
~ ~
M ~
O N
Intersection #10
Fallon Rd./I-SSOWB Ramps
~
~
o~
~Ol
N
~ ~890 (1,437)
~ i r2 cz>
I m ~°n
Incersection #15
N. Cyn. Pkwv./Airwav Blvd.
~° R_3(1)
~ '- ~-- 253 (456)
~ ~ Ir882 (1,305)
354(383)~
274(208)~ ~ ~ ~
N h ~
O O
f~0 ~
"""•..,_.."'_"•. I
~O
2
.~ i
K
.~ ~
.~ ~ `
'' °ai a
•,.."~"'•"_"".•, ~
. ~ S
o a te ~ 11 ~~ Kmv~uwicno.
~ ~ ~Qa GraRon
~ P laza "'""'"" °`~°
LEGEND _ _~ ¢;13
• Existin Stud Intersection N O R T H p¢¢¢5~
g y Not to Stale u; W JACKLONpONBLV~.
XX AM Peak HourVolume ~;
(XX)PM Peak HourVolume . ~
---- Future Roadway
* Right turn volumes don't go through intersection
~~-~ r~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~.:_ d.,,C~
City of Dublin - Grafton PlazaTraffic Study Exhibit
Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative + ProjectTurning MovementVolumes $
Intersection #I
Dublin Blvd./DouQhertr Rd.
Intersection #2
Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr.
N N 1~
~ `~
~ m m ~88 (40)
I" I~' f-296 (325)
~l~y r150(119)
64 (215)~I ~ ~ ~
179 (597)-~ .-.1.~
84 (239) ~ N ~ ~o
M~~
r~ ~o ~"
Intersection #7
Dublin Blvd./Grafton St.
~ V OI
"" N f`')
NvN R_5~~~~
I h-850 (973)
y 1 ~ ~~94 (3~9,
61(114)~I ~~~
760 (1,258)-i .~.-..~.
150(134)~ a ~ W
o ~n
N ^
Intersection #12
Dublin Blvd./ProjectAccess
Intersection #3
Dublin BIvd.ITassajara Rd.
0
~~
~ ~ O
N
~ ~? m ~~3 ~~92~
°' ~-298 ~2~~~
~ ~ 4 ~451 (932)
7 (60) ~ ~ t ~
128 (554)--- .-..-..-.
61 (280)'~ v ~ ~
n ~.a
N~m
~
Intersection #8
Dublin BIvd./KeeQan St.
Intersection #4
~assajara Rd./I-580WB Ram~
g~
" n
~ r
o^
~ T R_507 (522)
_, ~c-1,262 (1,:
.~
~°o
~
~~
O
V
Intersection #9
Dublin Blvd./Fallon Rd.
o °.'
.N.. N
0
~ ~
~1
Intersection #5
Sanu Riu Rd./1~580 EB Ramps/
O.r..f0
o ~ e 1L63 (184)
II `I~ ~--373 (826)
~f + y ~155 (464)
38 (49)~ ~ t ~
520 (575)~
818(961)~ ~om
O vN
n~~n
~
Intersection #6
Dublin Blvd./Brannigan St.
n C m
v ~ ~
v~ ~ N ~50 (44)
"' ~I I`n ~--710 (1,235)
~+y ~143(189)
44(124)~ ~~~
806 (1,052)---
175 (397)~ ~N ~
~~
O ~'
Incersection #I I
EI Charro Rd./1-580 EB Ramps
~
:-. °v
W .r..
~~
o~
N ~
423 (235)~
658 (943)-y
I O ~v
Intersettion #16
Airway Blvd./IsabelAve.
n
~ n
~ ~
~- N
m ~ rn 1L492 (282)
n ~ °' ~--204 (101)
~ j ~72 (66)
3(14)~I ~?~
107(119)-~ c~iui
404 (682)~ "rn,°-'
aDN~
~D O
fD C
WtlLIN BLVO
~ s
~ € ~
~--949 (1,299)
705 (1,255)~ ~
88 (197)~ ,..,
~
n
~
N
Intersection # 17
Airwav Blvd./Kittv Hawk Rd./
N ~
(`~ ~ .-.
~Ca,
,N ° ~ ~470 (410)
`VfO' ~--58 (374)
l~~ ~q~~g~
629 (289)~ ~'
225 (79) -~ ~ N o
381 (371)--y "~~
O O
~ ~
m
N .~.. f0
~ m N.
° o`~i, ~ L 226 (489)
"+ ~ R.._ 80 (122)
~c-13 26)
975 (584)~I ? ~~-
301 (194)--- ~ ~ ^
95 (13)'~1 ~ ~"
~~
Intersection # I 0
Fallon Rd.ll-580 WB RamF
~
c~
. ~
m
O ~N..
~-
,~ m ~~,~89 ~~,
°' "- ~--- 2 (2)
~ ~ 1~305 (34)
78 (328) ~II ~ ~
374(1,444)~ ~~
I~~
~ N
O
Interseccion #14
ick London Blvd./Isabel Ave.
m
N ~ O
~ ~~
m v~ R_4~0 ~24~~
~ o~i c°~ ~297 (250)
~~~ 1~795(197)
191 (216)~I ~ f ~
111 (105)-f ~ ~ o
158 (212)~ C°'v
o :
N N
~
rn u~
O N
Intersection #15
N. Cyn. Pkwy./Airway Blvd.
.- O ~.~ ~~ ~
o ~ ~-- 256 (462)
~ ~ Ir'694(1,307)
360(363)~
280(215)~ .,~ ~
~~~
o u~
~ m
..,_ I
~ ~ .. ~~..---------- --- S
'' b'O o 5 ~ 11 17 ~rn Hnvnc ao
6
po W ~~
~'° _ ~~ Grafton
~ Plaza - A~p~yB~~~
~'~ i13
LEGEND _ o;
N O RT H "g~
• Existing Study Intersection Not t0 ScdIE u~ w~ecK~oaooNawo
XX AM Peak HourVolume ~;
(XX)PM Peak HourVolume '
----- Future Roadway
* Right turn volumes don't o throu h intersection
Of O O~
~ ~~...N..
~ e ~ R_48 (72)
`~ ~ " ~-793 (9:
~ 1 ~, ~-5 ~,6,
39 (289)...~I '~ T ~'
340 (1,159)-i ~ ~ d
483(114)~ vvv
~~~
M ~
Intersection #13
ck London Blvd./EI Charro Rd.
V ~ (`~')
~~d.
~n co o ~341 (407)
N N r°'i f-2O9 (Z8O)
~+~ I~60(81)
129 (242) ~II ~ t ~
151 (255)-- m m m
~~~
N
Intersection #I B
~ Blvd./I-580WB Ramps
ui co
~ ~
~ ~ It_463 (432)
~ d' ~--12 (1)
~ 1 .r,so cz,9>
r ~
~ ~
~ ti
157-001 T117 - 1112/09 - RH
~79~~l~
,
City of Dublin - Grafton PlazaTra~c Study Exhibit
Short-Term (Year 2015) Cumulative +Alt. I ProjectTurning MovementVolumes 9
Intersettion #I
Dublin Blvd.lDougherty Rd.
~
rn~v
O v7
o ~ e ~63(183)
I In' ~-371 (822)
~C ~ y ~154 (458)
38 (50).~I ~ t ~
516 (572)-~ ...-.~
816(961)~ ~o~
O vN
~ m ~
~
Intersectian #6
Dublin Blvd./Brannigan St.
~~~
~n ~ cc ~46 (43)
"' ~ ~ ~-662 (1,118)
~ ~ ~ ~ 143 (189)
44(124)~ ~t~
744 (955)~ .-..~..-.
175(397)~ vN ~
n "
O ~ M
In~ersection #I I
EI Charro Rd.ll-580 EB Ramps
rn
~
. ~
~ ~.
~o
m °'
Q N
~i
484 (235)~ Z
663(943)~ ~ g
rn~
~.fh
O N
Intersection #16
Airway Blvd./IsabelAve.
~
~^
~m
~- N
co i. rn 1L492 (281)
<o n .°-' ~202 (100)
~ j ~72 (66)
3(14)~I ~?jr
105(115)--- ~vMv
404(6B1)~ ~a~
co ~n n
~<
Intersection #2
Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr.
.~- I~A N
~v~
~ rn o ~ 88 (40)
^'" I`~ F293 (307)
/~ 1 5~ ~,49 („9>
64 (210) ~I ~ 1 ~
167 (560)---- .-.,-..-.
84(239)~ N ~ ~
MN~
th~~
Intersection #7
Dublin Blvd./Grafton Sc
~~
vm~
m
Non ~5(17)
II I`~ t--650 (943)
~C ~Y y ~'215 (180)
67 (114)~I ~ ~ ~
729 (1,099)-~ ~.~...
114(115)~- v~°nu`~'-,
~ `-
O O fD
~
Incersection #12
Dublin Blvd.lProjectAccess
~ ~ N
mc~~48
~' f-71:
,~ 1 ~ .~--5 c
33 (283) ~I ~ 1 ~
269(1,03D)~ ~~--
471 (99) ~ N N ~
h ~ N
C7 "
Intersection #13
: London Blvd./EI Charro Rd.
vv~
:~.~~
~ u~ ~ ~338 (391)
N N ch ~-ZO9 (Z79)
~-asa~i,~ss~ ~+~ ~so(a~)
705 (1,212)~ ~
131 (39)~ ~
Intersettion #3
Dublin Blvd./Tassajara Rd.
h
~
.~.. f~
r ~~
v ~ cn R_72 (175)
I °I' 4-294 (196)
~C ~ y ~427 (834)
7 (85)~I ~ ~ j~
98 (686)--~ -..~.!
61(275)~ v ~ ~
n ~o
N~~
~
Intersection #8
Dublin Blvd./Keegan Sc.
Intersettion #4
~ajare Rd./I-580W6 Ram~
n
~ ^
M
o~
~ ~506 (508)
~~ ~1.262(1,3
~
~i °
~~
N ~
M
Intersection #9
Dublin Blvd./Fallon Rd.
Intersection #5
Sana Riu RdJI•580 EB Ramps/
Pimlico Dr.
^O^
N ~ ~
o ~ ~ ~226 (459)
\ ~ i~ R-59 (115)
sao~esa~~ T ~,-
301 (193)---- v a ~
95 (49) ~ fD ~ N
OfO~
C W
Intersection #10
Fallon Rd./l•580 WB Ramps
~
~
~~
.~.. tfl
rn~
° R_928 (1,531)
~ j ~2 (2)
OUBUN BLVO
~ g
~
o _
128 (229) ~I ~ ? ~
151 (256)-- ~ N ~
N 49 (39) ~ 'A.N °`'..
N "•-
~ ~ ~ m
N
Intersection #17 Incersection #18
Airway Blvd./Kitty Hawk Rd./ Airway Blvd./I-580 WB Ram~
I-580 EB Ram s
o ~n
M rn o .-
~o,-. ~m
o ~ °m.~' ~ a lt_463 (463)
N N m ~470 (47O) C~n F_ ~~L ~~ Z~
~ j ~ ~ 58 (58) ~,, ~-180 (160)
4 (4)
625 (269)~I ~ 1~
225 (225) ~ rn co ~o a, ,p
380 (380) ~ N c ~o ~ ~
~ ~
~
PMNY
O ~
.n~- 1~
~a ~ ~~ Grafton
~ Plaza
I.EGEND _ ~
• Existin Stud Intersection N O R T H
g Y Not to Scale
XX AM Peak HourVolume
(XX) PM Peak HourVolume
---- Future Roadway
* Right turn volumes don't go through intersettion
~rn
~~
O p
o~
69 (285)
358 (1,377)
I N .-
^ ~
Intersection #14
ick London Blvd./Isabel Ave.
m
rnP7c°~o
~~~
i. o us R_400 (238)
~ rn c°~ t--296 (249)
~ ~ ~ ~195(195)
187 (214)~f ~ t ~!
105(101)-• ~~~
158 (2~~~~~ ~Q1.N*..
o~
N 0 N
m
I ' ~
Intersection #15
N. Cyn. Pkwy.lAirway Blvd.
~ ~3 (1)
~ ~--255 (459)
~ ~690 (1,306)
358(383)~ ?
278 (212) ~ a J.o
c°v~u~~
O <
f~D ~
L
~ "_""
.
~. , ~;
.., ~
-•--•-------• ~
~- ~
~
0~13
c~~
17 KfRYHAWKRD-
tirrt~wv ewo.
IONDON BLVO
~
157-001 T117 - 11/2/09 - MP
~,~ ~ ~~
~
City of Dublin - Grafton PlazaTraffic Study Exhibit
LongTerm Cumulative 2030 Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls ~ Q
Intersection #I
Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Rd. Intersection #2
Dublin BIvd.IHacienda Dr. Incersxcion #3
Dublin Blvd./Tassajara Rd. Intersection #4
Tassajara Rd.ll-580 W6 Ramps Interseccion #5
Santa Rita Rd./I-580 EB Rampsl
~ Pimlico Dr.
~
~
~
~ ~
~
,~~111
R-- ~
~
~
~.111~,~, ~
~
~111~,~
~
~1111~,~
~
~~, ~
~ 111
114~
~o~e~eP
o Dr
~
~~~~I ~
~ *
~~~ I I I ~
~
~~~~~
~ .
I I I ~
"~ -- -- a
t 1 Ny -~
--
~ ~ ~ o i r Free--y
Overlap ~ Overlap~
~ Overlap~
~
Intersection #b Intersettion #7 Intersection #8 Intersettion #9 Intersettion #10
Dublin Blvd./Brannigan St. Dublin Blvd./Grafton Sc Dublin Blvd./Keegan St Dublin Blvd./Fallon Rd. Fallon Rd./I-580 WB Ramps
~ $
~ : ~ ~
~ ~111 ~
~ ~ ~- ,~
~1 ~, ~ ~1~ ~ ~1 ~, ~ ,~1111~,~ ~ ~
'~1~ ~ '~'~'~~ ~ '~'~1~ ~ '~'~'~tttt~'~' ttt
~
-'
~ ~ -'
~ ttt~'
~ ~
'~ Overlap~ ~
Intersection #I I Intersection #12 Incersxtion #13 Interseccio~ #14 Intersxtion #15
EI Charro Rd./I-580 EB Ramps Dublin Blvd./E. ProjeccAccess Jack London Blvd./EI Charro Rd. Jack London Blvd./Isabel Ave. N. Cyn. Pkwy.lAirway Blvd.
m
~~~
~Overlap
~
~Overlap
~
~ ~
> ~ F
1 ~ ~ 11 ~, ~,~, ~ ,~ 111 ~~, ~ ~11~ ~
~
tr
~
~ ~
~ !
I~~~~
~
~~~~~~~
~ !
I~ I'~
-~ OJ
TT~~r
~1
-~ ~,
~ ~
~ ~ ~
Overlap ~
LL
~ ~ -- Overlap ~ o ~
~ ~
Intersection#Ib Intersettion#17 Intersection#18
Airway Blvd./IsabelAve. Airway Blvd./Kitry Hawk Rd./ Airway Blvd./1-580WB Ramps
I-580 EB Ram s
R- Overlap
11 ~ ~ Overlap ~
~
.~111 ~,~, % ~ ,~ 111 ~
'~'~1??~' ; ~t1"
~ tt~'
Overlap~ Ove~lap~ ~
LL .
p
= ~
CENTFALPMNY. ~ bi
~ `~ ~~p2
~
S
J
O W6lIN BLVD
Z 6~ ~ 3 3
52 ~~NN~ U Zq
O y µN'1: '+ 9 o ~
' j o ¢
~ a N ,s ~'I~ 8 ¢ ~ N.GM/YONSPMN~'
~ -6'
a ~ 4
Y~~ ~~
~~RO. ~ ~ 5 78
~
pQ
~' GIMLICO DR.
p S r ~
~ ~ o Grakon
w
9 p
"
17 KITTVXAWKRD
RINNMY BLV~
~ Plaza 13 ,s
_
LEGEND N O R T H ~
~ ~
~
Not to Scale
• Existing Study Intersection. ~
~ ~
W JACNLONOONBLVD
~ Traffic Signal t4
~.- Stop Sign
-~- Recommended Improvement
157-001 T117 - 6I1/09 - MP
°~ ~ ~o~-~{.?
~
City of Dublin - Grafton PlazaTraffic Study
Long-Term (Year 2030) Cumulative Turni
MovementVolumes
Exhibit
II
Intersection #I
Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Rd.
m Intersection #2
Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr. Intersection #3
Dublin BIvdJTassajara Rd. Intersection #4
Tassajara Rd./I-580 WB Ramps Intersettio~ #5
Sana Riu Rd.ll-580 EB Ramps/
~
~ ~ rn ~ Pimlico Dr.
m cv~~
~ ~,~~ too
~ a
^`-
in
$ ~
~
m o~n°.
`D
~
~ ~
' -
N .~
a
~n ~11 (27)
N
N
N
~ ~ ~ ~ 1C_324 (320)
~' ~-98
N ~ R_82 (336)
~
-
~1
443 (494) o a
-`~ ~895
629 =~
I
I
I
1,083 (1,114)
-C + y ~318 (792) 1 (818)
I I
~ ~Y ~1 r 593 (200) ,
I
~ ~ ~1 ~307 (741) (
)
~,, ~c---653 (923) N N
52 (83) ~I ~ 1 ~
848 (B68)~
64 (264) ~I ~ * ~
359 (726)-~ !
30 (279) ~ ~ * ~
376 (860)-~ ~ +~ i 548 (549)
~r-63 62)
904(1
038)~ r~i°'~ 272(451)~ u`~imrn 65(1,006)~ N~n ^N 675(533)_71 ?~
,
vov vmv ~ ~ ~N 127(189)~ o0
~ ~~
c~ ~,n
m ni rn N=v
'o i. v v"
~ 623 (382)~]1 ~ v
~i M~ v i. m~ 4 0'n ~.co
~rn ~ ~m
Intersection #6
Dublin Blvd./Brannigan St.
Intersxtion #7
Dublin Blvd./Grafton St
Intersxtion #8
Dublin Bl
d
/K
S N
Intersettion #9
Intersec Q>
tion #10
. .
v
eegan
t Dublin Blvd./Fallon Rd. Fallon RdJI-5 80 WB Ramps
~00 ~ N aD ~ ~ ' ON1.
v~ v co
`O
`~
u' 1L57 (485) v o~n IL.78 (302)
N o~~
69 (267)
R c°0
v ~~
~ rn in
I
I I
/f i 5~ ~--1,660 (1,261
~ 161 (102) N t-1,710 1,532
I I ~ )
~l + ~ Ir" 25 (195) N ~n .-
I I I
t + y -
~---1,686 (1,301)
ic- v
^
? ~ ~256 (615)
~... v ~--~,404 991
) ~ ~
N ~
R-630 (1,551)
60 (326)~-
1
312
1
6
~ ~ ~
85 (26)~I ~ ~ j~ ~
105 225 ~
1 ~2 (140) ~j ~ ~ 1[-145 (711)
62
661 ~ ~ 1c-548 (205)
r
,
(
,
72)-f ., 1,409 (1,778)-~ ....~! 900 (1
433)-- ~ (
)~I ~ ~ ~ 1
'
~99~~9~~~
NNv
2~~~~5~~~ ~v~
4~2~2~~~-y ~ ~
~~.^.. 692 1,359 --
( ) ~MO
332 (634)~
~ ^
no~
O~C "o ~
N ~ ~~
OK1~7 v
y
~."_.O o v
~
~~~
tn ~O
N
Incersection #I I
EI Charro RdJI-580 EB Ramps Intersection #I2
Dublin Blvd./Projecx Access Intersettion #13
Jack London Blvd.lEl Charro Rd. Intersection #14
Jack London Blvd./Isabel Ave. Intersxtion #15
N. Cyn. Pkwy./Airway Blvd.
o~ ~
~°°- ^
M
m ~
rn
~~
~~
"
~h~
C~
N ^.
~~~
~ ~2(2)
~
~ j
~-
1
881 (2
098 ~o,~ ~
~1,049 (1,178
n °~ ~ ~658 (874) ~ a m ~518 (363)
c~ a ~900 (771) ~ 786 (1,421)
1
f-6
-
,
,
)
I~ ~ SI 187 (255)
~+ L ~ 175 (364) I
59 (1,166)
759 (588)~I
~ ~
859
1
250
- 1,477 (2,282)--
393 (680)~I
~ t ~
556 (650)___)I
~? ~ 1,704 (1,175)~
~ t ~
809
569
-
(
,
)
y ~ ~ 475 (810)~ a, ~ ~ 296 (287)--- (
)
Y ...v~
N ~ 153 133 ~
( ) `~'O ^
~ cV v N N.-
474 (635) ~ vN ~
~ rn c`'o,
~~ R N t0
I
0 O v(O ~ l~
~ O
NI~ 1
n LL7
~c+DN ~ ~
~pO~ ~ f0
~ O
~
[V
Intersection #16 Intersection #17 Intersection #18
Airway Blvd./IsabelAve. Airway Blvd./Kitcy Hawk Rd./ Airway Blvd./I-580WB Ramps
N I-580 EB Ram s ^
v`°
N ~~° ~°~
N ~ ~
~N o
~530 (620)
v
~ ~ ~o ~115 (479) ~p v
o ~ ~905 (745)
ro
v~ w ~n ~-276 (181) ~ j ~--33 (142) `O G9 ~37 (0)
~ j ~ ~81 (168) ~9 (9) ~ 1 Ir2t3 (255)
5(27)~I ~~~ 997(314)~ ~?~
157 (186)-- ~.- ~
456 (99) ~ r ~
1
487 (772) ~~ ra0i tO 561 (496) ~-~-~ N v w
<c o
N ~ ~(~
~~
tD~
N ~
~ ~N
f~ N
~ qQ
CENTRlLPNWV aq m`
~ O ~~1~
~ o ~
~ ~ ~
WBLW BLV~
~
Z ~¢
~
3 ;
~yyK,~, ~
m ~~NN~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ g o g
'~ ~6 7 .~Z 8
~
$ N.clWVp~rsaiN+~'
p ~ s 4~ 1O ;
~ ~RO. ¢ S 78
~ viMUCO on.
~
i,~ 0 5~ 11 ~~ Krmw~wicao.
P
a
w ~rPp
_ ~ Grafton
~ 5
Plaza AIRWAV BLVD
13 16
LEGEND _ a
• Existing $tudy Intersection N O R T H ~
~
XX AM Peak HourVolume No t to Scale w„~cK~oHOOr+e~w ~g
(XX) PM Peak HourVolume t4
---- Future Roadway
* Right turn volumes don't go through intersection
a~a ~ ~~
City of Dublin - Grafton PlazaTraffic Study
Exhibit
Long-Term (Year 2030) Cumulative + ProjectTurning MovementVolumes ~ 2
Intersection #I
Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Rd. Interseccion #2
Dublin Blvd.lHacienda Dr. Intersection #3
Dublin BIvd.ITassajara Rd. Intersection #4
Tassajara Rd.ll-580 WB Ramps Intersection #5
Santa Riu Rd./l•580 EB Ramps/
Pimlico Dr
Of
-
N N N ~
n aD .
p~
p~~
~.....-.
.~<oN Nn0
~(p N
~~m Ov~
~~v~i
K_111(377) .r....r..
~~ Nf~
a°
~ M--
~n N c
`~ `~
"
R_,24 (32) ~ ch ~
N ao ni ~ 364 (333)
~1,057 (867) N
~ j ~
f-1,501 (599)
~495
986 _ v
~935 (638)
~+ Ir'827 (923) c~
,~ ~
~ ~552 (553)
I
~
~ ~--1,187 (1,146)
804)
~308 ~ ~ ~ ~ 596 (212) )
( ~ 83 62
( )
+
51 (92)~I (
~ t~ 64 (284) ~I
423 (750)-- 1~ 71
I~ I 10 (279) ~I
416 (714)-1
' ~ 1 ~
~ n~
n c~ ~
808 (617)~I ?~
939 (886)---
anm
272(451)~ ~ N cn
u~wo 72 (1,006)
~ ao ~o
~~~ ~n cn
~ 127 189)-~ ro o
(
902 (966)~ v m cn
N07 v~ v •
N.r...r.. v
~ 623 (382)~ rn v
^~a~ f'7 N O ~ W~j ~ l(7 ~f0
~
i(1Ot~
~
~ V 1~~ ^~
~ y ^O
j
~
~
W ^ N
Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Intersection #8 Intersection #9 Intersection #10
Dublin Blvd./Brannigan St. Dublin Blvd./Grahon St. Dublin BIvd.IKeegan St. Dublin Blvd.lFallon Rd. Fallon Rd./1-580 WB Ramps
~
~
^ ~~ t h N N ~~ ~ N
~~~
u~ a n
~
1L68 (489) "O N
v u> r~
~
`~
1C_78 (302) .~..~
o o N
`~
"
' ~
1L558 (267) N c7 v
~~ N
~
R~256 (615) ~ t0
~ v
~ ~
R---685 (1,640)
tO `~II'
~ + y ~1,935 (1,606
~161 (102) I
I
~l i ~ ~-1,783 (1,601)
~314 (424) I
I
~l i ~ 1--2,D4B (1,591)
r"67 (140) m
a
~ ~ ~ ~-1,472 (1,062
1c-145 (717) ~ ~ ~499 (205)
60 (326)~I ~ 1 ~ 105 (26)_7/ ~ 1 ~! 112 (238)~I
1
-~ 87 (721)~I ~ ~ ~! f ~
1,604(1,917)--
`~
° 1,557(1,906)~
~
"~
~ )
1,060(1,89
~- ~~;~
°
° 738(1,437)-~ i~wv
" om
"
199 (79) ~ r
- c
~ v -
165 (324) co r
i
"~ 473 (207) ~
,.
.~ 409 (835) ~- ~ v
i a
_ ^,
~~~ v
Q'" nv~Di~°n m~m vr~
~
rovo ^ o o m,~~
M ~
~
Intersxtion #I I
EI Charro Rd.ll-580 EB Ramps Intersection #I2
Dublin Blvd./ProjectAccess Intersection #13
fack London Blvd./EI Charro Rd. Intersection #14
Jack London Blvd./IsabelAve. Intersection #15
N. Cyn. Pkwy./Airway Blvd.
m
(V ~ M ~ •--•
O>~ ~V ~ (~DN~
~tD C.~..rn
r~ o~
R_ 1,056 (1,210 ~a .~...
~ rn
~ ~ ~
~418 (366) ~_~I ~z~
~
~-789 (1,427)
~ r n m ~ ~--658 (876) v c~ v~ ~--905 (772) ~, ~671 ~~,188)
~ j 1-2,175 (2,327) ~ ~ ~ -r 188 (255) ~ ~ ~ ~ 175 (367)
615 1,491 (1,959)-- ~1 397 (706)~ ~ t ~ 566 (655)~1 ~ t ~ 1,110 (1,175)~ ~ r
576
)~I
765 ( t ~ I
1 9 7 ( 7 7)~
4 7 5 ( 6 0 7)--
~ o m'
3 1 2 ( 2 9 8) ~
c o ~^ n c c )~
815 (
c o ~ n v>
830(1,250)-y cn
N~ n
v
153 (126)~- ~~~
~ oo v
474 (638)~- NN~
vN m N
~ rn m
^
a
rn~ u~Oi N
rNi "r~i
~
~ ~ ~p
a m
~
e{
~O
N n ~ ~OJN ~
~.j ^
Incerseccion #16 Intersection #17 Intersection #18
Airway Blvd./IsabelAve. Airway Blvd./Kitry Hawk Rd./ Airway Blvd./I-580W8 Ramps
rn
I-580 EB Ram s
o
~~
cvi fD
^ ~ ~ o
~ ~ :
~
`v N ~ ~ 530 (623) ~
`
N ~ c~ ~ 115 (481) ~ )
~ ~ ~ 30 (5, 42
3)
3
N ~ j l ~729143) ~ 1 ~-213(253)
16s
~Sa
~ ~ ()
~
~ ? ~
5 008(317)~ '~
1 ~ ~
193)~
162 ,
-• ~~~ c
~ m w m
487 (775) ~ 456 (111)
~r v N
m °'
N ~ ~c~
570 (499) ~
° mv
~~N
~~
N mN
o nao
n~
(O N
&
W ~
LENTRALPKNM ~ '(~
2
(~ p
~
g o~aur+ e~vo
2 ~ 3
o ~
N Nwr. '~ 9
~ r~NN~A o
~
w o
p N i 6 7 ~2 ¢ N.C~NYpNS~~
~ ~ =
O ~
A ~ ~8
o 1O
FRO.
~
~
1S 1H
~.pA PIMUCO OP.
G S ~
'I~ KITfV HAWK RO
~~
'~~ °
(.o Gratton
PO ~
- SN' P RIpWAYBLVO.
~ Ptaza ~6
13
LEGEND
~ i
N ~ ~
• Existing Study Interse ction Not co Scale `".,^°K~°"°°"B~"°
XX AM Peak HourVolume ~ ~a '
(XX) PM Peak HourVolum e
~--- Future Roadway
* Right turn volumes don't go through intersection
157-001 T t 17 - 6/ t/09 - M P
~~ ~ ~~~~~
~
City of Dublin - Grafton Plaza Traffic Study Exhibit
Long-Term (Year 2030) Cumulative +Alt I ProjectTurning MovementVolumes ~ 3
Intersection #I
Dublin Bfvd./Dougherty Rd. Intersection #2
Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr. Intersection #3
Dublin Blvd./Tassajara Rd. Intersettion #4
Tassajara RdJI-580 WB Ramps Intersection #5
Santa Riu Rd./I-580 EB Ramps/
~ ~ "m^ Pimlico Dr.
v Nn~ a~a ~~ o
~
m
.'.. I~ fV
° "' o
`~
~
tO
IL.20 (30) ~'~~
`-'
~ ~ 0
N ~ N
1L339 (327) ~rn~
.r.. O
~ `r ~
~95 (370)
~ ~
~ ~
' 'n
N~
~~
cO
I `
I I
C i 5 f--1,180 (1,130
r317
798 )
~ ~ ~ ~1,058 (843)
r 658 (206) I I
K ~ L ~'-1,563 (543)
~ 395 (873) - •
~ + ~880 (634)
~ 663 (923) N
~
I
1
50 (88)~I
880 (877)~ (
)
~ * ~
!~
67 (264) _7I
398 (738)-1
~ * ~
~....
50 (279) ~
425 (700)--
~ ~ ~
'~
~ I ~ ~ 550 (551)
• r-64 (62)
904 1,002 ~
~ ) o °pt~
v in ~ 325 (451)'~ u`~i `~w'-
~~ 73 (1,006)~- ~
~
~~o rn <v 777 (575)~I ~ ~
~,~ov v oN 128(189)~ ao
"~o ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~" 623 (382}~ m ~
~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~
.^.. N ~ ~
~ ~ .
. ~
r N
Intersettion #6
Dublin Blvd./Brannigan St.
Intersection #7
Dublin Blvd./Grafton St
Intersection #8
Dublin Blvd
/Kee
an Sc
Intersection #9
D
bli
Bl
d ~
Intersection #10
.
g u
n
v
./Fallon Rd. Fallon Rd./I-580WB Ramps
-~
`~ ~
a~n ~ 1L64 (500)
tO
`~
~ co
o .-.
.~- r.~
v ao7o ~ 1L ~ 59 (302)
N N N
N ~
~,~ ~
~69 ~267~
co
~ ~
M~° 0
0
(p ~
~~p
I
I I
F--1,724 (1,401
~( i L r 161 (102)
I ~--1,710 (1,502)
~ + ~ K-205 (315) N N._
I I ~--2,040 (1,393)
~l + ~ ~r'72 140
( ) N N ~203 (615)
~ ,_ a f-1,541 (1.027
~ O ~
~ ~ ~.709 (1,598)
`~
l
c"'452 205
55 (326) ~I ~ * 1~
105 (45) ~I
~ ~ ~
108 (232} ~I
*
136 (711) , ( )
~
1.459 (1,736)--- ~N~ 1,463 (1,768)~ 1,344 (1,626)-- ! (69 ~
67
~?~ ~
199(79)~ ~~m
`c~
cv 109 256 ~
( ) rnntOi~
"
45 (207) ~1 ~O"~
~ ~ p 710(1,398)-1
~ ~~
, ~
~
--~p
~
° 363 735 ~
~ )
~v
iv
o~
o~v ~ in i.
u
'~
0 ~n~r~ ~n
~~~
M ~~
f")
Intersection #I I
EI Charro Rd./I-580 EB Ramps Intersection #12
Dublin Blvd./Project Access Intersection #13
Jack London Blvd
/EI Ch
Rd Intersection #14
k L Incersection #15
.
arro
. Jac
ondon Blvd./Isabel Ave. N. Cyn. Pkwy.JAirway Blvd.
~ N
~-- ~ y
<7 ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ n '
(O ~O
f0 .N... ~
m m
~ 1 ~ ~ N 1L1,054 (1,194)
n w.- ~---658 (875) ~ ° ~ ~418 (365)
~ ~ ~2 (~)
t--788 (1
424)
~--2,175 (2,119) ~ ~ ~ 1c-188 (255) v~v v
--903 772)
~+ L I~175 (366) ,
~ ~667 (1,187)
786 (602)~I ~ ~
802(1,250)~ Q,~
co
• 1,409 (1,838)-~ ]~
131 (39)~ ~
; 396 (693)~I R
I~~
475 (890)~ 563 (653)~ R
I?~ 1,108 (1,175 ?
~-~ ~ ~
81
c
~
`~ ` n ~ ~ ~ 307 (292)---- ~ ~ n 3 (573)~ .1~.
~ N 153 (130) ~ `r ~ v 474 (637) ~1 `N ~ ~ ~ ~
mo ~
~
rn~°o
`D
~
tO
rn
o
Nt~O v
i
•--oDN ~
~,
..,
(ONV ~ c
' O
Interseccion #16
Intersection #17
Intersection #18 D
N
Airway Blvd./IsabelAve. Airway Blvd./Kitty Hawk Rd./ Airway Blvd./I-580WB Ramps
N I-580 EB Ram s
vcc
o~e~ ~
"~~
~
rnC
~ N o ~53D (622) ~°,'~
rn r~ cn `
°~^
o~~905 (744)
c~ N v~i ~-281 (182)
~ j ~ r83 (166) a ~ 1O ~ 115 (460)
~ j ~8 ~9j 43) ~ ~ ~ 37 (0)
~ j ~213 (254)
5(28)~ ~?~
160 (190)~ m ~ N 1,004 (316)~( ~ '' ~
487 (774) ~~ rn7i tD 456 (105) o n av ~^
"'v'~
u 569 (498) ~ ~ m in ~ ~
~ ~ N
~~
N
~
O ~.....
Nl~
~~
~ 9y m
~ CENTRAIPKWY q6 T p ~~~i
~3
~
~ DUBIIN BLVO 3
2 ~ "'
~ ~ r
3 FI ~y~~ N O
n
~
9
~
~ ~ ~ ~ N 1 ~
~ fi
~ rc
~
~ H N. CnNYON3 RNN'
o C
- 4 ~0
"~• ~`rto. 3~s
U
5 18
"S'~ PIMLICA DR.
~
~po Z 5 4c
¢ ~~ 77 KRfVHPWKRD.
NQ
_ ~ ~a
S Grafton
- Plaza AIRNNY 6WD
LEGEN D 13 16
~
N ~
• Existing Study Intersection ~
XX AM Peak HourVolume tvoc co sca~e ~ ~
w'K"~°"°°"B~~o
(XX)PM Peak HourVolume ~
~a
---- Future Roadway
* Right turn volumes don't go through intersection
157-001 T117 - 6/1/09 - MP
~_~ ~~ ~ ,~.~,.,.~:;~
LEVEL OF SERVICE
The description and procedures for calculating capacity and level of service (LOS) are found in
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Highway Capacrry Manual 2000
represents the latest research on capacity and quality of service for transportation facilities.
Quality of service requires quantitative measures to charaaerize operational conditions within a traffic
stream. LOS is a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in
terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and
comfort and convenience.
Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility that has analysis procedures available. Letters
designate each level, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the
worst. Each LOS represents a range of operating conditions and the driver's perception of these
conditions. Safety is not included in the measures that establish service levels.
A general description of service levels for various types of facilities is shown in Table A-I
Table A-I: Level of Service Descriotion
Uninterrupted Flow Interrupted Flow
Facility Type Freeways
Multi-lane Highways
Two-lane Highways
Urban Streeu Signalized Intersections
Unsignalized Intersections
Two-way Stop Control
All-way Stop Control
LOS
A Free-flow Very low delay.
B Stable flow. Presence of other users noticeable. Low delay.
C Stable flow. Comfort and convenience starts to
decline.
Acceptable delay.
~ High-density stable flow. Tolerable delay.
E Unstable flow. Limit of acceptable delay.
F
Sc~urrae Forced or breakdown flow.
Hial,~...,~, r..n..~:.., ~u......_i ~nnn Unacceptable delay
r,..,~~r ,.~,,,~~~, ~~~~
Urban Streets
The term "urban streets" refers to urban arterials and collectors, including those in downtown areas.
Arterial streets are roads that primarily serve longer through trips. However, providing access to
abutting commercial and residential land uses is also an important function of arterials.
Collector streets provide both land access and tra~c circulation within residential, commercial and
industrial areas. Their access function is more important than that of arterials, and unlike arterials their
operation is not always dominated by traffic signals.
Downtown streets are signalized facilities that often resemble arterials. They not only move through
traffic but also provide access to local businesses for passenger cars, transit buses, and trucks.
a~.~ ~~
~
Pedestrian conflicts and lane obstructions created by stopping or standing buses, trucks and parking
vehicles that cause turbulence in the traffic flow are typical of downtown streets.
The speed of vehicles on urban streets is influenced by three main factors, street environment,
interaction among vehicles and traffic control. As a result, these factors also afFect quality of service.
The street environment includes the geometric characteristics of the facility, the character of roadside
activity and adjacent land uses. Thus, the environment reflects the number and width of lanes, type of
median, driveway density, spacing between signalized intersections, existence of parking, level of
pedestrian activity and speed limit.
The interaction among vehicles is determined by traffic density, the proportion of trucks and buses, and
turning movements. This interaction affects the operation of vehicles at intersections and, to a lesser
extent, between signals.
Traffic control (including signals and signs) forces a portion of all vehicles to slow or stop. The delays
and speed changes caused by traffic control devices reduce vehicle speeds, however, such controls are
needed to establish right-of-way.
The average travel speed for through vehicles along an urban street is the determinant of the operating
LOS. The travel speed along a segment, section or entire length of an urban street is dependent on the
running speed between signalized intersections and the amount of control delay incurred at signalized
intersections.
LOS A describes primarily free-flow operations. Vehicles are compfetely unimpeded in their ability to
maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at signalized intersections is minimal.
LOS B describes reasonably unimpeded operations. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is
only slightly restricted, and control delays at signalized intersections are not significant.
LOS C describes stable operations, how:ever, ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock location
may be more restricted than at LOS B. Longer queues, adverse signal coordination, or both may
contribute to lower travel speeds.
LOS D borders on a range in which in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in
delay and decreases in travel speed. LOS D may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate
signal timing, high volumes, or a combination of these factors.
LOS E is characterized by significant delays and lower travel speeds. Such operations are caused by a
combination of adverse progression, high signal density, high volumes, extensive delays at critical
intersections, and inappropriate signal timing.
LOS F is characterized by urban street flow at extremely low speeds. Intersection congestion is likely at
critical signalized locations, with high delays, high volumes, and extensive queuing.
The methodology to determine LOS stratifies urban streets into four classifications. The classifications
are complex, and are related to functional and design categories. Table A-II describes the functional and
design categories, while Table A-III relates these to the urban street classification.
~ ~'- ~'t ~~ ` y~~
Once classified, the urban street is divided into segments for analysis. An urban street segment is a
one-way section of street encompassing a series of blocks or links terminating at a signalized
intersection. Adjacent segmenu of urban streets may be combined to form larger street sections,
provided that the segments have similar demand flows and characteristics.
Levels of service are related to the average travel speed of vehicles along the urban street segment or
section.
Travel times for existing conditions are obtained by field measurements. The maximum-car technique is
used. The vehicle is driven at the posted speed limit unless impeded by actual traffic conditions. In the
maximum-car technique, a safe level of vehicular operation is maintained by observing proper following
distances and by changing speeds at reasonable rates of acceleration and deceleration. The maximum-
car technique provides the best base for measuring traffic performance.
An observer records the travel time and locations and duration of delay. The beginning and ending
points are the centers of intersections. Delays include times waiting in queues at signalized
intersections. The travel speed is determined by dividing the length of the segment by the travel time.
Once the travel speed on the arterial is determined, the LOS is found by comparing the speed to the
criteria in Table A-IV. LOS criteria vary for the different classifications of urban street, reflecting
differences in driver expectations.
Table A-11: Functional and Desi~n CateQOries for Urban Streets
Criterion
Functional Category
Principal Arterial Minor Arterial
Mobility function Very important Important
Access function Very minor Substantial
Points connected Freeways, important activity centers, major
traffic generators
Principal arterials
Predominant trips served Relatively long trips between major points
and through trips entering, leaving, and
passing through city
Trips of moderate length within relatively
smalf geographical areas
Criterion
Design Category
High-Speed Subur6an Intermediate Urbon
Driveway access density Very low density Low density Moderate density High density
Arterial type Multilane divided;
undivided or two-
lane with shoulders Multilane divided:
undivided or two-
lane with
shoulders Multilane divided or
undivided; one way,
n,~,a lane Undivided one
way; two way, two
or more lanes
Parking No No Some Usually
Separate left-turn lanes Yes Yes Usually Some
Signals per mile 0.5 to 2 I to 5 4 to 10 6 to 12
Speed limiu 45 to 55 mph 40 to 45 mph 30 to 40 mph 25 to 35 mph
Pedestrian activity Very little Little Some Usually
Roadside development
.Cnnrrn 1-Ji~.{,~. . r..n . M Low densi
~
.. _I ~nnn Low to medium
density Medium to
moderate density
High density
b~~....~ .,~.ru~~~r inunuui ~vvV
~7 ~~
Table A-III: Urban Street Class based on Function and Design Categories
i
C
D Functional Category
es
gn
ategory Principal Arterial Minor Arterial
High-Speed I Not applicable
Suburban II II
Intertnediate Ii III or IV
Urban III or IV IV
Source: Highway Capacity Manua12000
Table A-IV: Urban Street Levels of Service by Class
Urban Street Closs 1 11 111 IV
Range of Free Flow Speeds (mph) 45 to 55 35 to 45 30 to 35 25 to 35
Typical Free Flow Speed (mph) 50 40 33 30
LOS Average Travel Speed (mph)
A >42 >35 >30 >25
B >34 >28 >24 >19
C >27 >22 >IS >13
D >21 >17 >14 >9
E >16 >13 >10 >7
F 516 <_13 510 57
Source: Highway Capocity Manual 1000
Interrupted Flow
One of the more important elements limiting, and often interrupting the flow of traffic on a highway is
the intersection. Flow on an interrupted facility is usually dominated by points of fixed operation such
as traffic signals, stop and yield signs. These all operate quite differently and have differing impacts on
overall flow.
Signalized Intersections
The capacity of a highway is related primarily to the geometric characteristics of the facility, as well as to
the composition of the traffic stream on the facility. Geometrics are a fixed, or non-varying,
characteristic of a facility.
At the signalized intersection, an additional element is introduced into the concept of capacity: time
allocation. A traffic signal essentially allocates time among conflicting traffic movemenu seeking use of
the same physical space. The way in which time is allocated has a significant impact on the operation of
the intersection and on the capacity of the intersection and its approaches.
LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver
discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and increased travel time. The delay experienced by a
motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, traffic and incidenu. Total delay is the
difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result
during base conditions, i. e., in the absence of traffic control, geometric delay, any incidents, and any
other vehicles. Specifically, LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of average control delay
per vehicle, typically for a 15-minute analysis period. Delay is a complex measure and depends on a
number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the ratio of green time to
cycle length and the volume to capacity ratio for the lane group.
~ 1-t'~
~. ~~
A
For each intersection analyzed the average control delay per vehicle per approach is determined for the
peak hour. A weighted average of control delay per vehicle is then determined for the intersection. A
LOS designation is given to the control delay to better describe the level of operation. A description of
levels of service for signalized intersections can be found in Table A-V
Table A-V: Description of Level of Service for Signalized Intersections
LOS Description
Very low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. Progression is extremely favorable, and most
A vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may tend to
contribute to low delay values.
B Control delay greater than I 0 and up to 20 seconds per vehicle. There is good progression or short cycle
lengths or both. More vehicles stop causing higher levels of delay.
Control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. Higher delays are caused by fair
C progression or longer cycle lengths or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. Cycle failure
occurs when a given green phase doe not serve queued vehicles, and overflow occurs. The number of
vehicles stopping is significant, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
Control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestions becomes
p more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle
lengths, or high volumes. Many vehicles stop, the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual
cycle failures are noticeable.
Control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds per vehicle. The limit of acceptable delay. High
E delays usually indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volumes. Individual cycle failures are
frequent.
Control delay in excess of SO seconds per vehicle. Unacceptable to most drivers. Oversaturation, arrival
F flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and
l... long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to higher delay.
...~~. u:_L..._.. r_~ __~~_ ~~ _ , ~..n..
+....~ ..~. ~ ~~s~~wuy ~,uYvuty inunua~ tvVV
The use of control delay, which may also be referred to as signal delay, was introduced in the 1997
update to the Highwoy Copaciry Manual, and represents a departure from previous updates. In the third
edition, published in 1985 and the I 994 update to the third edition, delay only included stopped delay.
Thus, the LOS criteria listed in Table A-V differs from earlier criteria.
Unsignalized Intersections
The current procedures on unsignalized intersections were first introduced in the I 997 update to the
Highway Copacity Manual and represent a revision of the methodology published in the 1994 update to
the I 985 Highway Copocity Manual. The revised procedures use control delay as a measure of
effectiveness to determine LOS. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption,
and increased travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that
relate to control, traffic and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually
experienced and the reference travel time that would result during base conditions, i. e., in the absence
of tra~c control, geometric delay, any incidents, and any other vehicles. Control delay is the increased
time of travel for a vehicle approaching and passing through an unsignalized intersection, compared with
a free-flow vehicle if it were not required to slow or stop at the intersection.
~~~~~
Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersections
Two-way stop controlled intersections in which stop signs are used to assign the right-of-way, are the
most prevalent type of intersection in the United States. At two-way stop-controlled intersections the
stop-controlled approaches are referred as the minor street approaches and can be either public streets
or private driveways. The approaches that are not controlled by stop signs are referred to as the major
street approaches.
The capacity of movements subject to delay are determined using the "critical gap" method of capacity
analysis. Expected average control delay based on movement volume and movement capacity is
calculated. A LOS designation is given to the expected control delay for each minor movement LOS is
not defined for the intersection as a whole. Control delay is the increased time of travel for a vehicle
approaching and passing through a stop-controlled intersection, compared with a free-flow vehicle if it
were not required to slow or stop at the intersection. A description of levels of service for two-way
stop-controlled intersections is found in Table A-VI.
Table A-VI: Description of Level of Service for Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersections
LOS Descri~tion
A Very low control delay less than 10 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.
B Low control delay greater than 10 and up to 15 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.
C Acceptable control delay greater than 15 and up to 25 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.
D Tolerable control delay greater than 25 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.
E Limit of tolerable control delay greater than 35 and up to 50 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.
F Unacceptable control delay in excess of 50 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.
Source: Highway Capaciry Manual 1000
J:\TJKM AppendiceslLOS-HCM 2000.doc
~ ~~- ::~ ~,' ~~ ~ .
,
r~~'i ~r~
~
City of Dublin
Grafton Plaza Proj ect
City File # PA 07-006
Response to Environrnental Cornments
Introduction
The City of Dublin issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project on January
4, 2010 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed project
includes requested approval of amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan to create a new Mixed-Use 2/Campus Office land use category, revision
of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan subareas to include the Project site as a new Grafton
Plaza subarea, a PD-Planned Development Stage 1 rezoning that would allow either a
mixed use development of approximately 235 dwellings (not to exceed 248,259 square
feet) and 248,260 square feet of commercial, hotel, campus office and j or retail
development, or, campus office development up to 496,519 square feet. A
Development Agreement has also been requested to allow the development of either
option.
The Project site is located south of Dublin Boulevard, east of Grafton Street and north
of the I-580 freeway in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
The City of Dublin published and circulated an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration on January 8, 2010 for a 30-day public review period that ended on
February S, 2010.
CEQA does not require the City to prepare written responses to comments received on
a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City has nevertheless prepared these written
responses because of the public interest in the Project and to resolve any confusion or
misperceptions about the current Project.
As noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), the City approved land use
and zoning changes in 2000 for Dublin Ranch Area H, in which the Project is located
(page 4). Based on the approved density of 0.45 FAR, development potential for the
25.33-acre Grafton Plaza site would 496,519 sq. ft. No development applications were
included in the 2000 approvals. There were also no changes to the Campus Office (CO)
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designations. Then, as now, the CO
designations allowed campus office uses and also allo~ved a residential option for up
to 50% of a site.
In 2008, the Applicants submitted a proposal for a mixed-use project of approximately
1.1 million sq. ft., more than double the approved density of the site, with residential
E:ti:ii[I~3IT c TO
ATTA~HNqE~iT 3
~~~~ ~~
City of Dublin Page 2
Response to Comments April 2010
Grafton Plaza Project
towers possibly up to 21 stories in height. This proposal was withdrawn by the
Applicant early in the review process.
The current Project is consistent with the density approved for the site in 2000, i.e.,
496,519 sq. ft. The current Project includes land use amendments to formalize the
residen~ial mixed use option that has always been in the Campus Office land use
designations and to broaden the range of permitted uses (e.g., shopkeeper, live-work
units) to provide more flexibility to respond to changing market demand. The
proposed zoning woulci include an amended PD-Stage 1 Development Plan to provide
for either c•ampus office development or mixed use residential development. Future
applicants would choose which option to pursue as part of any future PD-Stage 2
Development Plan, pursuant to the PD-Planned Development District regulations in
the zoning ordinance.
Against this backdrop of prior approvals, and submitted but withdra~vn proposals, the
following responses to comments on the MND are provided to ensure that adequate,
accurate and up-to-date information is available to the public and decisionmakers.
Changes and Modifications to the Mitigated Negative Declaration
These responses to comments also contain clarifications and minor corrections to
information presented in the draft MND. In the course of preparing the responses,
the City generated new information as well as clarifications and modifications to the
draft MND. The City has carefully reviewed the responses in this document against
the recirculation standards of CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. None of the new
information, clarifications or modifications in this document requires "substantial
revision" of the MND as defined in the Guidelines, therefore the City has
determined that no recirculation is required.
1) Page 37 is amended to read as follows:
Su~plemental Miti~ation Measure VIS-3. Project developer(s) shall incorporate
the following features into final building and improvement plans for building
elevations adjacent to Dublin Boulevard:
a) Streetlight fixtures and ground level, pedestrian oriented light fixtures
shall be equipped with cut-off-lenses to direct light patterns in a
downward direction. Photometric plans shall be included with final
building and improvement plans to ensure that spillover of light is
minimized.
b) Exterior lights on upper floors shall minimize glare off of the site.
c) Interior lights for non-residential uses shall be dimmed or turned off
when not in use or needed for building security purposes.
d) Illumination shall be limited for exterior signs. If feasible, "canister"
sign types should not be used in favor of non-illuminated or exterior
illuminated fixtures.
~~ y~
~
City of Dublin Page 3
Response to Comments April 2010
Grafton Plaza Project
e) Landscaping lighting shall be limited and directed appropriately to
avoid spillover of light and glare onto adjacent properties.
f)
2) Page 106 is amended to read as follows:
"In a typical year, Zone 7 gets approximately 70 to 80 percent of its water supply
from water conveyed through the SacramentaSan Joaquin Delta by the State
Water Project. Zone 7 has a 75-year contract with the California Departrnent of
Water Resources (DWR) to receive water from the State Water Project (SWP). The
entitlement under this contract is 4~;898 80,619 acre-feet annually. SWP water is
delivered to Zone 7 from the Feather River Watershed via the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta. This water is then transported to Zone 7 through the California
Aqueduct to the South Bay Aqueduct and Lake Del Valle. Water enters the Zone
7 system from the South Bay Aqueduct and from Lake Del Valle at two Zone 7
treatrnent plants: the Patterson Pass Treatment Plant and the Del Valle Water
Treatrnent Plant.
,
~~ ..7i „~ +~,~~„ cTnm ,,,,+;+i,,,,.,,,r~~~ Actual water deliveries vary, depending
on hydrologic conditions, requests by other contractors, delivery capacity
and environmental / regulatory requirements."
3) Page 107 is amended to read as follows:
"Local Surface Water: Lake Del Valle is a local storage reservoir operated as part
of the SWP. ~~eY.,~~,,,r~ ~~,,,, ~~,-,~ „ n~,}~ +„ a~~znn ~ n_~~,~+ ~.~L.,L~.~~ yr~u~ ~~~^;
'-~^' ~'.^'~ T^,~*^r°~^a, However, Zone 7 has rights to 50 percent of the runoff fron
the lake's watershed after accounting for prior rights. Zone 7 estimates that
annroximatelv 7,400 to 11,450 acre-feet is available, but could chan~e in the
future."
4) Page 107 is amended to read as follows:
Local Groundwater: Zone 7 and DSRSD use the local underground aquifer basin
as a storage facility for imported water. The aquifer is also naturally recharged
by rainwater falling in the watershed area. r+;~ ,,,,+;,-,,.,+~a +~,.,+ ., ..~„ ~,;~ia ,.~
, •
a~y ~~
City of Dublin Page 4
Response to Comments April 2010
Grafton Plaza Project
~er vear. DSRSD does not have wells. Instead, they have a~roundwater
pum~ing quota of 645 acre-feet annuallv that Zone 7~um~s for them."
5) Page 108 is amended to read as follows:
"Zone 7 is altering its 100% Reliability Policy, which requires Zone 7 to have
adequate supplies available to meet 100% of customer demand ^'~ ^'~~
throu~;h conditions selected by Zone 7 staff. "
City of Dublin
Response to Comments
Grafton Piaza Project
Cornments Received
The following comment letters were received by the City.
a ~5 r~a:~
~
Page 5
April 2010
Commenter Date
Federal A encies
none
State A encies
1.1 Office of Plannin and Research 1 12 10
1.2 California Department of
Trans ortation (Caltrans) 2 8 10
Local A encies
2.1 City of Dublin Police Services 1/ 8/ 10
2.2 City of Dublin Parks and Community
Services De artment 1/ 14 10
2.3 Dublin San Ramon Services District 1/ 20 / 10
2.4 Alameda County Flood Control &
Water Conservation District-Zone 7 1/ 28 / 10
2.5 Alameda County Flood Control &
Water Conservation District-Zone 7 1/ 29 10
I 2.6 Alameda County Public Works
A enc 2 5 10
Interested Persons/Or anizations
3,1 Chris Didato ; 1 18/10
3.2 Gabrielle Blackman 2 8 10
3.3 Jon Brattebo 2/ 8/ 10
Copies of these letters are attached.
~~~~ ~ y~ ~
City of Dublin Page 6
Response to Comments April 2010
Grafton Plaza Project
Comment Letters
SE~L OF rM
4 . • F
er'~ ' ~~i
b T
u e
*
~
~-.: ~
C~IIFOAµ1'
1~RNOLD SCHYJARZENEGG~R
- GovExrtoR
~~ ~~
~
• o~4`G£Df\~ /~"~Y
~ \ p
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~ ~ H
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH ~• ~
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT ~l~r~~FCAL+F°aa\P
CYNTHIA BRYAN'I'
D~CroR
~~~~g'~71~1~~1'lll
Date:
1 U:
From:
Re:
January 12, 2010
till LtG~'1G W111~ t1~i,lIC1~J
Scott Morgan, Acting Director
SCH # 1991103064
Grafton Plaza
~~~~~~~9~~
Letter 1.1 ~1A~~1 ;1- n~ ~Q'i!1
~~~:~~~o ,~ ~LL~~,1~~40~4~~~
The Lead Agency has corrected some information regarding the above-mentioned
project. Please see the attached materials for more specific information. All other project
informatioiz remains the same.
~c: Mike Porto
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
140Q IOth Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-30?4
(916) 445-0613 FA.Y (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
~~~ ~~
S c~ ~" 1~1 ~ I l~ c~ C~~
~~~~
a ~
~~~
DATE:
T~:
FROriI:
SUBJECT
Comrr~.unity Developrnent I~epa~tr~er~t
Planming I~ivisiom
1VIE~0 DTJI~I
January 11, 2010
OrigEnal Distribution List
;~ L~ lJ ~ L L~ ~ ; ; '~.
l~' ~,`~~~`I
l~r ~ ~~ ~~ ~
~' ~i I..~~~ ~ ~ ~I,ifJ II~ '`I i
L. - -
.'t, I ~ ;_> '~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~,. ~ ,~=, i-,i ~ ~\~ t ^~ I ~ ~~ I J ;~ "
U'~;~":~ .., , .r ~ •_
City af Dublin Community Development Department
ini~ial ~tudy/lUfifigafied Negative Declaratior~ for Graffion Plaza
Project
The City of Dublin recentiy released an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
proposed Grafton Piaza Project, located south of Dublin Boulevard, east of Grafton Street and
north of the I-580 Freeway (APNs 985-0061-010 and 985-0061-004).
The public review period for the document commenced Friday, January 8, 2010 and is slated to
end on Monday, February 8, 2010.
Please be advised that due to an administrative duplicating error, 11 additional pages not
related to the Grafton Plaza project were included at the back of Appendix 3, the traffic analysis.
The addition of these unrelated pages in no way affects the analysis of the proposed Grafton
P~az~ p~o~ect inclu~ed in the rEmainder of the docurr~ent. Th~ dccument is complete and no
information is missing. ~
Please remove these pages prior to your review of the document.
Should you have any questions abouf these pages, please call tfie Project Planner, Mike Porto,
at 925-833-6610.
Thank you for your attention to this.
PJotice of Completion & Environmental Documenf Transmittal
Mai! to: State Clearinghouse, P. O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613
Fo~Hand Delivery/SUeet Address i400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
~ ~ ~ ~~
Project Title: Grafton Ptaza
Lead Agency: Ciiv of Dublin Contact Person: Miks Porto
Mailing Address= 100 Civic Plaza Phone: (925) 833 6610
City: Dublin Zip: 94568 Counly: Alameda
Projed Location: ~
County: Alameda CitylNearest Communiry: Citv of Dublin
Cmss Streets: Central Parkwav belween Tassaiara Road and Fallon Road - Zip Code: 94568
Assessor's Parcel No.: _8SOD6~-010 and 985-0061-04 SecUon: Twp.: Range: Base:
Within 2 Miles: State Hv+y #: I-580 Waterways: Tassalara Creek
Airports: Livermore Municipal Raiiways: N/A. Schools: N/A
Document Type:
CEQA: ^ Revised NOP ^ Draft EIR NEPA- OI Other ^ Joint I
^ EarlyCons ^Suppiemental/SubsequentElR ILI~AI2 ;y ~ '~ Q1Fi alI
^ Neg Dec (Prior SCH No.) ~C~ D~f~E-lS--_'-~L~ he~
~ Mit Neg Dec ^ Other ;~, FONSI i
-----------------------------L_-="-~___...,. "i W.L------
Lo~i Actian T I~! 1: ",'u, ~V1~ ;`1 i
Yr =;
^ General Pian Update ^ Specific Plan ~ Rezone ~_ O Annexation
E1 Generai Plan Amendment ^ Master Plan ^ Preion~e'`-~ ~;i ~,~;-,~ „-, ,-;,-Q Red'evelopment
^ General Pian Element a Planned Unit Development ^ Us~permi~ -•-'`~~~"~~ +~%' ~~~p Coastal Permit
^ Community Plan ^ Site Plan ^ Land Diviston (Subdivision, etc.) ~ Other SPA. OA
-------------------------------------------------
Development Type: .
~ ResidentiaL- Units uo io 235 Acres 25 ~ ^ WaterFacilities: Type MGD
~Otfice: Sq.R. y~p.SQ9.~6,519 Aci~2~_ Employees ^ Transportation: Tvpe
OCommercial: Sq.ft Acres Employees ^ Mining: Mineral
^Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees ^ Power. Type MW
^ Educationai: WasteTreaiment: Type MGD
^ RecreaGonaf= Hazardous Waste: 7ype
Total Acres (approx.) 25 ^ Other.
-------------------------------------------------
Project Issues Oiscussed In Document:
~ AeslhetirlVis~al ^ Fiscal ~ Recrea6onal/Parks 0 Vegeta6on
0 Agricultural Land 9 Flood Plan/Flooding ^ SchoolsNniversities ~ Wa[er Quality
m Air Quafity ^ Fores~Land/Fire Hazard ^ Septic Systems Al Water Supply/Groundwater
~ Archeological/Historica! R~ GeologidSeismic €7 Sewer Capacity 0 Wetland/Riparian
~ Biological Resources ~ Minerals ~ Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading m Wiidlife
^ Coastal Zone 0 Noise 6 Solid Waste 0 Growth Inducing
@ Drainage/A65orp[ion ~ Population/kousing Balance 0 ToxidHazardous ' E9 (.and Use
^ EconomicslJobs E7 Public Services/Facilities H Traific/Circulation H Cumulative Effects
^ Other
Present Land Use2oning/General Plan Deslgnatlon: The City of Dublin has planned and zoned the site for Campus office uses.
Approximately one-half of lhe site is vacant; the olhet approximately one-half is occupied by an existing water quaiity basin.
Project Description: Consideration of amendments to the General Plan and Eastem Dublin SpecificPlan to create a Mixed-Use 2JCampus
O~ce flex land use category, revise Eastem Dublin Specific Plan to create a Grafton Plaza subarea, a Stage 1 rezoning that would allow
one of hvo development oplions: (1) a mixed use development oi approximately 235 dweliings (nol to exceed 248,259 square feet) and
248,260 square feet of commetcial, hotel, campus o~ce or (2) a campus office development up to 496,519 square teet_ A Development
Agreemenl has also been requesied_ Additional land use entitlements would be required for fu[ure development projects to inGude
development standards such as building height, building mass and setbacks.
Slate C]earinghousc Contact:
(916) 445-0673
State Rcvic.v Bcgan: ~-~- 2010
SCH COMPLIANCE ~- ~ -?010
~ Project 3ent to the follo~ving State Agencies
Please note State Clearinghouse iVumber
(SCH#) on all Comments
SCH#: ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
please fonvard late comments directly to the
Lead Agencp
AQMDiAPCD ~
(Resources: ~ ~~
X Resources ~
Boatine & Waterways
Coastal Comm
Colorado Rvr Bd
Conservation
x Fish & Game # ~
Delta Protection Comm
Ca] Firc
Historic Presmation
X Parks & Rec
Central V alley Flood Prot
Bay Cons & Dev Comm
)C DWR
OES (Emergency Svcs)
B s'Transp Hous
Aeronautics
CHP
X Calhans # ~
Trans Plannmg
_ Housing & Com Dev
Food & Agticulture
Hcalth Services
State/Consumer Sres
General Services
Cal EPA
ARB - Airport Projects
ARB - Transportation Projects
ARB - Major lndustcial Projecis
Resources, Recycling and Recovery
X SWRCB: Div. Financial Assist.
SWRCB: Wh Quality
x SWRCB: WuR~~nrs
X Reg_ WQCB ~'.~-__
~ Toxic Sub Ctrl-CTC
Yth/Adtt Corrections
_ Corrections
Independent Cnmm
Energy Commission
X NAHC
_ Public Utiiicies Comm
State lands Comm
_ Tahoe Rgl Plan Agency
Conservancy
Other:
Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 5560; Feb-8-10 3:37P~~ ~~` ~P2~1/1
~
S AT ~F I;Af,IFnRNIA•~-~-~L7SZ1YE9S~ TiZ~1i.I~PCtiRTAT1QN AN1) HCIUSTNG =1GENCY w, AFtNOT.D 9CH'WAR~k_I~CGER Guvvznor
'~~,~~itL~n~A`C.~ ~'~ ~~l~~7~i~~~.H'.~.A~~1V
111 GRAND 1LVENU~
I'. Q. BOX 23660
~A~4.T~t~iI~ID,. C~ 9462~-~~60 F'!ex your powerl
PHONE (b10) 622-6~491 BR ('7iRrqy ef)'ttient!
F~ cs~.o> 2ss-6s~9
T°I'Y 711
Letter 1.2
r~v~~y s> ~010
ALA580712
ALA-58fl-16.7
~C~#I9~1. ].03064
IvFr. 1`/iike Pot~to
City of llublin
Camm~nity I~ev~lapment Dep~rtment
1D~ Civic P1~za
1?ublin, C~ 9456~
De.~r Mr. PorEo_
~ra~~'~ot2 P-a~a E~e~ei~p~~~.t ~"r~j~t -1VIit~~iat~ Neg~tive DeCl~~~s~itr~ (IV11~1~)
'I'hank you fc~r inc.luding the Cati#'iirni~, I~eptirCl~~i~_t, ~~f Transport~;tior~ ~c~partment) in the
environmcntal review ~zocess f~r t~sc Graftan Pl~a Development Proj~c~. The following
comments are b~tsed ott th.e I+,~ND.
dr~ page 97, ~~t.pplemetltaP IUiit'r~;ation IVea~ure TRA-2, if ihe inte~seclion rmprov~ments ~t Santa 1•2•1
~ita Ro.adlInterst~tte (~) 580 a~`~ n~t con~plete prior to .issuancc of builc3ing permits for the
pro~os~d project, alternacive mitigr~tiort measure shou~d be providecl.
On page 98, point B, alth:augh t~e proposed projvct wi~l not worsen the FevEl of ~ervice (LOS) 1 2 2
since these segments ~lready .~pez'ate at LOS F, the pro~osed pr.oj~et wiIl increase the volume to
capacity r~tio {V/~) by {):2 s~c~nds delay that wiil result in unacceptab3e sat.uration levels. Plea~se
provide additior?a] mitiga~ion measures to ac~dre:cs these ianpacts.
Should yo~ have any eJuesiions reg:~sding this IeFter, gJe~~e c~~ll ~'atman Kwa~1 of my staff at ~510)
~2z- t ~~a.
Sincerely,
,~.~~. ~-~
~sa c~RBarr1
District Brar~ch Chief
I..ocai Developznent - Intcrgovernmental Revieu~
c: State CEearinghouse
'Caltranv irnproaea mobilEty acroes Califorrci~e"
~?i'~ui2~~~ f~~~f~~ ~'S.~2 [T:~:r`R;>~: td0 .9uJr~~ ~Q~~
~
~
~
-~..
~
~
~
~i
~.
~
~
~
a
RDUTING SLIP
Comrrcander CASEYNICE
Action:
,~o ,~ ~``~°
~~`r`~""
City Manager 3. I'attzllo For your in~ormation
Adm. Analyst E. Steffen For your approval
Lieutenant S. Brown Take appropriate action
Lieutenant K. VonSavo~e Prepare reply far my signature
Sergeant D. Laperle Note and see/call me about tlus
Sergeant M. Larz~.b At your reqL~est
~Othex JG~a ~.q /`~ Investigate and report
2
Comments: ~r~ -~-.. nl~~.t~ -~'v ~~~'~ ~ ~~6 ~
Date: l r~~/v Due Date:
!
To:
Sheriff G. Ahertt
Undersheriff R. Lucia
Assistant Slieriff S. Roderick
.. .. .....
_ ,. .. _.:,_ ........ .....:
- --= - , ., ., p
_ .- _~
Graf~on Plaza Inital Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pag 1 of 1
i From: Diane L.owart <Diane.Lowart@ci.dublin.ca.us>
i To: Mike Porto <mike.porto@ci.dublin.ca.us> LettEt' 2.2
Subjecf: Grafton Plaza Initai 5tudy/Mitigated Negative Dec~aration
~ Date: Thu, Jan 1A, 2010 1:45 pm
Mike:
i Thank you for the opportunity to review fihe Initial Sfudy/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Grafton Plaza praject. At this kime, I have no coxnments on the
; Study.
I ,
~ Please let me knaw i~ you would Iike the docuxnent back,
i
Diane Lowart
, Parks & Commui~ty Services Director
City of D~.rblin
~ http:l/webmail.aol.com/34361-111/aol-1/en-us/maillPrintMessage.aspx 1/14/2010
~ c~~ ~ ~~?~
l~~~ d
r
~~J~jj,~~jyj ' G..,'~ ,.'1'~ 7051 Dublin Bouievard
~~oN
S~~ ~ ~N ~
I o ~
Dublin, California 94568
.
~~RjjjC~s y
/, ,~i„c~ tt~e~a~nnur.u{ Phone: 925 828 0515
FAX: 425 829 1150
F3~S`~~~CT \./' s~'CE 1953 y c;~c~nvdsrsd.com
January 20, 2010
~~~~f~~~~~~
City of Dublin - Community Development Department Letter 2.3 ~ ~~<~
Attn: Mike Porto, Consulting Planner 1 f=~ {~~ ~ i~ ?~! !~!
I00 Civic Plaza ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ `~~~;`~~
Dublin, CA 94568 3 i__
Subiect: PA 07-006 Grafton Plaza Proiect
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear Mr. Porto:
Thank you for the opporiunity to review and comment on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated 2.31 '
Negative Declaration for the Grafton Plaza Project dated December 2009. As noted in your transmittal
letter, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved,by the City of Dublin for a proposal
in this area in 2000. The current Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration of December 2009 is for a
proposal that has been sib ificantly altered and reduced from the previous proposal.
DSRSD reviewed the Initial Study/I~litigated Negative Declaration from 2000 and found no deficiencies
in that study. As part of that review, DSRSD confirmed that the proposal site was within the District's
Service Area and that the District would be able to provide wastewater collection service, wastewater
treatment service, recycled water (irrigation) service and potable water service. DSRSD found no impacts
or necessary mitigations beyond those identified in the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration in 2000. .
Similarly, DSRSD will be able to provide wastewater collection, wastewater treatment, recycled water
(irrigation) and potable water services for the current reduced proposal on the same site. The current
study includes proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to create a
new land use category, Mixed-Use 2/Campus Office, which would permit the developer to chose between
twc possible uevel~p.uer~t sce:.arias. un eitr~er scena:io, T~SRSD weulr3 ~e able ta provide tre se~~ices
listed above. DSRSD found no impacts or necessary mitigations beyond those identified in the Initial
Study/Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration dated December 2009.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions concerning the above, please
contact Stan Kolodzie at (925) 875-2253.
Sincerely, ~
i/tE.,~~r (/r~` a `
~
ST EY KO DZ1E
Associate Eng' eer
SK/ST
Dublin San Raxnon Services District is a Pu6lic Entity
2.3.2
2.3.3
H:~ENGDEPTICOA~DUBLINiPA 07-006 NOI to Adopt Mit Ntg Dec Grafton Plaza Project (Revised 12-09).doc
~ ~,, ~' W~o
ALAMIDACOUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATIIt CONSIItVATION DISTRICT
100 NORTHCANYONS PARKWAY IIVERMORE, CA94551 PHONE (925) 454-5000 FAX (925) 454-S127
January 28, 2010
Mr. Michael Porto Letter 2.4
City of Dublin
Community Developinent Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, Ca. 94568
~~~~~~~~~~
JAN ~ ~ 2t,10
~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~,~~~~~~~
Subject: Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for
the Grafton Plaza Project
Dear Mr. Porto:
Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) has reviewed the referenced CEQA docuinent 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 comments for your consideration.
l. Zone 7 cunently has a long-term contract with the California Department of Water
Resources for a maxunum State Water Project (SWP) water delivery of 80,619 acre-feet
a.nnually. Revise the text on page 106, under State Water Project Supplies, from 46,000 acre-
feet annually to 80,619 acre-feet annually. In the second paragraph, please delete the first
sentence and the following portion of the second sentence that reads "With regard to all of
these SWP entitlements." For more infonnation, please refer to Zone 7's Annual Review of
the Sustainable Water Supply Report, wluch is available on Zone 7's website.
2.4.1
2. For clarification, on page 107, under Local Surface Water, replace the second sentence with 2•4•2
the following text: "However, Zone 7 has rights to 50% of the runoff from the lake's
watershed after accounting for prior rights. Zone 7 estiznates that approxunately 7,400 to
11,450 acre-feet is available, but could change in the future."
3. On the saine page, under Local Groundwater, replace the third and fourth sentences with the 2,4.3
following: "It is estimated that current natural sustainable yield is 13,40Q acre-feet of water
per year. DSRSD does not have wells. Instead, they have a groundwater puinping quota of
645 acre-feet annually that Zone 7 pumps for them."
4. On page 108, in the second full indented paaagraph, delete the text "at all times" and replace 2.4.4
it with the following text: "through conditions selected by Zone 7 staff." Also delete the
second sentence in this paragraph in its entirety.
,~ r.~~° ~~ L~~,f~'
~f
Mr. Michael Porto
City of Dublin
January 28, 2010
Page 2 of 2
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at 925-454-5036 or via e-
mail at mlimnzone7~~~ater.com.
Sincerely, ~~
~~i~
Mary Lii
Environmental Services Program Manager
Cc: Kurt Arends, Jarnail Chahal, Brad Ledesma
3d6 Q ~~
~
ALAMIDACOUNTY FL~D CONTROL AND WATII2 CONSERVATION DISTWCT
100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY LIVERMORE, CA 94551 PHONE (925) 454-5000 FAX (925) 454-5727
January 29, 2010
Letter 2.5
Mr. Michael Porto
City of Dublin ,
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, Ca. 94568
8~~~~~ ~ "~ q.=~~
FCB ~ :s ~OiO
,~_~~.,34~~~.~r~i ~"'?r~~eas~4! E!~~
Subject: Draft Initial Stud}~ and 1VIitigated Negative IDeclaratfon (IS/MND) for
~he ~:aftom Plaza Project
Dear Mr. Porto:
Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) has reviewed the referenced CEQA docuinent in the context of
Zone 7's mission to provide drinking water, non-potable water for agriculture/irrigated turf,
flood protection, and groundwater and strea.in management within the Livermore-Amador
Valley. Zone 7 submitted a set of comments on January 28th, specifically related to water
supply. Zone 7 has the following additional comments related to flood protection for your
consideration.
On page 69, under the subject of Surface Water Quality, the Inifial Study describes the
construction of a regional water quality basin on the southern portion of the Grafton Plaza
site, which was constructed as part of a stormwater management plan for the Dublin
Ranch developinent using specific design criteria. Please provide the stormwater
management plan (SWIVIP) for the Dublin Ranch development for Zone 7's review, as we
were not informed of the water quality basin's construction or what the specific design
criteria was for the basin. Also provide all hydrologic analyses associated with the water
quality basin, so that Zone 7 can deteamine whether operation and management of the
basin ~~ould impact Zone 7 flood control facilities (specifically Line G-3).
2. Under Flooding, on the same page, the Initial Study describes the site as once being
designated by FEMA as being within a 100-year flood hazard area. The City of Dublin
filed a LOMR, which removed the site from flooding, due to the placement of up to 8 feet
of fill material on the site. Please provide the LOMR documentation for the site, as well
as the supporting docuinents and hydrologic analyses that show that filling the site and
forcing flood waters to be diverted elsewhere does not impact Zone 7 flood control
facilities (specifically, Line G-3) downstream of the site.~
3. The Initial Study references the Easter Dublin EIR as providing Mitigation Measures for
the project. Since the docuinentation for the EIR was dated 1993, please provide copies
of the original document's proposed Mitigation Measures with relation to Hydrology and
2.5.1 ~
2.5.2
2.5.3
~~ ~~ ~ ~~
Mr. Michael Porto
City of Dublin
January 29, 2010
Page 2 of 2
Water Quality, as the Initial Study does not appear to adequately describe the Mitigation
Measures that the project plans to utilize.
When would these initigation ineasuxes be impleinented? Zone 7 requests to be notified
well in advance and provided with any proposed mitigation plans to allow review prior to
iinpleinentation.
4. On page 70, the Initial Study references the 2000 NIND as identifying additional 2,~,4
Mitigation Measures (5 and 6). Please provide copies of the origina12000 MND
document's Mitigation Measures as they relate to Hydrology and Water Quality, as this
Initia] Study does not appear to adaquately described those additional Mitigation
Measures that the project plans to utilize.
We again appreciate the opporiunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or
coininents, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at 925-454-5036 or via e-
mail at mliinna.zone7water.conl.
Sincerely,
~~~~~~~ ` `'
Mary Liin
Environmental Services Prograin Manager
Cc: Kurt Arends, Joe Seto, Jeff Tang
~~~~ ~~
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
PIJBLIC WOI2K~ r~GENCY
,
~~~~~R~~~
~~~ ~' ~ ~Qi~)
~~-~~~~~ ~,a,~~~~~~~~~
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTNIENT
951 Turner Court, Room 100
PUBLIC Hayward, CA 9454~-2698
WORKS (S10j 670-6b01
FAX (510) 670-5269
Febniary 5, 2010
Mike Porto
Community Development Department
City of Dublin Letter 2.6 ',
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Porto:
Subject: Grafton Plaza Project - Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Reference is made to your transmittal on January 8, 2010, of the Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Grafton Plaza project, located at south of Dublin
Boulevard, east of Grafton Street and north of I-580 freeway in the City of Dublin.
Per our cursory review of the t~-ansmitted material, we hereby offer the following comments
regarding storm drainage that should be considered in the determination of project status:
Although the project site is located in Zone 7, runoff ultimately drains to the Alameda 2.6.1
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 nu~off from the site that may impact flow capacity in the Federal Project
and in the 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 impact downstream drainage facilities.
The applicant should provide measures to prevent the discharge of contaminated materials 2 6 2
into public drainage facilities. It is the responsibility of the applicant to comply with
Federal, State, or local water quality standards and regulations.
Thanlc you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for this proj ect. If you have questions, please call me at (510) 670-5209.
Very tn~1y yours,
Rosern ~e e Leon
Assi~, t ~ ' eer
Land Development Services
TO SERVE AN'~ PRESERVE OUR COi~IMUNITY
Page 1 of 2
. ~ °~ y~
~ ~
Martha Aja
From: odhili@aol.com ,
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 9:18 AM
To: chrisdidato@gmail.com
5ubject: Re: Graffon Plaza Project Letter 3.1 '
Chris:
Thank you for your comments. The Mitigated Negative Deciaration document is the first step in a very long
process. The proposal before the City will not result in any immediate development. There are many more steps
along the way before development would ever occur on the Grafton Piaza site. Development of the first phase of
the Promenade is mostly beyond the City of Dublin's control as most ail of the appropriate Planning
approvals have been obtained. Grafton Plaza has a long way to go and the proposal before the City right now
cannot result in development without a considerable amount of additional effort and approvals.
The City cannot force Charter Properties to develop the Promenade, but we do provide encouragement
throughout the process. As you know, the first phase of the Promenade which inciudes the Mercantile Building
and the ClubSport facility have received the necessary Planning approvals. The property has been subdivided to
create a legal building lot and Charter Properties has submitted construction drawings to the Building Department
which have been reviewed and returned to them with appropriate plan check comments.
The City has not received revised drawings. Once we receive them, will wiil process them quickly. We are all
interested in seeing the first phase of development as quickly as possible.
Again, thank you for your comments.
Mike Porto
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Didato <chrisdidato@gmail.com>
To: mike.porto@ci.dubiin.ca.us
Sent: Sat, Jan 16, 2010 12:03 prn
Subject: Grafton Plaza Project
Mike, I'm a horne owner in Dublin Ranch. I ve read over the the negative Declaration document.
I feel charter properties should be spending 100% of its efforts to complete the Promonade Project and I think the
city of Dublin should do everything it can to facilitate that.
Here is my rationai:
If the promenade is completed Or real progeress can be shown to to potential buyers and investors, home and
condo sales wiil surge and home and property values will rise. This would no doubt raise property taxes /
increase revenues for the city and increase sales tax reveunes. Alll the while stabilizing he local relestate market,
which is projected to have TWICE fhe number of foreclosures this year of compared with last years record
number.
On the Down side the rise in porperty costs poses a potential LAG in the fufifilment of leases and offloading of the
properties Charter would own in the Grafton plaza project. You may think if the proprety vaules rise that would
benefit charter in the sales, however i feel with all the competition it would delay there ability to recoup ROI.
On the other hand if the promonade is in not completed FIRST, i feel charter wiil be able to smoothly finish the
grafton plaza project. Though in the downside the above effect could be reveresed.
Home owners would have no viable seiling points. They would have to compete with larger, up to date homes and
3.1.1
2/3/2010
Yage 'l ot Z
~ condos selling for less or at the least, a better value.
~i~ ~ ~~
Charter could take advantage of the lower realestate cost and sell a more competitive product to what is already
on the market. !n this process it couid bankrupt Toll Brothers which couid put a large burden on the HOA's in
Dublin Ranch that are already struggling to sell there units and Rely on the fund from Toll Brothers.
Don't get me wrong I'd love to see Toll take a hit for its poor mangement and sales of the Terracess and other
properties. However I feel its bad for the taxe payers of dublin and in the end bad for the city of Dublin and its
revenue flow.
I'm proposing the City of Dublin spend more time investigating the Gafton Project while Pushing Charter to
Complete the long awaited and Long time needed Community Driving Promenade and finally Dublins First true
Down Town Anchor.
Pleasanton's Down town main strip is the first thing peopie see and experience there and its a large part why
people take a firts look to move there. Ail the other reasons for moving there shine through but Only after that
person makes the choice to investigate living there.
People don't make impulse decisions to move somewhere often. It's usually a word of mouth or experience there
that grabs there attention.
The probiem with Dublin is it looks good on paper (statisticaliy), but the city has no curb appeal. (No Down
Town). Nothing to experience other than a strip mall or two.
So, Although quite wordy, those are my thoughts.
I hope they help.
Chris Didato.
2/3/2010
~if ~ y~
February 8ih, 2010
Attn: Mike Porto Letter 3.2
Consulting Planner
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin; CA 94588
RE: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Grafton Plaza
Proj ect
Dea.r Mr. Porto,
I attended the earlier public hearing re the above property, & provided comments then. I
understand the developer is arguing now to have the zoning changed to enable the zoning
to fit their development plans. 2 points to consider -
1). FAR: I am happy to learn that progress has been made in reigning in the size of the
project, which had clearly exceeded its FAR in its earlier incarnation. My only concern
now is that the extent of the property being considered in the FAR calculation includes
the water quality basin, which results in a greater amount of buildable GSF. Without the
water quality basin, both the size of the development & the height of the development
would be far smaller & more in keeping with the area.
2}. Zoning Change: The desire to change the zoning designation to accommodate the
developer's needs seems unethical. I, as well as perhaps other homeowners at the
Terraces, purchased our property knowing that the land across Dublin Blvd was zoned for
Campus Office...per documents reviewed in the Toll Brothers sales office, as well as
signs along Dublin Blvd declaring "Campus Office" zoning for the site in question (these
have since been removed....hmmin.). Now... had the property across Dublin Blvd been
originally designated for residential development during the initial planning stages for the
entire area, the net result would have been an entirely different plan for East Dublin. But
that is not where we are today. Today there is an abundant amount of residential
property per the master plan. Adding new & unplanned residences to this area will over-
saturate the market, & given the marketplace, drive property values down. This creates a
down-ward spiral: property tax revenues decrease & the rate of foreclosure increases =
not the desired end resuit the East IDublin plan envisioned. Owners at the Terraces want
to retain the value of their investment & not see it impacted by saturating the residential
market in this area. We purchased property here because we wanted to invest in the
vision depicted in the plan for East Dublin, & we want the area completed as originally
envisioned, & zoned.
As a t~-paying citizen of the City of Dublin, I must object to the developer's proposal to
modify the zoning to Mixed-Use-2/Campus Office. I must also object to any motion by
the city to adopt a change in zoning of the property / Grafton Plaza Project. .
3.2.1 '
3.2.2
I look forward to the public hearing...
Gabrielle Blackman
Condo owner / the Terraces.
~~a y~
~
February 8, 2010
Letter 3.3
Jon Brattebo
3385 Dublin Blvd. Unit 422
Dublin, CA. 945b8
(9Z5)479-9177
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
Attn: Mike Porto, Consulting P(anner
100 CIViC P1aZd
Dublin, CA. 94568
Re: Comments, Environmental Checklist, Initial Study, and Mitigated Negative Deciaration.
Project: Grafton Pfaza, P07-~06.
Dear Mr. Porto:
Thank you for your work and effort on the preparation of this initia( study regarding the
Grafton Plaza Project. i also want to thank the City of Dubiin for providing the opportunity for Dublin
homeowners/residents to comment on this study, and the proposed Project.
I live in Dublin, in the Terraces at Dublin Ranch, which was built by Toll Brothers. rn this letter, I'm
going to try to be brief with my comments and concerns because, frankly, I am very busy with my
own work/employment to write considerably regarding concerns about the Project.
The singlE greatest impact of the Grafton Plaza Project in this immediate area concerns
the impact on the quality of life for homeowners, such as myself, who have purchased their
homes in the immediate area of Dublin Ranch, and committed ourselves to Dubiin by living in those
homes, and who live within one half mile of the Project.
The second greatest impact of the Project would be on the City's infrastructure and their ability to
support and maintain the additional resources necessary to sustain a project of this size.
3.3.1
3.3.2
In order to address the concern regarding the impact on the quality of life of Dublin
homea'wners/residents, the City of Dublin and their planners must put themselves "in the shoes" of 3.3.3
homeowners who have committed themselves to life in Dublin, by purchasing property in Dublin, with
the intent of living in Dublin; i.e., the City of Dublin Planning Commission must try to understand the
impact of this project, and its size, on the immediate residents of the area by trying to imagine what
life would be like living near Grafton Plaza.
Significant impacts afFecting quality of life would include those addressed in the Study's,
"Environmental Impacts Checklist", which begins on page-21. The foliowing represents my immediate
concerns regarding each environmental impact with subsequent rating...
ia) [Environ~ental Frv~pacts, Aesttae~ics] - Impact, with proposed mitigation, discussion beginning
on page-31. I disagree with the study's environmental impact rating regarding Aesthetics.
First, there seems to be an emphasis on the preservation of scenic views from transportation
corridors/arteries coming inta Qublin, per the Eastern Dubiin Scenic Corridor Policies and Stand~rds
which serves to impiement the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the Dublin General Pfan.
On page-32, "Land Use and Circulation Element. Policy 5.6 A. Incorporate County-designated scenic
routes..., in the General Plan as adopted City-designafied scenic routes and work to enhance a positive
image of Dublin as seen by through trav2lers." As a~ublin r2sident and hcmeowner, I can
understand that the City of Dublin would want to protect defined scenic corridors to try and- maintain
or improve the image/perception of Dublin, but what about the preservation of those same scenic
3.3.4
Grafton Plaza - Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Dedaration - 02-08-2010 - Comments. doc - jb
1 of 5
~~3~ y~
~
views of the Tri-Valley for Dublin residents and homeowners? Does the City of Dubiin care more about
its image in the eyes of people who don't live in Dublin, those "through travelers", or do they care
more about maintaining and/or improving the quality of life for the residents, citizens, and
homeowners of Dublin?
Understand that with respect to a rating regarding the aesthetic impact of Grafton Plaza, a rating of
"Less Than Significant With Mitigation" is not realistic, and does nothing to address the very real,
significant impact to homeowners in Dubiin in the immediate area of the Grafton Plaza Project; and
that said impact will largely be governed by the height, positioning and location of proposed buildings
representing the Grafton Plaza project on the proposed lot,
Second, the proposed enhancements to the visual appeal of the building(s) through the proposed 3.3.5
mitigation measures (discussion beginning on page-34), while notable, stiil fall far short in addressing
major concern regarding building height and the preservation of scenic views and corridors of the
natural beauty of the Tri-Valley area, per the City`s own guidelines.
On page-35, section (c), homeowners and residents of the Terraces at Dublin Ranch are identified as
being impacted by the project: "Future construction of the Grafton Piaza Project, under either Option,
would change the character of the site for residents of The Terraces, especially for residents on the
southern portion of the complex with views of the Grafton Plaza site and for travelers along Dubiin
Boulevard and the I-580 freeway near the Grafton Plaza site. The proposed change of visual character
of the Project site would include construction of one or more multi-story structures along Dubiin
Boulevard that could be visually obtrusive to travelers, residents and visitors in the area and would be
a potentialiy significant impact."
I very much appreciate the proposed e~fort to make the building(s) on the site more visually appealing,
but again, one must ask oneself, "Would I rather look at the natural beauty of the Tri-Valley, or would
I prefer to look at one or more large, muiti-story buildings just across the street and in very close
proximity to my residence?"
Again, in that quotation (c) from page-35, it seems the City of Dublin is more concerned about its
image in the eyes of non-residents that it is about its homeowners who live in Dublin.
One can do everything to address how a building looks, or its external appearance and visual appeal,
but its size governs its aes'rhetic impact (negatively or positrvely) on the surrounding area, and hence
has a very real impact on the qualrty of lrfe for Dublrn residents living in the immediate area of the
Project.
Third, and regarding light sources and the use af lighting at the site, there will be a significant impact. 3.3.6
Some concerns regarding light sources can be addressed through the proposed mitigated measures,
for both project Options. However, in the case of the Commercial-Use Option, Dublin
homeowners/residents should nat be exposed to light sources within the buiiding(s) after regular
working hours, at nighttime, through windows facing Dublin Boulevard. Light sources inside building(s)
should haue sensors which turn off when no one is working, or the building hours should be controlled
and light sources automated, especially at night, so as not to disturb residents across the street
(across Dublin Boulevard).
1 b) [E~avironrr-eratal Frrsgaae~s, l~est#~e~ics] - Impact, with proposed mitigation, discussion beginning
on page-31: One impact/issue not addressed by the Study...
One critical concern was omrtted from the study: Privacy, Homeowners/residents of The Terraces at 3.3.7
Dublin Ranch whose homes face south and border Dublrn Boulevard, have windows and French doars
in each unit open and facing a southerly direction, eecause of the Project's proposed multi-story
buila'ings to be c~uiit alongside flubl;n 8oulevard, this will create a situation, or conditions, such that
people on the Grafton Plaza Project site living or working in one, or more, of the multr-story buildings
would be able to see into the residences/dwellrngs of some homes located at the Terraces.
Regardless of whether or not resrdents at the Terraces have/use wiRdaw treatments, or not, the issue
of privacy should be recognized and considered in thfs Study. Currently, this is not the case, and
Grafton Plaza - Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Decla2tion - 02-OS-2010 - Comments.doc - jb
ZofS
3~~ ~ ,y~
regardless of the ultimate Option/Use determined for the Project, the necessary mitrgation measures
must be created, addressed and implemented.
2) [Environ~ental irrapacts, ~oi~e] - Impact, ~vith proposed mitigation, discussion beginning on
page-73 (Checklist item #11, discussion item #12). I disagree with the study's environmental impact 3.3.8
rating regarding Noise.
As a homeowrner, living directfy across the street rrom the project, it is already noisy, and just barely
acceptab(e. That is my experience, and I've lived here for almost three years. Cars racing up and
down Dublin Boulevard, and loud motorcycies, are the main contributors to noise on Dublin Blvd. anc
in that traffic corridor from Keegan Street to Tassajara. The I-580 interstate highway can also be
heard from our residence.
Now, add to that existing noise the additional noise which would emanate from the proposed intent of
Grafton Plaza, and hopefully there will be a greater understanding of the impact. However, I believe
the noise impact woufd vary depending on the Project's proposed intent (commercial vs. mixed-use).
Right now, I'm not certain which use/intent I would favor, but I would oppose any plan that does not
sufficiently address the additional noise introduced to the immediate surroundirgs by the Grafton
Piaza project.
Right now, I think my immediate concern regarding any additional noise emanating from the Project
wouid concern certain rowdy or boisterous individuais loitering or hanging around the finished Project,
if the Project was the Mixed-Use Option, providing shops and restaurants which might remain ~pen for
business past 9:OOpm in the evening. Under those conditions, mitigation efforts would be difficuft,
unless public access to the site was restricted o~ly from Grafton Street, not Dubiin Boulevard, and
sufFicient courtyard space constructed for the visiting public.
Regarding the Commercial-Use Option, I think I would have less concern. However, the concerns I
would have with this Option would be the trafFic times for employees coming to work, and leaving
work to go home, and the noise which comes from outdoor generators and other machinery, like
backup power, which is typically located outdoors. This type of ground-based equipment is very noisy,
and shouid be addressed in all/any mitigation effort, including the prevention of the instailation of this
ground-based equipment along Dublin Boulevard.
Also, i believe there are other mitigation measures, separate from those discussed in the study, which
can greatly assist in any negative impact to quality of life in the immediate area.
3) [~nv6ronrs~entai Imgxacts, FTogsuiafi~n and Ho~asing] - Impact, with proposed mitigation, 3.3.9
discussion beginning on page-83 (Checklist item #12, d'+scussion item #13). I disagree with the
study's environmental impact rating regarding Population and Housing.
I think there will be a significant impact, not a less than significant impact, but that impact may not be
observabie until other projects along the Dublin Boulevard traffic corridor are considered.
The immediate impact to the immediate area, within one haif-mile, would the increase in population
densiry, and the traffic density. Right now, there are stiii many unsoid homes in The Terraces at
Dublin Ranch. Now, cambine that with the number of new developments in the surrounding area, and
it is easy to recognize that in a very short period of time, say within 2- 3 years, population and traffiic
density in the immediate area of the Project will be significant, and hence a significant impact. It is
not enough to only consider ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) estimates concerning
growth, when currently our nation's economy has been down and struggiing, and now projected to
begin a siow return to health.
My concern is the impact on ti~~e qualii.y oi liie af current residents af the immediate area of the Project,
when many more people are added to the area.
Grafton Plaza - Initia! Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration - 02-08-2050 - Comments.doc - jb
3 of 5
~ ~ c~ ~ `~a~'Q
4) [Enviroe~avaentai Impacts, Public ~erviees] - Impact, with proposed mitigation, discussion
beginning on page-84 (Checklist item #13, discussion item #14). I disagree, in part, with the study's 3•3.10 '
environmental impact rating regarding Public Services.
We have a problem here in the Terraces, and I believe the Dubiin Police Department would be
impacted if cansidering the Mixed-Use Option.
Living here in Dublin Ranch, in the Terraces, I have a perception that our police officers are "stretched
thin". In other words, we may not have enough public servants, ar police of~cers, to do the job. The
Terraces at Dubiin Ranch have experienced several incidents of crime, and documented cases of
individuals who five on the other side of Keegan, in the Groves apartments, breal<ing into cars and
individual homes in the Terraces. While I do not think there have been incidents of violent crime, it is
disturbing to homeowners here, and is a constant topic of concern in our homeowners meetings.
Please do not misunderstand, I believe our police are the best, and my wife and I enjoy seeing their
presence in the community. However, we do not see them much in the Dubiin Ranch area where we
live, which may or may not be of concern, but definitely gives the perception that we don't have
enough police officers in Dublin.
That is the reason why I befieve that the Mixed-Use Option might not be as good for the immediate
community, as the Commercial-Option. I think with a Mixed-Use Option, that bad element v~rhich
comes from the apartments directly east of the Terraces, and across from Keegan, will represent a
real problem for the Project, and for patrons and the immediate community.
5) [~~adE€~~~aaa~e~~a~ iraz~~cts, gr~ns~aczr~~~ca~n a€~d ~'r~f-€9c] - Impact, with propos~d mitigation, 3.3.1.1 '
discussion beginning an page-88 (Checi<list item #15, discussion item #lb). I disagree with the
study's environmental impact rating regarding Transportation and TrafFic.
There should be no doubt that there will be a huge increase in traffic and parking problems in the
immediate area of Grafton Plaza.
There wiil be thousands of vehicles and each will requ+re a parking space. Also, regardless of whether
the Project adopts a Commercial-Use or Mixed-Use Option, people will be taking many short trips
throughout the day, gaing to work, going to lunch, running errands, leaving wor{<, etc...
Now, take into consideration new projects which are yet to be developed along Dubiin Boulevard, just
east of the Project site, and maybe there will be a clear understanding af the impact of just the size of
Grafton Plaza on the immediate neighborhood.
Regarding parking, it has always been a problem out here in Dublin Ranch, specificaliy in the area of 3.3.12
The Terraces at Dublin Ranch, and the Sorrento at Dublin Ranch, and the Courtyards at Dublin Ranch,
etc... Alf Toll Brothers properties. One need only come out here and drive around the various
neighborhoods to see all the cars parked outside and along the streets. It looks awful.
Grafton Plaza must do two things: (1) There must be more-than-adequate parking provided for
visitors, workers and residents to the Project site, and (2) people who visit, or work, or live at the site
must be prevented from parking in a piace other khan at Grafton Plaza.
I would like to offer a thought I had while viewing the exhibits to the proposed Project pian. Granted,
I am not in the business of construction, or city planning, so please forgive me if this suggestion
appears na'ive... I would like to know if the Project considered for the northern-side of the proposed
lot in question, be swapped with the south-side of the lot which currentiy contains the water quality
control basin?
I'm suggesting that the water quality basin be moved and built on the north portion of the site, and a 3.3.13 !
small park built around it and made public(y accessible, and the Grafton Piaza project, with its
associated buildings be built instead on the southern portion of the site, closer to I-580.
GraRon Plaza - Initral Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration - 02-08-20i0 - Commen~s.doc - jb
4of5
3~ 6 ~ j~
. a.
- ` ~
If this is possible, many concerns and mitigation measures would be addressed, and residents living in
the immediate area would likely have much less concern about the Project and its impact on the
immediate area/neighborhood.
Finally, Mr. Porto, if you would like, I wouid invite you to our home, to see for yourself the possible 3.3.14'
impact, or impacts, this Praject will have on the quality of life for us. Piease let me know if you would
be interested in doing that, I would be happy to provide you that opportunity.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to respond with comments to the Environmental Impact Initiai
Si.udy ior th~ Graiton Pfaza Project.
Sincerely, and kind regards,
~ ~ `~_ ~~,.~`~~ ._
; ,~1 _"----~-~
Jon Brattebo
Grafton Plaza - Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Dedaration - 02-OS-2010 - Comments, doc - jb
SofS
~ i ~ ~ ~~~
City of Dubiin Page 7
Response to Comments April 2010
Grafton Plaza Project
Responses
The following are responses to each of the comment letters.
1.1) State of California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse
Comment : The Lead Agency has submitted corrected information for this project. No
other changes are proposed.
Response: This comment is acknowledged and no additional response is required.
1.2) State of California De~artment of Trans~ortation
Comment 1.2.1: Regarding Supplemental Mitigation Measure TRA-2 on page 97 of the
Initial Study, an alternative mitigation measure shoulcl be provided for improvements
at the Santa Rita Road / I-580 ramps should improvements not be completed prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Response: This comment is acknowledged. Supplemental Mitigation Measure TRA-2
would improve operations at the Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound ramp to an
acceptable level of service by adding a second northbound left turn lane under long-
term, cumulative (2030) conditions. That is, the impact is not projected to occur in
the near term; instead, it would be a long term cumulative impact of the project and
other development between the present and 2030 buildout. As written,
Supplemental Mitigation Measure TRA-2 provides for two methods of providing the
identified second left-turn lane. The first option, included as point "a" in the text of
the supplemental mitigation measure, notes that the identified improvement is
planned to be included in the City of Pleasanton's Traffic Impact Fee. If this does not
occur, then, as required by point "b" in the text of the supplemental mitigation
measure, an alternative method would be required to make the needed
improvement, including but not limited to funding of the improvement by the
Project developer with an appropriate reimb~.irsement arrangement.
The mitigation measure as written is adequate because it provides for establishment
of a funding mechanism for the I-580 ramp improvements prior to issuance of
building permits for the Project. That funding can be either the planned update of
the Pleasanton traffic fee, or an alternate mechanism that funds the improvement.
Contrary to the commenter's suggestion, mitigation improvements need not be
completed before issuance of building permits; this is because the long term
cumulative impact is not expected to occur then. Instead, funding for the
improvements must be established before issuance of builcling permits (see CEQA
Guidelines section 15130(a)(3)). This is exactly what the mitigations provide, as
written, so the requested mitigations are not required under CEQA.
City of Dublin
Response to Comments
Grafton Piaza Project
~~~ ~ ~~
Page 8
April 2010
Therefore, the City of Dublin believes that mitigation for the long term cumulative
(2030) impacts at Santa Rita Road/I-580 ramps was adequately addressed within the
current Supplemental Mitigation Measure.
Comment 1.2.2 : The commenter notes that based on information contained on page 98
of the Initial Study, the proposed Project will increase the volume -to-capacity (v/ c)
ratio by 0.2 seconds for mainline freeway segments which will result in an unacceptable
saturation level. The City is requested to provide additional mitigation measures for
this impact.
Res~onse: This comment is acknowledged. Volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) is a ratio,
which does not have units, and "seconds [of] delay" is not applicable to the roadway
segment analysis that is the subject of the comment.
As stated on page 98 of the Initial Study, the standard of significance for impacts on
the subject roadway segments is: "The addition of project trips causes the volume-
to-capacity (v/ c) ratio to increase by more than 0.02 on a segment that operates at
Level of Service (LOS) F." Note that the applicable numeric threshold is 0.02, not the
0.2 cited in the comment.
As shown in Tables 15, 16, and 17 in the Initial Sh.idy (pp. 100, 102-103), the Project
would not cause the v/c ratio to increase by more than 0.02 on any segment that
operates at LOS F. In Table 16, for SR 84 south of I-580, the southbound p.m. peak
values suggest a possible v/c increase of 0.02 with the project due to rounding, but a
footnote clearly demonstrates that the actual v/ c increase is 0.014 and well under the
"more than 0.02" threshold.
As stated on pages 99 and 101 of the MND, the project will have no significant
impact on the subject roadway segments, and therefore no additional mitigation is
required.
2.1) Citv of Dublin Police Services
Comment: The commenter has no comment on the Initial Study.
Res~onse: This comment is acknowledged and no further response is
required.
2.2) City of Dublin Parks and Community Services Department
Comment: The commenter has no comment on the Initial Study.
Res~onse: This comment is acknowledged and no further response is
required.
~'~ ~ y~
~
City of Dublin Page 9
Response to Comments April 2010
Grafton Piaza Project
2.3) Dublin San Ramon Services Districf
Comment 2.3.1:_The commenter notes that an Initial Shxdy/Mitigated Negative
Declaration was approved on this site in 2000. The current proposal for the sife
has been significantly altered and reduced from the previous proposal.
Response: This comment is acknowledged and no further response is required other
than to clarify that the referenced "previous proposal" is the 2008 proposal that was
withdrawn. The current Project is consistent with the density approved in 2000.
Comment 2.3.2: The District reviewed the previous 2000 MND and found no
deficiencies in that study. At that time, DSRSD found that the Project site is within the
DSRSD Service area and the District could provide wastewater, potable and recycled
water service. No new impacts or mitigation measures were identified than were
analyzed in the 2000 MND.
Res~onse: This comment is acknowledged and no further response is required.
Comment 2.3.3: The commenter notes that the District will be able to provide
wastewater collection, wastewater treatment, recycled water and potable water to serve
the Project under either development scenario.
Response: This comment is acknowledged and no further response is required.
2.4) Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Tanuar~
28 2010
Comment 2.4.1: The commenter requests that the text on page 106 of the Initial
Study be revised to state that Zone 7's annual allocation of State Water Project
water is 80,619 acre-feet on an annual basis. Also, delete the first sentence and a
potion of the second sentence that reads: "With regard to all of SWP
entitlements."
Res~onse: This comment is acknowledged and the text of the Initial Study is
corrected to read as follows. Also see the Changes and Modifications section of these
responses to comments.
"In a typical year, Zone 7 gets approximately 70 to 80 percent of its water supply
from wate~ conveyed through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by the State
Water Project. Zone 7 has a 75-year contract with the California Department of
Water Resources (DWR) to receive water from the State Water Project (SWP). The
entitlement under this contract is 4~888 80,619 acre-feet annually. SWP water is
delivered to Zone 7 from the Feather River Watershed via the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta. This water is then transported to Zone 7 through the California
Aqueduct to the South Bay Aqueduct and Lake Del Valle. Water enters the Zone
City of Dublin
Response to Comments
Grafton Plaza Project
~ ~,t~,_.{,?
~
Page 10
April 2010
7 system from the South Bay Aqueduct and from Lake Del Valle at two Zone 7
treatment plants: the Patterson Pass Treatrnent Plant and the Del Valle Water
Treatment Plant
or+;+i,,,~,.;,,r+~ Actual water deliveries vary, depending on hydrologic conditions,
requests by other contractors, delivery capacity and environmental / regulatory
requirements."
Comment 2.4.2: The commenter requests a clarification on page 107 under Local Surface
Water to ciarify the District's water rights from Lake Del Valle.
Res~onse: This comment is acknowledged and the text of the Initial Study is
clarified to read as follows. Also see the Changes and Modifications section of these
responses to comments.
"Local Surface Water: Lake Del Valle is a local storage reservoir operated as part
of the SWP. u ~„r„ ~~..,~ ,. ,.~,+~ +-,. a 2nn -, „_~„~+ ~~ ~~,~+o,. r„~,,..,,- ~,.,,,.,~
"~ ,
'-~^ ~~'~^'~ T~,~+^r~~^^-'. However, Zone 7 has ri~hts to 50 ~ercent of the runoff fror~
the lake's watershed after accounting for ~rior ri~hts. Zone 7 estimates that
~~roximately 7,400 to 11,450 acre-feet is available, but could chan~e in the
future."
Comment 2.4.3: The commenter requests a clarificakion on page 107 under Local
Groundwater to clarify the text regarding DSRSD pumping facilities.
Response: This comment is acknowledged and the text of the Initial Study is
corrected to read as follows. Also see the Changes and Modifications section of these
responses to comments.
Local Groundwater: Zone 7 and DSRSD use the local underground aquifer basin
as a storage facility for imported water. The aquifer is also naturally recharged
by rainwater falling in the watershed area. T~;~ ~~+;m~~~-' ~~,~'- ~ ~~~~ <,;^',a ~~
It is
per year. DSRSD does not have wells. Instead, they have a groundwater
pum~in~ ~uota of 645 acre-feet annuallv that Zone 7~um~s for them."
Comment 2.4.4: Text changes are requested on page 108 of the Initial Study regarding
future alternative sources of water that could be available to the District.
City of Dublin
Response to Comments
Grafton Plaza Project
~~~~
Page 11
April 2010
Res~onse: This comment is acknowledged and the text of the Initial Study is
corrected to read as follo~vs. Also see the Changes and Modifications section of these
responses to comments.
"Zone 7 is altering its 100% Reliability Policy, which requires Zone 7 to have
adequate supplies available to meet 100% of customer demand ~+ ~'~
through conditions selected by Zone 7 staff. "
2.5) Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Tanuarv 29, 2010)
Comment 2.5.1: The commenter notes references to a regional water quality basin for
the Dublin Ranch project. The commenter requests a copy of the stormwater
management plan for the basin, stating that the District tivas not informed of basin
construction or the specific design criteria used. The commenter also requests all
hydrologic analyses associated with the basin so it can be determined if there would be
any impact on Zone 7 facilities.
Res~onse: This comment is acknowledged. As noted in the Irutial Study, the
water quality basin is an existing privately owned facility. The purpose of the
basin is to meet surface water quality standards rather than serve as a drainage
facility. The basin was installed in compliance with permit conditions imposed
by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Q~iality Control Board for development
of Dublin Ranch. The basin is designed to hold low-flow stormwater runoff so
that pollutants settle out into the basin prior to release of treated water back into
the regional storm drain system. The basin system diverts only low flows into the
basin, with peak stormwater flowing directly into the regional drainage system.
The downstream Zone 7 drainage system is therefore not impacted by the
management and operation of the basin.
Additional design data on the water quality pond as well as documentation of the 2005
approval of the basin is on file in the City Public Works Departrnent and available for
review during normal business hours. As noted on page 7 of the Initial Study: "no
changes are proposed to the existing water quality basin within the Project site and no
further discussion is provided in this Project Description."
Comment 2.5.2: The Initial Study states that the Project site was once within a 100-year
flood hazard area; however, the City filed a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) which
removed the site from flooding with placement of up to 8 feet of fill. The commenter
requests copies of the LOMR documentation as well as supporting documents and
hydrologic analyses that show that filling of the site and forcing floodwaters else~vhere
will not impact Zone 7 flood control facilities downstream of the site.
Res~onse: Per the FEMA floodplain maps for the City of Dublin, the lower
portion of Dublin Ranch was subject to overflow from the Arroyo Mocho, due to
a restriction in the unimproved Arroyo Mocho channel through Staples Ranch,
south of the I-580 freeway within the City of Pleasanton. This restriction in the
City of Dublin
Response to Comments
Grafton Plaza Project
~~ ~ ~~
Page 12
April 2010
channel caused peak flood flows to back up and cross I-580 to the Dublin Ranch
property, flooding a portion of the Project site. The floodwaters then flowed to
the west and drained to the south through a number of box culverts installed as
part of I-580 freeway construction.
Then, the G-3 drainage system was constructed, consisting of both open channels
and a large box culvert, to accommodate increased quantities of stormwater from
development of Dublin Ranch. The G-3 system collects stormwater runoff and
transports this water south, under the I-580 freeway, into the Arroyo Mocho
channel and ultimately into San Francisco Bay.
Subsequently, Dublin Ranch was graded and filled. The graded condition of the
Grafton Plaza site left a small v-ditch immediately north of the I-580 freeway to
serve as a secondary overflow channel that would collect flood flows that might
cross the freeway and direct such flows back into the G-3 channel.
Since the time that the Dublin Ranch grading and the G3 box culvert were
completed, Zone 7 has completed capacity improvements to the Arroyo Mocho
through Staples Ranch. It is the City's understanding that these improvements
eliminated the overflow of the Arroyo Mocho across I-580 and, when combined
with site grading, raised the Grafton Plaza site out of the 100-year flood hazard
area without redirecting floodwaters.
Additional details on the hydraulic design of the G-3 box culvert and the LOMR
are on file in the City Public Works Department and available for review during
normal business hours. Zone 7 should have information on the hydraulic
capacity of the improved Arroyo Mocho channel.
Comment 2.5.3: The commenter notes that the Grafton Plaza Initial Study references the
Eastern Dublin EIR. Since this document was dated 1993, the commenter asks for copies
of the original document's Mitigation Measures related to Hydrology and Water
Quality, since the Initial Study does not appear to adequately describe the required
mitigation measures.
Res~onse: This commenter is directed to pages 69 and 70 of the Initial Study that
accurately summarizes hydrologic impacts and mitigation measures adopted in
connection with the Eastern Dublin approvals. The Eastern Dublin EIR is on file in
the Dublin Community Development Department and available for review during
normal business hours. From the time the Eastern Dublin mitigation measures were
adopted, they have been implemented routinely throughout Eastern Dublin,
including Dublin Ranch. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15162/ 15163
regarding subsequent environmental reviews, the MND provides adequate
description of the background mitigations already applicable to the project and
project site by virtue of the Eastern Dublin approvals. That is, the referenced
measures are not proposed for adoption; they were previously adopted and are
applicable to any future development on the Project site. Based on implementation
of those previously approved mitigation measures at the appropriate stage of Project
~ ~ ~~~~.~
City of Dublin Page 13
Response to Comments April 2010
Grafton Plaza Project
development, the MND identified no additional significant impacts beyond those
previously identified and thus, no need for additional mitigations. The description
of the Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures is adequate for the purposes of
CEQA Guidelines section 15162/15163.
Comment 2.5.4: The commenter asks when these mitigation measures will be
implemented. Zone 7 staff requests to be notified well in advance and provided with
proposed mitigation plans.
Res~onse: As required by CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures
included in adopted environmental documents will be implemented in accord with
the related Mitigation Monitoring Programs. Many of the mitigation measures
adopted as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR have already been implemented. These
include, for example, a requirement for individual project developers to prepare and
implement master drainage plans (Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0) and construction of
the G-3 regional drainage system and related facilities (Mitigation Measures
3.5/45.0, 47.0 and 48.0).
The adopted mitigation monitoring programs are on file in the City planning
department and available for review during normal business hours. As may be
appropriate for individual mitigation measures, Zone 7 staff will be included in the
implementation of such measure.
Comment 2.5.5: The commenter asks to see the original 2000 MND that contains
mitigation Measures 5 and 6 related to Hydrology and Water Quality.
Response: This commenter is directed to page 70 of the Initial St~.idy that accurately
summarizes Mitigation Measures 5 and 6. See Response to Comment 2.5.3
regarding the use and adequacy of descriptions of previously adopted mitigation
measures. The same principles apply to the mitigations adopted through the 2000
MND and described in the current Project MND.
2.6) Alameda County Public Works Agenc~
Comment 2.6.1: The commenter is concerned that augmentation in runoff from the
Project site may impact flow capacity in the Alameda Creek Federal Project and in
watercourses between the site and the Federal Project. There is also concern about
increases in the rate of erosion along these same watercourses that could cause localized
damage and result in deposition of silt in the Federal Project. The commenter notes that
there shoLrld be no augmentation of runoff quantity or duration from the Project site
that would adversely impact downstream drainage faalities.
Res~onse: This comment is acknowledged. Based on information contained on
pages 70 and 71 of the Grafton Plaza Initial Study document, the Project developer is
required to prepare a storm drain master plan pursuant to Eastern Dublin EIR
Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0. The plan must be designed to City of Dublin and Zone
City of Dublin
Response to Comments
Grafton Plaza Project
~~ ~ ':~, . ~~
Page 14
April 2010
7 drainage criteria to minimize augmented stormwater runoff into nearby creeks
and streams.
The Dublin Ranch Master Drainage Plan has been prepared to address mitigation
measures from previous CEQA documents applicable to this site. Based on this
Master Plan the regional G-3 drainage system has been designed and constructed to
accommodate increased peak storm flows from the entire Dublin Ranch portion of
Eastern Dublin, including proposed development on the Grafton Plaza Project site.
To address meeting water quality regulations, including the potential for increases
in downstream siltation, the Project developer has constructed the water quality
basin on the southern portion of the Grafton Plaza site. For more information of the
purpose, function and operation of the water quality basin, the commenter is
directed to the Response to Comment 2.5.1.
Based on the above information and information contained in the Initial Study, the
City of Dublin does not believe that approval and construction of the Grafton Plaza
Project would exceed the drainage design capacity for stormwater flows through the
Federal Alameda Creek facility. Due to the constr-uction of the water quality basin,
there would also not be a significant increase in the amount of silt deposited in
Alameda Creek.
Comment 2.6.2: The commenter requests that the applicant provide measures to
prevent discharge of contaminated materials into public drainage facilities. It is the
responsibility of the applicant to comply with Federal, State and local water quality
standards and regulations.
Response: The MND sets forth the regulatory setting for ensuring that new
development maintains applicable water quality standards. EDEIR mitigations
require water quality investigations to control pollutant discharge into drainage
facilities. These mitigations were updated in the 2000 MND through Mitigation
Measure 5 that requires development projects to prepare Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) to maintain acceptable water quality during and after
project construction. As noted above, an area wide master drainage plan was
prepared in 2003.
Pursuant to these Mitigation Measures and the master drainage plan, the Dublin
Ranch Project has secured a Water Quality Certification and Waste Discharge Permit
from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Order No. R2-2003-0032). This
permit sets forth the requirements for compliance with water quality standards and
regulations, including adherence to the Dublin Ranch Stormwater Management Plan
and preparation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) pursuant to the
general Storm Construction Permit, for development of the Dublin Ranch.
The Dublin Ranch Stormwater Management Plan includes a requirement to
construct and maintain the water quality basin in the southern portion of the
Grafton Plaza site, which serves as the major water quality infrastructure element
for the overall Dtiblin Ranch, including the Grafton Plaza Project. The basin was
Ciry of Dublin
Response to Comments
Grafton Plaza Project
~a~~ ~~
Page 15
April 2010
built in 2005 and includes features such as swales, plantings and other passive water
quality improvement features.
Dublin Ranch has secured anci maintains a construction a SWPPP (WID No.
201C320937), which is revised as individual construction projects begin and end
within the overall Dttblin ranch. This SWPPP will be updated to include the specifics
of the Grafton Plaza Project once development details are known. Project-specific
water quality investigations are required with submittal of future Site Development
Review, Stage 2 Developinent Plans and subdivision map applications to the City of
Dublin.
Through these regulatory requirements and previously adopted mitigations, the
Project will prevent discharge of contaminated materials into public drainage
facilities. Any potential water quality impacts have been adequately identified and
mitigated through applicable regulatory requirements and EDEIR and 2000 MND
mitigation. No further measures are required under CEQA.
3.1) Chris Didato
Comment 3.1.1: The commenter states his belief that the Project applicant (Charter
Properties) should be spending 100 percent of their effort to complete the Promenade
development, northwest of the Project site. The City should also do everything to
facilitate the Promenade.
The commenter notes that completion of the Promenade will increase sales for nearby
dwellings, property values will rise and there would be a rise in taxes to the City. The
local real estate market would also be stabilized. There could also be downsides to this
approach due to a lag in fulfillment of leases for the proposed Grafton Plaza Project.
Response: This comment is acknowledged. The comment does not address
environmental issues. The City notes that it has no authority to require the developer
to complete the Promenade project prior to approval of the proposed Grafton Plaza
Project. The City also notes that the entire Promenade Project has secured a Stage 2
Planned Development. The Clubsport/Mercantile and parking garage has received a
Site Development Review approval. An additional 5 sites make up the Promenade
area and these sites will require a Site Development Review Permit prior to
construction. Charter Properties is actively marketing this site to businesses. The
proposed action for the Grafton Plaza Project represents the first phase of many future
approvals required to actually construct buildings on the Grafton Plaza Project site.
As noted on Page 10 of the Initial Study document, the applicants must secure a Stage
2 Planned Development and other approvals that would identify specific land uses on
the site, precise density, development regulations and similar Project details.
City of Dublin
Response to Comments
Grafton Plaza Project
3.2) Gabrielle Blackman
3~6~ ~~
Page 16
April 2010
Comment 3.2.1: The commenter states her happiness in the reduction of the Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) of the proposed Project. She is concerned that the current Project includes
FAR that would be transferred from the adjacent water quality pond, which results in a
greater amount of gross square footage on the site. Without the FAR transfer from the
water quality basin, the proposed Grafton Plaza building would be smaller with a lower
height, more in keeping with the area.
Res~onse: This commenter's opinion regarding the overall Project is noted. The
Project square footage is consistent with the density approved for the 25.33-acre site
in 2000. The Project proposes to cluster development on the northerly portion of the
site, which is not an uncommon planning technique and has been used on other sites
throughout Dublin for various purposes, e.g., along major stream corridors. The
clustering technique inevitably increases density in the development area, while
reducing or eliminating density in the non-development area. Thus, the Project
consolidates future potential development in the northerly portion of the site, but
open space and recreation resources have also been consolidated with the water
quality basin. The basin provides a large, distinct green space with recreational
facilities, such as a pedestrian pathway. These areas would normally be located
throughout a development area in the form of smaller, intermittent spaces and
would not provide the Project's views across the basin site.
The specific development standards for any future Project development would be
established with future PD-Stage 2 Development Plans. Building height and
massing standards would be approved at that time; however, based on the City's
standard parking requirements, future development on the site could be expected to
be approximately 3-6 stories, which is consistent with the overall character of the
area. For example, the Promenade development is anticipated for up to 3 stories,
while the existing Terraces development is 4 stories of residential development. The
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the Terraces is 2.16.
The Project is consistent with the applicable 0.45 FAR and employs the clustering
technique to provide a unique combination of open space and recreational features
with a large-scale water quality facility and a development area that would be
generally similar in character and scale to other development in the area. The MND
has assessed the potential environmental impacts of the Project as proposed. Future
application reviews and implementation of adopted and proposed rnitigations
would ensure that any future developinent will be attractive and appropriate for the
Project site area.
Comment 3.2.2: The commenter states her opinion that the requested PD rezoning seems
unethical. She and her neighbors purchased homes north of the Grafton Plaza site with
the understanding that this site was to be developed with Campus Office uses, not for
residential development. The commenter notes that there is an abundant amount of
residential property in Eastern Dublin and adding new residential will oversaturate the
market and drive down property values. There would then be a downward spiral, with
City of Dublin
Response to Comments
Grafton Plaza Project
~~ ~~
Page 17
Aprii 2010
decreased revenues to the City and more foreclosures. The commenter desires to retain
the value of her property at the Terraces and the Grafton Plaza site should be developed
as originally planned and zoned.
Res~onse: This commenter's opinion regarding the proposed rezoning and
proposed residential uses on the Grafton Plaza site is noted. The comment does not
raise environmental issues; however, the City notes that the existing Campus Office
land use designation contained in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
has always allowed inclusion of residential units as part of a mixed-use
development that would decrease overall traffic generation or increase social
interaction. The maximum amount of residential development is limited to 5Q% of
the developed area. Therefore, the proposed Grafton Plaza Project could include up
to 50% residential development under the current General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan without the requested approvals.
Further, all required procedures for processing rezoning requests are being
followed. Under both State law and the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, property owners
may request rezoning of their property. The rezoning request cannot be approved
by the Dublin City Council until fully noticed public hearings are held by the Dublin
Planning Commission and City Council and necessary findings are made. Notice
for the proposed rezoning hearing by the Dublin Planning Commission has been
mailed out and published in the local newspaper, as required by law. The rezoning
is requested pursuant to the City's PD-Planned Development regulations, which is
usually a 2-step process. The Applicant is requesting the first step, which is a PD-
Stage 1 Development Plan. A PD rezoning is not always the more typical rezoning
from one district to another and from one set of uses to another. The proposed
campus office and residential mixed use options are largely permitted under the
existing land use designations and PD-Stage 1 Development Plan zoning.
As noted in the Introduction, the proposed land use and zoning changes formalize
the alternate campus office and residential mixed use options already permitted in
CO areas. If approved, the proposal also would expand permitted uses in the
residential mixed use option, e.g., to allow shopkeeper, live-work units, etc. Thus,
the effect and character of future development would be generally similar to what is
already permitted. Under these circumstances, the City does not agree that the
proposed rezoning is unethical. If neighbors in the Terraces had reviewed the CO
land use designations for the site, the uses would be very similar to the Project.
3.3) Ton Brattebo
Comment 3.3.1: The commenter notes that the single greatest impact of the proposed
Project concerns the impact of quality of life for homeowners who have purchased
residences in Dublin Ranch within a one-half mile radius of the Project.
Response: This commenter's opinion regarding Project impacts of quality of
life on existing residences is noted. Also see the Response to Comment 3.3.3.
City of Dublin
Response to Comments
Grafton Plaza Project
~~~~ ~' ~ °2J~
'~~
Page 18
Aprii 2010
Comment 3.3.2: The second greatest impact would be on the City's infrastructure and
their ability to support and maintain the additional resources necessary to sustain a
project of this size.
Response: This commenter's opinion regarding the City's infrastructure system is
noted. However, as set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and a number of
subsequent documents, the City of Dublin, tivorking with Zone 7, Dublin San Ramon
Services District and other local and regional agencies have carefully planned for
development of Eastern Dublin since 1993. This planning included extensions and
widening of roadways, new water facilities, wastewater collection and treatment
infrastructure, new drainage facilities, new and / or expanded schools, additional
police staffing, new fire stations and other infrastructure needed to support planned
development. Infrastructure planning assumed development of Campus Office uses
on the Project site, such as adoption of Traffic Impact Fees by the City of Dublin to
fund new and expanded roadways, water and sewer master planning by Dublin San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and others, so thaf adequate infrastructure would
exist to serve the proposed Grafton Plaza Project. The potential impacts of
urbanizing Eastern Dublin and the Project site were further examined in the certified
EDEIR and in the 2000 MND for Area H. These reviews, approvals, mitigations and
compliance with regulatory and development standards will provide infrastructure
adequate to support the Project.
Comment 3.3.3: The commenter asks the City of Dublin and City planners to put
themselves in the shoes of homeowners in Dublin. The Planning Commission must try
to understand the impact of the Project and its size on the immediate residents of the
area by trying to imagine what life would be like near Grafton Plaza.
Response: This commenter's request that the Dublin Planning Commission and
other City officials understand the impact of the Project on nearby residents is
acknowledged. Effects of the Project on quality of life is not a CEQA issue. Through
the EDEIR, the 2000 MND and the Project MND, the City has adequately analyzed
the potential environmental effects of the Project.
Comment 3.3.4: The commenter disagrees with the conclusion contained in the Initial
Shidy regarding aesthetics. The Initial Study seems to place an emphasis on the
preservation of scenic views from transportation corridors and arteries coming into
Dublin. The commenter is concerned about the preservation of those same scenic views of
the Tri-Valley for Dublin residents and homeowners. The finding of the Initial Study that
the Project would be Less-than-Significant is not realisfic and does nothing to address the
significant impact to homeowners in the immediate vicinity of the Grafton Plaza site. The
impact will be governed largely by the height, positioning and location of proposed
buildings on the lot.
Res~onse: This commenter is correct that the Initial Sttxdy applies existing Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan visual resource standards and the Eastern Dublin Scenic
Corridor Policies and Standards to assess the anticipated aesthetic impacts of the
City of Dublin
Response to Comments
Grafton Plaza Project
~~~ ~~
Page 19
April 2010
Grafton Plaza Project. These standards and policies ~vere adopted many years ago
when no residential development existed within the Eastern Dublin Planning Area.
They were therefore largely directed at the anticipated aesthetic impacts of
converting the vacant Eastern Dublin area to urban uses, which has been in progress
since 1993. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that the open space character of the
vacant lands (at the time the EIR was certified in 1993) would be lost as development
proceeded over time. As applied to the Project site, which has been designated for
urban-level development since adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan, the Eastern Dublin EIR disclosed that the open space
characfer and views would be replaced by development in Eastern Dublin. Given
these unavoidable impacts, aesthetic impacts were therefore directed to views of the
Eastern Dublin area from passersby on I-580 and other major roadways.
The concern raised by the commenter is subsection "c" of the Initial Study found on
page 35. The impact criteria reads: " Would the project substantially degrade the
visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?"
The response to this question in the Initial Study notes that the Grafton Plaza site
contains no significant scenic resources, since the site has been graded. CEQA
defines scenic resources as including major stands of firees, major rock outcroppings,
creeks or similar natural features. Since none of these resources exist on the Project
site, there would be a less-than-significant impact on these resources.
The Initial Sh.tdy also addresses views from adjacent residents onto the Grafton
Plaza site and associated aesthetic impacts. Given that the site has long been
planned for urbanization, the Initial Study contains Supplemental Mitigation
Measure VIS-1 to ensure that building elevations fronting on Dublin Boulevard and
adjacent to residences on the north side of Dublin Boulevard will be interesting and
attractive. Any future development on the Project site would require Site
Development Review to ensure that proposed development is well designed.
Comment 3.3.5: The commenter states that the proposed enhancements to building
elevations through implementation of Mi~igation Measure VIS-1 falls far short of
addressing concerns regarding building height and the preservation of scenic views and
corridors of the natural beauty of the Tri-Valley area. The commenter concurs with the
conclusion stated in the Initial Study that construction of the Grafton Plaza Project
would have a potentially significant impact on nearby resident, travelers and visitor to
the area (see page 35 of the Initial Study). The commenter asks if one would rather look
at the natural beauty of the Tri-Valley, or more large multi-story buildings across the
street. It seems that the City of Dublin is more concerned about its image in the eyes of
non-residents than homeowners who live in Dublin.
Res~onse: This commenter's opinion regarding the effectiveness of Mitigation
Measure VIS-1 is noted. The City of Dublin notes that the Grafton Plaza site has been
designated for urban development through the Campus Office designation since
1993. Leaving the site as vacant open space is not realistic and would not be
consistent with the General Plan or Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The potential
City of Dublm
Response to Comments
Grafton Plaza Project
~~ ~ ~~
e 2~
Pag 0
April 2010
effects of converting open space lands to urban uses was identified as significant and
unavoidable in Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.8/B. Adopted mitigations emphasized
retention of predominant natural features, but the loss of open space characteristics
throughout East Dublin could not be avoided as urbanization proceeded.
As stated in the Initial Study, future buildings within the Grafton Plaza will be
subject to approval of both a Stage 2 Development Plan and a Site Development
Review (SDR) permit by the City of Dublin, assuming the pending General and
Specific Plan Amendments and rezoning applications are approved by the City of
Dublin. When reviewing the Stage 2 Development Plan and SDR applications, the
City of Dublin will consider the aesthetics of final Project design, building heights,
landscaping and screening. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure VIS-1
will also be confirmed as part of the final design of future buildings. As noted in
Response 3.2.1, the character of the Project is anticipated to be similar to existing
development in the area. Scenic vistas are identified in the General Plan through the
Visually Sensitive Ridgelands to the north and east of the site. A visual analysis will
be required for any future developmenf applications; however, the City notes that
the Project site has maintained a major corridor across the water quality basin for
views of the scenic ridgelands from I-580 and other public vantage points.
The City notes that the public, including adjacent residents, will have an
opportunity to review and comment on future specific development plans when
they are submitted to the City of Dublin.
Comment 3.3.6: With respect to light and glare impacts of the proposed Project, the
commenter requests the Mitigation Measure VIS-3 be amended to require that interior
light fixtures should have sensors to turn off lights when office spaces are unoccupied,
or the hours of operation for businesses within buildings be controlled adjacent to
Dublin Boulevard so as not to disturb nearby residents.
Res~onse: The mitigation measures identified in the MND would reduce the light
and glare impact to less than significance. However, the City agrees that the
commenter's suggestion would help to further reduce the identified impact. Based
on this comment, with minor revisions to provide for emergency lighting,
Supplemental Mitigation Measure VIS-3 is hereby modified to read as follows:
Supplemental Miti~ation Measure VIS-3. Project developer(s) shall
incorporate the following features into final building and improvement
plans for building elevations adjacent to Dublin Boulevard:
a) Streetlight fixtures and ground level, pedestrian oriented light fixtures
shall be equipped with cut-off-lenses to direct light patterns in a
downward direction. Photometric plans shall be included with final.
building and improvement plans to ensure that spillover of light is
minimized.
b) Exterior lights on upper floors shall minimize glare off of the site.
City of Dublin
Response to Comments
Grafton Plaza Project
~~~ ~ ~
Pa e 21
April 2010
c) Interior lights for non-residential uses shall be dimmed or turned off
when not in use or needed for building security purposes.
d) Illumination shall be limited for exterior signs. If feasible, "canister"
sign types should not be used in favor of non-illuminated or exterior
illuminated fixtures.
e) Landscaping lighting shall be limited and directed appropriately to
avoid spillover of light and glare onto adjacent properties.
f) Li~ht fixtures for interior buildin~spaces visible from Dublin
Boulevard shall be equipped with timing devices to turn off li~hts
when buildin~ snaces are not in use, excent for erner~encv li~htin~, ~
Comment 3.3.7: The commenter notes that the Initial Study omits an analysis of privacy
on existing residences. Occupants of multi-story buildings within the Grafton Plaza
Project would be able to see into sotrthern facing residences of The Terraces complex.
Regardless of whether or not Terrace residences have window treatments, the issue of
privacy should be considered and appropriate mitigation measures created.
Response: The issue of resident privacy within The Terraces development is
important, but privacy is not considered an environmental topic under CEQA or the
CEQA Guidelines. In an urban setting where development of the site and the larger
area is assumed, the issue of privacy is typically addressed through building
setbacks, building orientation, window placement, landscape screening and other
design review features, taking into account proximity to other buildings and the
intervening presence of streets, such as Dublin Boulevard. These features will be
reviewed and addressed by the City of Dublin at the Site Development Review
(SDR) stage of future Project revie~v, when site design and layout, specific buildings
and building orientations are proposed within the Grafton Plaza Project.
Comment 3.3.8: The commenter disagrees with the conclusion of potential noise impacts
beginning on page 73 of the Initial Study. Specifically, there is already a significant level
of noise along Dublin Boulevard from autos and motorcycles using this road as well as
noise from I-580. There could be additional noise depending on the development option
chosen on the Grafton Plaza site, but the commenter would oppose any plan that does
not sufficiently address additional noise. Of concern would be noisy or boisterous
individuals loitering near the proposed Project. Concerns with the mixed-use option
would be restaurants open past 9:00 pm, unless access were restricted only from Grafton
Street. The commenter would have noise concerns for development under the
Commercial-Use Option, including vehicle traffic, back up generators and other ground-
mounted equipment
Res~onse: Potential noise impacts of approving and developing the proposed
Project are addressed in Section 12 of the Initial Study. The Initial Study does note
that existing (pre-Project) noise levels on Dublin Blvd. are 66 CNEL (see Table 9 of
the Initial Study), which is within the "conditionally acceptable" noise exposure
level as set forth in Table 10 of the Initial Study. As noted in the Initial Study, future
traffic volumes would not significantly exceed future volumes predicted in the
~~ U v~
City of Dublin y age 22
Response to Comments April 2010
Grafton Plaza Project
Eastern Dublin EIR and no new or substantially more severe impacts would be
expected beyond those previously identified.
Construction of buildings on the Project site would shield some buildings within the
Terraces from noise emanating from I-580. Outdoor decks for dwellings within the
Terraces complex have been equipped with plexiglass panels to attenuate noise from
Dublin Boulevard.
Potential noise from generators and ground-mounted equipment will be regulated
by adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 that requires a site-
specific acoustic report for all future buildings ~vithin the Grafton Plaza Project that
includes a residential complex. Each report must contain specific noise reduction
techniques to ensure that exterior noise levels meet City requirements.
Noise generated by loud or boisterous visitors to the Grafton Plaza site would be a
management and security issue and is not considered a significant environmental
impact under CEQA.
Comment 3.3.9: The commenter disagrees with the conclusion of the Initial Study with
respect to Population and Housing. There will be a significant impact along the Dublin
Boulevard corridor, but this impact may not be observable until other projects are built.
There would be an immediate impact to the Project area, within one-half mile, with an
increase in population and traffic density. There are a number of unsold houses in The
Terraces and a number of other development projects in the surrounding area. Within a
short period of time, population and traffic density will be significant. There is a concern
with the quality of life of current residents in the immediate area of the Project when
many more people are added.
Response: The commenter misconstrues the type of analysis required by the CEQA
Guidelines in the Population and Housing category. Issues analyzed include a
discussion of inducement of a substantial population growth to an area, either
directly or indirectly, and whether there would be a displacement of e~cisting
housing units or people.
As indicated on page 84 of the Initial Study, the future development included in the
proposed Grafton Plaza Project has long been assumed in the Dublin General Plan
and the Eastern Dublin Specific PIan. Growth inducing impacts of developing the
entire Eastern Dublin area was analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. As noted in
the Initial St~idy on p. 84, the proposed Grafton Plaza Project somewhat expands the
General Plan and Specific Plan permitted uses, but retains the 0.45 FAR density
approved in 2000. There would be no growth inducement beyond that analyzed in
the prior CEQA documents.
Since the site is vacant, there would be no impact with respect to displacement of
residences or people should the Project be approved and built. Therefore, the
finding contained in the Initial Study is valid.
City of Dublin
Response to Comments
Grafton Plaza Project
3.~~ ~~~,
~
Page 23
April 2010
Comment 3.3.10: The commenter disagrees with the conclusion of the Initial Study with
respect to public services. The commenter has a perception that the Dublin Police
Department is stretched thin in terms of not having enough police officers to do the job.
There are documented cases of crime in The Terraces and in other nearby residential
projects. The commenter does not see a major police patrol presence in the Dublin Ranch
area and there is a perception that there are not enough police officers in Dublin.
Therefore, the proposed Mixed-Use Option may not be as good for the immediate area as
the Commercial option. The Mixed-Use Option could attract a bad element of people
from across Keegan, which would be a real problem for the Project.
Response: The commenter's opinion regarding police protection in Dublin is noted.
Based on a discussion with the Dublin Police Services Departrnent (Val Guzman,
2.24/10), the City of Dublin Police Services Department is staffed with 1.15 officers
per 1,000 residents, which is consistent with the Departrnent's staffing goals.
Further, the Police Services Department reviewed the MND and had no comments.
(See Letter 2.1.) Based on this information and the police services analyses in the
prior EIR and MND, this impact is less-than-significant, as concluded in the Initial
Study.
Comment 3.3.11: The commenter disagrees with the conclusion of the Initial Study that
states transportation and traffic impacts would be less-than-significant. There would be a
huge increase in traffic and parking problems near the Project site, including thousands
of vehicles needing parking. There is also a concern with adding anticipated Grafton
Plaza parking needs with all other to-be-developed projects along Dublin Boulevard.
Res~onse: The commenter's opinion regarding traffic impacts is noted. A traffic
impact analysis ~vas prepared for this Project by TJKM Transportation Consultants,
consultants to the City of Dublin. This report is included in the Initial Study
document as Appendix 3. The traffic analysis studied the potential impacts of the
Project on existing conditions as well as short term cumulative (2015) and long term
cumulative (2030) conditions. Table 11 of the Initial Study notes that buildout of the
Grafton Plaza Project would add an estimated 482 vehicle trips in the morning pealc
and 951 vehicle trips in the evening peak period. The Initial Study shows that
Project traffic is not expected to cause unacceptable peak hour traffic conditions
when added to existing traffic (Table 12) or to projected short term cumulative
(2015) traffic (Table 13). Under long term cumulative (2030) conditions, however,
the traffic analysis identified two new potential impacts with related mitigation
measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant. Supplemental Mitigation
Measures TRA-1 and TRA-2 require improvements to the Dublin
Boulevard/Tassajara Road intersection and the Santa Rita Road/I-580 freeway
ramps as part of long-term (2030) buildout conditions. The MND adequately
updates prior environmental analyses regarding increased traffic from futtire
development of the Project and appears to provide exactly the review the
commenter seems to be suggesting. The conclusions contained in the Initial Study
regarding traffic impacts are valid, as analyzed.
City of Dublin
Response to Cornments
Grafton Plaza Project
~.~..~~ ~ ~~
Page 24
April 2010
Comment 3.3.12: The commenter notes that parking has always been an issue in the
Dublin Ranch area, including at The Terraces, Sorrento and the Courtyards. Many cars
are parked outside of the neighborhoods and on local streets. There must be more than
adequate parking for Grafton Plaza visitors, workers and residents and people visiting
Grafton Plaza must be prevented from parking at a place other than Grafton Plaza.
Response: The commenter's opinion regarding potential parking impacts is
noted. Potential parking impacts are addressed on page 104 of the Initial
Sh.idy. Future developer(s) of the Grafton Plaza Project will be required to
comply with Supplemental Mitigation Measure TRA-3 that requires the
provision of on-site parking within the Grafton Plaza site to comply with City
of Dublin parking standards. The City of Dublin will confirm the quantity of
on-site parking in compliance with City codes when a Stage 2 Development
Plan is submitted for review in the future, when specific land uses are
proposed for the Grafton Plaza site. The amount of parking could only be
reduced based on a shared parking analysis that demonstrates. that an
adequate amount of parking could be provided. With adherence to this
supplemental measure, no significant parking impacts would be created.
Specific design details regarding parking will be addressed in conjunction
with future Stage 2 Development Plans and Site Development Reviews by the
City of Dublin.
Comment 3.3.13: The commenter asks if the proposed site plan could be modified to
locate the water quality basin on the north side of the site, with development occurring
on the south side of the site, where the pond is currently located. If this were done, many
local residents would have less concern about the Grafton Plaza Project.
Res~onse: The commenter's question about the possibility of "swapping" land uses
on the site is noted. However, based on the Iarge cost of constructing the water
quality basin in its current location, the additional cost to fill and compact the
existing basin, and then excavate a new basin just north of the current basin would be
prohibitive and this proposal would not be feasible.
Comment 3.3.14: The commenter extends an offer to the Dublin City staff to visit his
house and see the potential impacts of the Grafton Plaza Project on their quality of life.
Res~onse: This comment is noted and no further response is required.