No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.4 EDubPropAttach7Vol2Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Volume 2: Appendices SCH No. 2001052114 Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report East Dublin PrOperties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Volume 2: Appendices SCHNo. 2001052114 Lead Agency City of Dublin January 2002 CITY'OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Notice of Preparation Website: http://www, ci.dublin.ca.us TO." Distribution List (see attached) Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Date: May 25, 2001 Lead Agency: City of Dublin Planning Department ] O0 Civic Plaza 1 Dublin CA 94568 Contact: Anne Kinney, AICP, Planning Department, (925)~833 6610 The City of Dublin will be the Lead Agency and hereby invites comments on the proposed scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. Your agency may need to use the EIR prepared by the Lead Agency when considering follow-on permits or other approvals for this project. Project Title: East Dublin Properties (PA 00-025). Project Location: Unincorporated area of Alameda CoUnty, adjacent to City of Dublin eastern city limits, mediately north of Interstate 580 and east of Fallon Road. See attached project location map. The site encompasses approximately 1,120 acres of land. Project Description: Planned Development Prezone / Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation/Detachment application to facilitate the annexation of approximately 1,120 acres of land to the City of Dublin and attachment to and detachment from various service districts. The Planned Development (PD) Prezone / Stage 1 Development Plan would provide zoning for various land uses including commercial, industrial and residential development, parks, schools, open space and other uses. The attached Initial Study identifies potential environmental effects anticipated to be discussed in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Due to time limits mandated by State law, your response must be remmed at the earliest possible time but not later than June 27, 2001. Please send your response to the contact person identified above. Signature: Title:, ~t.,~ e.,~ Telephone: Area Code (925) - City Manager 833-6650 · City Council 833-6650 · Personnel 833-6605 - Economic Development 833-6650 Finance 833-6640 - Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 - Parks & Community Services 833-6645' · Police 833-6670 Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 · Building Inspection 833-6620 - Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 Printed on Recycled Paper DISTRIBUTION LIST TO: Office of Planning and Research- Terry Roberts (15 copies) Dublin San Ramon Services District (Brace Webb) Dublin Unified School District- John Sugiyama LAVTA Zone 7, ACFC&WCD - Diane Gaines Alameda County Planning Department - Adolph Martinelli Surplus Property Authority of Alameda County - Pat Cashman Alameda County Public Works Department Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission Congestion Management Agency (CMA) - Jean Hart East Bay Regional Parks District Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District U.S. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks) - Lt. Col. Dale Bain PG&E Pacific Bell TCI Cable U.S. Postal Service - Postmaster City of Pleasanton Planning Department City of Livermore Planning Department Livermore Area Recreation and Park District - Doug Bell CalTrans - District 4 CEQA Coordinator and Project Development BART LAVWMA U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Regulatory Branch California Department of Fish and Game - Region 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - State Supervisor LAFCO - Lou Ann Texteria Citizens for Balanced Growth Smart Flashman Richard Ambrose, City Manager Captain Thuman, Police Services Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development Director Lee Thompson, Public Works Director Carole Perry, Finance/Administrative Services Director Elizabeth Silver, City Attorney Diane Lowart, Parks and Community Services Director Jim Ferdinand, Dublin Fire Prevention East Dublin Property Owners APPENDIX A: INITIAL STUDY INITIAL STUDY - SUPPLEMENTAL EIR East Dublin Properties City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, as amended), and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project describedbelow. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist, and a brief explanation :of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Because the proposed project is based on the land use designations, circulation patterns, etc. assigned to the project area by the City of Dublin's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, this Initial Study relies upon a Program EIR certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report", State Clearinghouse No. 91103064). That EIR, which is referred to in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin 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. Some of the potentially significant impacts identified in the Eastem Dublin EIR apply to the proposed project and, therefore, the adopted mitigation measures also apply and are included in this Initial Study by reference. However, as indicated in the environmental checklist, conditions related to Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Public Services (schools), Transportation/Circulation,. and Utilities/Service Systems may have changed enough since the EIR was certified that new potentially significant environmental impacts may exist for those topics, or a potentially substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects for those topics may exist. However, because only minor additions or changes are necessary to make the Eastern Dublin EIR adequate in light of those changed circumstances, a focused Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) will be prepared for the proposed project. 1 Applicant/Contact Person East Dublin Property Owners c/o Shea Homes, Kathryn Watt 2580 Shea Center Drive Livermore, CA 94550 Phone: (925) 245-3600 FAX: (925) 245-8833 Project Location and Context The project site is approximately 1,110 acres in area and is located in an unincorporated area of Alameda County bounded by Interstate 580 (1-580) to the south and Fallon Road to/he west. Exhibit 1 shows the project location in relation to the general Bay Area. The area abuts the eastern city limit boundary of the City of Dublin (please refer to Exhibit 2). The entire project area is located within the City of Dublin's General Plan Planning Area and Sphere of Influence. Approximately 472 acres of the project area also are included within the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (please refer to Exhibit 4). The project site consists of thirteen (13) different parcels under eleven (11) separate ownerships (please refer to Exhibit 7). The topography of the site ranges from relatively flat at the southern portion near the freeway, to gently rolling hills at the center of the site, to relatively steep slopes, some exceeding 30% in some places. A series of low knolls trending from northwest to southeast bisect the southern portion of the property and provide a backdrop to the flatter portions of the site near the freeway. A few drainages flow in a north to south orientation, transecting the project area along its length. Exhibit 3 shows the topography of the project site. A small number of trees exist beyond those planted around existing homesteads and scattered in the drainages. The project properties currently are used primarily for dryland fanning and cattle grazing with rural residences, a horse ranch and associated outbuildings scattered throughout the site. Improvements to the agricultural lands generally consist of paved and unpaved roads, fences, barns, corrals, wells, water tanks, ponds, single-family homes and various outbuildings. In 1994 the City of Dublin adopted a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan which addressed long-term development of approximately 4,200 acres of land east of the central portion of Dublin. The entire project site is located in the easternmost portion of that General Plan Amendment area and a portion of the site (approx. 472 acres) is located within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would implement the easternmost portion of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan. For the portion of the project area located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), the Specific Plan identifies land uses, circulation patterns, infrastructure requirements, and programs and policies which. At build-out, this portion of the project's 472 acres would provide 2 approximately 1,240 dwelling units and almost 1.4million square feet of office, commercial and industrial floor space at the mid-point densities contemplated by the EDSP. This represents approximately 10% of the total EDSP residential units and 11% of the total office, commercial, industrial and institutional floor space (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, page 16). This portion of the project site also provides 103 acres for schools, public parks and open space, approximately 11% of the total EDSP acreage designated for such uses (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, pp. 24-25). The other 637 acres of the project site have been designated by the General Plan for residential land uses and would provide 1,286 dwelling units at mid-point densities for low density and rural residential/agriculture uses indicated by the General Plan, with 34.5 acres dedicated to schools, parks and open space. Project Description All of the subject property is located within the unincorporated area of Alameda County. The proposed project consists of: a Stage 1 Development Plan application to the City of Dublin requesting a pre-zoning of the site in accordance with the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD); execution of a Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Dublin and the project proponents/property-owners; detachment from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) upon annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin; and, post-annexation, probable cancellation of Williamson Act contracts for several of the properties within the project area. Although not requiring City action, the project proponents also are requesting detachment of the project area from the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD) and attachment to the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). This Initial Study evaluates all of those actions. Stage 1 Planned Development (Prezoning) State law requires property to be prezoned before annexation can take place. Prezoning is an action to indicate what city zoning will take effect once the annexed property becomes. part of the city. The City of Dublin uses a Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) under Chapter 8.32 of its zoning ordinance to prezone property in accordance with the City's General Plan and, in this case, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations. Under the City's zoning ordinance a Stage 1 development plan must establish: a plan of proposed land use by type and density of use; the maximum number of dwelling units and commercial/office/industrial areas; a master landscape plan; and a preliminary development phasing plan. Once the site is annexed, project proponents will apply for a Stage 2 PD for site-specific zoning and development plan approval. City approval of a Stage 2 development plan must be received to complete the PD zoning process. Table 1 indicates the land uses and development intensities proposed for the project site. Proposed land uses, residential densities and development intensities are consistent with the City's recommended midpoint densities of the'General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project proposes a maximum of 2,526 dwelling units and 3 approximately 1.4 million square feet of neighborhood commercial, general commercial and industrial park development. Also included in the plan are approximately 32 acres for school sites, 41 acres for parks, and a minimum of 77 acres of open space. Residential densities range from Low (0.9 - 6 du/acre) to Medium High (14-25 du/acre), although 270 acres of the project area is designated for Rural Residential density which allows only 1 unit for every one hundred acres. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed land uses and pre-zoning designations for the project area. Commercial and industrial uses are located generally along the freeway corridor where noise would overly impact residential uses and where access is easiest for such uses. ReSidential uses are located in the northern two thirds of the project area. Parks and schools are distributed throughout the project site as indicated by the Specific Plan and General Plan: two elementary schools, one junior high school, four neighborhood parks, and a neighborhood square with additional acreage to be dedicated to a large planned community park just west of the proposed project. The EDSP anticipated that the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission might adopt an Airport Protection Area (APA) for the Livermore Municipal Airport which would prohibit residential uses within 5000 feet of the airport runways. Some areas of the EDSP designated for residential land uses and which were anticipated to be within the future APA, also are designated in the EDSP as Future Study Area, requiring additional review and action by the City to determine the most appropriate land use (see also page 16 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan). This designation affects 92.6 acres of the project site. As part of the proposed project, the project developers would construct all major roadways and public infrastructure such as water, wastewater, recycled water, and storm drainage facilities. Major roadways would be constructed to and through the project area with project proponents utilizing assessment districts, Mello Roos districts or other appropriate financing mechanisms to help fund construction. Grading activities would occur within the project area to accommodate planned land uses, roads and utilities, although the amount of grading will not be established until the Stage 2 Planned Development when detailed site and grading plans are developed. Water, sewer and recycled water services would be provided to the area by DSRSD in accordance with plans formulated by DSRSD and the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. As development in Dublin continues expanding eastward to Fallon Road and the project site, public utilities will be extended concomitantly. The project developers would continue the extension of these services throughout the project site as it is developed. Water distribution mains are planned to be located in all major streets. Construction of water storage reservoirs are not anticipated to be part of this project. Sewer service for the project would be provided through connection to the DSRSD sewer system once it is extended through Dublin Ranch, located to the west of the project area. Gravity flow sewer mains would be installed along Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard. Temporary pumping stations may be needed in the initial stages of development. When and where available, DSRSD would provide recycled water for irrigation purposes, reducing the need for potable water. The storm drainage system would consist of underground pipes and culverts throughout the site connecting to box culverts and/or open channels that would flow southerly and westerly along 1-580 to the existing G-3 drainage channel, an Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District facility. The City of Dublin's inclusionary zoning ordinance requires that 5% of a project's dwelling units must be affordable to very low, Iow and moderate income households. Compliance could consist of constructing the required number of inclusionary units or paying an in-lieu fee to the City. The project proponents will be required to comply with the ordinance, although the specific method generally would not be determined until the Stage 2 PD and related subdivision maps are reviewed. The project applicants indicate that land uses and infrastructure would be phased over a number of years to ensure that roads and other infrastructure facilities would be available to support land uses as they are needed. As indicated in the applicants' Stage 1 PD submittal to the City, preliminary development of the first phases could commence in two years with project build-out anticipated to be completed over the ensuing five to ten years. Proposed Reorganization (annexations and detachments) The project site is contiguous with the City of Dublin and all of its 1,120 acres lie within Dublin's Sphere of Influence and within the Sphere of Influence of the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The City's General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (which addresses 472 acres of the project area), contemplated the eventual annexation and development of the project site in accordance with the land use designations, programs and policies of each Plan. The annexation of the project site by Dublin would complete the expansion of the City in this area per its current Sphere of Influence. Similarly, the project area is within the expected service area of DSRSD and all of DSR. SD's master plans for the provision and distribution of water, wastewater service, and recycled water include the annexation of, and service to, the project site. Because the water, wastewater, and recycled water services are provided to the City of Dublin by DSRSD, the City and DSRSD have concurred in policy that their boundaries and Spheres of Influence will be coterminous (except for that portion of DSRSD's service area which extends to portions of Contra Costa County). Hence, annexation of the area to the City also requires annexation of the area to DSRSD to provide needed services. One of the City's General Plan Guiding Policies (3.3 A) is to expand park area to serve new development. Both the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contemplate the expansion of park services to the project site and indicated preferred park locations within the project area. However, the project site currently is within the boundaries of LARPD. Detachment of the project area from the LARPD service area is a logical step once annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin is assured, particularly since Dublin has planned for the expansion of its park services. A similar 5 detachment was carried out when the property immediately to the west was annexed to the City. The project site is located within the City's General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area. A City of Dublin Guiding Policy (4.1 B) promotes cooperation with the Dublin Unified School District to ensure provision of school facilities in the Extended Planning Area, thereby ensuring that all incorporated areas of the City are served by one school district. The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan have indicated potential school sites within the project area which are to be offered for dedication to DUSD. Dublin Unified School District has considered the project area for service since adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Extended Planning Area. However, as above, the project area currently is within the boundaries of the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. Deannexation of the project area from the LvJUSD service area is a logical step once annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin is assured, particularly since DUSD and the City have planned for school service to the project area. A similar reorganization of school district boundaries occurred when property immediately to the west was annexed. A reorganization of school district boundaries, however, does not require a City action or LAFCO action, but does require approval by the two involved school boards. The project applicant already has been in contact with the staff's of both school districts and will make a request for reorganization to the ~'o boards. Pre-annexation Agreement/Development Agreements The City requires that the project proponents and property owners enter into pre- annexation and development agreements with the City. Pre-annexation agreements encourage project proponents and the City to meet certain mutual obligations while the area proposed for annexation is proceeding through entitlement processes and ensure that the proposed project will not be a financial burden to the City. Development agreements vest development approvals for a specified period of time so that developers of large, time extensive projects have the ability to construct such projects in a time frame and under mutual obligations beneficial to the City and the project proponent. Issues typically .addressed in development agreements include, but are not limited to: density and intensity of land use; timing of development; financing methods and timing of infrastructure; determination of traffic, noise, public facility and other impact fees; and obligations for construction of streets and roads. Development agreements would be part of a later City action generally occurring with City approval of a Stage 2 Planned Development, Site Development Review and tentative subdivision map.. Williamson Act Cancellation Four of the thirteen parcels, approximately 637 acres, are under Williamson Act contracts (please refer to Exhibit 8). Under the Williamson Act, the landowner agrees to limit the use of land to agriculture and compatible uses for a minimum period of ten years. In turn, the county in which the land is located agrees to tax the land at a lower rate based upon its agricultural use rather than its real estate market value. To withdraw 6 from a contract, the land-owner must notify the county with a Notice of Non-Renewal. Withdrawal involves a ten-year period of tax adjustments based upon full market value before land can be removed from the preserve program. Notices of non-renewal have been filed on the four parcels noted above, with contracts expiring in 2006, 2009 and 2010. It is anticipated that at least several of the property-owners of these four parcels will request early cancellation of these contracts upon annexation to the City. 1. Project description 2. Lead agency: 3. Contact person: 4. Project location: 5. Project contact person: 6. General Plan designations: 7. Proposed Pre-zoning: Application for a Stage 1 PD (prezoning), request for annexation to the City of Dublin and DSRSD, detachment fi.om LARPD, request to enter into pre- annexation agreements; and potential Williamson Act contract cancellation for the four parcels in Exhibit 8. City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94583 Anne Kinney, Dublin Planning Department (925) 833-6610 North ofi-580 and east of Fallon Road East Dublin Property Owners c/o Shea Homes, Kathryn Watt 2580 Shea Center Drive Livermore, CA 94550 (925) 245 3600 Low Density Residential (0.9-6.0 da/ac), Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 da/ac), Medium High Density Residential (14.1-25.0 da/ac),- Rural Residential/Agriculture (0.01 da/ac), Neighborhood Commercial (.25-.60 FAR), General Commercial (.20-.60 FAR), Industrial Park (.35 FAR maximum), Elementary School, Junior High School, Neighbor- hood Park, Community Park, Neighborhood Square, Open Space and Stream Corridor PD-Single Family Residential, PD-Medium Density Residential, PD-Medium High Density Residential, PD-Neighborhood Commercial, PD-General Commercial, PD-Industrial Park, PD - Future Study Area (Rural Residential/Agriculture and General Commercial), PD-Elementary School, PD-Junior High School, PD-Neighborhood Park, PD- Neighborhood Square, PD-Community Park, PD-Rural Residential/Agriculture, and PD- Open Space. 8. Other public agency required approvals: Annexation (City of Dublin) Annexation (DSRSD) Referral to Alameda County Airport Land' Use Commission (ALUC) Detachment (LVJUSD) Detachment (LARPD) Attachment (DUSD) Stage 2 Development Plans (City of Dublin) Development Agreement Vesting tentative and final subdivision maps (Dublin) Site Development Review Grading and building permits (City of Dublin) Sewer and water connections (DSRSD) Encroachment permits (City of Dublin) Potentially: Notice of Intent (Water Resources Control Board) 404 Permit (US Army Corps of Engineers) Streambed Alteration Permit (California Department of Fish and Game) Permits fi.om San Francisco Bay Region Water Quality Control Board Permits fi.om U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Encroachment or other permits from CalTrans 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. Aesthetics X Agricultural X Air Quality Resources X Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards and Hazardous Hydrology/Water Land Use/ Materials Quality Planning Mineral Resources X Noise Population/ Housing X Public Services Recreation X Transportation/ Circulation X Utilities/Service X Mandatory Findings Systems of Significance Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency) 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 although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed 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. 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 9 · ignificant-efiect~: a) have been andyz~ adequately in an earlier F_II~ pursumt to at~licable ~'tandm~; and Co) have bccn avoided or mitigated parsumt to that earlier including rm, i~ions or mitigation me, a, ures that are impos.e,:l on thc proposed project. Printed Nm,e: t~"'"~ g-[~'*'*;,', l=or: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation ia r,qui~ed for all answers except "no impact" ~n~,vers that are supported by the information som'c~ a load agcrmy cites in the partmth~is following each question. A "no imp~t" art~wer is adequately supported if the r~fer~nccd informat/on soume~ ~ow tlmt the impact ~imply does not apply to pmjoct~ like the one involved (c.g. tho project falls out.~_de a fault rapture zone), or, in this case, there is no impact of the proposal project b~vond thai which was a>nsldered prerlou,ly In the E~tern Dubltn EIR and/or for which a Stalzment of Overriding Conwidertrtion waz adopted by the City Council at the time the E~,,~teru Dublin EIR wu ct,~rified. A "no impact" arum, er should be cot?!_ained where it is b~ed on project-~pecific factor~ az well m general fat:tors (e.g. the project will not expose semitive receptors to pollutants, b~ed on a projcct-~ecific ~'-reening analysis). 2) All answers must take ~Ccount of the whole action, including off-site as well amsitc, cumulative a~ well az project-level, inclirect as well a~ direct, and cormtmction a~ well a~ operational impm:t~. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact~ is appropriate if thor, i~ substantial cadence that an effect is significant. It th~rc arc one or more "potcntislly significant imp~t" entries when the cl~ermination is made, ~.u EIK is required. 4) "Negative D,claration: Potentially Significmt Unless Mkigafion Incorporated" implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation rnea~ures hax reduced mu effect from "potentially significant efft~" to a "less than significant impact". The lead ~.lleucy mm d~cribe the mitigation measures and briefly expNin how they r~:luce the effect to a less than ~ignificaut level. Environmental Impacts (Nme: Sea, cc ofcleterminafion li~ed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to dc~,,~irm each potential impact at the end of the checklist.) 10 Issues: I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source, of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime vie. ws in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? Potentially Significant Impact X Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact X x -X No Impact X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricUltural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially Significant Impact X X X X X Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: 12 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department offish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact X X x X Less. Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X X 13 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeolo~cal resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact X X X x x x No Impact 14 including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 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? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS-Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? c) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials s:ites compiled pursuant to Government Code Potentially Significant Impact Les[Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact X x X x X X X No Impact X Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) 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? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a Potentially Significant Impact Less. Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact x x x X x NO Impact X 16 level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 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? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 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?. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Potentially Significant Impact Less.Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact X x X X No Impact X X X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND'PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINE~ 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? 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? XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or Potentially Significant Impact 18 Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact x X X x X noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact X X X Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No .Impact X X X XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? XIV. RECREATION-- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deter/oration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which Potentially Significant Impact X Less. Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact x x X X No Impact X X 2O might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 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? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact X X X X Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X X a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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 projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? h) Have sufficient gas and electricity supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources? Potentially Significant Impact x X x x x X x Less. Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X 22 XVII. 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 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? 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 Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation X X X ]NO Impact Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts: 1. City of Dublin General Plan (Revised July 7, 1998) 2. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, City of Dublin (June 6, 1998) 3. Certified Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 91103064), Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (including the Draft and Final EIRs, Addenda, etc.) -- 23 These documents are available for review at: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 XVII. Earlier Analyses This Initial Study is being prepared to determine whether an earlier EIR (the EIX prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064) may be. used to evaluate the proposed project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15063 (c)(7)). Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1992 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State .Clearinghouse No. 91103064), hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR is a Program EIR which was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan of which this Project is a part. It was certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993. As part of the certification the Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a large number of mitigation measures which apply to this Project and which would be applied to any development within the Project area. Specific mitigation measures identified in the certified Eastern Dublin EIR for potential impacts are referenced in the text of this Initial Study. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, several changes in circumstances in which the Project will take place have occurred and which could effect the impacts and/or mitigations analysis of the Project. Such changes in circumstances include, but are not limited to: '1) additions of species to the California and/or Federal Endangered or Threatened Species Lists; 2) continued development in the Tri-Valley area and beyond with potential changes in commute patterns and traffic intensities, which also may affect air quality and noise within or on the project area; 3) changes in California law regarding annexations (i.e., adoption of AB 2838) which may affect the designation of portions of the project site as pr/me agricultural soils; and 4) changes in the provision and distribution of some public services (schools) and public utilities (water, wastewater, storm drainage and gas and electricity). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this Initial Study is intended to identify the potential for any new or substantially increased significant impacts on or of 24 the Project which were not evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. and which would require additional environmental review. Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist Legend PS: LS: NI: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant; or Less Than Significant due to the previously adopted mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR No Impact; or No Additional Impact beyond that which was previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and/or for which a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted I. AESTHETICS Environmental Setting The project site is vacant .except for nine residences and some scattered agricultural buildings. The Eastern Dublin EIR classifies the project site mainly as "dry-fanning rotational cropland" covering approximately the southern two-thirds of the site and "non- native grassland" covering the northern one third. Where agricultural activity, including grazing, historically has taken place, the visual image of the land is formed by patterns of the soil that have been furrowed by mechanical means or livestock. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (pp. 71-72) identifies certain ridgelands and ridgetines within the Project area as "visually sensitive". The lower spur ridges may be developed consistent with Specific Plan land use designations as long as they meet certain requirements specified in the Specific Plan. These include the lower, southern series of east-west trending foothills and three other ridgelines behind these at a general elevation of 500 feet. Development is prohibited on other ridgelines further to the east and north (please refer to Figure 6.3 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan). The City's General Plan also identifies an elevation "cap" above which certain development is prohibited and provides guidelines for sensitive development at certain elevations and slopes. Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? LS. Approval and construction of the proposed Project would alter the character of existing scenic vistas and could obscure important sightlines if not mitigated. 25 This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.8/C, 3.8/I), 3.8/E, 3.8/G and 3.8/1)) and with implementation of mitigation measures the identified impacts on scenic vistas are less-than-significant. These mitigation measures include: 3.8/3.0, 3.8/4.0-4.5, 3.8/5.0-5.2, 3.8/6.0, 3.8/7.0 and 3.8/7.1 (pages 3.8-4 through 3.8-9 of the. Eastern Dublin E[R). These mitigation measures encourage preservation of important visual resources, minimized grading for development; grading and building to preserve natural contours; prohibition of development along identified ridgelines; and preservation of views of designated open spaces. These mitigation measures apply to the entire project area. In addition, Policies 6-29 through 6-38 and text discussion within the Specific Plan provide direction for the type of development which may occur in "visually sensitive" areas. These policies are directed towards preserving scenic vistas and view corridors and provide guidelines for grading and building design and apply in addition to the above- listed mitigation measures, to the 472-acre of the project within the Specific Plan area. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highways? LS. Development of the project site will alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic routes in eastern Dublin. Interstate 580 has been designated as a scenic corridor by Alameda CoUnty. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan anticipates that the proposed Fallon Road, which borders the Project area to the west, may be designated by the City as a scenic corridor. This potential impact (Impact 3.8/J) was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and implementation of mitigation measures 3.8/8.0 and 3.8/8.1 (page 3.8-9) reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures encourage the City to adopt certain roads as scenic corridors (including Fallon Road), and encourage the City to require detailed visual analyses with development project applications (i.e., Stage 2 Planned Development applications). These mitigation measures apply to the entire project area. Additionally, Policies 6-30 and 6-31 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provide guidance for areas of the Project visible fi.om a scenic corridor. These policies, in addition to the above-listed mitigation measures, apply to the 472-acre of the project within the Specific Plan area The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. 26 c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? NI. This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.8/B - Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character and Impact 3.8/F - Alteration of Visual Character of Flatlands). Development of the Project area would alter the existing rural and open space qualities and alter the existing visual character of valley grasses and agricultural fields. The EIR concluded that no mitigation measures could be identified to either fully or partially reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the'EIR concluded this impact would be a potentially significant unavoidable impact and an irreversible change and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for this impact. The proposed project would not change' the scale of development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area and would not change the level of intensity of impact, therefore, no additional discussion or analysis is necessary. d) Create light or glare? LS. Construction of the proposed project would increase the amount of light and glare due to new street lighting and building security lighting. In some instances the additional lighting could result as perceived negative aesthetic impacts through the "spill over" of unwanted lighting onto adjacent properties, parks and other areas that are not intended to be lighted. The anticipated light and glare generated by the proposed Project would not be unique or sufficiently different from other development projects within the City or the Eastern Dublin planning area. In addition, development within a portion of the proposed Project area is subject to review by the Airport Land Use Commission for the Livermore Municipal Airport: all potential li~t sources must meet the criteria established by the ALUC prior to development. The City of Dublin has adopted regulations which limit the amount of "spill-over" lighting and conditions of approval also are routinely adopted with each project which address potential light and glare impacts. The City's zoning ordinance, adopted site development review guidelines, and conditions of approval become part of the project, if approved and the project would have impacts that are less- than-significant. Because light and glare created by the proposed Project would be typical of development elsewhere in the City, and due to standard City regulations, light and glare impacts would be less-than-significant. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Setting Historically the Project site has been used for grazing, dry-land farming, a horse ranch, and other non,intensive agricultural endeavors. The Eastern'Dublin EIR characterizes the majority of the area as farmland "of local importance" (Figure 3.l-B), which is defined as those 'farmlands which contribute to the local production of food, feed, fiber, forage and oilseed crops (p. 3.1-2). The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the discontinuation of 27 agricultural uses as an insignificant impact due to the high percentage of Williamson Act contracts which were non-renewed and the limited value of the non-prime soils. And, because the farmlands on the Project site were not considered "prime", their loss was judged to be insignificant. However, since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the evaluation of soils considered as "prime" for annexation purposes has been modified through adoption of criteria established by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (Government Code Section 56064, referred to as Assembly Bill 2838). Soils which previously would not have been considered as "prime agricultural soils" and land which was not considered significant or important for agricultural purposes may now be considered as such by the new law. Pro_iect Impacts and Mitigation Measures 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? PS. According to the Agricultural Suitability Map for the Project area prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, much of the site supports farmlands of "local importance" since it contributes to the production of feed (grazing). Almost 59 acres of the site are shown as containing Class I and 12[ soils in the Land Use Capability Classification system of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Under Assembly Bill 2838, Class I and II Soils are considered "prime" as long as they have not been developed with non-agricultural uses. Since the proposed Project includes annexation to the City of Dublin and the Project area contains Class I and II soils, the effect of conversion of the property from grazing use to non-agricultural, planned urban uses may be a potentially significant environmental impact. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a V~illiamson Act contract? PS. Four of the thirteen parcels, approximately 637 acres, are under Williamson Act contracts (please refer to Exhibit 8). Under the Williamson Act, the landowner agrees to limit the use of land to agriculture and compatible uses for a minimum period of ten years. In mm, the county in which the land is located agrees to tax the land at a lower rate based upon its agricultural use rather than its real estate market value. To withdraw from a contract, the land-owner must notify the county with a Notice of Non-Renewal. Withdrawal involves a ten-year period of tax adjustments based upon full market value before land can be removed from the preserve program. Notices of non-renewal have been filed on the four parcels noted above, with contracts expiring in 2006, 2009 and 2010. It is anticipated that several of the property-owners of these four parcels will request cancellation of these contracts. With recent amendments to annexation statutes regarding the definition of prime agriculture lands further investigation of this potential impact is warranted to determine if this will be significant. 28 III. AIR QUALITY Environmental Setting Dublin is located in the Th-Valley Air Basin. Within the Basin, state and federal standards for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are met. Standards for other airborne pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate matter · (PM-10) are not met in at least a portion of the Basin. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? PS. Although the project itself may not contribute any more pollutants than originally anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR, as a result of more rapid urbanization in the Tri- Valley area than originally expected, an increase in traffic through the Th-Valley from other areas, and changing commute patterns, the environment in which the project would occur may have changed enough such that the project could contribute to emissions exceeding Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) significance thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? PS. For the reasons noted above (i.e., changed environmental setting of the project), the project could contribute.to emissions exceeding BAAQMD significance thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? PS. For the reasons noted in a) above (i.e., the changed environmental setting of the project), the project could contribute to emissions exceeding BAAQMD significance thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact. d, e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? NI. Development of the Project area with urban uses will create emissions fi'om a variety of miscellaneous stationary (non-vehicular) sources such as fuel combustion in power plants or water heaters, industrial and commercial uses, evaporative emissions from paints and cleaning products, etc. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that although such emissions would be extremely small for any individual resident, they could be substantial when summed over the entire scope of the project (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 3.11-6). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified this impact as a potentially significant cumulative impact which could not be mitigated to achieve the eight-fold reduction in stationary source emissions needed to meet the'insignificant threshold and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for this impact. The proposed project would not change the scale of development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR 29 for the project area and would not change the level of intensity of impact, therefore, no additional discussion or analysis is necessary IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Environmental Setting Figure 3.7-A of the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the Project area is dominated by dry-farming rotational cropland and non-native grasslands. A small area of arroyo willow riparian woodland is located just to the east of Fallon Road. Several intermittent streams and stock ponds also are indicated in this figure. Fields utilized for dry-farming typically are cropped through various seasonal and annual rotations followed by fallow years. Crops and croplands are not irrigated. The site is traversed generally north to south by several drainages which may contain sensitive plant and/or animal species. Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures Have a substantial adverse impact on a 'candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? PS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified twelve special status plant species, seventeen special status amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species, and ten special status invertebrate species which could potentially occur within the entire Eastern Dublin planning area (Tables 3.7~I and 3.7-2, pp. 3-7.19-21), based upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Fish and Game Commission listings at that time. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the regulatory status of some of these species may have changed. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes policies to protect special status species (Policies 6-17 and 6-20). Although the proposed Project would adhere to the.adopted mitigation measures and Specific Plan policies, changes in regulatory circumstances such as the adoption of the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytoniO critical habitat area and its recommendations for habitat preservation and creation, could create a potentially significant environmental impact if not re-addressed. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally pr° tected wetlands? PS. Figure 3.7 - B of the Eastem Dublin EIR identifies areas within the Project area which potentially contain riparian habitat and springs based upon the location of intermittent streams, stock ponds, seeps, etc. Utilizing Figure 3.7-B, it is estimated that at least 14,000 linear feet of potential riparian habitat could exist within the Project area. Although the EIR identifies mitigation measures and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains policies to address stream corridors and riparian and wetland areas (Policies 6-9 through 6-13 and 6-15), regulatory standards for such riparian habitats may have changed since certification of the EIR (e.g.,. new standards for the California red-legged frog 3O identified in the recently approved critical habitat designation may require different treatment of riparian and upland habitats). Although the proposed Project would adhere to the adopted mitigation measures and Specific Plan policies, due to a change in regulatory circumstances, the Project could have .a potentially significant environmental impact. d) Interfere with movement Of native fish or wildlife species? PS. As noted above, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of special status wildlife species. Although mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR and policies within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Policies 6-18 through 6-20) address potential impacts to the movement of wildlife species, and this Project would be required to adhere to those mitigation measures and policies, the Project may still have a potentially significant impact due to changed regulatory standards regarding the movement of wildlife. For example, recent approval of the critical habitat designation for the California red-legged flog could require refinement of the impacts and/or mitigations analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. e,f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? PS. The Project would be required to comply will all local policies and ordinances imposed by the City of Dublin. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains policies and programs intended to 'protect biological resources and habitat areas and restore and revegetate habitat where necessary and appropriate (Policies 6-15 through 6-23; Programs 6K-60). However, the Project site lies within the boundaries of the approximately 5.3 million acres in California recently approved as critical habitat for the California red- legged frog. The proposed designation of the Project area as critical habitat is a changed regulatory circumstance which could impact local poticies and implementation of the project as contemplated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. Hence, the changed regulatory circumstance would result in apotentially significant environmental impact. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Setting Chapter 3.9 of the Eastern Dublin EIR addresses the potential impacts on cultural resources which may be located within the Project area. A field inspection of the entire Eastern Dublin areas was performed in 1988. Three potential pre-historic sites (two of them isolated' locales) and two historic sites were identified within the proposed Project area (see pp. 3.9-4 - 3.9-6 of the Eastern Dublin EIR). Maps of these sites were not included in the EIR to protect them fi.om possible vandalism. The Eastern Dublin EIR mandated additional project-level archeological surveys. Project Impacts and Mitieation Measures a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? LS. Only two historic sites (a 1940's-era barn and an early 20th-century ranch/homestead complex) were identified in the Project area. Due to the expected level of development within the Project area, the Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all historic sites would be disturbed or altered in some manner, even those located in areas designated for Open Space. This potential impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.9/C) and mitigation measures 3.9/7.0 through 3.9/12.0 (.page 3.9-8) will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require detailed archival research for each structure to assess the structure's significance; encourage adaptive re-use where feasible; and encourage the City to develop a preservation program for historic sites which qualify under CEQA guidelines. Additionally, mitigation measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0 (page 3.9-7) also would apply to the project. These mitigations require cessation of all construction activities upon discovery of any previously-unidentified historic sites. Additionally, Policies 6-26 and 6-27 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan require in-depth archival research to determine the significance of any resource prior to alteration and encourage the adaptive re-use or restoration of historic structures whenever feasible. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources ? LS. There is a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or paleontological resources on the site. The Eastern Dublin EIR categorized these resources as pre-historic cultural resources. Three potential pre-historic sites were identified by the EIR within the.proposed Project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all pre-historic sites would be disturbed or altered in some manner. This potential impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.9/A) and implementation of mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6 - 3.9-7) reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require subsurface testing for archeological resources; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Appendix K of CEQA. Mitigation measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, described above, also were adopted to address the potential disruption of any previously unidentified pre-historic resources and these mitigation measures reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level. 32 The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies (Policies 6-24 and 6-25) requiring research of archaeological resources prior to construction and determination of the significance and extent of any resources uncovered during grading and construction. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. d) Disturb any human resources? LS. A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human., resources cOuld be uncovered on the site during construction activities. Implicit in the mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies is the potential for discovery of human resources near or within the identified pre-historic and historic sites. With implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation measures adopted with certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR (mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 - 12) and adherence to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies relating to cultural resources (Policies 6-24 and 6-25), this impact is less-than-significant. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Environmental Setting This section of the Initial Study addresses seismic safety issues, topography and. landforms, drainage and erosion and the potential impacts of localized soil types. Seismic The Project area is a part of the San Francisco Bay area, one of the most seismically active regions in the nation. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes the presence of several nearby significant faults, including the Calaveras Fault, Greenville Fault, Hayward Fault and San Andreas Fault (pp. 3.6-1 - 3.6-2 and Figures 3.6-A and 3.6-B). The likelihood of a major seismic event on one or more of these faults within the near future is believed to be high. However, no active faults .are known to traverse the Project site and the site is not identified as located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as determined by the California Division of Mines and Geology. A second thrust fault system has been inferred in the Coast Ranges of the Bay Area that may be seismically active. A belt of faults and folds has been mapped in sedimentary rocks south of Mount Diablo, including one identified as the "leading edge-blind thrust, -- 33 Mount Diablo Domain". Further investigation of this inferred fault has concluded that the risk of ground rupture from this inferred fault is low within the Project area. Site Geology and Soils The site is underlain by the Tassajara geologic formation on the south and extensive landslide deposits to the north. The Tassajara Formation consists of undifferentiated claystone and siltstone, locally undifferentiated into sandstone, conglomerate and siltstone-claystone members. Landforms and Topography The project area is part of a broad north-south trending plain known as the Livermore- Amador Valley. Elevations of the subject site range from approximately 350 feet to 910 feet above sea level. Much of the property is gently rolling to almost flat but the extreme northern and northeastern portions are steeply sloping terrain. Geotechnical reports cited in the Eastern Dublin EIR indicate a history of landslides on the site. The more steeply sloping northern and northeastern portions of the site contain landslide areas. Many of these slides are relatively shallow and it is estimated that all can be repaired or mitigated in the areas slated for urban development. Drainage Existing drainage patterns on the site includes a series of small, unnamed intermittent streams. These streams are shown in Figures 3.7-A and -B in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These intermittent streams generally follow a north-to-south direction, consistent with the overall topography of the Eastern Dublin area. These streams are not delineated drainages and do not terminate in other local creeks (such as Tassajara Creek) or modified natural drainages (such as the Arroyo Mocho). Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 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? LS. Similar to many areas of California, the site could be subject to ground shaking caused by the regional faults identified above. Under moderate to severe seismic events which are probable in the Bay Area over the next 30 years, buildings, utilities and other improvements constructed in .the project area would be subject to damage caused by ground shaking. However, since the Project area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, the potential for ground rapture is anticipated to be minimal. 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 mitigation measure 3.6/1.0 the primary effects of ground-shaking 34 (Impact 3.6/B - damage to structures and infrastructure, potential loss of life) are reduced to a less-than-significant level by using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral forces in construction, which would reduce the potential for structure failure, major structural damage and loss of life. Mitigation measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/8.0 will be implemented to reduce the secondary. effects of ground-shaking (Impact 3.6/C - seismically induced landslides, differential compaction/settlement, etc.), to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require: stabilization of unstable landforms where possible or restriction of improvements from unstable landforms; appropriate grading in hillside areas; utilization of properly engineered retention structures and fill; design of roads and infrastructure to accommodate potential settlement; and completion of design-level geotechnical investigations (pp. 3.6-8 through 3.6-9). Adherence to Mitigation Measures MM 3.6/1.0 through 8.0 will ensure that new structures and infrastructure built within the project area will comply with generally recognized seismic safety standards so that effects due to ground shaking will be less- than-significant.. The majority of the Project area contains gently to steeply sloping hillsides. The northern and northeastern portions have a history of landslides. As part of the development of the area the site is proposed to be graded and re-contoured to accommodate building pads, roads, infrastructure, parks, schools, parking areas and other development features. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that development of the Project site could result in permanent changes in existing landforms, particularly if substantial grading occurs. Two mitigation measures reduce this impact to less-than-significant. Mitigation measure 3.6/9.0 states that grading plans which adapt improvements to natural land forms, use retaining structures and steeper cut and fill slopes where appropriate, and construction of roads on ridges reduce impacts to landforms. Mitigation measure 3.6/10.0 states that specific project lot and infrastructure alignment should be based on the identification of geotechnically feasible building areas, clustering structures, and avoiding adverse conditions by utilizing lower density development in the hillside areas. The Eastem Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies aimed at reducing impacts related ' to landform changes and reducing potential impacts related to landslides. Policies 6-40 through 6-42 restrict structures on slopes of 10-30% and generally preclude structures on slopes of greater than 30%. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472oacre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. 35 b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that development of the Project site will modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could result in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities (Impact 3.6/K). Long-term impacts could result from modification of the ground-surface and removal of existing vegetation (Impact 3.6/L). With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 (pp. 3.6-14 - 3.6-15) these impacts are less-than-significant. These mitigation measures specify and require the .preparation and implementation of erosion control measures to be utilized on a short-term and long-term basis. In addition to these measures, the Project would be subject to erosion control and water quality control measures implemented by the state Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains a policy (Policy 6-43) which requires that new development be designed to provide effective control of soil erosion as a result of construction activities. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. c, d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or will result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. Portions of the Project area are underlain by soil types with high shrink-swell potential which have the potential to cause damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement (Impact 3.6/H). With adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 through 16.0 (,pp. 3.6- 11 - 12) and by requiring appropriate structural foundations and other techniques to overcome shrink-swell effects, potential shrink-swell impacts will be less-than- significant. The Eastern Dublin EIR also notes that impacts of slope instability are considered to be potentially significant (Impacts 3.6/1 and 3.6/J), but can be reduced to a less-than- significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0 -26.0 (pp. 3.6-12 - 3.6-14). These mitigation measures require the preparation of site-specific soils and geotechnical studies minimizing grading on steep slopes and the formulation of appropriate design criteria; removal/reconstruction of unstable materials; construction of surface and subsurface drainage improvements; reduction of cut-and-fill; maintaining 3:1 cut slopes unless retained; maintaining minimum 2:1 fill slopes unless properly benched, keyed or treated with a geo-grid; utilizing engineered fill; and adherence to the Uniform Building Code and other City requirements for grading. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. 36 e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. All new development within the Project area would be connected to a public sanitary sewer system installed by the Project developer and maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Services District which serves all of the City of Dublin. No septic systems are proposed. Therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to septic tanks. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Environmental Setting The site is primarily open grasslands and currently contains nine single family residences and some agricultural out-buildings. Historically, the Project site has been used for agriculture, primarily as grazing land and limited dry-farming of crops. Much of the Project area currently is utilized for grazing. Some pesticide and organicide use may be associated with these agricultural uses and some petroleum-based products probably have been used to mn and maintain farm equipment. Similar types of petroleum-based products may be in use at a limited trucking and truck storage use located on one of the parcels. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been performed for each parcel comprising the Project site and typical levels of organicides, pesticides and limited amounts of petroleum-based products have been identified in localized areas around outbuildings. Additionally, one of the parcels was discovered to have been used as a gasoline service station but this use was discontinued in the 1960's and no structures remain. No parcels within the Project area have been listed as a hazardous site or as a hazardous materials generator. Based upon the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments performed for each property within the Project area, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment would be required for some of those parcels to further identify any potential hazardous materials. Policy 11-1 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that prior to the issuance of building permits for sites in the project area, such environmental site assessments are required. If applicable, remediation measures would be recommended and required prior to development in accordance with State law. Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, b) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release or emission of hazardous materials? LS. Proposed uses of the site would include residential, general and retail commercial, industrial park, schools, and parks. Only minor less-than-significant quantities of potentially hazardous materials such as lawn chemicals, household solvents, etc., would be associated with the majority of the proposed uses. The Project's proposed Industrial Park designation and the Project's proposed uses relate most closely to the City of Dublin's M-1 or Light Industrial District, although the types of industrial uses permitted -- 37 under the zoning ordinance include light and heavier industrial uses with some manufacturing. Some potentially hazardous materials may be utilized by these industrial type uses but the storage, use and disposal of such materials would be controlled through a hazardous materials business plan required to be filed by any such user with the Alameda County Fire Depa.~ment which provides such service to the City of Dublin. With the expected minimal use of hazardous materials and the requirement for adhering to a hazardous materials business plan, this impact is less-than-significant. c) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? LS. None of the parcels comprising the Project area have been listed as a hazardous materials site. As noted above, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments have been completed for each individual parcel comprising the Project area. Levels of organicides, pesticides, and petroleum-based products typical of agricultural uses have been discovered near existing agricultural outbuildings but these levels are less-than- significant. Should the Project'be approved, Phase 1I Environmental Site Assessments will be performed on each parcel prior to construction. Remediation measures, if needed, would be recommended and completed in accordance with State and Federal requirements. This impact is considered to be less-than-significant. d) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? LS. The Livermore MuniCipal Airport is located to the south of the Project area across 1- 580 and south of the Los Positas Golf Course. The Federal Aviation Administration classifies the airport as a "general transport" airport and the airport can accommodate turbojets under 60,000 pounds and general aviation aircraft of lesser weight. The Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted an Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan in 1986 which defines "General. Referral and Height Referral Areas" for the Livermore Municipal Airport. Portions of the Project area fall within these referral areas. The General Referral Area extends 4,000 feet north of 1- 580. Proposed land uses and activities subject to review Under State ALUC law must be referred to the County ALUC. The Height Referral area encompasses an area 20,000 feet from the runways in all directions (approximately 15,000 feet north ofi-580) and 200 feet above ground level in the Height Referral area. The ALUC amended the Policy Plan in 1993 to create an Airport Protection Area (APA) around the Livermore Airport. Development or expansion of residential uses within the APA is prohibited. At the time the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted, this APA had not yet been established. However, the Specific Plan anticipated that some residentially-designated land within the Eastern Dublin area would be located within the future _A_PA. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan indicates that residentially-designated lands so affected, by adoption of the APA must be designated "Future Study Area" (p.16). The APA does affect approximately 22 percent of the southern portion of the Project area. Approximately 96 acres of the project area, originally slated for potential residential development, now are designated as Future 38 Study Area with an underlying designation of rural residential/aghculture, a designation which essentially will not allow for any intensity of land use greater than what is existing. The project is not proposing any changes to this land use designation and hence, is in compliance with the established APA. Since the Specific Plan already anticipated land use changes which might occur as a result of the ALUC's actions, and designated the land accordingly, this is a less-than-significant impact. e) Represent a safety hazard to persons if located within two miles of a private airstrip? NI. The project is not located within two miles of a private airstrip. f) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? LS. The proposed Project would be developed in phases, as is feasible with the extension of services and utilities to the area. Adequate emergency access to all portions of the Project site under construction would be required to be provided per the City of Dublin's ordinances and policies. Emergency access requires that structures and occupants of structures can be accessed by emergency vehicles and personnel and also requires that residents are able to evacuate an area in case of some form of hazard or threat of hazard. Adequate water service for fire-fighting and installation of hydrants or other approved alternative water supply systems would be required per City policy as the project develops. The Eastern Dublin EIR indicated a mitigation measure (3.4/9.0) to address access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention to reduce this potential impact to a less~than- significant level. This mitigation measure requires that certain design standards are incorporated into Project approvals such as: available capacity of 1,000 GPM at 20 PSI fire flow fi.om project fire hydrants on public mains; installation of a buffer zone along the backs of homes contiguous with wildland open space areas; and compliance with minimum road widths, maximum street slopes, parking requirements, and secondary access road requirements. Policy 8-6 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also requires provision of emergency vehicle access from subdivisions to open space areas among other fire prevention methods to address concerns with emergency access and evacuation. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policy would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? LS. The proposed project includes a significant amount of open space intermixed with proposed residential uses in accordance with the land use designations of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. However, the relationship ofwildland open space to urbanized uses has the potential to increase the risk of wildland fires spreading to 39 urban areas. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the risk of constructing new communities in proximity to high fire hazard open space areas since it would pose an increasing wildfire hazard to people and property if open space areas were not maintained for fire safety (Impact 3.4/E). Mitigation measures 3.4/6.0- 13.0 (pp. 3.4-5 - 3.4-7) will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require construction of new facilities to coincide with new service demands; establishment of funding mechanisms for construction of such facilities; incorporation of Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (and, implicitly, any other fire authority which would service the area), requirements into the project design; integration of fire trails and fire breaks into the open space trail system; and preparation and implementation of a wildfire management plan for the area. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains two policies (Policy 8-5 and 8-6, p. 125) which address the construction of new facilities and requirements to minimize the potential for impacts from wildland fires. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Environmental Setting The Project area is located within the Alameda Creek watershed which drains to the San Francisco Bay. The Project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). The northern portion of the site is hilly and transitions to relatively flat areas immediately adjacent to the 1-580 freeway. Three intermittent streams flowing in a north-south direction transect the Project area. These drainages appear to originate in the northern, hilly portions of the site but do not drain into any distinct creek or channel. In some locations these drainages have been impounded for use as stock ponds. These drainages do not carry water consistently year-round and are more apparent during the spring season. Based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) [Community Panel No. 115 of 325, 060001-0115-C, Alameda County, dated September 17, 1997], none of the Project area is located within a 500-year or 100-year flood plain. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. Site grading (cut and fill) will occur to construct roadways, building pads, utilities connections and similar improvements. Proposed grading could increase the potential of 40 erosion and increase the amount of sediments carried by stormwater run-off into creeks and other bodies of water, on and off the Project site. These impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA). With adherence to mitigation measures 3.5/44.0 - 46.0, 49.0, 51.0 and 52.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR (pp. 3.5-35 - 3.5 - 27) these impacts would be less-than-sio~nificant. These mitigation measures require: drainage facilities to minimize any increased potential for erosion; channel improvements consisting of natural creek bottoms and side slopes with natural vegetation where possible; preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for each development prior to development (Stage 2 Planned Development) approval; facilities and management practices which protect and enhance water quality; specific water quality investigations which address water quantity and quality of run-off; and community-based programs to educate local residents and business on methods to reduce non-point sources of pollutants. Additionally, development of individual parcels within the Project area will be required to prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP), listing Best Management Practices which reduce the potential for water quality degradation during construction and post-construction activities. These measures can include revegetation of graded areas, silt fencing and use of biofilters within parks and other landscaped areas. These individual SWPPPs must conform to standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Dublin and shall be approved by the City of Dublin prior to issuance of grading permits. Both agencies monitor construction and post-construction activities according to the SWPPP and adjustments are made during project construction as necessary to erosion control methods and water quality protection as field conditions warrant. Specific development projects containing five acres of more are also required to submit a Notice of Intent from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to commencement of grading. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies which reflect the mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan listed above. Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T through 9X (pp. 133-134) address the potential for erosion and changes in water quality, storm water mn-off and storm drainage due to development of the Project area. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lower the local groundwater table? LS. Current uses of the property depend upon wells (groundwater), irrigation wells (groundwater) and impounded surface waters (stock ponds) for domestic use and agricultural uses. As development of the Project area occurs, public water systems would be extended to serve the area, reducing the direct need for individual wells to service each property. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that development of the Project could have an impact on local ground water resources and groundwater recharge due to an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces within the Project site (Impact 3.5/Z). With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 (page 3.5-26), this impact ~s less-than-significant. The Eastern Dublin EIR also noted that the Project is located in an area of minimal groundwater recharge stating that groundwater reserves and the majority of the Tr/-Valley's groundwater resources are in the Central Basin, south of the Project area. Mitigation measure 3.5/50.0 notes that Zone 7 supports on-going groundwater recharge programs for the Central Basin. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including stream courses, such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? LS. Development of the project site could change existing natural drainage patterns in the area. Approval of the proposed Project and implementation of individual development projects within the Project area could increase stormwater runoff from the site due to construction and post-construction activities and thereby increase the potential for erosion. These impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EI~R (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA) in relation to item a) above. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 - 46.0, 49.0, 51.0 and 52.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR (pp. 3.5-35 - 3.5 - 27) these impacts are less-than-significant. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies and programs (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T through 9X, pp. 133- 134) which reduce these impact to a less-than-significant level. Please refer to item a) above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies. With implementation of other mitigation measures enacted to reduce erosion due to grading .activities (Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0), these impacts would be less- than-significant. Please refer to the previous section entitled Geology and Soils for a discussion of these mitigation measures. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. d) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site? LS. Approval of the proposed project and construction of new housing units and other land uses envisioned in the proposed project would change drainage patterns within the project area. This impact was identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.5Y) and with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 - 3.5/48.0 it is less-than- 42 significant. These mitigation measures require drainage facilities to minimize flooding; channel improvements consisting of natural creek bottoms and side slopes with natural vegetation where possible; a Master Drainage Plan for each development prior to development approval; facilities to alleviate potential downstream flooding due to project development; and the construction of backbone storm drainage facilities. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff?. LS. Development of the Project area and post-construction activities unrelated to Project construction could lead to greater quantities of stormwater runoff and could include pollutants in the runoff. These potential impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA). With implementation of mitigation measures 3.5/44.0- 49.0 and 3.5/51.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR this impact is less-than-significant. Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T through 9X, pp. 133-134) also would be implemented and, as such, these impacts would be less- than-significant. Please refer to item a) above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies. The adopted mitigation, measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. f) Substantially degrade water quality? LS. Construction activities related to development of the Project area and post- construction activities could degrade water quality through improper construction practices and poor control of storm water runoffresulting in additional sedimentation and potential pollutants in on-site or down-stream waters. These impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA). With mitigation measures 3.5/44.0- 49.0 and 51.0 adopted in the Eastern Dublin EIR this impact is less-than-significant. Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific P1an (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T through 9X, pp. 133-134) also would be implemented and, as such, these impacts would be less-than-significant. Please refer to item a) above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. 43 g, i) Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or expose people or structures to a significant risk due to flooding or failure ora levee or dam? NI. None of the project area is located within a 100-year flood plain as mapped by FEMA and no new dwellings would be located in a flood hazard area. There are no upstream dams in the Project area which would place people or structures within the project area in flood danger due to dam failure. There would be no impact in regard to flooding hazards. h) Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flow? NI. As noted in the response to "g" above, none of the project area is located within a 100 year flood hazard area as defined by FEMA. Development of the Project site is not expected to impede or redirect flood flows and no impact is anticipated. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mud~lows? LS. The site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche or 'tsunami. The risk of potential mudflow is considered low. With mitigation measures adopted in the Eastern Dublin EIR (measures 3.6/17.0 - 28.0, pp. 3.6-12 - 3.6-15), potential impacts of natural and engineered slope stability, and erosion and sedimentation impacts which could create mudfl0ws would be less-than significant. These mitigation measures require the preparation of site-specific soils and geotechnical studies minimizing grading on steep slopes and the formulation of appropriate design criteria; removal/reconstruction of unstable materials; construction of surface and subsurface drainage improvements; reduction of cut-and-fill; maintaining 3:1 cut slopes unless retained; maintaining minimum 2:1 fill slopes unless properly benched, keyed or treated with a geo-grid; utilizing engineered fill; and adherence to the Uniform Building Code and other City requirements for grading. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Environmental Setting The Project area abuts the eastem city limit boundary of the City of Dublin (please refer to Exhibit 2). The entire project area is located within the City of Dublin's General Plan Planning Area and Sphere of Influence. Approximately 472 acres of the project area also are included within the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (please refer to Exhibit 4). The project site consists of thirteen (13) different parcels under eleven (11) separate 44 ownerships (please refer to Exhibit 7). The proposed land use designations of the Project reflect the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations for the Project area. The proposed residential densities and non-residential development intensity are consistent with the mid-point density and development intensity (floor area ratio) ranges listed in the General Plan and Specific Plan. The proposed land uses associated with each of the proposed land use designations are consistent with the City zoning districts which would implement those land uses and they are consistent with the types of uses approved and/or developed within other areas of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan. MeasureD In November of 2000, voters in Alameda County adopted a local land 'use initiative known as "Measure D." This initiative created a County Urban Growth Boundary within the Alameda County East County Planning Area (ECAP). One of the purposes of this initiative is to "focus urban-type development in and near existing cities where it will be efficiently served by public facilities, thereby avoiding high costs to taxpayers and users as well as to 'the environment". The initiative is designed to prohibit the County government from considering urban development outside the "Growth Boundary." The 472-acre portion of the project site that is within the City's Specific Plan is located within the Urban Growth Boundary adopted by Measure D. The remainder of the project site, although within the City's adopted and recognized Sphere of Influence and within the City's General Plan Planning Area, appears to lie outside of the Measure D Urban Growth Boundary Limit. [NOTE: Review of Measure D indicates a discrepancy between the Urban GroWth Boundary Limit Map and the text describing which areas are within the Urban Growth Boundary Limit. This potential discrepancy does not change the analysis, below.] Measure D restricts development in the County, but it does not limit development by cities that are within the County, nor does it create or impose any urban growth boundaries on those cities. Because the entire project site is within the City's Sphere of Influence and the proposed development within the project area is addressed by the General Plan, the project is not constrained or otherwise limited by Measure D. The County recognized that, in the case of Eastern Dublin, the area already has been planned for development and eventual annexation is anticipated. (Alameda County Community Development Agency Report to Board of Supervisors dated July 25, 2000.) Measure D also contains language that limits the CoUnty's ability to cancel Williamson Act contracts. Upon annexation of the project area to the City, the Williamson Act contracts would be assigned to and assumed by the City. The City would then have the discretion whether or not to cancel th~ contracts should cancellation be requested for the proposed Project. Measure D does not restrict the City's actions regarding Williamson Act contracts, however, any requested cancellation would be processed in accordance with statutory provisions and procedures. Measure D provides that the County encourage Zone 7 to pursue, new water supply sources and storage facilities only to the extent necessary to serve the rates'and levels of growth established by Measure D and by the general plans of the cities within the service 45 area. Since the City's General Plan provides for the development proposed, any additional water supply sources or facilities required to serve the Project are consistent with Measure D. Measure D's restriction on the County's ability to provide or authorize public facilities in excess of that needed for permissible development consistent with Measure D does not limit the ability to provide the services needed to serve the project area. Hence, Measure D does not contain any language which would create a changed circumstance or potential for new impacts not already addressed or analyzed by the Eastem Dublin EIR. pro_iect Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Physically divide an established community? NI. All parcels which comprise the Project site are contiguous and are not separated by freeways, arterial roadways, or natural barriers. The Project area is adjacent to the City of Dublin's eastern boundary and current urban development area; land to the east of the Project area is as-yet undeveloped. Development of the Project area with the urban uses designated in the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ~vould be a continuation of Dublin as a community. Development of the project site would not divide any established communities or neighborhoods and hence, there would be no impact.. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. The Project as proposed is consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project's proposed "pre-zoning" designations are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the potential land use impacts of the project based upon the assumption that residential development would occur at the mid-point of the residential development densities, and commercial, office and industrial development would occur at the mid-range of the floor area ratios designated for each of those land uses. The project does not propose densities or land use intensities different from that anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The project is required to adhere to all policies and programs of the General Plan. and, as applicable to the 472 acres, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project is required to adhere to all City ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of project development. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan has been adopted by the City or other agency. The Project area recently has been included in the approximately 5.4 million acres in California proposed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as critical habitat for the red-legged frog. Although this may not be a potentially significant land use impact, land uses within the Project area could be affected 46 by this designation and, as such, the location and intensity of land uses indicated in the .City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan could be impacted by this changed circumstance There would be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, but changed circumstances due to other agencies' potential regulatory action could create an impact. This impact, however, is related to biologic resources and has been identified as a potentially significant impact under the Biologic Resources section of this Initial Study. X. MINERAL RESOURCES Environmental Setting The subject area currently contains no known mineral resources although a now-defunct gravel pit is located within the. Project area on the Fallon Enterprises property just to the east of Fallon Road. The gravel pit has not been in operation for a number of years and is not currently extracting, producing, or processing any resources. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, b) Result in the toss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources ? NI. The former quarry is not currently extracting resources and there is no indication that the current property-owners wish to renew quarry operations. In any case, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan land uses designations for the area do not specifically permit such use. There are no other known significant mineral resources located within the Project. Development of the Project as proposed (or modified) would have no impact on mineral resources. XI. NOISE Environmental Setting Major sources of noise on and adjacent to the project area include noise generated by vehicles on 1-580, noise generated by traffic on arterial roadways near the project area, and aircraft flyovers, mainly from aircraft utilizing the Livermore Airport. Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures a,d) Would the project expose persons to generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard or to substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels? PS. Vehicle noise from 1-580 would be most apparent to new land uses immediately adjacent to the freeway. Development of the project as proposed and in accordance with 47 the land use designations of the General Plan and Specific. Plan would include the construction of new arterial roadways and streets. Traffic would be introduced into new residential neighborhoods and urban noise associated with commercial, industrial and other uses would be introduced to the Project area. Although the Eastern Dublin El]q addresses impacts due to this type of noise (Impacts 3.10/A and 3.10/F) and adopted mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level (Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0, 3.10/6.0), changed environmental circumstances related to urbanization in the Th-valley and beyond with potential changes in commute patterns and increased traffic along 1-580 - may create apotentially significant impact. b) Exposure of peotgle to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? PS. Groundbome vibrations could be caused primarily by heavy traffic along the freeway and along new arterial streets from heavy vehicles traveling primarily to the commercial or industrial sites within the project area. These ambient vibrations would increase permanently due to the proposed change in land use from primarily agriculture to urban uses, and the traffic associated with them. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified permanent impacts related to vehicular traffic increases (and implicitly, impacts due to urban noise and vibration), as an unavoidable and unmitigatable impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council for this impact. The proposed project would not change the scale or type of development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for areas within the project area and 'would not change the level of intensity of impact; therefore, no additional discussion or analysis is necessary. However, as noted above, development of the Project area according to the General Plan and Specific Plan includes construction of arterial roads and local streets. These arterial roadways have the potential to create excessive groundbome noise to the volume of daily and peak hour traffic. Similarly, construction activities within the Project area could create temporary vibrations and noise in localized areas. Although the Eastern Dublin EIR addresses impacts related to ground-borne noise (Impact 3.10/A and F) and indicates mitigation measures which could reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level, changed circumstances due to the level of urbanization within the Tri-Valley and beyond which has changed commute patterns and traffic intensities and could change the expected level of groundborne noise anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EI2K. This changed circumstance could result in a potentiatly significant impact. c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels? NI. Development of the Project area with urban uses will introduce noise to the Project area. Ambient noise levels would increase permanently due to the proposed change in land use from primarily agriculture to urban uses. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified permanent noise impacts related to vehicular traffic increases (and imPlicitly urban noises) as an unavoidable and unmitigatable impac~ and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council for this impact; no additional discussion or analysis is necessary. The proposed project would not change the scale of 48 development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area and would not change the level of intensity of impact. e, 0 Expose people residing or worla'ng within two miles of a public airport or in the vicinity of a private airstrip to excessive noise levels? NI. There is no private airstrip in the vicinity of the proposed project, therefore, no impact would result. The project area is located near the Livermore Airport and new residents and workers within the project area could be exposed to aircraft noise from aircraft traveling to and from the airport. The Eastern Dublin EIR determined that aircraft noise was a less-than-significant impact (Impact 3.10/C, p. 3.10-4) and no mitigation measure was proposed. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Environmental Setting Data from Projections 2000, published by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), expects the nine-county San Francisco Bay Region to add approximately 1,096,300 new residents by the year 2020. This represents an increase of about 16 percent over the 20-year forecast period from 2000 - 2020. ABAG expects approximately 401, 750 new households in the region by year 2020. ABAG estimates that Dublin's population (including its Sphere of Influence) was 31,500 in the year 2000 and is projected to grow to 66,600 by 2020, and increase of 111%. ABAG estimates that the increase in new households will create a demand for at least 20,000 new dwellings each year. The City of Dublin is expected to provide 21,290 dwellings by the year 2020. The Eastem Dublin EIR anticipated that the Eastem Dublin area would create 12,458 new dwelling units (Table 3.2-5, page 3.2-7), generating a new resident population of 27,794. Project Impacts and Miti,~ation Measures a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? NI. Development of the project area according to the City's General Plan and as expected by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would increase population in the project area but not beyond that anticipated or planned-for according to the City's General Plan or as anticipated or evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EII~. The City's General Plan contains Guiding and Implementing policies (6.3.A, 2.1.2.C, 2.1.3.A, 2.1.4.A, 6.4B, and 6.4E) to provide a range of housing types. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains policies to provide a diversity of housing opportunities that meets the social, economic and physical needs of future residents (policies 4-2 through 4-6). 49 b, c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI. The project area contains nine existing residences and various agricultural out- buildings and land uses. Current residents and uses could remain in place until such time as development of those particular parcels occurs over time. Due to the limited number of current residents, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people and no impact is expected. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Environmental Setting Water~ Sewer. The project area currently is located within the jurisdiction of Alameda County. The County has limited abilities to provide water or wastewater services to the project area: current residents and land uses rely upon private wells and septic systems for these services. The City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) have worked jointly to ensure that areas annexed to the City also are annexed to DSRSD. The Eastern Dublin EIR and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan anticipated that the Project area would be serviced by DSRSD. Additionally, DSRSD's master utilities plans for water, wastewater and recycled water include the Project area. The Project area must be annexed into the DSRSD service area. Fire Protection. Fire protection services for the project area are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD). Since the City of Dublin contracts with ACFD for services, upon annexation to the City, the ACFD would continue service to the Project area. Police Protection. The Alameda County Sheriff's Office and the. Califomia Highway Patrol (CI-IP) currently provide police services to the project area. Upon annexation, Dublin Police Services would provide services to the area including enforcement of traffic laws which the CHP currently provides and enforcement of city ordinances and state law. Dublin Police Services is under contract with the Alameda County Sheriff's office: the City of Dublin owns the department's facilities and equipment but the personnel are employed by the Sheriff's Office Police and security protection includes 24 hour security patrols throughout the community in addition to crime prevention, crime suppression and traffic safety. Schools. The Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD) provides educational services to the project area. However, a request is being prepared to detach from the LVJUSD and attach it to the service area of the Dublin Unified School District. The City of Dublin and the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) prefer that all areas within the City of Dublin be served by DUSD schools. In this case, the Project area is more readily served by DUSD than LJVUSD since the project area is adjacent to DUSD. 5O Maintenance. Other than limited County roads within the project area (Fallon Road and Croak Road), the County provides limited maintenance service to the Project area. Upon annexation to the City of Dublin maintenance of streets, roads and other public facilities within the project area would be the responsibility of the City of Dublin Public Works Department. Solid Waste Service. The County does not currently provide solid waste disposal service: property-owners must dispose 'of waste at local transfer stations. Upon annexation to the City of Dublin, solid waste service would be provided by the Livermore/Dublin Disposal Company. Other services. The project area utilizes the Alameda County library services and other government services provided to Alameda County residents. Upon annexation to the City of Dublin, many of these services would be provided by the City. Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures Although the Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the impacts of development of the project area on services and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce the identified impacts to a less than significant level, some of these impacts still may be potentially significant for the project area due to changed circumstances. a) Fire protection ? LS. The project proposes 'approximately 2,526 new residences and a little over 1.4 million square feet of commercial and industrial building area to be developed in phases. The number of new residences and amount of commercial, industrial and institutional floor space was evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area. Demand for fire services and fire response to outlying areas were considered significant impacts (IM 3.4/D and 3.4/E) and with implementation of mitigation measures (MM 3.4/6.0 - MM3.4/11), these impacts are less-than-significant. These mitigation measures require construction of new facilities timed to coincide with development; require appropriate funding mechanisms for capital improvements; identify and acquire new fire station sites; and incorporate fire safety measures into project design. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. b) Police protection ? LS. Development of the project as proposed could result in almost 6,000 new residents and almost 3,000 new employees in the Project area. The number of new residents and amount of commercial, industrial and institutional floor space was evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area. Demand for police services and police services accessibility .were considered significant impacts (IM 3.4/A and 3.4/B) and with implementation of mitigation measures (MM 3.4/6.0 -MM3.4/ll), these impacts are less-than-significant. These mitigation measures include provision of additional personal and facilities; coordination of development timing to services can be expanded; incorporation of police department recommendations into project design; and preparation of budget strategies for personnel and facilities as annexing areas become served by Dublin's Police Department. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. c) Schools? PS. Up to 1,400 new K-12 students could be generated by the project. Changes in student generation rates due to changed regional economic circumstances may have a different impact on the number and age distribution of students originally anticipated and evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. In addition, the type of schools originally expected to have been constructed according to the Eastern Dublin EIR may have changed. Also, the level of funding and amount of school fees which may be charged according to State law may have changed so that the project could have a different impact on the provision of school facilities and programs. This could be a potentially significant impact. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. Numerous arterial, collector and local streets and roads will be constructed in the project area. All such streets and public facilities would be constructed by the project developers. Maintenance of these facilities was anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR and considered a significant impact (SVi 3.12/A and 3.12/B). Implementation of mitigation measures (MM 3.12/1.0 - 8.0) reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. These mitigation measures encourage development agreements; adoption by the City of an area of benefit ordinance; creation of Special Assessment of Mello Roos Community Facilities Districts; City evaluation of Marks-Roos bond pooling; and consideration of City-wide developer and builder impact fees. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. XIV. RECREATION Environmental Setting Since the project area is not currently developed with urban uses the area contains no parks or other recreational facilities. Nearby community and regional parks include Emerald Glen Park, a 50-acre city park now being developed by the City of Dublin immediately west of Tassajara Road, and two community parks slated for development elsewhere in the Eastern Dublin area. The combined area of the two community parks is 52 126 acres. Each of these parks would allow for organized sports activities and individual sports as well as for passive recreation. Numerous neighborhood parks and neighborhood squares have been included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan planning areas. The East Bay Regional Park District also has developed a staging area on the west side of Tassajara Road as part of a regional recreational trail s.,ystem. The Project proposes adding approximately 14 acres to one of the community parks listed above and several neighborhood parks and squares to serve the new residents and employees generated by project development. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? LS. The proposed development would cause an increase in demand for neighborhood, community and regional park facilities due to an increase in the number of people within the project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the demand for park facilities as a potentially sig~. ificant impact (IM 3.4/K). Implementation of the mitigation measures as policies within the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (MM 3.4/20.0 - 28.0) reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. These mitigation measures and policies encourage expanding park areas; maintaining and improving outdoor facilities in conformance with the City's'Park and Recreation master Plan; acquire and improve parklands; require land dedication and improvements for parks; designate sites in the General Plan and Specific Plan areas; and implement Specific Plan policies for the provision and maintenance of open space. The Eastern Dublin EIR also identified park facilities as a fiscal impact (IM 3.4/L). Implementation of the three mitigation measures (MM 3.4/29.0 - 31.0) reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. The adopted mitigation measures and General Plan policies would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities ? LS. The project includes neighborhood parks, open space and an addition to a planned community park in accordance with the General Plan and Specific Plan. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the construction of park facilities and the cost of those facilities as impacts (IM 3.4/k and 3.4/L) and, with implementation of the mitigation measures listed above, these impacts are less-than-significant (please see a) above for a full discussion). The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. -- 53 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Environmental Setting The project site is served by a number of regional freeways and sub-regional arterial and collector roadways, including: Interstate 1-580, Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive, Arnold Road, Gleason Drive, Tassajara Road, Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road. Development of the Project as proposed or modified would introduce new arterial roadways and collector streets into the Project area. The Project is proposing a minor change in the location of one collector street by removing it from a potentially sensitive intermittent stream area. Other roadways are proposed in the General Plan planning area which were not considered as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR (residential collector streets which could occur in the General Plan planning area were not addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR). Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the traffic and transportation impacts of development of the project area and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce some of the identified impacts to a less than significant level. Due to increased urban development in the Tri- Valley area and beyond which may impact roadways within the project area, there could be the potential for additional transportation/traffic impacts. Cause an increase 'in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity? PS. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the project area with the proposed 2,526 dwelling units and 1.4 million square feet of commercial/industrial floor space, and indicated mitigation measures to address the impacts thereof. However, changes in Tri-Vatley commute patterns and traffic intensities in addition to the anticipated Project traffic, may cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. These impacts could include traffic impacts within the project area, or at Project intersection, or on freeways, roads, etc. which the project may utilize. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads? PS. As noted above, the addition of approximately 2,526 dwelling units and 1.4 million square feet of commercial/industrial building area in the project area were anticipated and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EI~R but the impacts of development on regional freeways and local roadways in conjunction with changing commute patterns and traffic intensities unrelated to the project may cause potentially, significant impacts not anticipated by the Eastem Dublin EIR. 54 c) Change in air traffic patterns? NI. The Livermore Airport is located to the south of the project Area. The Airport Land Use Commission of Alameda County has established land use policies for areas within the Airport Protection Area and the General Referral and Height Referral area of the airport. Development of the project area is subject to the policies of the ALUC. Development of the project area is not expected to create a change in air traffic patterns at the airport and hence would have no impact on air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? PS. Approval of the proposed project and future development of the site would add new roads, driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist. The Eastern Dublin E[R anticipated and addressed these potential impacts and suggested mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. However, changes in Tri-Valley commute patterns and traffic intensities in addition to the anticipated project traffic may cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. These impacts could include traffic impacts within the project area, or at project intersection, or on freeways, roads, etc. which the project may utilize, such that traffic- related hazards to pedestrians or bicyclists using the new roads and other circulation features could increase. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? PS. The present need for emergency access is low, since there are few current residents or visitors to the site. Construction of new residences and commercial development within the project area could increase the need for emergency services and related access to new residences and commercial establishments. The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated and suggested mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. However, changes in Tri- Valley commute patterns and traffic intensities in addition to the anticipated project traffic may cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. For example, potential increased volumes of traffic unrelated to the project may create a potentially significant impact on emergency access capability on project streets or intersections during peak traffic hours. f) Inadequate parla'ng capacity? NI. Parking for individual projects within the project area would be reviewed by the City of Dublin at the time such proposals are submitted to ensure consistency with City parking requirements. No impact is anticipated. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs for alternative transportation? NI. Individual projects within the subject site will be designed with sidewalks, pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes to minimize potential hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists and to support these alternative transportation modes. In accordance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, bicycle routes and pedestrian trails are included as part of the -- 55 proposed Project. The City and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan-have standards by which bus turn-outs, bicycle paths, trails and sidewalks must be planned and constructed. Bus turn-outs are required to be installed by project developers in accordance with City requirements and bus service plans. These improvements will be confirmed at the time each individual development project is reviewed by the City. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Environmental Setting The project area currently is served by the Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7 as a regional water supplier and distributor and for storm drain facilities. The Dubli.n San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would serve the project area as the water retailer; would provide wastewater collection and treatment; and would provide opportunities for the use of recycled water for landscape purposes. Since the project area is mainly undeveloped except for nine residences and scattered outbuildings, current services to the Project area are minimal. Upon annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin, project developers would be required to extend new services to the area to provide a public water supply for domestic and fire flow use, a recycled water service for irrigation of public medians and parks, and a public wastewater treatment system, all of which would connect with existing facilities maintained and controlled by DSRSD. Project developers would be required to install new storm drainage facilities which would connect with existing facilities maintained and controlled by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7. Although most of these infrastructure facilities would be installed by Project developers, all of these systems would be public and would be maintained by public agencies such as the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Cable TV utilities also would be extended to the project area. Gas and Electricity (current setting) Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas to the project site. Existing service to the project area includes minor Iow voltage distribution feeders at 21 kilovolts (kV) and service within the project vicinity is provide by PG&E distribution lines along Fallon, Croak, and Collier Canyon roads. There are no transmission lines within the project area. A natural gas main is proposed to be extended along Dublin Boulevard eastward from its current terminus to within 2,812 feet of the Project Site when PG&E and Pacific Bell install a joint trench in Dublin Ranch Area G in late 2001 or early 2002. Currently, California is experiencing an energy shortfall. PG&E declared bankruptcy in April, 2001; it is unknown if this will have any effect on the company's ability to continue to provide service. 56 Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the provision and extension of services and utilities to the project area and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce some of the identified impacts to a less than significant level. However, additional or new potential impacts may be potentially significant for the Project area due to changed circumstances (increased urban development in the Th-Valley area,, changes in water purveyor and distributor contracts, changes in the handling and disposal of wastewater, changes in supply and distribution of gas and electricity, etc.) a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? PS. Changes in circumstances due to regional policy changes, funding mechanisms and timing of infrastructure improvements may create apotentially significant impact. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? PS. As noted above, changes in circumstances due to regional policy changes, funding mechanisms and timing of wastewater infrastructure improvements may create a potentially significant impact. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? PS. New facilities will be needed as a result of development and may exceed those previously analyzed, This may be apotentially significant impact. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? PS. DSRSD, which would provide water service and supply to project area has included the project within its master plans and projections. However, water supplier contracts and recent litigation may have an impact on how, when and how much water is supplied to the project. This may be apotentially significant impact. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? PS. Approval of the proposed project and development of the site could result in an increased demand for wastewater treatment over present conditions. Due to increased and more rapid development in the Tri-Valley area there may be a potential need to expand the capacity of the treatment plant earlier than originally anticipated by the Eastem Dublin E[R. This could be apotentially significant impact. f) Solid waste disposal? PS. Development of the project as proposed could incrementally increase the generation of solid waste. Although this .impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, changed circumstances due to more rapid development in the Th-Valley area in combination with 57 the anticipated project could have a potentially significant impact on the availability of solid waste disposal services. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI. The City of Dublin and the solid waste hauler would ensure that developers of individual projects constructed in the Project area would adhere to federal, state and local solid waste regulations; therefore, no impact would result. h) Gas and electricity? PS. Prior to the current state-wide energy crisis, PG&E had the ability to adequately serve the Th-Valley with existing facilities until approximately June 2002. PG&E has proposed the Th-Valley 2002 Capacity Project to increase electric service by adding substations in Dublin and North Livermore, expanding the Vineyard Substation in Pleasanton and installing approximately 23.5 miles of 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to serve the substations (CPUC, 2000). PG&E is proposing construction of a 5-acre, 230/21 kV substation with four 45 megawatt transformers in eastern Dublin. If the Th- Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project or a functional equivalent project is not constructed, PG&E would be forced to respond to growing demand by expanding its existing sYStem to the extent that is possible and by curtailing service if growth in demand exceeds the transmission system's capacity or reliability requirements for essential services (such as hospitals). It is possible that if the Th-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project is delayed, then other alternatives would be identified. However, given that PG&E has declared bankruptcy and the that there is an apparent energy provision shortfall within the state and from out-of-state providers, it is unclear whether PG&E would or could pursue the Th-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project or, even if approved and constructed, whether there would be energy available to supply the new facilities. The impacts of the project on the consumption of non-renewable resources is identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (IM 3.4/S) and mitigation measures (MM 3.4/45.0 - 3.4/46.0) are adopted as part of the project in an effort to reduce natural resource consumption and encourage energy conservation, the impact was determined to be unavoidable and adverse. Pursuant to CEQA, a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by the City Council for this impact. However, the current uncertainty of the supply of energy to the state as a whole, the potential bankruptcy of the electricity and gas service provider, and the potential lack of new energy-providers/power facilities may have a potentially significant impact. XV. 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 58 b) c) 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 animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? YES. Please refer to the discussion in the Biological Resources section above (Section IV) regarding changes regulatory circumstances and the adoption of the critical habitat for the California red-legged frog.. 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 possible future projects.) YES. The project constitutes about 25 percent of the overall Eastern Dublin planning area. Other parts of this area have been or are being developed in accordance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Although the Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the cumulative impacts of development of the Project area within its evaluation of the overall Eastern Dublin planning area, changed circumstances mentioned throughout this Initial Study may contribute to changed cumulative impacts which should be further analyzed. Does the project, have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the potentially significant adverse impacts of the proposed Project through its evaluation of the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. The Eastern Dublin EIR suggested mitigation measures which reduce many such impacts to a less-than significant level and where such impacts could not be reduced or otherwise had a cumulative adverse impact, the City Council adopted a Statement of Over-riding Consideration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. As discussed previously in this document, however, changes in circumstances since the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified have the potential for significant effects beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Initial Study Preparer Anne Kinney, Associate Planner, City of Dublin References Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental 59 .Impact Report, Wallace Roberts and Todd, 1994. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, June 6, 1998 City of Dublin General Plan, revised July 7, 1998 Projections 2000, Association of Bay Area Governments, December 1999 Persons/Agencies Contacted in Preparation of this Document Grassetti Environmental Consulting City of Dublin, Public Works Department City of Dublin, Planning Department Dublin San Ramon Services District Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7 MacKay and Somps 60 TABLE 1: PROPOSED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACREAGES, LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT Proposed Project Land Use Type Gross (Midpoint Density per City Policy) Acres density units or square feet Low Density Residential 433.5 1,734 (0.9 - 6 du/acre) Medium Density Residential 9.4 94 (6.1 - 14 du/acre) Medium/High Density Residential 34.8 696 (14.1 - 25 du/acre) Rural Residential/Agriculture 269.1 2 (1 dull00 acres or parcel) Future Study Area1 92.6 0 General Commercial 41.0 446,490 (0.25 FAR) Neighborhood Commercial 10.3 134,600 (0.30 FAR) Industrial Park 68.9 840,360 (max. 0.28 FAR) Junior High School 14.6 N/A Elementary Schools 17.3 N/A Community Park 14.1 N/A Neighborhood Parks 24.0 N/A Neighborhood Square 2.7 N/A Open Space 76.9 N/A Totals 1109,2z 2,526 du 1,421,450 sf Notes: I Future Study Area indicates a land use designation for properties located within the Airport Protection Area, These areas will require future additional City review and action to determine appropriate land uses. 2 This acreage total is less than the 1,120 acre project area 'because it omits acreage Utilized for public rights of way. AntioC 11/ l East Dublin Properties EXHIBIT 1 Vicinity Map San Francisco Pacific Ocean Oaklar San Francisco Bay DUblin Project Site -LiVermore Tracy 0 (~ ~ 10 Miles DetailI Santa -san East Dublin Properties EXHIBIT 2 · ·Location Map. 1.1*l 12; ~,; .:. .... . %. \ I \ ilI~J~&SomPs 4~sup-F. ll~exbibit 4- KDSP¼nds.pad East Dublin Properties ~ EXHIBIT 4 Lands within the Eastern Dubli.n.. Specifi~ Lands Within the Eastern ~ Dublin Specific Plan Area V///3 1-580 Project/~rea L eOeneral Commercial may be oermitled by a Ptanned Develooment Zort'ng Process (sea text fo( complete d~scu$$~on ) Will convert to Future Sl~dy Area/Agriculture where daterminad inconsistent wilh APA (see text Iai' complete discus$~ort) 1~19149~upZEIR\exhlbltS-EDGPA FUTURE AGRICULTURE. 2743.9 Acres '14' Acres [' (Crosby) ] ! STUDY ABEA] I L i ! ! General Plan -Eastern Extended Planning Area LAND USE MAP Legend COMMERCIAL Neighed Comm~cia~ General Commercial Camou~ O~'ce k3duatrial Park RESIDENTIAL ~ H~h De~y 25- ~ Med~H~h Dens~y 14-25 ~ Madam Denaty 6-14 ~ LOW Dens~y ~ ~ac ~ R~al Res~entlavAgd~e 1 ~100 PUBL~/SEMFPUBL~/OPEN Pub~/Se~ub~ Facaty ~ E~ntary ScSI ~ Junior High School ~ H~ School ~ Pub~/Se~-Pub~ Parks & Recreatbn ~ Ciiy Park ~ C~ity ~ N~hborhood Park Ne~hbo~ood Square Open Space Slream Corridor CIRC~LAT~N ~m Arledal S~eet ------ Co~ctor S~eet ......... TrOt ~ ----- SOl Boundary .... Gen~ ~ Amendment ~ludy .... , Specif~ R~ S~dy Area EASTERN DUBLIN W~l~ce Rob~t~ & Todd May lO, 1903 '~ast Dublin Properties EXHIBIT 5 East Dublin Properties EXHIBIT 6 Stage I Site Plan LEGEND ES - Elemealan.' School JH - Junior High Sebmd L- Low Density R~idenlial M - Medium D~nsiw Residential Mit - Mtnllum High Density Rlsldenfial NS - Neighborhood ~lUarc NP- ~Neighborhood Park CP- Communio' Park OS - OI~n Spa~ RRA - Rural Rmidenlial / Agriculture NC- Neighborhood Commercial GE - General Commercial I - lndustrlal Park \ ! I i \ \ Fallon Enterprises First American /Title Guaranty CO. / / First American Title Guaranty Co. East Dublin Properties EXHIBIT 7 Property OWners Braddock & Logan Group Croak / x x.r_\ ' ~ ....... I ~1 1 Anderson g, ['Second Family ! ! Branaugh !' Chen ~itea.. l'ann~r~t~p , I i Righeffi : ~"~ , IllAI ¥ & SomPs 19149~a ta gel~'xhlbllT-prop, l~d EBJ Partners, L.P.~ i Pleasanton hanch q. ,~ lnvestmlnts _'-_ _ : 1-580 I I ;au>on Road i East Dublin Properties EXHIBIT 8 i Williamson Act Agreements Agreements Non-Renewed IllAOgAY & sm~s ~149X~up-E IR~ v h thil g-w _t _l!~ \ \ \ 1-580 Eanyon Road APPENDIX B: CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION NO. 53-93 RESOLUTION NO. ~-93 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN /%MENDMENT AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN; MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ~ ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN G~NERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN Recitals 1. In response to a proposal for residential development of the Dublin Ranch property, the City of Dublin undertook the Eastern Dublin Study to plan for the future development of the eastern Dublin area. 2. The City Council and Planning Commission conducted three joint public study sessions and three workshops relating to planning issues in eastern Dublin. a. The April 18, 1990, study session considered a land use concept report containing four land use scenarios and the consistency of each land use concept with existing general plan policies. Alternative #4 was coDsidered the preferred land use concept for environmental study by informal consensus. b. The August 22, 1990.~_ study session considered Alternative #4 and a fifth concept (based on the 1986..annexation agreement with Alameda County). The "Town Center" condept, types of streets, location and types of parks were discussed. c. The November 15, 1990, workshop solicited comments from the public regarding the existing and desired life style qualities in Dublin and what the' public wanted to see in a new community~ d. The December 6, 1990, workshop continued with a similar discussion of desired types of commercial development and discussed circulation systems and parks and open space. e. The DeCember 18, 1990, workshop presented a preliminary conceptual land use plan. Inpu~.l~was received on the transit spine, location of civic center, types'of residential uses, location of commercial uses, the concentration of high density residential uses, and jobs/housing balance. f. The Februa-ry~4, 199i, study session considered-a land use plan that incorporated ~"~omments made at the three workshops and included a discussio~'~of major issues, such as the location of a high school, connect~6h'Lto existing Dublin size of streets ~nd types of parks '%'" ' 3 With the ' ' ' · Identification , · ~ .~.~.'~- ~- ....... alternative on February 14, 1991 the Clty.prepared-.a..Draft General Plan Amendment for approximately 6,920 aeres to pra~i"for future development of a mixed use community of'single- a~multiple-family residences, commercial uses (general commerc.~a~, neighborhood commercial, campus office and induStrial park).~ public and semi-public facilities (including schools), parks~and open space Draft General Pla~ Amendment 4. The Draft General Plan A~ndment, dated May 27, 1992, designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of East6'~n Dublin for residential, commercial, industrial, public, open space and parks, and other categories of public and private uses of land. 5. The Draft General Plan Ameh~ent includes a statement of standards of population density and Standards of building intensity for Eastern Dublin. 6. Pursuant to the provisions/~6f State Planning and Zoning Law, it is the function and duty off,he Planning Commission of the City of Dublin to review and ~c0mmend action on proposed amendments to the City's General ~' ~duly 7. The Planning Commission hel'd'.~ noticed public hearing on the Eastern Dublin Draft Gener.a~'~lan Amendment on October 1, 1992, which hearing was continued t6:~ctober 6, 1992 October 12, 1992, and October 15, 1992. .'.~'~'~'~-'~ ' 8. Based on comments receive.d~'during the public hearing, related text revisions, dated December 21, 1992, were made to the Draft General Plan Amendment and Were reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 21, 1992. 9. The Draft General Plan Amendment was reviewed by th~ Planning Commission in accordance.. With the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Ac'~lthrough the preparation and review of an Environmental Impact Report. On December 21, 1992, by Resolution No. 92-060, the Pl~hhing Commission recommended certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. 10. On December 21, 1992, %h~"'Planning Commission, after considering all written and oral test'~mony submitted at the public hearing, adopted of Resolution No. 92-061, recommending City 2 December 21, 1992. Draft specific Plan 11. The Draft Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, implements an approximately 3,328-acre portion of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment by providing a detailed framework, including policies, standards and implementation programs, for evaluation of development projects proposed in the portion of eastern Dublin covered by the Draft Specific Plan. 12. Pursuant to State Law, the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific Plan was prepared and reviewed in the same manner as a general plan amendment. 13. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific Plan on October 6, 1992, which hearing was continued to October 12, 1992, and October 15, 1992. 14. Based on comments received during the public hearings, related text revisions, dated December 21, 1992, were made to the Draft Specific Plan and were reviewed by'the Planning Commission on December 21, 1992. 15. The Draft Specific Plan-was reviewed by the Planning Commission in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act through the preparation and review of a Final Environmental Impact Report. On December 21, 1992, by Resolution No. 92-060, the Planning Commission recor~mended certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. 16. On December 21, 1992, the Planning Commission, after considering'all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 92-062, recommending City Council adoption of the Draft Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, as revised December 21, 1992. Council Public Hearinq 17. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Eastern Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft Specific Plan on January 14, 1993, which hearing was continued to January 21, 1993, February 23, 1993, March 30, 1993, and April 27, 1993. 18. On April 27,. 1993, the City Council, by Resolution No. 45-93, voted to refer Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area ("Alternative 2") with modifications back to the Planning Commission for its recommendation, pursuant to Government code section 65356. 1993,~9. The ~lanning Commission held a public hearing on May 3, ~°c°nsi~er~lternative'2'with'm~dific~tiohs.and-has.~-~f~d backto the City Council by Planning Commission Resolutio~ No. 93- 013. 20. The City Council considered all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing and all written testimony submitted prior to the public hearing and the recommendation of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 92-061, 92-062 and 93-013. ' 21. On May 10, 1993 the Council held duly noticed a public hearing to hear testimony regarding the Planning Commission,s recommendation as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-013. 22. On May 10, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying the Addendum to the Draft EIR and the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") as adequate and complete. The Final EIR identified significant adverse environmental impacts which can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through changes or alterations in the project Therefore uts findings ado~tin~ th .... ' -. · , P uant to CEQA, ~ ~ ~ changes or a±~era~ions are required and are contained in this resolution. Some of the significant impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance a ~o~err%dlng considerations is therefore ..... ~ .... nd a ~t~tement · ' ' ~=~u'~u pursuan~ to CEQA anu is also contained in this resolution. 23. Upon consideration of the land use and environmental effects of the project, as described in the Final EIR, the Council has determined to adopt Alternative 2, as described .in the Final EIR, with certain modifications which are described in the Addendum to the Draft EIR ("Alternative 2 With ~odifications,,). Alternative 2 With Modifications reduces land use impacts, does not disrupt the existing rural residential community reduCes growth-inducing impacts on in Doolan Canyon, potentially agricultural lands, reduces certain traffic impacts to a level of insignificance, produces less demand for infrastructure, reduces the noise impacts for Doolan Road to a level of insignificance and will have a positive fiscal impact on the City. 24. Alternative 2 was considered by the Planning Commission at its hearings, in testimony at the public hearings, in staff reports presented to the Commission at its hearings, in the EIR reviewed by the Planning Commission at its hearings and in its deliberations. 25. Alternative 2 With Modifications includes several substantial modifications to Alternative 2, as Alternative 2 is described in the Draft EIR. Although several of these modifications were considered by the Planning Commission at its hearings, the Planning Commission has considered Alternative 2 With Modifications and has reported back to the Council with its recommend~.0~--~g&~ih~---~l~-~.~-iV~---~2~.--With--Modifi-cations.· -The~ Council has determined to follow the Planning Commission's recommendation as set forth in its Resolution No. 93-013, except with respect to the width of the Transit spine and with the addition of the phrase "or other appropriate agreements" on page 160 of the Draft Specific Plan (§ 11.3.1, first'sentence). Findinqs/Overridinq Considerations/ Mitigation Monitorin~ Pro~ram 26. Public Resources Code section 21081 requires the City to make certain findings if the city approves a project for which an environmental impact report has been prepared that identifies significant environmental effects. 27. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires adoption by the City Council of a statement of overriding considerations if the Council approves a project which will result in unavoidable significant effects on the environment. 28. Public'Resource Code section 21085 and section 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines require the City to make certain determinations if it approves a project which reduces the number of housing units considered in the environmental impact-report. 29. The Final EIR for the Eastern Dublin General 'Plan Amendment and Specific Plan identifies certain significant adverse environmental effects. 30. certain of the significant adverse environmental effects 'can be reduced to a level of insignificance by changes or alterations in the project. ' 31. Certain of the significant adverse environmental effects cannot 'be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 32. The Council has selected Alternative 2 identified in the Final EIR with modifications described in the Addendum to the Draft EIR, reducing the number of housing units for such property from the project as reviewed by the Final EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. 33. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the city to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for ~hanges in a project or conditions imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects in order to ensure compliance during project implementation. 34. Government Code section 65300 authorizes a city council to adopt a general pla~ for land outside its boundaries which in the Planning Commission s judgment bears relation to its planning. ~ =u~,mssmon has consi'~ered' 'whe~e'~'"'""-'~-~-~d outside the City's boundaries bears relation to the City's planning. 36. The City has referred Alternative 2 With Modifications to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC,,) pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21676 (b). The City has received a determination from the ALUC. The - · not the ALUC to make a dete ~=~ = .... 60 day time period for rm~,~ n~s no~ ye~ run. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT A. The Dublin City Council does hereby approve "Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area,, as the Eastern Amendment, with the Revisions dated December Dublin General Plan 21, 1992 and with the Modifications described in the Addendum to Draft EIR, dated May 4, 1993. ' B. The Dublin City Council finds the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as described in the Final EIR ,, · Planning Area,,,. with ~---~-~ _ . _ as Alternative 2: Reduced ~=v~ons ~a~ed D the modifications ~=~= : ...... e~ember 21, 1992, and with ..... ~w=u ~n =ne A~dendum to Draft EIR , dated May 4, 1993 to be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as revised by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment. C. The Dublin City Council does hereby approve the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, with the Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and with the Modifications described in the Addendum to Draft EIR, dated May 4, 1993 and with the revision to page 160 referred to in paragraph 25 above. D. The Dublin City Council does hereby direct the Staff to edit, format, and print the up-to-date Dublin 'General Plan with all City Council approved revisions and without any other substantive changes. E. The Dublin City Council does hereby direct the Staff to edit, format, and print the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan with all City Council approved revisions and without any other substantive changes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby make the findings set forth in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by 'this reference, for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council finds and declares that the rationale for'each of the findings set forth in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of its findings (Exhibit A) is contained i~ the paragraph entitled "Rationale for Finding,, in Exhibit A. 6 The Council further finds that the mitigation measures for each identified i~P-a¢'tinExhibit--A''~make~''changes %°~°r~-a-lterati°ns~t°' the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan,'.or are measures incorporated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that, once implemented as described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit B hereto), will avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan on the environment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED T~AT the Dublin city Council does hereby adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section 6 of Exhibit A, attached hereto, which statement shall be included in the record of the project approval. BB IT FURTHER RESOLVED T~AT the Dublin city Council does hereby adopt the ,,Mitigation Monitoring Program: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, as the reporting and monitoring program required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED T~AT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct that the Applicants for land use approvals in the Specific Plan area shall pay their pro rata share of all costs associated with the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED T~AT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct that all fees established pursuant to Government Code Section 65456, to recover costs of preparation of the Specific Plan, shall include the cost of preparation, adoption and administration of the Specific Plan plus interest on such costs based upon the City of Dublin's average monthly weighted investment yield calculated for each year or fraction thereof that such costs are unpaid~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED T~LAT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct the City Clerk.to file a Notice of Determination for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project with the Alameda County Clerk and the State office of Planning and Research. BB IT FURTHER RESOLVED T~AT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct the City Clerk to make available to the public, .within one working day of the date of adoption of this resolution, copies of this resolution (including all Exhibits) and the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, dated May 27, 1992, with the Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and the modifications described in the Addendum to Draft EIR dated May 4, 1993, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, with the Revisions to Draft Specific Plan, dated December 21, 1992, and the modifications 7 described in the Addendum to Draft EIR, all as modified by this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this resolution shal.1 become effective thirty (30) days from the date of passage. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT if, on the effective date of this resolution or within the remaining 60-day period for ALUC action, the ALUC has found that Alternative 2 With Modifications is not consistent with the ALUC's Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan, the City shall submit all regulations, permits or other actions implementing the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to the ALUC for review until such time that the City Council revises the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to be consistent with the ALUC's Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan or adopts specific findings by a two- thirds vote that the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code as stated in section 21670 of such Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of May, the following vote: 1993, by AYES: NOES: Councilmembers Burton, Houston, Howard, Moffatt & Mayor' Snyder None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mayor ATTEST: 114\RESOL\29\RESOLUTiON Section FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the Project,sI potential significant environmental impacts and means for mitigating those impacts. Findings pursuant to section 21081, subdivision (c), as they relate to "project alternatives," are made in Section 3. Section 3.1 -- Land Use IMPACT 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands. Agricultural grazing land and open space in Alameda and Contra Costa counties will be converted to urban uses by proposed projects such as Dougherty Valley, Tassajara Valley, North Livermore, and Eastern Dublin. Because it would result in the urbanization of a large area of open space, the proposed Projec~ Would contribute to this Cumulative.loss of agricultural land and open space in the Tri-Valley.area. This is considered a signifi- cant unavoidable cumulative impact. Response to Comments ("RC") = 34-9 Findinq. No mitigation measures are proposed to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Findinq. The total amount of open space within the RPA that will be urbanized will be cumulatively significant, in light of numerous other open space areas within the region that is also anticipated for urbanization. IMPACT 3.1/G. Potential Conflicts with Land Uses to the West. The Parks Reserve Forces Training Area ("Camp Parks") is located due west of the Specific Plan area. Existing and future Army training activities, such as the use of high velocity weapons and helicopters, could result in noise and safety conflicts with adjacent open space and single-family residential areas of the Specific Plan. The extent of future army activity is unknown and 1The "Project" is Alternative 2 described in the DEIR at pages 4-9 through 4-14 with the modifications described in the May 4, 1993 Addendum to the EIR. Alternative 2 calls for development in the Reduced Planning Area (the portion of eastern Dublin within its sphere-of-influence) (hereafter "RPA"). 114 \ea staub \ find ( 4 ) 1 EXHIBIT, A, ,, the Army has not yet-completed its Camp Parks Master Plan. ~ DEIR page 3.1-13. · ~itiqation Measure 3.1/1.0. The City of Dublin should coordinate its planning activities with the Army to achieve compatibility with adjacent Camp Parks land uses, to solve, potential future conflicts, and to reconcile land use incom- patibilities. The City should consult with the Army for any specific development proposals within the RPA. 3.1-13, -22. DEIR pages ~- Changes or alterations have been required in, or Incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for' Finding. Coordinated planning activities will allow the City and Army to identify potential noise and safety impacts before they occur and will allow specific mitigation measures, including redesign, to be incorporated into development in the Project Area. Section 3.3 -- Traffic and Circulation When a mitigation measure referenced in this section requires development projects within the RPA to pay for a proportionate cost of regional transportation programs and/or traffic and circulationlimprovements, the proportion shall be as determined by regional.transportation studies, such as the current study by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. IMPACT 3.3/A. I-$$0 Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon. Year 2010 growth without the Project would cause cumulative freeway volumes to exceed Level of Service E on 1-580 between Tassajara Road..and Fallon Road. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0-3. ~itiqation Measure 3.3/1.0. Caltrans, in cooperation with local jurisdictions, could construct auxiliary lanes on 1- 580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to create a total of ten lanes, which would provide Level of Service D opera- tions, consistent with the Caltrans Route Concept Report for 1-580. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0-3. 1F-~D~. Approval of the construction of the auxiliary anes, and cooperation by jurisdictions other than the City of Dublin, are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other agencies. If taken, ,sUch actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. ll~\eastdub\find (&) 2 Rat~onate~_fer_.Findin~, ..... This.mitigation__measur_e.P~Qyides acceptable Level of Service D operations during peak hours on the freeway. IMPACT 3.3/B. 1-580 Freeway, 1-680 to Hacienda. Year 2010 growth with the Project would cause 1-580 between 1-680 and Dougherty Road to exceed Level of Service E. This is also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), Mitiqation ~easure 3.3/2.0. Consistent with Specific Plan Policy 5-21 , all non-residential projects with 50 or more employees in the RPA shall participate in a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program to reduce the use of single occupant vehicles through strategies including but not limited to encouraging public transit use, carpooling, and flexible work hours. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0- 3. Mitiqation Measure 3.3/2.!. All projects within the RPA area shall contribute a proportionate share of the costs of regional transportation mitigation programs, as determined by regional transportation studies. Such regional miti- gation.programs may include enhanced public t~ansit service and/or upgrading alternate.road corridors to relieve demand on 1-580 or 1-680. DEIR page 3.3-21 (as revised). Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact might not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Findinq. Approval of Alternative 2 reduces to a level of insignificance the impact on 1-580 between Doughetty Road and Hacienda Drive. DEIR page 4-11. The TSM program strategies will reduce single car occupancy, thereby reducing the number of cars expected to use the subject stretch of 1-580. Regional actions may focus not only on reducing auto use by reducing single occupant vehicles, but also on increasing Project area road capacities through 2 This policy appears' in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which plan applies only to the identified Specific Plan area. The provisions of this policy provide useful mitigation outside the Specific Plan area as well. Therefore, the EIR and these findings adopt these provisions for the entire RPA. Hereinafter, those Specific Plan goals, policies, and action programs whose provisions are similarly adopted for the RPA throughout these findings will be indicated by an asterisk. 11~\eastdub\find (4) 3 .~.'. ..... -. · Construction of routes providing convenie I'~8'0-'and-~6B.0----~i~.==_._~ ........ ~-.-~ ......... nt alternatives to ' ~=~ ~e overa±~ expe~-6d '~n-~-~ ......... '~ , ase traffic, however these measures are not sufficient %o reduce the cumulative impacts on 1-580 between 1-680 and Dougherty Road to insignificance. IMPACT 3.3/~. 1-580 Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon-Airway. Year 2010 growth with.the Project would cause freeway ~olumes to exceed Level of Service E on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard. This is also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0-3. ~itiqation Measure 3.3/3.0. The City shall coordinate with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton'to construct auxiliary lanes on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard. Ail projects within the RPA shall contribute a proportionate share of fhe costs of these improvements.. DEIR pages 3 3- 22 (as revised), 5.0-3; RC ~7-6 ' ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. Freeway construction actions are within the ultimate res- ponsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, who-can and should take such actions. 'If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. The auxiliary lanes will provide sufficient additional capacity oh 1-580 to provide Level of Service D between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard, and Level of Service E between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. Both Level of Service D and E are acceptable during peak .; freeway hours. DEIR pages 3.3-2, -18. Development in the RPA will be required to contribute its fair share to the auxiliary lane improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. State law authorizes the City to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the freeway improvements ( e~_~_~=__~_.., Streets & Highways Code S~ 113.5, 114). IMPACT 3.3/D. 1-680 Freeway, North of 1-580. Year 2010 growth with the Project would cause freeway volumes to exceed Level of Service E on 1-680 north of the 1-580 interchange. This is also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.3-22, 5.0-4. ~itiqa~ion Measure 3.3/4.0. Ail projects in the RPA shall contribute a proportionate share of the costs of Caltrans, planned improvements at the 1-580/I-680 interchange, in- cluding a'new two-lane freeway-to-freeway flyover with 114 \ eastdub \find ( 4 ) 4 related hook ramps to the city of Dublin. DEIR page 3.3-22 .... ~--~e-~is--~-~ ~ See. ~'~'~g~ '3 13~-I7-~'~as-revised)J~ ........ -. ~ Flndlnq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen~the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. Freeway interchange improvement actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, who can and should.take such actions. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. The expected interchanges and related improvements will provide sufficient additional capacity on 1-680 to provide Level of ServiceD north of the 1-580 interchange. Development in the RPAwill be required to contribute its fair share to the interchange and related improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. IMPACT 3.3/~. Cumulative Freewa~ Impacts. Cumulative buildout with the Project would cause additional freeway sections, in- cluding 1-580 east of .Airway Boulevard, and the segment of 1-580 between Dou~herty and Hacienda to exceed 'level of service E. DEIR pages 3.3-22 (as revised), 5.0-4. Mitigation Measure 3.3/5.0.. The Project shall contribute a proportionate share to the construction of auxiliary lanes or a total 1-580 east of Airway Boulevard, for ~plementatio~f 10) on by Caltrans. The city shall coordinate with other local jurisdictions to require that all future de- velopment projects participate in regional transportation mitigation programs as determined by the current Tri-Valley Transportation Council study. DEIR pages 3.3-22 (as re- vised), 5.0-4. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project. Actions by other agencies and Caltrans to implement this mitigation measure are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of those other agencies and not the city of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by the other agencies. However, even with these change~ the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted. Rationale for Findinq. The auxiliary lanes will provide sufficient additional capacity to provide acceptable level of service on part of 1-580 widening to ten lanes is consistent with the Route Concept Report. DEIR page 3.3-22 (as revised). Regional transportation mitigations can 114 \ea stdub\ find ( 4 ) reduce cumulative impacts throu h me . ~in~l~_o~.cupan~_vehiC ........ g. asures to decrease - le-~=~ ~na-tnerease.public..-trans.. _ o further decrease traffic ~ .... ~_ .. It use .... ~u~. ~owever, even"with these improvements, part of 1-580 (between 1-680 and Hacienda Drive) will still be beyond acceptable LOS E. DEIR pages 3.3-20, 3.3-21 (as revised), 4-11. IMPACT 3.3/F. Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard. Year 2010 development with the Project would c ~pe~ations at the inte~=:~ ..... au~e Level of Service F boulevard. /DEIR page ~i~~' u~ ~ug~erty Road with Dublin ~itigation Measure 3.3/6.0. The City of Dublin shall monitor the intersection and implement construction of additional lanes when required to maintain LOs D operations. All projects within the RPA shall contribute a proportionate share of the improvement costs revised). ' . DEIR page. 3.3-25 (as ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for FindinG. The add. itional lanes at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection ~ill provide sufficient capacity for Level of Service D operations, which is acceptable at street intersections in Dublin (DEIR pages 3.3-2, -18 (as revised)). Development in the RPA will be required to contribute its fair share of the intersection improvements so that, when such improvements are needed they will be provided by new development generating the need. ' IMPACT 3.3/'G ....... ~ · hacienda Drive and 1-580 Eastbound Ramps. Year 2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F operations at the intersection of Hacienda Drive with the 1-580 eastbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised). Mitigation Measure 3 3/7 0 The City of Dublin shall implement improvements in coordination with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans to widen the eastbound off-ramp to provide a second left turn lane. All projects in the RPA shall contribute a proportionate share of the improvement costs. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised); RC ~ 7-9. ~- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Off-ramp widening actions are within the ultimate respon- sibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans. Such actions can and should be taken by Caltrans. If taken, such actions would ll~\eastdub\find(4) 6 avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identi.- Rationale for Finding. The additional lanes at the east- bound off-ramp will provide acceptable Level of Service C operations. Development in the Project area will be required to contribute its fair share of the intersection improvements, so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. State law authorizes the City to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the off-ramp improvements (see, e.q.., Streets & Highways Code ~§ 113.5, 114). IMPACT 3.3/H. Tassajara Road and 1-580 Westboun~ Ramps. Year 2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F operations at the intersection of Tassajara Road with the 1-580 westbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised). Mitiqation Measure 3.3/8.0. The City of Dublin shall implement improvements in coordination with Caltrans to widen the 1-580 westbound off-ramp and to modify the northbound approach to provide additional turn and through lanes.' All projects in the RPA shall contribute a pro- portionate share of the improvement costs. DEIR page 3.3- 26 (as'revised). Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially ~ lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Coordinating and.ramp widening actions are within the ulti- mate responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which can and should take such actions. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identi' fled in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. The reconfigured lanes at the east- bound off-ramp will provide acceptable Level of Service B operations. Development in the Project area will be required to contribute its fair share of the intersection improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. State law authorizes the City to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the off-ramp improvements (see, e.q., Streets & Highways Code §§ 113.5, 114). IMPACT 3.3/I. Santa Rita Road and'I-580 Eastbound Ramps. Year 2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F operations at the intersection of Santa Rita Road with the 1-580 eastbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-26. ll4\east.dub\ find (4) 7 ~iti~ation Measure 3.3/9.0. The City Of Dublin shall Pleasanton and Caltrans to widen the 1-580 eastbound"off-. ramp to provide two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane to provide Level of Service E at this intersection. Ail projects in the RPA shall contribute a proportionate share of the improvement costs· The City of Dublin shall continue to work with the City of Pleasanton to monitor level of service at this intersection and partici- pate in implementing improvements which may be identified in the future to improve traffic operations. DEIR page 3.3-26 (as revised); RC # 7-11. . Changes or alterations have been required in, or ncorporated into the Project. Ramp Widening actions are within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which can and should take such actions. However, even with these changes and actions, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened· Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the'Project. Rationale for Finding. The off-ramp widening will provide LOS E operations, which is still significant·. Development in the Project area will be required to contribute its fair share of the intersection improvements, s6 that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. IMPACT 3.3/K. Airway Boulevard and 1-580 Westbound Ramps. Year 2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F operations at the intersection of Airway Boulevard with the 1- 580 westbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised) Mitiqation Measure 3 3/11 0 The City of Dublin shall · mplement improvements in coordination with the City of Livermore and Caltrans to replace or widen the Airway . Boulevard overcrossing of 1-580 and to widen the offramp for additional turn lanes. Ail projects within the RPA shall contribute a proportiona%e share of the improvement costs. DEIR page 3·3-27 (as revised); RC #17-2 ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or ncorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Road and ramp widening actions are within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which can and should take such actions. If taken such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. 114 \eastdub .~ find (4) 8 Rationale for Findinq. The Airway Boulevard and 1-580 Development in the Project area will be required to c~ntri- bute its fair share of the improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. State law authorizes the city to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the road and ramp improvements (see, e.q~, Streets & Highways Code SS 113.5, 114). IMPACT 3.3/L. E1 C~arro Road. Project traffic could introduce stops and delays for loaded trucks from the quarries on E1 Charro Road south of 1-580. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised). Mitigation Measure 3.3/12.0. The City of Dublin shall implement improvements in coordination with Caltrans, the City of Pleasanton, and Alameda County to ensure that modifications to the 1-580 interchange at Fallon Road/E1 Charro Road include provisions for unimpeded truck movements to and from E1 Charro Road. All projects in the RPA shall contribute a proportionate share of improvement costs. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised). Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Freeway interchange modification actions are within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which can and should take such actions. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Providing unimpeded access for the quarry trucks will prevent other traffic from backing up behind the heavily laden trucks with their slow starts and stops. Development in the Project area will be required to contribute its fair share of the improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. State law authorizes the City to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the off-ramp improvements (see, e.g., Streets & Highways Code §§ 113.5, 114). IMPACT 3.3/~. Cumulative Impacts on Dublin Boulevard. Cumulative buildout with the Project would cause Level of'Service F opera- tions at the intersection of Hacienda Drive with Dublin Boulevard and Level of Service E oPerations at the intersection of Tassa- jara Road with Dublin Boulevard. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised), 5~0-4. '~ '114 \eastdub\find (4) 9 ~itiqation Measure 3.3/13.0. The City shall continue to requirements, improvement alternatives, and funding 'pro- grams. Buildout of proposed projects outside Eastern Dublin would require.the City to build grade-separated interchanges on Dublin Boulevard and/or establish alternate routes to redistribute traffic flow. Ail projects in the RPA.shall contribute a proportionate share of improvement costs DEIR pages 3.3-27 (as revised), 5.0-4. ' ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or Incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact might not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Findinq. Regional transportation programs will attempt to reduce the amount of future traffic and associated impacts, Even with these efforts, however, the cumulative traffic impacts on Dublin Boulevard might not be reduced to insignificance. IMPACT 3.3/N. Cumulative Impacts on Tassajara Road. Cumulative buildout with the Project would cause Level of Service F opera- tions at the intersections of Tassajara Road with Fallon Road, Gleason Road, and the Transit Spine. These impacts would be caused primarily by traffic from the Tassajara connection to Dougherty Valley, and full buildout of the Tassajara Valley. DEIR.page 3.3-28 (as revised), 5.0-4. Mitiqation Measure 3.3/14.Q. The City shall reserve suffi- cient right-of-way to widen Tassajara Road to six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and the Contra Costa County line and monitor traffic conditions and implement widening pro- jects as required to maintain LOS D operations on Tassajara Road. .All projects in the RPA shall contribute a propor- tionate share of the improvement costs. DEIR pages 3.3-28 (as revised), 5.0-4 and -5; RC #5-2, 7-13, 8-2 ~. Changes or alterations have been required 'in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substa ' lessen the si nificant ~ ~ :_ . ntlally g ef ..... ~=~f'~d in the Final EIR Rationale for Finding. Allowing for the widening of Tassajara Road to six lanes, if needed, will allow the City to maintain an acceptable LOS D. Development in the Project area will be required to contribute its fair share of the improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. 11~ \eastdub \ find (4) 10 IMPACT 3.3/0. Transit Service Extensions. The Project would introdu~--~'~ni~'f~6~-H~-~i-6p~t--i-~--a~-"~t~a"-"n-~t--currenT1yserved' by public transit, creating the need for substantial expansion of existing transit systems. DEIR page 3.3-28. Mitiqation Measure 3.3/15.0. Specific Plan Policy 5-10- requires the City 'of Dublin to coordinate with'LAVTA to provide transit service within one quarter mile of 95% of the population, in accordance with LAVTA service standards. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.3-28. Mitiqa~ion Measure 3.3/15.1. Specific Plan Policy 5-11- requires the City of Dublin to coordinate with LAVTA to provide at least one bus every 30 minutes during peak hours, to 90% of employment centers with 100 or more employees, in accordance with LAVTA service standards. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.3-28. Mitiqation Measure 3.%/15.2. Ail projects in the RPA shall contribute a proportionate share to the capital and operation costs of transit service extensions. DEIR page ~. 3-28. Mitigation Measure 3.3/15.~. The City shall ~oordinate with BART and LAVTA to provide feeder service to the planned BART stations. Until the BART extension is completed (projected for 1995), the City shall coordinate with BART to ensure that BART express bus service is available to eastern Dublin residents. DEIR page 3.3-28. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. Some of the transit service coordination actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Bart and LAVTA agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by those agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. The mitigations provide for expansion of existing transit systems to meet Project demand, not only on the local level through LAVTA but also on a local and regional level through BART. IMPACT 3.3/P. Street Crossings for Pedestrians and Bicycles. Pedestrians and bicycles would cross major streets with high projected traffic volumes, such as. Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, introducing potential safety hazards for pedestrians and bicyclists. DEIR page 3.3-29. llt\eastdub\find (4) 11 ~itiqation Measure 3.3/16.9. Specific Plan Policy 5~15, and Spe¢if-i~-Pl-an-~igure~-Sz~'*"-require-~.-a--Cl~ss-i..p~d bicycle/pedestrian path along Tassajara Creek and t~ails along other stream corridors in the Project area. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA ) DEIR page 3.3-29. · ~itiqation Measure 3.3/16.1. The City shall locate pedestrian and bicycle paths to cross major arterial streets at signalized intersections. DEIR page 3.3-29. . Changes or alterations have been required in, or ncorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Placing a major bicycle/pedestrian path along Tassajara Creek and using trails along other stream corridors allows bicycles and pedestrians to avoid traveling on major streets with their high traffic volumes. Where the paths must cross a major arterial street, re- quiring the crossing at a signalized intersection minimizes path and traffic conflicts by stopping traffic on a regular basis to let path travelers cross the street safely. Section 3.4 -- Communit. Services and Facilities IMPACT 3.4/A and B. Demand for Increased Police Services and Police Services Accessibility. The Project will increase demand for police services from the Dublin Police Department,s admini-. strative and sworn staff, and will require reorganization of the police operations to provide new patrol beats in the Project area. The hilly topography of most of the Project site may present some accessibility and crime-prevention problems. DEIR page 3.4-2. Hitiqation Measure 3.4/1.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 8-4,* the City shall provide additional personnel and facilities and revise beats as needed in order to establish and maintain City standards for police protection service in Eastern Dublin. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-2. Mitiqation Measure 3.4/2.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program SD,* the City shall coordinate with the City Police Department regarding the timing of'annexation and proposed development, so that the Department can adequately plan for the necessary expansion of services in the RPA. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-2 114 \eastdub \ find (4) 12 Mitiqation Measure 3.4/3.Q. Pursuant to Specific Plan A~ti~-n--p~-~ram~SEi,--the Cit~-sha-t~--~i-n¢~mp~e~nto--~he ........ requirements of project approval Police Department recommen- dations on project design that affect traffic safety and crime prevention. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-2. Mitiqation Measure 3.4/4.0. Upon annexation of the RPA, the City of Dublin Police Department'will be responsible for police.services. The city'will prepare a budget strategy to hire the required additional personnel and implement a beat systeml DEIR page 3.4-2. Mitiqation Measure 3.4/5.0. As part of the development review process for residential and non-residential projects, the Police Department shall review development projects' design and circulation for visibility, security, safety, access, and emergency response times and any other police issues. DEIR pages 3.4-2 to -3. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. The five mitigations ~dentified will ensure that additional police will be hired and that other administrative, measures will be employed to provide adequate protection for Project area residents. Police Department input into design of Project development will insure that police services are efficiently provided. IMPACT 3.4/C. Demand for Increase4 Fire Services. Buildout of the Project will substantially expand the DRFA service area and increase demand for new fire stations and firefighting personnel. This will significantly increase response times and reduce service standards unless new facilities and personnel are added. DEIR page 3.4-5. Mitiqation Measure 3.4~6.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 8-5,* the City shall time the construction of new facilities to coincide with new service demand in order to avoid periods of reduced service efficiency. The first station will be sited and will begin construction concurrent with initial development in the planning area. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) -DEIR page 3.4-5. Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8F,* the City shall establish appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up-front costs of capital improvements. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-5. 13 ~itiqation Measure 3.4/8.0. Pursuant to S eci ' · -th~ ~ ~nalr coordinate with identify and acquire specific sites for new fire stations, with the westernmost site in the Specific Plan area assured prior to approval of any development plans. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA ) DEIR page 3.4-5; RC 15-26. ' M~itiqation'Measure 3.4/9.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8H,* the City shall incorporate DRFA recommendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into development approvals. Require compliance with DRFA design standards such as non-combustible roof materials, minimum fire hydrant flow requirements, buffer zones along open space areas, fire alarm and sprinkler systems, road access, and parking requirements. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3.4-5 to -6. Mitigation Measure 3.4/10.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8I,* the City shall ensure, as a requirement of Project approval, that an assessment district, homeowners association, or some other mechanism is in place that will provide regular long-term maintenance of the urban/open space interface. (*Specific Plan provisions ~dopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-6. ~iti~ation Measure 3.4/11.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8J,* the City shall ensure that fire trails and fire breaks'are integrated into the open space trail system. And that fire district standards for access roads in these areas are met while environmental impacts are minimized. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-6. ~iti~ation Measure 3.4/12.0. The City of Dublin, in consultation with DRFA and a qualified wildlife biologist, shall prepare a wildfire management plan for the RPA to reduce open land wildfire risks consistent with habitat protection and other open space values. The plan shall specify ownership, maintenance, use, brush control, and fire-resistant landscaping measures, as well as periodic review of these measures, for RPA open lands. Any park districts or other open space agencies with jurisdiction over lands within the RPA shall be encouraged to participate in the preparation of the plan. DEIR pages 3.4-6 to -7. ~itiqation Measure 3.4/13.0. The City shall consult with DRFA to determine the number, location and timing of additional fire stations for areas within the RPA outside ll4\ea~tdu~\find (4) 14 the specific plan when such areas are proposed for Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to determine the'nUmber and location of fire stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of DRFA and not the City of Dublin, Such actions can and should be taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. New fire facilities will be constructed to meet the needs of Project residents; DRFA input into Project design features will enable additional and efficient provision of fire services~ The wildfire management plan should further limit the Project fire protection impacts by reducing the risk of wildfires. IMPACT 3.4/D. Fire Response to Outlying Areas. Based on DRFA's preliminary locations for new fire stations, the northern-most portions of the RPA would be outside the District's standard response area. Development in these areas (especially the north end of Tassajara Road) Could experience adverse fire hazard exposure and emergency response impacts. DEIR page 3.4-5. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures 3.4/6.0 to 13.0 as described above. DEIR pages 3.4-5 to -7. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to determine the number and location.~f fire stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of DRFA and not the City of Dublin. Such actions should ~e taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. New fire facilities will be constructed to meet the needs of all Project residents, including those in the outerlying areas; DRFA input into project design features will enable additional and efficient provision of fire services. The wildfire'management plan should further limit the Project fire protection impacts by reducing the risk of wildfires. IMPACT 3.4/E. Exposure to Wildfire Hazards. Settlement of population and construction of new communities in proximity to high fire hazard open space areas with difficult access poses an 11~ \eastdub \ find (~) 15 increasing wildfire hazard to people and property if open space areas are notmainta-i~-ed ~or--~ire~-sa.~ety~ ..... Thi~_i~_.a~s~_a .................. significant cumulative impact in that increased development in steep grass and woodlands around the edges of the Tri-Valley,s core communities may reduce response times and strain fire- fighting resources for regional firefighting services, many of whom participate in mutual aid systems DEIR pages 3 4-5, 5.0- ~itiqation Measures 3.4/6.0 to 13.0. 3.4/6.0 to 13.0, as described above. -7, 5.0-5; RC ~26-26. Mitigation measures DEIR pages 3.4-5 to ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to determine the number and location of fire stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of DRFA agencies and the City of Dublin. Such actions should be taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and would substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. DEIR pages 3.4-4 to -7. Rationale for Findinq. New fire facilities will be constructed to meet.the needs of all Project residents, including those near open space areas; DRFA input into project design fea%ures will enable additional and efficient provision of fire services. The wildfire management plan should further limit the Project wildfire exposure impacts through fire safety planning and open space management. IMPACT 3.4/F, G. Demand for New Classroom Space; Demand for Junior High Schools. Buildout of the Project will increase the demand for new classroom space;and schooI facilities beyond current available capacity. At the junior high school level, classroom demand may exceed bo~h current and planned capacity levels. DEIR page 3.4-11 to -12. ~itiqation Measure 3.4/13.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 8-1,* the City shall reserve schooI sites within the RPA designated on the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment Land Use Maps. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-12. Mitiqation Measure 3.4/14.0. The City shall ensure that the two proposed junior high schools are designed to accommodate the projected number of junior high school students. DEIR page 3.4-12. Changes or alterations have been required in, or ncorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially 114 \ ea stdub \ find ( 4 ) 16 lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR, Some...acti-ons...-to-~.determine--j-~ni~--~i~h--~¢ho~l si-tingP~nd design are within the responsibility and jurisdiction'.of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. ProvSding elementary, junior high, and high school sites will accommodate classroom demand generated by Project residents. Mitigation Measures 3.4/17..0 through 3.4/19.0 will ensure sufficient funding for such development. IMPACT 3.4/H. Overcrowding of Schools. Existing schools may be overcrowded.if insufficient new classroom space is provided for new residential development~. DEIR page 3.4-12.. Mitiqation Measures 3.4/13.0 to 14.0. Mitigation Measures 3.4/13.0 to 14.0, as described above. Mitiqation Measure 3.4/15.Q. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 8-2,* the City shall promote a consolidated develop- ment pattern that supports the logical development of planning area schools, and in consultation with the appro- priate school district(s), ensure that adequate classroom space is available prior to the development of new homes. (*Specific Plan' provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3..4-12. Findinq. Changes or 'alterations have been required in, or incorporated intQ, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Some actions to site and design schools are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Providing elementary, junior high, and high school sites will accommodate classroom demand generated by Project residents, while a consolidated development pattern ensures that the classroom space will be available when it is needed. Mitigation Measures 3.4/17.0 through 3.4/19.0 will ensure sufficient funding for such development. IMPACT 3.4/I. Impact on School Financing District Jurisdiction. Development:of the RPA under existing jurisdictional boundaries would result in the area being served by two different school 114 \ea stdub \ find ( 4 ) 17 districts and would adversely affect financing of schools and ~-'~:~ ~itiqation Measures 3.4/16.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program SA,* the City shall work with the school districts to resolve the jurisdictional issue to best serve student needs and minimize the fiscal burden of the service providers. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3.4-12 to -13. ~- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Some actions to resolve the jurisdictional issue are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken,-such actions would avoid or substantially.lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Resolving the school district jurisdiction issue will limit conflicts and ensure that school services are efficiently provided. IMPACT 3.4/J. Financial'Burden on School Districts. The cost of providing new school facilities could adversely impact local school districts by creating an unwieldy financial burden unless some form of financing is identified. DEIR page 3.4-13. ~itigation Measures 3.4/17.0 to 19.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 8-3* and Action Program 8B, ensure that adequate school facilities are available prior to development in the RPA to the extent permitted by law, for example, by requiring dedication of school sites and/or payment of developer fees by new development. Pursuant' to Specific Plan Action Program 8C,* the City shall work with school districts to establish appropriate funding mechanisms to fund new school development and encourage school districts to use best efforts to obtain state funding for new con- struction. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR p. 3.4-13; RC ~15-31. ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated i~to, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Some actions to fund new school development are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. 11~ \ea-~tdub \ find (~) 18 Rationale for Findinq. Through these mitigations, develop- responsibility, for accommodating that demand, with th'e school'districts being provided with back-up financial support from other sources. IMPACT 3.4/K. ~Demand for Park Facilities. Without the addition of new parks and facilities, the increased demand for new park and recreation facilities resulting from buildout of the Project would not be met, resulting in deterioration of the city's park provision standard and of the city's ability to maintain existing services and facilities. This is'also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR pages 3.4-16, 5.0-5. Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0 to 24.0. General Plan Amendment Guiding Policies A, B, and G and Implementing Policy D require the City of Dublin to provide and maintain parks and related facilities adequate to meet Project and citywide needs and in conformance with the City's-Park and Recreation Master Plan 1992. Implementing Policy K specifically requires dedication and improvements for the 20 parks designated in the RPA with collection of in-lieu fees as required by City standards. DEIR pages 3.4-16 to -17, 5.0-5. Mitigation Measures 3.4/25.0 to 27.0. Sufficient parkland shall be designated and set aside in the RPA to satisfy the City's.Park and Recreation Master Plan 1992 and its park provision and'phasing standards. DEIR pages 3.4-17, 5.0-5. Mitigation Measure 3.4/28. The City shall'implement Specific Plan Policies 6-1 to -6* to establish large, continuous natural open space areas with convenient access for users, and adequate access for maintenance and manage- ment; to preserve views of designated open space areas; and to establish a mechanism for open space ownership, manage- ment, and maintenance. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-18 to -19. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in/ or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. These mitigations provide added new parks and facilities to meet increased demand from Project residents, and require compliance with phasing plans in the Park and Recreation Master Plan 1992, to ensure that new parks and facilities construction will keep pace with new residential construction. 11~ \ea stdub \find ( 4 ) 19 IMPACT 3.4/L. Park Facilities Fiscal Impact. Acquisition and improvemefl-~--~-f new ~r-k--~-~d-rec'~t'~-~i-i'i-t-i~----~"~I~e-.a ........... financial strain on existing City of Dublin revenue sources unless adequate financing and implementation mechanisms are designed. DEIR page 3.4-18. Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0 to 31.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 4-29* and Action Program 4N,* the City shall ensure that development provides its fair share of planned open space; for example, through in-lieu fees under the City's parkland dedication ordinance. Pursuant to Specific Plan Program 4M,* the City shall develop a Parks Imple- mentation Plan identifying phasing, facilities priorities and location, and design and construction responsibilities. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-18. Yinding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. These mitigations ensure that needed park facilities will be provided by developers at the time of development, thereby avoiding the use of existing revenue sources to build new parks for Project area residents. IMPACT 3.4/M, N. Impact on Regional Trail System and Impact on Open Space COnnections. Without adequate provisions for trail easements and without adequate design and implementation, urban development along stream corridors and ridgelands would obstruct formation of a regional trail'system and an interconnected open space system. DEIR page 3.4-18 to -19.. ~itiqation Measure 3.4/32.0. Pursuant to General Plan Amendment Guiding Policy H,* establish a'trail system with regional and subregional connections, including a trail along the Tassajara Creek corridor. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-19. ~iti~ation Measures 3.4/23.0 and 33.0 to 36.0. Pursuant to General Plan Amendment Guiding Policy I, Implementation Policy D, Specific Plan Policies 6-1,* 6-3,* Action Program 40,* and consistent with the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan 1992, use natural stream corridors and major ridgelines as the basis for a trail system with a conti- nuous, integrated open space network, emphasizing convenient user access, pedestrian and bicycle connections between developed and open space areas, and.developer dedication of ridgetop and stream corridor public access easements. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3.4-17, -19. 11¢ \eastdub\ find ( 4 ) 20 Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or lessen the significant effect identified in the Final'~IR. Rationale for Findinq. Establishing a Project area trail system incorporating planned regional connections contri- butes to development of a regional trail system and allows the trail planning to be considered and incorporated into individual Project area developments in the RPA. By requiring that open space and trail planning be based on continuous physical features such as stream corridors and ridgelines, and that public access be provided along these features, these mitigations avoid a disconnected open space system. IHPACT 3.4/0, P~ Increased Solid Waste Production and Impact on 'Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. Increased population and commercial land use will cause a proportional increase in the total projected amount of solid waste and household hazardous waste generated by the city of Dublin. This increase creates the need for additional capacity, personnel, and vehicles to dispose of the wastes. It can create public'health risks from improper handling. The increased solid waste and household hazardous waste generated by the Project may accelerate the closing schedule for Altamont landfill unless additional capacity is developed or alternate disposal sites are identified. This impact on the Altamont landfill is also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR pages 3.4-21 to -22, 5.0-6. Mitiqation Measures 3.4/37.0 to 40.0. Pursuant to'Specific Plan Action Program 8K* and other EIR mitigations, adopt a Solid Waste Management Plan for the RPA, including waste reduction programs such as composting and curbside and other collection of recyclables. Include goals, objectives, and programs~necessary to integrate with the diversiontargets of the City's SOurce Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element. New development in'the RPA shall demonstrate adequate available landfill capacity for anticipated wastes. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3-4.22 to -23, 5.0-6. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. These mitigations minimize the amount of solid waste production and related needs and risks through compliance with AB 939 solid waste planning. Reducing the amount of Project-generated waste will also avoid an accelerated closing schedule for the Altamont landfill. In addition, these mitigations require that new 114 \eastdub \ find (~) development anticipate and provide for adequate waste IMPACT 3.4/Q. Demand for Utility Extensions. Development of the Project site will ~ignificantly increase demand for gas, electric and telephone services. Meeting this demand will require construction of a new Project-wide distribution system. This is a significant growth-inducing impact. DEIR pages 3 4-24 '5 0-14 to -15. ' ' · Mitigation Measures. None proposed. DEIR page 3.4-2.4. ~. No changes or alterations are available to avoid or substantially lessen this impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted' upon approval of the Project. IMPACT 3.4/R. Utility Extension Visual and Biological Impacts. Expansion of electrical, gas, and telephone lines could adversely affect visual and biological resources if not appropriately sited. DEIR page 3.4-24. Mitigation Measures 3.4/41.0 to 44.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8L* and oth6r identified mitigation measures, development within the RPA must document the availability of electric, gas, and telephone service and must place utilities below grade or, preferably, underground and routed away from sensitive habitat and open space lands. A development project service ~eport shall be reviewed by the City prior to improvement plan approval. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3 4-24 to -25. ' Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Undergrounding utilities will avoid visual ~effects by placing the utility extensions where they cannot-be seen. Routing the utility extensions away from sensitive habitat and open space areas will avoid impacts on biological resources by avoiding the resources themselves. IMPACT 3.4/S. Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources. Natural gas and electrical service would increase consumption of non-renewable natural resources. DEIR page 3.4-25. Mitigation Measures 3.4/45.0 to 46.0. Major developers in the Project area shall provide demonstration projects on cost-effective energy conservation techniques incldding but not limited to solar water and space heating, landscaping ll4\eastdub\find (4) 22 for water conservation, and shading. Ail development projects in the RPA sha~l-~'~-~--~-~-n-~-~g~-'~n~ervation ....... plan as part of their proposals. The plan shall demonstrate how site planning, building design, and landscaping will conserve use of energy during construction and long term operation. DEIR page 3.4-25. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding. Through the demonstration projects, developers Can educate themselves and Project residents about available and feasible techniques to reduce consumption of energy resources. Requiring energy conservation plans forces both developers and the City to actively consider various techniques to reduce energy consumption and to build those techniques directly into the Project. These actions cannot, however, fully mitigate the impact. IMPACT 3.4/T. Demand for Increased postal Service. The Project will increase the demand for postal service. DEIR page 3.4-26. Mitiqation Measures 3.4/47.0 to 48.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 8-10 and Action Program SM, the City shall encourage the U.S.P.S. to locate a· new post office in the Eastern Dublin town center. DEIR page 3.4-26; RC # 15-37. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to site a new post office within the town center are within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the USPS and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by the USPS. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. A post office conveniently located in the town center area will provide postal service to meet the Project generated demand. IMPACT 3.4/U. Demand for Increased Library Service. Without additional iibrary facilities and staff, the increase in population resulting from the Project would adversely affect existing library services and facilities DEIR page 3.4-27. 23 ~lan-Polic~_8,.ll_~and Acti°n-Prog~a-~--SN~*-andother. identi_. ...... ~itiqation Measures 3.4/49.0 to 51.0. Pursuant to Specific fied mitigation measures, the City shall encourage and assist the Alameda County Library System to provide adequate library service in eastern Dublin, considering such factors as location, phasing, and funding of needed library services. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3.4-27 to -28; RC #15-38. . Changes or alterations have been required in, or ncorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to provide library facilities ~re within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the Alameda County Library system and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by the Alameda County Library System. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Providing library services to the RPA will meet Project generated demand. Planning how and When to provide those.services will ensure that they are efficient and convenient to the maximum number of users. Section 3.5 -- Sewer Water and Storm Draina e IMPACT 3.5/A. Indirect Impacts Resulting from the Lack of a Wastewater Service Provider. Although Specific Plan Policy 9-4 (page 127) calls for the expansion of DSRSD's service boundaries to include the Specific Plan area, the Project does not provide for wastewater service to areas in the RPA outside the specific plan area. ~This could result in uncoordinated efforts by future developers in this area to secure wastewater services. DEIR page 3.5-5, RC ~ 32-18. ~itiqation Measure 3.5/1.0~. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 9-4,* the City shall coordinate with DSRSD to expand its service boundaries to encompass the entire RPA. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) RC # 32-18. - Changes or alterations have been required in, or ncorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to expand DSRSD's service boundaries are within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the DSRSD and not the Cit~ of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by the DSRSD. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in' the Final EIR. 114 \eastdub \ find (4) 24 Rational for Findinq. Expanding DSRSD's service boundaries-tb--i~d'~th-e-~ntire--RPA--wi-t~-ensu~e~tha~ ..... ~- ........... securing wastewater services will be coordinated through one agency. IMPACT 3.5/B. Lack of a Wastewater Collection System. Estimated wastewater flow for the RPA is 4.6 MGD; however, there currently is no wastewater collection system adequate to serve the Project area. DEIR page 3.5-5. Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0 to 5.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Programs 9P,* 9I,* 90,* 9M,* and 9N,* all development in the RPA shall be connected to public sewers and shall obtain a "will-serve" letter prior to grading permits; on-site package plants and septic systems shall be discouraged. The City shall request that DSRSD update its collection system master plan to reflect Project area proposed land uses, with the cost of the plan to be borne by future development in the RPA. All wastewater systems shall be designed and built in accordance with DSRSD standards. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-'6;' RC ~ 32-19, 32-20. .Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. These mitigations will provide a wastewater collection system adequate to meet Project generated demand, and will ensure the system meets design and construction standards of'DSRSD. IMPACT 3.5/C. Extension of a Sewer Trunk Line with Capacity to Serve New Developments. Construction of a wastewater collection system could result in development outside the RPA that would connect to the Project's collection system. This is also a potentially significant.growth-inducing impact. DEIR pages 3.5- 6, 5.0-15. Mitigation Measure 3.5/6.Q. The proposed wastewater system shall be sized only for the RPA area. DEIR pages 3.5-6, 4- 11, 5.0-15. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid'or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. By sizing the planned wastewater collection system only to serve the RPA, growth inducing impacts on lands outside that area are avoided. 114 \ea stdub \ find ( 4 ) 25 IHPACT 3.5/D. Allocation of DSRSD Treatment and Disposal .':?%. Capacit-~,--There--is---t~m~ced avai-tab~e-cap'~city-~t--th-e--DSRSD ............ Treatment Plant, limiting the number of sewer permits available for new developments. It is very unlikely that any of the presently remaining DUE's will be available for the Eastern Dublin Area. DEIR page 3.5-7; RC ~32-21. Mitiqation Measure 3.5/7.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 9L,* development project applicants in the RPA shall prepare a design level water capacity investi- gation, including means to minimize anticipated wastewater flows and reflecting development phased according to sewer permit allocation. .(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-7. Mitiqation Measure 3.5/7.1. Development project applicants in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will-serve,, letter from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit. RC ~32-22. ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen.the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. The required investigation will allow development to be phased to ensure there are adequate wastewater facilities available to meet Project generated :.~. demand. The requirement of a "will-serve,, letter will ..~ insure that adequate wastewater facilities will exist for all new development. If capacity is not available, DSRSD will not issue a will-serve letter. RC ~32-22. IMPACT 3.5/E. Future Lack of Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity. Development of the Project require an increase in wastewater treatment plant capacity Within DSRSD to adequately treat the additional wastewater flows-to meet discharge standards. This is also a potentially .significant cumulative impact in that increased demand on area wastewater treatment facilities exceeds current remaining capacity. DEIR page 3.5-7 to -8, 5.0-6. Mitiqation Measures 3.5/7.1, 8.0, 9.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 9-6* and mitigations identified in the EIR, ensure that wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are available for future development in the RPA through compliance with DSRSD's master plan to fund, design, and construct wastewater treatment Plant expansion once export capacity is available (unless TWA approves export of raw wastewater, in which case DSRSD's wastewater treatmen~ ~lant expansion will not be necessary). Also, development project applicants in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will-serve,, letter from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit. ll~\eastdub\find (4) 26 (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR Finding.' Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Compliance with DSRSD's master plan will ensure that adequate wasteWater treatment plant capacity will-be available in the future to serve Project generated demand once export capacity of treated wastewater is provided (see Mitigation Measure 3.5/11,0). Alternative- ly, expanded treatment capacity will not be necessary if export of raw wastewater is approved. The requirement of a "will-serve" letter will insure that adequate wastewater facilities will exist for all new development. If capacity is not available, DSRSD will not issue a will-serve letter. RC ~32-22. IMPACT 3.5/F. Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased Wastewater Treatment. Development of the Project will result in increased wastewater flows and will require increased 'energy use for treatment of wastewater. DEIR page 3.5-8; RC ~32-24. Mitigation Measure'3.5/10.0. Include energy efficient treatment systems in any wastewater treatment plant expansion and operate the plant to take advantage of off- peak energy. DEIR page 3.5-8; RC ~32-24. Finding. Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other agencies. However, even if such actions are taken, this impact .will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding. Use of energy efficient treatment systems and plant operations will reduce the amount of energy'use but these actions cannot fully mitigate the impact. IMPACT 3.5/G. Lack of Wastewater Current Disposal Capacity. The increase in wastewater flows from the Project and other sub- regional development will exceed available wastewater disposal capacity until additional export capacity is developed. This is also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.5-8, 5.0-6. Mitigation Measures 3.5/7.1, 11 to 14.Q. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 9-5* and Action Programs 9H,* 9J,* and 9K,* the City shall support current efforts to develop 114 \.a stdub \ find (4) 27 additional export capacity. The City shall require use of _. 'recycled-water~f'or--l-a-ndscape-irrigat-ion-~rn--~cord~_~_~.~.~ith. DSRSD's Recycled Water Policy and require development within the RPA to fund a recycled water distribution system model to reflect proposed land uses. Also, development project applicants in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater ,,will_serVe,, letter from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3{5-9, 5.0-6 to -7, RC f32-22, 32-25, 32-26, 32-27. ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen'the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to develop additional export capacity are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies, and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should take by such agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for ~indin~. These mitigations will provide the' additional wastewater disposal capacity necessary to meet Project generated demand. The requirement of a "will-serve,, letter will insure that adequate wastewater facilities will exist for all new development. If capacity is not avail- able, DSRSD will'not issue a will-serve letter. RC f32-22. IMPACT 3.5/H. Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased Wastewater Disposal. . Development of the Project will result in increased wastewater flows and will require'increased energy use for disposal of wastewater; more specifically, for (1) pumping raw wastewater to CCCSD for treatment under the TWA proposed project; and/or (2) operation of an advanced treatment and distribution system for recycled water. DEIR page 3-5.9. Mitiqation Measures 3.5/15.0 to 16.u. The City shall encourage off peak Pumping to the proposed TWA export system. The City shall plan, design, and construct the Project recycled water treatment system for energy efficient operation including use of energy efficient treatment systems, optimal use of storage facilities, and pumping at off peak hours. DEIR pages 3.5-10 to -11. ~. Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and'not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other agencies. However, even if such actions are taken, this impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. 114 \eastdub\ find (4) 28 Rationale for Findinq~ The proposed mitigations will reduce the am6unt of energy used for wa~-~Q-~'~-'~-i~'~I"-but'."thes~--' actions cannot fully mitigate the impact. IMPACT 3.5/I. Potential Failure of Export Disposal System. A failure in the operation of the proposed TWA wastewater pump stations would adversely affect the overall operation of the' wastewater collection system for the Tri-Valley subregion, as well as the Eastern Dublin Project. DEIR page 3.5-10. Mitigation Measure 3.5/17.0. Engineering redundancy will b~ built into the TWA pump stations, which will also have provisions for emergency power generators. DEIR page 3.5-10. Finding. Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and-not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should betaken by other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub- stantially lessen the significant effebt identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Engineering redundancy will minimize the risk of pump station system failure; providing emergency power generators will ensure that any system failure which does occur will be short lived, thereby avoiding the effects of such failure. RC ~32-28. IMPACT 3.5/J. Pump Station Noise and Odors. The proposed TWA wastewater pump stations could generate noise during their operation and could potentially produce odors. DEIR page 3.5-10. Mitiaation Measure 3.5/18.0. TWA's pumps and motors will be designed to comply with local noise standards and will be provided with odor control equipment. DEIR page. 3.5-10. Finding. Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin~ Such actions can and should be taken by other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub- stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Requiring compliance with local noise standards will ensure that any noise produced not exceed acceptable levels. Odor control equipment will ensure that odor production effects are avoided. RC ~32-28. IMPACT 3.5/K. Storage Basin Odors and Potential Failure. The proposed TWA Emergency Wastewater Storage Basins could poten- tially emit odors and/or the basins could have structural failure 114 \ eastdub \find ( 4 ) 29 due to landslides, earthquakes, or und~rmininq of the rese_r~.~oir f~-~--in~d~-~~inage. DEIR page 3.5-10. ~itiqation Measure 3.5/19.0. TWA's basins will be covered, buried tanks with odor control equipment and will be designed to meet current seismic Codes. DEIR page 3.5-11. ~. Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. ~ationale for Finding. These mitigations ensure that any odors related to the TWA basins are contained and controlled within the basins so as not to be detectable beyond the basins. Compliance with'seismic codes will ensure that the basins are properly constructed to withstand landslides and earthquakes and are provided with adequate drainage to avoid structural failure. RC #32-28. IMPACT 3.5/L. Recycled Water S~stem Operation. The proposed recycled water system must be constructed and operated properly in order to.:prevent any potential contamination or cross- connection with potable water supply systems. DEIR page 3.5-11. ~itiqation Measur'e 3.5/20.0. Construction of the recycled water distribution system will meet all applicable standards of the Department of Health Serwices (DHS) and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). DEIR page 3.5-11. ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid.'or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. ~ationale for Findinq~ Applicable regulations of the DHS and RWQCB are designed to prevent cross-connection contamina- tion; compliance with these regulations will therefore avoid the contamination impact. IMPACT 3.5/M. Recycled Water Storage Failure. Loss of recycled water storage through structural damage from landslide, earth- quake, and undermining of the reservoir through inadequate · drainage. DEIR page 3.5-11. Mitigation Measure 3.5/21.9. The City shall require reservoir construction to meet all applicable DSRSD and other health standards and shall require preparation of soils and geotechnical investigations to determine potential 114 \eastdub \ find (&) 30 ..... _la~ds~id~-and--earthquak~-imp-~, Reservoirs shall be designed to meet current seismic ~-~--~-~'-~-~rov~ ............ adequate site drainage. DEIR page 3.5-11. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Soils and geotechnical studies will ensure that reservoirs will be designed and constructed to comply with current seismic, DSRSD, and other applicable health standards, the purpose of which is .to avoid structural failure. IMPACT 3.5/N. Loss of Recycled Water System Pressure. Loss of pressure in the proposed recycled water distribution systems could result in the system being unable to meet peak irrigation demand, which could result in loss of vegetation through lack of irrigation water. DEIR page 3.5-12; RC ~32-30. Mitiqation Measure 3.5/22.~. The recycled water pump stations shall meet all applicable DSRSD standards. DEIR page 3.5-12; RC ~32-31. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Compliance with DSRSD standards will minimize the risk of pressure being lost. IMPACT 3.5/0. Secondary Impacts from Recycled Watersystem Operation. Failure to identify and implement treatment plant improvements related to recycled water use may increase salinity in the'groundwater basin. DEIR page 3.5-12. Mitiqation Measures 3.5/20.0. Recycled water projects shall incorporate salt mitigation required by Zone 7. DEIR page 3.5-12. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the'Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Compliance with salt mitigation requirements will reduce the salinity of the recycled water, thereby avoiding the risk of increased salinity in the groundwater basin. IMPACT 3.5/P. Overdraft of Local Groundwater Resources. If the Project area is not annexed to DSRSD and development projects are 11~ \eastdub \ find ( 4 ) not required to connect tODSRSD,s water di~rib~i~_s~stem, ............ devel-°Pm'~-t-~6J-~P may attempt to.drill their own wells, causing overdraft of existing limited groundwater supplies DEIR page 3.5-17.. Miti ation Measures 3.5 24.0 to 25.0. Pursuant to SPecific Plan Policy 9-2* and other' EIR mitigations, the City shall coordinate with DSRSD to expand its service boundaries to include the Project area and to develop annexation conditions encouraging water conservation and recycling. The City shall encourage all developments in the RPA to connect to DSRSD,s system and discourage the use of groundwater wells. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-17; RC #14-4. ~- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project.that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to expand DSRSD's service boundaries are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the DSRSD and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by the DSRSD. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Annexation to DSRSD and connection ~o its water distribution system will eliminate the need for development projects to drill their own wells and will therefore avoid the risk of groundwater overdrafting. IMPAC~ 3.~/Q. Increase in Demand for Water. Estimated average daily water demand for the RPA is 6.4 MGD, which demand could exceed available supply. This is also. a potentially significant cumulative impact in that ongoing urban development in the Tri- Valley is resulting in a cumulative increase in water demand at a time when water supplies and delivery are uncertain. DEIR page 3.5-18, 5.0-7 to -8. Miti ation Measures 3.5 26.0 to 31.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Programs 9A* and 9B,* the City shall require development projects in the RPA to include water conserva- tion measures within structures as well as in public and other improvements. Require developments to comply with DSRSD and Zone 7 recommendations for developing and using recycled water. Pursuant to other EIR mitigations, implement Zone 7 and DSRSD water supply and water quality improvements and interconnect Project area water systems with existing Surrounding water systems for increased reliability. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) ~DEIR pages 3.5-18 to -19; 5.0-9; RC ~13-9, 32-43. 114 \eastdub\find(~) 32 Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or lessen the significant effect identified'in the Final' EIR. Some actions to improve water supply and quality are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the city of Dublin. Such actions'should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions can and.would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Through required water conservation and water recycling mitigations, the Project reduces the magnitude of the impact by reducing the demand for water using recycled water for irrigation reduces the estimated average daily water demand in the RPA to 5.5 MGD. (RC ~32.52.) The remaining water quality and water supply mitigations will result in an increased water availability from Zone 7 and DSRSD to meet Project generated demand. IMPACT 3.5/R. A~4itiOnal Treatment Plant Capacity. The increase in water demand through development of the Project will require an expansion of existing water treatment facilities in order to deliver safe and potable water. DEIR page 3.5-19. Miti=ation.Measures 3.5/32.0 to 33.Q. Implement Zone 7's planned water treatment system improvements. DSRSD should construct two new chlorination/fluoridation stations at the two proposed Zone 7 turnouts to eastern Dublin, with the construction phased west to east as anticipated in the General Plan Amendment. DEIR page 3.5-19. Findinq. Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the city of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub- stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Proposed water treatment system improvements will insure that Project water supply meets all applicable water quality requirements. IMPACT 3.5/S. Lack of a Water Distribution System. There currently is no water distribution system to provide water service for-the RPA. DEIR page 3 5-20. Miti~a{ion Measures 3.5/34.0 to 38.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 9-1' and Action Programs 9C,* 9D,* 9E,* and 9G,* the City shall provide an adequate water supply system with related improvements and storage facilities for all develop- ment, in compliance with applicable DSRSD standards. The 114 \eastdub \ find ( 4 ) 33 City shall request that DSRSD update its ~ater s s~e~ "will-serve,, letter from DSRSD --: .... ~'-'~ ............. Fixur ~o gra~ing permits for any Project area development. The City shall encourage the proposed water system to coordinate and combine with existing neighboring water systems. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-20. ~. Changes or alterations have been re ' · incorporated into~ h= · = . quoted ~n, or · , t~ Pro~ect that avoid or s ' lessen the significant effe-~ ~ ........ ubstant~ally ~ ~u~n~lile~ in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. These mitigations will provide a water distribution system adequate to meet Project-generated demand, and will insure the system meets design and construction standards of DSRSD. ' IMPACT 3.$/T. Inducement of Substantial ~rowth and Concentration of Population. The proposed water distribution system will induce growth in the Project area and has been sized to oten tially accommodate the Dou-her~.. ~ .... ' · P - ~ ~ ~ey ueve±opment to the north. However, if..DSRSD does not provide water to the Dougherty Valley Development; the pipes will be sized to only accommodate the RPA. The impact is also a potentially significant growth-inducing impact. DEIR page 3.5-20, 5.0-15, RC f32-41, 32-55. ~.. No feasible mitigation measures are identified to reduce this impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. IMPACT 3.5/U. Increase in Energy Usage Through Operation of the Water Distribution System. Development of the Project will result in increased water demand and will require increased energy use to operate a water distribution system, especially for pumping water to the system and to storage. DEIR page 3"5-21. ~itiqation Measure 3.5/40.' Plan, design, and construct the water distribution system for energy efficient operation. Design.pump stations to take advantage of off-peak energy. DEIR page 3.5-21. ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. ~ationale for Finding. USe of energy efficient water distribution systems and operations will reduce the amount of energy used, but these actions cannot fully mitigate the impact. 114 \eastdub \ find (4) 34 I~AgT_..~.zSJV. Potential water storage Reservoir Failure. Loss of storage in proposed water landslides, earthquakes, and/or undermining of the reservoir through inadequate drainage would adversely affect the ability of the water supply system to maintain water pressures and to meet fire flows. DEIR page 3.5-21. Mitiqation Measure 3.5/41.0. Require water reservoir construction to meet all applicable DSRSD standards. Prepare soils and geotechnical investigations to determine potential landslide and earthquake impacts. Design the reservoirs to meet current seismic codes, and to provide adequate site drainage. DEIR page 3.5-21. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in,.or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified'in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Soils and geotechnical studies'will insure that reservoirs will be designed and constructed to comply with current seismic, DSRSD, and site drainage standards,' thereby avoiding the risk of structural damage or failure. IMPACT 3.5/W. Potential Loss of System Pressure. Loss of pressure in the proposed water distribution systems could result in contamination of.the distribution system and would not allow adequate flows and pressures essential for fire flow. DEIR page 3.5-22. ~ Mitigation Measure 3.5/42.0. The proposed water pu~p stations shall meet all applicable standards of DSRSD and shall include emergency power generation back-up. DEIR page 3.5-22. ' Finding. changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Compliance with DSRSD standards will minimize the risk of pressure being lost. Providing emergency power generators will insure the pumps will continue operating, thereby avoiding the risk of contamina- tion in the distribution system and insuring that adequate water flows are available for fire protection. IMPACT 3.5/X. Potential Pump Station Noise. Proposed water system pump stations would generate noise during their operation that could adversely affect the surrounding community. DEIR page 3.5-22. 114 \eas .tdub \ find ( 4 ) 35 ~itiqation Measure 3.5/43.0. Design pump stations to sound -l~re-l-s-fro~--~-~-~-~=~-~_=~- .............. _ reduce en g P P ors and emer enc 'g erators. DEIR page 3.5-22. g ~ Changes or alterations have been required in, Or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Reducing .soUnd levels of the mechanical equipment will reduce the amount of noise perceivable by surrounding residents thereby avoiding the impact. , IMPACT 3.$/y. Potential Flooding. Development of the Project and development of former agricultural, rural, and open space lands throughout the Tri-Valley will result in an increase in runoff to creeks and will result in an increased potential for {looding. This is also a potentially significant cumulative. impact. DEIR page 3.5-25, 5.0-9. Mitiqation Measure 3.5/44.0 to 48.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policies 9-7* and 9-8,* Action Programs 9R* and 9S,* and other EIR mitigations, require a master drainage plan · for each development project in the RPA to provide drainage facilities adequate 'to prevent increased erosion or flood- ing, including channel improvements with natural creek bottoms, and side slopes with natural vegetation. This design level plan shall include studies of the development project area hydrology, potential impacts of the development project, and proposed design features to minimize runoff flows and their effects on erosion and riparian vegetation. Development projects shall also address potential downstream flooding, and shall include retention/detention facilities and/or energy dissipators to minimize and control runoff, discharge, and to minimize adverse biological and visual effects. Construct storm drainage facilities in accordance with approved storm drainage master plan. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR 3.5-25 to -26, 5.0-9. ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. ~ationale for Findinq. Through planning and implementation of storm drainage master plans, development projects will minimize the amount of runoff to creeks and will provide drainage facilities to control the rate and location of runoff that does discharge into creeks. These measures will minimize the increase in runoff thereby avoiding increased flooding potential. ' 114 \eastdub \ find (4) 36 ......... !~.~.._.3~/Z .... Reduced Groundwater Recharge.. Increasingthe amount of impervious surfaces in the Project area could'-"~duCe the area's already minimal groundwater recharge-capabilities. This is al~o a potentially significant cumulative impact, as impervious surfaces increase throughout the Tri-Valley. DEIR page 3.5-26, 5.0-9 to -10. Mitigation Measure '3.5/49.0 to 50.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 9-9* and other EIR mitigations, plan facilities and operations that protect and enhance water quality; support Zone 7 's ongoing groundwater recharge program for the nearby Central Basin, which contains the majority of the Tri-Valley' s groundwater resources. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA. ) DEIR page 2.5-26, 5.0-9. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, 'the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. These mitigation measures protect and enhance what minimal groundwater recharge capability exists in the Project area. IMPACT 3.5/AA. Non-Point Sources of Pollution. Development of the Project could result in a deterioration of the quality of stormwater due to an increase in non-point sources of pollution including (1) urban runoff;. (2) non-stormwater discharges to storm drains; (3) subsurface drainage; and (4) construction site runoff (erosion and sedimentation). This is also a potentially significant, cumulative impact as other projects in the subregion are developed. DEIR page 3.5-26. Mitigation Measure 3.5/52.0 to 55.0. The city shall develop a community based education program on non-point sources of pollution, coordinating such programs with current Alameda County programs. The City shall require all development to meet the requirements of the City's "Best Management Practices", the City's NPDES permit, and the County's Urban Runoff Clean Water Program to mitigate stormwater pollution. DEIR 3.5-27, 5.0-10, Addendum. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Education programs will acquaint all Project area residents with the issue of non-point pollution, and will suggest ways residents can avoid such pollution. Existing City, County, and State regulatory programs will insure that potential impacts of non-point 114\eastdub\find (4) 37 sources of pollution or stormwater ~ality__~ill be mitiqated .... ~'~i ~-~nsignif~a~. ~ection 3.6 -- Soils, Geolo~, and Seismicity IMPACT 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking: Primary Effects. Earthquake ground shaking resulting, from large earthquakes on active fault zones in the region, could be strong to violent, and could result in damage to structures and infrastructure and in extreme cases, loss of life. DEIR page 3.6-7. ' ~itiqation Measure 3.6/1.0. Use modern seismic design for resistance to lateral force in construction of development projects, and build in accordance with Uniform Building'Code and applicable county and city code requirements DEIR page 3.6-7. - ~' changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of OVerriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Findinq. Modern seismic design.and compliance with applicable building codes will reduce the risk of structural failure, major structural damage, and loss of life from the effects of ground-shaking. These actions will not, however, completely avoid the impact. IMPACT ~.6/C. Earthquake Ground Shaking: Secondar~ Effects. The secondary effects of ground shaking include seismically_indUced landsliding, differential compaction and/or settlement. This is also a significant cumulative impact in that further development in the area could expose residents to significant safety hazards ~itiqation Measure 3.6/2.0. In relatively.flat areas, development should be set back from unstable and potentially unstable land or these landforms should be removed, stabilized, or reconstructed. Where improvements are located on unstable land forms, use modern design, appropriate foundation design, and comply with applicable codes and-policies. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0T10. M~iti~ation Measure 3.6/3.0. In hillside areas, where development may require substantial grading, require appropriate grading and design to completely remove unstable and potentially unstable materials. DEIR page 3 6-8, 5.0-10. · 114 \eastdub \ find ( 4 ) 3 8 Mitiqation Measures 3.6/4.0 to 5.0. Use engineering techniques and improvement~/""~ch'-'~'""'~eh~i6h"'§t~ct~r'e~ ....... surface and subsurface drainage improvements, properl~ designed keyways, and adequate compaction to improve the stability of fill areas and reduce seismically induced fill settlement. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10. Mitiqation Measure 3.6/6.0. Design roads, structural foundations, and underground utilities to accommodate estimated settlement without failure, especially across transitions between fills and cuts. Remove or reconstruct potentially unstable stock pond embankments in development areas. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10. Mitiqation Measure 3.6/7.0. Require all development projects in the Project area to perform design level geotechnical investigations prior to issuing any permits. The investigations should include stability analysis of natural and planned engineered slopes, and a displacement analysis to confirm the effectiveness of mitigation measures proposed in the investigation. DEIR page 3.6-9, 5.0-10. Mitigation Measure 3.6/8.0. Earthquake preparedness plans should be developed.by the city and all Project site residents and employees should be informed of appropriate measures to take in the event of an earthquake. DEIR page 3.6-9, 5.0-10. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that aVoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Mitigations 3.6/2.0 to 6.0 provide specific engineering techniques for reducing the effects of ground shaking throughout development in the Project area. Mitigation 3.6/7.0 requires development projects to apply these and other available engineering techniques at a design level, to identify specifically the effects that can occur on a particular site, to propose mitigations specific to those effects and the site, and to provide a means for evaluating the likely success of those measures. Through these engineering, planning, and design mitigations, development projects will be able to anticipate and avoid or reduce.ground shaking effects before the development is built. IMPACT 3.6/D. Substantial Alteration to Project Site Landforms. Development of the Project area could result in permanent change to the Project site's existing topography, particularly in hillside areas. This is also a significant cumulative impact as the hillsides and ridgelands of surrounding Tri-Valley cities are 114 \eastdub\find (4) 39 graded and excavated for development projects ~ . · 5.0-10, -- DEIR page 3.6-9, Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0 to 10.0. Adapt improvements to natural landforms in order to minimize required cuts and fills through such techniques as construction of partial pads and use of retaining structures and steeper cut and fill slopes where appropriate and properly designed. Further reduce landform alteration by carefully siting individual improvements on specific lots after identifying ~eotechnically feasible building areas and alignments. Site improvements to avoid adverse geotechnical conditions and the need for remedial grading and use techniques such as clustering where appropriate to minimize grading and/or avoid adverse geotechnical conditions. DEIR page 3 6-9 5.0-10. · - ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen.the significant effect identified in'the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. These mitigation measures provide design.and engineering techniques which maintain natural landfoinns to the greatest degree possible, and thereby minimize alteration of those landforms. The mitigations also require that geotechnical conditions be identified for development projects, allowing individual projects to identify and reduce, or in some cases completely avoid, the condition which might otherwise require alteration. IMPACT 3.6/F, G. Groundwater Impacts. Groundwater Impacts Associated with Irrigation. Shallow groundwater conditions occur in places throughout the RPA and could be caused by irrigation associated with development of the RPA. These conditions can adversely affect the performance of foundation and pavements, particularly in areas with expansive soils and bedrock. In addition, shallow groundwater can cause slope instability, including landsliding and fill settlement, and can lead to liquefaction of RPA soils. DEIR page 3.6-10. ~iti~ation Measures 3.6/11.0 to 13.0. Prepare detailed design level geotechnical investigations on development projects within the RPA, to locate and Characterize groundwater conditions and formulate design criteria and measures to mitigate advers~ conditions. Control groundwater by construction of subdrain systems, remove stock pond embankments and drain reservoirs in development areas. (See ~fM 3.6/4, 6, 15, 18, 23, and 27 for additional techniques to control soil moisture and maintain slope stability. DEIR page 3.6-8, -11 through -14.) DEIR page 3.6-10 through -11; RC #15-43. 114 \ea stdub \find (4) 40 Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Pf6j~~a~6-id or's~s-t-a~tially lessen the significant effect identified in the Fina~ EIR. Rationale for Findinq. The geotechnical investigation will identify areas which have groundwater, and development will proceed in accordance with measures to protect structures and improvements from slope and soil instability due to shallow groundwater. IMPACT 3.6/H. Shrinking and Swelling of Expansive Soils and Bedrock. The Project site contains expansive soils and bedrock, which tend to shrink upon drying and swell upon wetting. This process can.cause distress to overlying structures and infra- structure, causing damage to foundationsi slabs, and pavements. DEIR page 3.6-11. Mitiqation Measures 3.6/14.0 to 16.0.' Prepare design level geotechnical investigations for development projects in the Project area to characterize site-specific soils and bedrock conditions, and to formulate appropriate design criteria and mitigation measures for those conditions. Such responsive measures include, but are not limited to, controlling moisture in the soils and bedrock, and designing foundations and pavements to be built either below the zone of seasonal moisture change, or upon structurally supportive floors and after removal of the expansive materials. DEIR page 3.6-11 to -12. Finding. Changes or 'alterations have been required in, or incorpgrated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen;the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. The design level geotechnical evaluation will identify expansive soils and bedrock and insure that special techniques are used in these areas to reduce the risk of structure and infrastructure damage. IMPACT 3.6/I. Natural Slope Stability. The Project area contains active and dormant landslides, as well as steep slopes and colluvium-filled swales, which are subject to potential slope instability~ and could cause damage to structures and infra- structure located in these areas. DEIR page 3.6-12. Mitiqation Measures 3.6/17.0 to 19.0. Development projects within the Project area should prepare design level geotechnical investigations to characterize site-specific slope stability conditions and to formulate appropriate design~criteria and mitigation measures in response to those conditions. Such design measures and mitigations include. siting'development away from unstable landforms and from .~... .... ' .! .14 \ea stdub\ find (4) 41 ........... ~lDPes_greater than--about--3D~,.-and-pr~i-d_ing_~owe.~__density development in steep, unstable areas. Where unstable areas cannot be avoided, design measures and mitigations include removihg the unstable material, reconstructing or repairing the unstable area, or engineering structural responses, including'subsurface drainage improvements. (See also MM 3.6/26.0, recommending maintenance and inspection plans for drainage systems. DEIR page 3 6-14 ) DEIR page 3 6-12 to -13. ' ' · ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. ~ationale for Findinq. The design level geotechnica1 investigation will disclose areas which may be susceptible to slope instability. Special techniques, such as siting of structure and improvements, removing the unstable materials, and providing structural remediation, will improve slope stability. IMPACT 3.6/J. Cut and fill Slope Stability. Potentially unstable cut and fill slopes may fail or.settle, causing damage to structures and infrastructure. DEIR page 3.6-13. Mitiqation Measures 3.6/20.0 to 21.0. Require grading plans for hillside areas, which plans mini-mize grading and required cuts and fills by adapting roads.to natural landforms, stepping structures down steeper slopes, and demonstrating compliance with applicable building code and other applicable City and County requirements DEIR page 3.6-13. · ~itiqation Measures 3.6/22.0 to 25.0. Detailed design level geotechnical investigations such as-that required by mitigation measure 3.6/17.0 should describe and evaluate cut and fill slopes proposed for development projects in the RPA. Retaining structures, reinforcement and drainage measures should be provided on cut slopes as determined by code requirements and the specific conditions identified in the geotechnical investigation. Unretained cut slopes should generally not exceed 3:1. Filled slopes steeper than 5:1 should be keyed and benched into competent material and provided with subdrainage prior to placing engineered fill. DEIR pages 3.16-13 to -14. ~iti~ation Measure 3.6/26.0. Development projects in the Project area should prepare plans for the periodic in- spection and maintenance of subsurface drainage features, and the removal and disposal of materials deposited in surface drains and catch basins. (See also measures 114 \eastdub \ find (4) 42 .~scribed i~_MM_ ~.6/28.~a.~ ~__~_plans should include inspection and disposal proced~-~,~"~'~h~i-~-'-~'h'~-r-e-p0~tin~ ....... requirements, and a responsible party, and should emphasize overall long-term project monitoring and maintenance. DEIR page 3.6-14. FindinG. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. The detailed design level geotechni- cal investigation will identify areas where cut and fill slopes are proposed. Specific grading plans affecting these conditions would be required to show how each.development project will minimize cut and fill slopes, and how the remaining slopes will be stabilized through' siting or engi- neering features..~Long-term monitoring and maintenance plans will ensure that the design .facilities and engineered features effectively protect the cut and fill slopes .over the long term. IMPACT 3.6/K, L. Erosion and Sedimentation: Construotion-Related and Long-Term. Construction of development projects in the RPA will modify the ground surface and its protective vegetative cover and will alter surface runoff and infiltration patterns, causing short-term erosion and sedimentation during.construction, and long-term erosion and sedimentation once permanent structures and improvements are in place. The long-term impact is also a significant cumulative impact as similar sites are developed throughout the Tri-Valley. DEIR page. 3.6-14, 5.0-11. Mitiqation Measure 3.6/27.0. Time grading activities to avoid the rainy season as much as possible, and implement interim control measures, including but-'not limited to, providing water bars, mulch and net blankets on exposed slopes, straw bale dikes, temporary culverts and swales, sediment traps, and/or silt fences. DEIR page 3.6-14. Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0. Reduce long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts through appropriate design, construc- tion, and continued maintenance of 'surface and subsurface drainage. Appropriate measures include, but are not limited to, constructing sediment catch basins, adequate storm sewer systems, stabilizing c-reek banks, revegetating and main- taining wooded slopes, constructing facilities to control drainage and runoff, and emphasizing periodic homeowner/ landowner maintenance. (See also M/~ 3.6/26.) DEIR page 3.6-15, 5.0-11. ll4\eastdub\find (4) 43 ~. Changes or alterations have ~en required in, or less6n the significant effect identified in the Final' EIR. Rationale for Finding. These mitigations include measures to prevent concentration of. runoff, control runoff velocity, and trap silts on both a short-term and long-term basis, thereby minimizing the identified impact. Section 3.7 -- Bioloqical Resource~ IMPACT 3.7/A. Direct Habitat Loss. Under Alternative 2, the Project will result in the loss, degradation, or disturbance of 1900 acres of existing vegetation. No unique or rare plant species occur in the Project area; however, urbanization will substantially reduce the habitat and range for botanical and wildlife species which are resident or migratory users of the RPA. The Project contributes to the cumulative, ongoing 'loss of natural habitat in the Tri-Valley region, and is also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3 7-9 5.0- 11, Addendum. - , Mitiqation Measures 3.7/1 0 to 3.0. Pursuant to 'Specific Plan Policies 6-21- and 6-23,* and Action Program 60,* direct.disturbance of trees or vegetation should be minimized and restri=ted to those areas actually designated for construction of improvements. DeVelopment projects should include vegetation enhancement/management plans for all open space areas identifying ways to enhance the biological potential of the area as wildlife habitat and ~ocusing on such measures as reintroducing native species to Increase vegetative cover and plant diversity. Development projects shall also be required to prepare a detailed revegetation/restoration plan, developed by a qualified revegetation specialist, for all disturbed areas that are to remain undeveloped.'. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-9, 5.0-11. ~itiqation Measure 3.7/4.0. The City shall deVelop and implement grazing management plans to protect riparian and wetland areas, increase plant diversity, and encourage the recovery of native plants, especially perennial grasses. DEIR page 3.7-9, 5.0-11. ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid'or substantially lessen the significant effect identified .in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Restricting direct disturbance to actual construction areas will reduce the amount of habitat lost. The vegetation and grazing plans will protect and restore disturbed areas to minimize the amount of habitat 114 \ eastdub \ find ( 4 ) 44 ......... loss_and_tm__anhark~_~t~valueofthe habitat area remaining. IMPACT 3.7/B. Indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal. Construction activities on the Project site may cause dust deposition, increased soil erosion and sedimentation, increased potential for slope failures, and alteration of surface and subsurface drainage patterns. DEIR page 3.7-9 to -10. Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 6-22,* all disturbed areas should be revegetated as quickly as possible with native trees, shrubs,- herbs, and grasses, to prevent erosion. The city shall determine specific physical characteristics of proposed revegetation areas to evaluate the long-term feasibility of the proposed mitigation and to identify potential conflicts at the site. Plants used for revegetation will be native to the Tri- Valley Area. (*Specific Plan provisionsadopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-10; RC # 13-18. Mitigation Measures 3.6/18.0, 22.0, 23.0, and 3.11/1.0. Development should avoid siting on steep slopes and should observe special design and engineering mitigation features where construction occurs on 3:1 or steeper slopes. The City of Dublin shall require dust deposition mitigations during construction, including but not limited to, watering the construction site, daily clean-up of mud and dust, replanting and repaying and other measures to reduce wind erosion. DEIR pages 3.6-12 to -13, 3.7-10, 3.11-3 to -4. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen.the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Requiring construction to avoid siting on steep slopes will protect hillside vegetation and reduce erosion impacts. Where disturbance is necessary, engineering and other techniques to reduce erosion and sedimentation and promote slope stability will als° ensure that revegetation efforts to control erosion will be more efficient and successful. IMPACT 3.7/C. Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat. Direct loss and degradation from grading, road construction, and culvert'crossings could adversely affect the Project area's unique and sensitive Northern Riparian Forest, Arroyo Willow Riparian Woodland, and Freshwater Marsh habitats. Indirect impacts could result from increased sedimentation or spoil deposition affecting stream flow patterns and damaging young seedlings and the roots of woody plants. This impact is also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.7- 10, 5.0-11. 114 \ea ~.aub \ f. ind ( 4 ) 45 ~itiqation Measures 3.7/6.0, 7.0, a~ 11.0, Rimarian an, '~t'l~nd ~e'~'§~---'Pu~Suah~-~'""~i-flc'~i-~ Po~i-~ ~9-~-, .......... 6-10,* and Action Program 6E,* natural riparian and%e~land areas shall be preserved wherever possible. Ail development projects in the RPA shall consult with the Army Corps of. Engineers (COE) and the California Department of Fish and Game (DF.G) to determine these agencies, jurisdiction over the riparian or wetland area. These areas shall be incorporated into project open space areas. Any lost riparian habitat shall be replaced as required by DFG. Any lost wetlands shall be mitigated per COE's "no net loss,, policy.. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-10, and -11, 5.0-12. Miti ation Measures 3.7 8.0 to !0.0 12.0 to 14.0. PurSuant to Specific Plan Policies 6-11 to 6-13,* and Action Programs 6F to 6H,* the City shall require revegetation of natural stream corridors with native plant species and preservation and maintenance of natural stream corridors in the Project area, through measures including, but not limited to, avoiding underground drainage systems in favor of natural open-stream channels and retention basins. The City shall establish a stream corridor system (see Specific Plan Figure 6.1) to provide multi-purpose open space corridors for pedestrian and wildlife circulation. The City should also work with Zone 7 and DFG to develop a stream corridor restoration program, with standards for grading, stabiliza- tion, ~nd revegetation, and long-term management of RPA stream.channels. Development projects in the RPA are to .be reviewed against, and any approval shall be consistent with, the program standards. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-10 to -12 5.0-12; RC ~14- 7, 35-25. ' ~itiqation Measure 3.7/15.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 6K,* the City of Dublin shall establish and maintain a liaison with state and federal resource manage- ment agencies throughout the planning and development process of individual development projects, in order to avoid violations of state and federal regulations and insure that specific issues and concerns are recognized and addressed. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout' RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-12, 5.0-12. ~itiqation Measures 3.7/16.0 to 17.0. Existing sensitive habitats shall be avoided and protected where feasible. Construction near drainages shall take place during the dry season. DEIR page 3.7-12, 5.0-12. Changes or alterations have been required in, or ncorp°rated into the Project. These changes will avoid or 114 \eastdub\ find ( 4 ) 46 substantially lessen the Project-related significant effects ......... ~-n-~i-f-i~--i~-~h-~=-fy~n~i-EiR~--HS~~--th~-e--changes-~ilt ......... not avoid the cumulative effects of lost or degraded" biologically sensitive habitat. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Findinq. Requiring compliance with "no n'et loss" policies will ensure that the amount of habitat shall remain constant. By incorporating wildlife corridors into Project plans, wildlife habitats will be enhanced and will not become isolated because wildlife will be able to migrate through these corridors as necessary. Disturbance of natural stream corridors can reduce the habitat value of these areas, but will be minimized by requirements.to preserve and maintain these corridors in a natural, open condition, and by requiring construction.to take place in the dry season. Any disturbed streams shall be rebuilt, reconstructed and revegetated according to the stream corridor plan, which will further enhance and protect. habitat values in the RPA. Even with these protections for the RPA's biologically sensitive resource, the cumulative impactlcannot be fully mitigated. IMPACT 3.7/D. San Joaquin Kit Fox. Construction of new roads and facilities could adversely impact kit fox by destroying potential dens or burying foxes occupying dens at the time of construction. Modification of natural habitat could reduce available prey and den sites. Increased vehicle traffic, the presence of humans and domestic dogs, and resident use of poison for rodent control could kill or disturb foxes or reduce their prey populations. DEIR page 3.7-12 to -13. Mitiqation Measure 3.7/18.0. The city shall require all development in the RPA to comply with the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan outlined in Appendix E, DEIR Part II. Extensive mitigation measures stress siting urban development to avoid kit fox habitat where possible, and protecting and enhancing the habitat which remains primarily in the~Open Space and Rural Residential areas. Mitigations include measures for pre-c~nstruction and construction conditions, and address steps to be taken if potential or known dens are identified. DEIR page 3.7-13, DEIR Appendix E (as revised following RC #20-7.) Mitiqation Measure 3.7/18.1. The City of Dublin shall work with other agencies to develop a management plan that identifies measures to protect viable habitat for the kit fox in the Tri-Valley area. RC #20-5. 114 \ea ~d~\ fiz~d (4) 47 ~itiqation Measure 3.7/19.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan ........ A-cti-o~P~-O~-r~N~-,~--feh~--C-i~-~--s-~a-~-l. ~_--.--~.--. '-.~ ................................. ":"~' ~ ~nd~l restr!ct rodenticide and herbicide use. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted ' throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-13. ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final~EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Appendix E.provides a comprehensive protection plan addressing several phases of kit fox protection, from avoidance of potential dens to maintenance of habitat. Through this plan, the Project will avoid most direct and indirect adverse effects on any kit fox that might be present in the Project area. IMPACTS 3.7/F to I. Red-legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, Western Pond Turtle, Tri-Colored Blackbird. The destruction and alteration of water impoundments and stream courses in the RPA threatens to eliminate abatat for these h ' species. Increased sedimentation into the riparian areas could reduce water quality and threaten breeding and larval habitat. Disturbance of the already minimal vegetation in the stream courses could reduce habitat opportunity for adult-species. Increased vehicle traffic and new road construction could increase direct mortality. Harassment and predation by feral dogs and cats already occurs, and would increase with increased residential development. DEIR page 3.7-13 to -14. ~itiqation Measures 3.7/20.0 to 22.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 6L* and other EIR mitigations., develop- ment projects in the RPA shall prepare open space plans to enhance and preserve existing habitat and revegetation plans for any disturbed open space or habitat areas and shall preserve and protect riparian, wetland, and stream'corridor areas whenever possible. (See MMs 3.7/2.0 to 3.0.) Maintain a minimum buffer of at least 100 feet around breeding sites of the red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, and Western pond turtle. Development projects in the RPA shall conduct a Pre-construction survey within sixty days prior to habitat modification to verify the presence of sensitive species. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-14. ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding'. Open space protection, revegetation, and restoration plan~ing, as well as planning to protect and enhance wetland and riparian areas will also protect and 114 \eastdub \ find (¢) 48 minimize imDacts to th~.riparian habitat necessary for the species identified in this impact. IMPACTS 3.7/K. Golden Eagle: The conversion of grasslands and the consequent reduction of potential prey could reduce the amount and quality of foraging habitat for golden eagles. Noise and human activity associated with development could also disrupt foraging activities. Elimination of golden eagle foraging habi- tat is also a potentially significant cumulative impact which contributes to the overall regional loss of foraging habitat for this species. DEIR page 3.7-15, 5.0-12. · Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0. Designate substantial areas of land in the Project.area as Open Space or Rural Residential (including future study areas), providing'open space protection and low intensity development that will also Provide a suitable foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7r15, 5.0-12. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinql Providing a natural open. space zone around the existing golden eagle nest avoids destruction of the ngsting site; providing an additional buffer during the golden eagle reproductive period further protects the integrity of the existing nesting site. The natural open space zone, together with the over · acres of open space and low intensity development across the Project site provides ample opportunity to maintain effective foraging habitat for golden eagles. IMPACT 3.7/L. Golden Eagle and Other Raptor Electrocutions. Golden eagles and other raptors which perch or fly in~o high- voltage transmission lines may be electrocuted. DEIR page 3.7-15. ~itiqa~ion Measures 3.7/26.0 and 3.4/42.0. Require all utilities to be located below grade where feasible. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 6M,* require all transmission lines to be undergrounded where feasible. Where not feasible, design specifications to protect raptors from electrocution shall be implemented. These specifica- tions include, but are not limited to, spacing dangerous components; insulating conductors,, using non-conductive materials, or providing perch guards on cross arms; and avoiding grounded steel cross arm braces. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-24, 3.7- .15 to -16. 114 \eastdub\find (4) 49 zncorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Undergrounding utilities, including all transmission lines, avoids the electrocution hazard. Where the hazard cannot be avoided through undergrounding, the design specifications identified in the mitigations reduce the electrocution hazards by neutralizing and/or covering the features that provide opportunities for electrocution. IMPACT 3.?/M, N. B~rrowing Owl and American Badger. Annual grasslands in the RPA provide suitable habitat for burrowing owls. Development and related construction activity could destroy both burrowing owl and American badger burrows. Harass- ment by feral dogs and cats, as well as use of poisons for rodent control, could harm these species and/or reduce their prey populations. DEIR page 3.7-16 to -17. Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 and 27.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 6L* and other EIR mitigations, develop- ment projects in the RPA shall conduct a pre-construction survey within sixty.days prior to habitat modification to verify the presence of sensitive species. The projects shall maintafn a minimum buffer of at least 300 feet around the breeding sites of the American badger during the breeding season (March to September) to avoid direct loss of individuals. Also, projects shall maintain a minimum buffer of at least 300 feet around known or identified nesting sites of the burrowing owl, or implement other mitigation actions pursuant to standardized protocol now under development, including relocation of nesting sites in coordination with the USFWS'and the CDFG. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3.7-14, and '17; RC ~15-60. ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. The pre-construction survey and required buffer zone around known nesting and breeding sites preserves these specieS' burrows by allowing them to be avoided during the construction and development process. IMPACT 3.7/0. Prairie Falcon, Northern Harrier, and Black- Shouldered Kite. Development in the RPA could cause loss of foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7-17. 114 \eastdub\ find (4) 50 .Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0. Substantial areas of land in the Project area are designated for Open Space and 1~ .......... intens%ty Rural Residential land uses (including future study areas). DEIR pages 3.7-15 and -17. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. The designated open space and low intensity rUral residential uses provide adequate foraging habitat for these species. IMPACT 3.7/P. SharP-shinned Hawk and Cooper's Hawk. Development in the RPA could cause loss of foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7- 17. ~itigation Measures 3~7/6.0 through 17.0 and 21.0. Establish protective buffer zones for riparian and fresh- water marsh habitats to protect and enhance sensitive habitats. Preserve riparian, wetland, and stream corridor areas;~where avoidance of these areas is not feasible, prepare and implement habitat restoration, enhancement and maintenance plans. .DEIR page~ 3.7-10 to -12,--14, -17. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. The mitigations provide preservation, enhancement and maintenance features for riparian and freshwater marsh habitats upon which these species rely for forage. Protecting and enhancing this habitat avoids the impact of lost habitat. IMPACT 3.7/$. Special Status Invertebrates. Impacts to special status invertebrates cannot be estimated at this time, DEIR page 3.7-18. , Mitiqation Measure 3.7/28.0. Species-specific surveys shall be conducted in appropriate riparian/wetland habitats prior to approval of specific projects in the RPA. DEIR page 3.7- 18, Addendum. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. RatiOnale for Findinq. Any potential impacts to Special Status Invertebrates will be addressed during CEQA review of specific development projects in the RPA. 114\eastdub\find (4) ~ ..... 51 ~ection 3.8 -- Visual Resource~ IMPACT 3.8/A. Standardized ""Tract" Development. Generic" "cookie-cutter,, development could obscure the specific natural features of the RPA, such as its landforms, vegetation, and watercourses, that make it a unique place with its own identity DEIR page 3.8-4. ' ~itiqation Measure 3.8/1.0. Pursuant to the goal statement in Specific Plan Section 6.3.4,* 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 and public spaces. Implement the extensive design guidelines for development as'described in Chapter 7* of the Specific Plan. These guidelines provide a flexible design framework, but do not compromise the community character as a whole. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-5. ~. 'Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially 'lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. By protecting key natural and visual elements, the Project maintains the natural features of the RPA, which make it unique. The general design guidelines for the Project,'including a village center, town center, mixed use orientation, and varying lot sizes, provide a varied development pattern, which avoids the look of standard cookie-cutter tract developments. IMPACT 3.8/B. Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character. Urban development of the RPA will substantially alter the existing rural and open space qualities that'characterize eastern Dublin. This is also a significant cumulative impact as the natural rural character of the Tri-Valley subregion is replaced by urban development. DEIR page 3.8-5, 5.10-12. Mitiqation Measure 3.8/2.0. Implement the land use plan for the RPA, which plan emphasizes retaining the predominant natural features, such as ridgelines and watercourses, and preserves the sense of openness that characterizes Eastern Dublin. DEIR page 3.8-5, 5.0-12. ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project~ 11~'\eastdub\£ind (4) 52 Rationale for FindinG. Maintaining predominant natural features minimizes the alteration b-f--~h~--RPA-'~ ~-~f~-e'nt ruraT ..... open space character; however, it does not fully mitigate this impact. IMPACT 3.8/C. Obsouring Distinotive Natural Features. The characteristic unvegetated landscape of the RPA heightens the visual importance of existing trees, watercourses, and other salient natural and cultural features. The Project has the potential to obscure or alter these existing features and thereby reduce the visual uniqueness of the site. DEIR page 3.8-5. Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 6-28,* preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other important visual resources, such as creeks and major stands of vegetation. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughoUt RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-5. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessenl'the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for FindinG. This mitigation measure calls for preservation of the RPA's important visual resources, thereby avoiding the impact of obscured or altered visually important features. IMPACT $.8/D. Alteration of visual Quality of Hillsides. Grading and excavation of building sites in hillside areas will severely compromise the visual quality of the RPA. DEIR page 3.8--6. Mitiqation Measures 3.8/4.0 to 4.5. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policies 6-32,.* and 6-34 to -38,* grading and excavation throughout the RPA should be minimized, by using' such grading features as gradual transitions from graded ares to natural slopes, by revegetation of graded areas, by maintaining natural contours as much as possible and grading only the actual development areas. Building pads in hillside areas should be graded individually or stepped, wherever possible. Structures and roadways should be designed in response to the topographical and geotechnical conditions. Structures should be designed to blend in with surrounding slopes and topography and the height and grade of cut and fill slopes should be minimized wherever feasible. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-6. FindinG. Changes or alterations have been required in,. or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially. lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. 114 \eastdub\find (4) ~ationale for Finding. The various grading techniques ............ ~-i-dent~f~-edT--~tq~--~i-tn revege~a~ion.-.~n~ ..sens~tive building design will avoid the impact by minimizing'physical alteration throughout the RPA. IMPACT 3.8/E. Alteration of Visual Quality of. Ridges. Structures built in proximity to ridges may obscure or fragment the profile, of visually-sensitive ridgelines. DEIR page 3.8-6. ~itiqation Measures 3.8/5.0 to 5.2. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 6-29,, development is not permitted on the main ridgeline that borders the Specific Plan area to the north and east, but may be permitted on the foreground hills and ridgelands. Minor interruptions of views of the main ridgeline by individual building masses may be permitted only where all other remedies have been exhausted. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 6-30* and General Plan Amendment Guiding Policy E,' structures shall not obstruct scenic views and shall not appear to extend above an identified scenic ridgetop when viewed from scenic routes. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-7. ~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Prohibiting development along the main ridgeline in the RPA preserves the visual quality of this resource. Limiting development so that structures are not silhouetted against other scenic ridgetops, as well as requiring that a backdrop of natural ridgeline remain visible, minimizes the obstruction or fragmentation of visually sensitive ridgelines. IF~ACT 3.8/F. Alteration of Visual Characte~ of Flatlands. Commercial and residential development of the RPA's flatlands will completely alter the existing visual character resulting from valley grasses and agricultural fields. DEIR page 3.8-7. ~itiqation Measures. None identified. DEIR page 3.8-7. ~. No changes or alterations are available to substantially lessen this impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding. Development of the Project site's flatter areas is regarded as a·,,trade-off,, measure designed to preserve slopes, hillsides, and ridgelines. ! 14 \eastdub \ find ( 4 ) 54 IMPACT 3.8/G. Alteration of the Visual Character of Water- watercourse~ may diminish or eliminate their visibility function asidistinct landscape elements. DEIR page 3.8-7. Mit±qation Measure 3.8/6.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 6-39,* protect the visual character of Tassajara Creek and other stream corridors from unnecessary alteration or disturbance. Adjoining development should be sited to maintain visual access to the stream corridors. Implement earlier identified mitigation measures 3.7/8.0, 12.0, and 13.0, to revegetate stream corridors to enhance their natural appearance, to prepare a comprehensive stream corridor restoration program, and to establish dedication of land along both sides of stream corridors. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-7 to -8, F~ndin~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for .Finding. Preserving the RPA watercourses will retain both their visibility'and function as distinct landscape elements.' Special attention to stream corridors through revegetation, restoration, and dedication of land along both sides, will further enhance this distinct landscape element. IMPACT S.8/I. Scenic Vistas. Development on the.RPA will'alter the character-of--exi~n/~, v~s~a~and_m~y_~bs~ALr~e_important sightlines.' DEIR page 3.8-8. Mitiqation Measure 3.8/7.0 to 7.1. Pursuant to Specific P.tan policy'6-5* and other EIR mitigations, preserve views of designated-open space areas. The City will conduct a visual survey of the RPA to identify and map viewsheds of scenic vistas. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) Findinq. Changes or alterations.have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Identifying and mapping critical viewsheds allows the City to consider specific ways of preserving those views when reviewing development projects within the RPA. IMAGE 3.8/J. Scenic Routes. Urban development of the RPA will · significantly alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic 114 \eastdub\find (4) 55 routes in eastern Dublin. As quiet rural roads become 'major suburba~-t'horough~ares'~-~or'~ground--~nd--d~t~-t-~i~--~.y--D~-.-~ .......... obstructed. DEIR page 3.8-8 to -9. Mitiqation Measure 3.8/8.0. Pursuant to Specific plan Action Program 6Q,* the City should officially adopt Tassajara Road, 1-580, and Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors, should adopt scenic corridor policies, and should establish development review procedures and standards to preserve scenic vistas. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-9. Mitiqation Measure 3.8/8.1. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 6R,* the City should require that projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors submit detailed visual analysis with development project applications. The analysis shall include graphic simulations and/or sections drawn from affected travel corridors and representing typical views from scenic routes. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-9. ~indin~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Establishing scenic corridor policies will insure that the visual experience of travelers along scenic roUtes be maintained as much as possible. Requiring visual analyses will allow the City to specifi- cally review development projects for their visual impacts and to review how locations of structures and associated landscaping can be used to adjust the project design to minimize its visual impacts from scenic routes. Section 3.9 -- Cultural Resources IMPACT 3.9/A. Disruption or Destruction of Identified .~ Prehistoric'Resources. Due to the level of development proposed in the RPA, ~it is assumed that all prehistoric sites identified in the 1988 inventory will be disturbed or altered in some manner. DEIR page 3.9-6. Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0 to 4.0. Develop a testing program to determine the presence or absence of hidden deposits in all locations of prehistoric resources. All locations containing these components shall be recorded with the State of California and their borders will be staked so that professional survey teams may develop accurate location maps. If any of these recorded and mapped locations are affected by future construction or increased access to the areas, evaluative testing, consisting of collecting and 114 \ea stdub \find ( 4 ) 56 ~~ing an~ surface concentration of materials, shall be undertaken in order to prepare responsive mitigatio--~ ...... measures. The City shall hire a qualified archaeologist to develop a protection program for prehistoric sites con- taining significant surface or subsurface deposits of cultural materials in areas where development will alter the current condition of the resource. DEIR page 3.9-6 to -7. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale'for Finding. Through these mitigations, prehistoric resources can be identified and mapped, and specific mitigation plans prepared as part of review of development projects that will affect the resources. IMPACT 3.9/B. Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Pre- Historic Resources. Previously unidentified pre-historic resources may exist in the RPA and would be subject to potential disruption or destruction by construction and development activities associated with the Project. DEIR page 3.9-7. Nitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 to 6.0. Pursuant-to Specific Plan Policy 6-25* and Action Program 6P,* cease any grading or construction activity if historic or prehistoric remains are discovered until the significance and extent of those remains can be ascertained by a certified archaeologist. Development projects in the RPA shall prepare an archaeolo- gical site sensitivity determination and detailed research and field reconnaissance by a certified archaeologist, and develop a mitigation plan. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.9-7. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. These mitigations will insure that any significant prehistoric resources which are discovered during development activities are not disrupted or destroyed. IMPACT 3.9/C. Disruption or Destruction of Identified Historic Resources. Due to the level of development proposed in the RPA, it is assumed that all historic sites identified in the 1988 inventory will be disturbed or altered in some manner. Even cultural resources in the proposed Open Space and Rural Residen- tial areas will potentially be disturbed or altered due to the presence of new residential population in the area. DEIR page 3.9-8. 114 \eastdub\ find ( 4 ) 57 Mitiqation Measures 3.9/7.0 to 12. · Plan--Pol-i~ies--6~26~*--end-~6-~-and-.-other.miti~gat±.o~s identified in the EIR, all properties with historic resources and all standing structural remains shall be evaluated by an architectural historian as part of in-depth archival research to determine the significance of the resource prior to any alteration. All historic locations in the 1988 inventory shall be recorded on official State of California historical site inventory forms. These records should be used to make sure that historical locations are recorded onto development maps by professional surveyors. Where the disruption of historical resources is unavoidable, encourage the adaptive reuse or restoration of the struc- tures whenever feasible. A qualified architectural historian shall be hired to develop a preservation program for historic sites found to be significant under Appendix K of the CEQA guidelines. ·(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.9-8. . Changes or alterations have been required in, or ncorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant~effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Archival research and recordation of historical sites on state inventory forms will insure that historical resources are identified throughout the Project area. Encouraging adaptive reuse or restoration of historic structures and development of a preservation program for historic sites will insure that identified resources are not disturbed or destroyed. IMPACT 3.9/D. Disruption or Destruction of Unidentifie~ ~istoric Resources. Previously unidentified historic resources may exist in the RPA and would be subject to potential disruption.Or destruction by construction and development activities a'ssociated with the Project. DEIR page 3.9-8. ~itiqation Measures 3.9/5.0 to 7.0, 9.0, 10.0, and 12.0. These previously identified mitigation measures will be used to ascertain the presence of unidentified historic resources on a development project site in the RPA. If a historic resource is identified, archival research shall be performed to determine the significance of the resource or structure. The City shall hire a qualified architectural historian to develop a preservation program for significant historic sites. DEIR page 3.9-7 to -9. . Changes or alterations have been required in, or ncorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. ll~\eastdub\find (4) 58 Rationale for Finding. Mitigations will ensure that any significant histori6 resources w-~i~ are ~~-e-c-~uring development activities are not disrupted or destroyed. Section 3.10 -- Noise IMPACT 3.10/A. Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise. Proposed residential.housing along Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Fallon Road, and Hacienda Drive will be exposed to future noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. DEIR page 3.10- 2. Mitiqation Measure 3.1.0/1.0. Require acoustical studies for all residential development projects within the future CNEL 60 contour to show how interior noise levels will be reduced to 45 dB. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen.the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. The required acoustical Studies must show how interior noise exposures are reduced to 45 dB CNEL, the minimum acceptable noise level. IMPACT 3.10/B. Exposure of Existing Residenoes to Future Roadway Noise. Increased traffic noise on local roads would result in significant cumulative noise level increases along Tassajara (4 dB), Fallon (6dB), .and Hacienda Roads of 6 dB. This is a potentially significant cumulative impact in that small indivi- dual Project noise increases considered together and over the long term, 'will substantially increase overall noise levels. DEIR page 3.10-3, 5.0-13. ~itiqation Measures 3.10/2.0. All development projects in the RPA shall provide noise barriers or berms near existing residences to control noise in outdoor use spaces. DEIR page 3.10-3. Mitiqation Measure 3.10/7.0. To mitigate cumulative noise impacts, the City shall develop a noise mitigation fee to pay for on- and off-site noise mitigations, including but not limited to, noise barriers, earthen berms, or retrofitting structures with sound-rated windows. DEIR page 5.0-13. FindinG. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. 114 \eastdub\find (4) 59 Rationale for Finding. Providing noise barriers or berms ............. w-i-l-t--reduce--noi-se exUo-sUre--foT~--e~ri~ti, ng-resi~enCes; ~6~ver, mitigation may not be feasible at all locations because of site constraints such as' driveways and proximity to road- ways. Furthermore, while developers will provide funding for noise mitigations to reduce overall noise levels, funds derived from the experimental program may not adequately mitigate the cumulative impact. Therefore, this noise impact cannot be fully mitigated. IMPACT 3.10/D. Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve' Forces Training Area (Camp Parks RFTA) and the County Jail. Residential development on the Project site within 6000 feet of Camp Parks RFTA and the County Jail could be exposed to noise impacts from gunshots and helicopter overflights. DEIR page 3.10-4. Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0. The City'shall require an acoustical study prior to future development in the Foothill Residential, Tassajara Village Center, County Center, and Hacienda Gateway subareas (as defined in Figure 4.2 of the Specific Plan) to determine whether future noise impacts from Camp Parks and the county jail will be within accept- able limits. This study should identify and evaluate all potential noise generating operations. DEIR page 3.10-4. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. .Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. ~ationale for Finding. The required acoustical study will identify noise sensitive areas in the Project site and noise generating operations at Camp Parks and the jail and will propose mitigation to reduce noise impacts to acceptable limits. However, mitigation may not be poSSible at all critical locations, so the impact may not be fully mitigated, IMPACT 3.10/E. Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise. Construction would occur over years on the Project site and will be accompanied by noise from truck activity on local roads, heavy equipment used in grading and paving, impact noises during structural framing, and pile driving. Construction impacts will be most severe near existing residen- tial uses along Tassajara Road and near existing uses in the southern portion of the Project area. DEIR page 3.10-4. 114 \eastdub \ find ( 4 ) 60 ........... Mitiqation Measures 3.10/4.0 to 5.0. Development projects in ~he RPA S--~l-~~t a Cons-~r-~6~ion~i~--~anagemen~ Program that identifies measures proposed to minimize' construction noise impacts on existing residents. The Program shall include a schedule for grading and other major noise-generating activities, limiting these activities to the shortest possible number of days. Other noise mitigation measures include, but are not limited'to, restricting hours of construction activity, developing construction vehicle access routes which minimize truck traffic through residential areas, and developing a mitigation plan for construction traffic that cannot be avoided in residential areas. In addition, all development- related operations should comply with local noise standards, including limiting activity to daytime hours,'muffling stationary equipment, and locating that equipment as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. DEIR page 3.10- 4 to -5. · Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Through these mitigation measures, developers will limit the intensity and duration of noise exposure experienced by existing residences in construction areas. Other mitigations will limit noise exposure by moving the noise-generating equipment as far away from residential uses as possible. IMPACT 3.10/F. Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacenoy of Diverse Land Uses Permitted by Plan Policies Supporting Mixed-Use Development.' The presence of different land use types within the same development creates the possibility, of noise impacts between adjoining uses, particularly when commercial and residential land uses abut. DEIR page 3.10-5. Mitiqation Measure 3.10/6.0. Development projects in the RPA shall prepare noise management plans to be reviewed as part of the development application for all mixed use projects involving residential uses and non-residential uses. To be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant, the plan should aim to provide a high quality acoustic environment for residential and non-residential users and should propose steps to minimize or avoid'potential noise problems. The plan should address the concerns of resi- dents, non-residential users, and maintenance personnel, and should make maximum use.of site planning to avoid noise conflicts. DEIR page 3.10-5 to -6. 114\eastdub\find (4) 61 ~inding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substa--n~~'- lessen 'the significant effect identified in the Final"EIR. Rationale for Finding. The required noise management plans allow both the developer and the City to anticipate possible noise conflicts in mixed-use developments and to propose specific measures to address the specific conflicts identi- fied. Occurring at an early stage in the process and reviewed with the development application, projects can make use of the greatest array of conflict reducing techniques, including building design and site planning. Compliance with these mitigations will lessen or avoid potential noise conflicts from adjacent mixed uses. IMPACT 3.~/A. Dust Deposition Soiling ~uisance from Construction Activity. Clearing, grading, excavation, and unpaved roadway travel related to project construction will generate particulate matter which may settle out near the construction sites, creating a soiling nuisance. Any additional dust pollution will worsen the air basin's non-attainment status for particulates. Dust emissions is therefore also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.11-3, 5.0-13. Mitigation Measure 31tl/1.0. Require development projects in the Project area to implement dust control measures, including but not limited to, watering construction sites, Cleaning up mud and dust carried by construction vehicles, effective covers on haul trucks, planting, repaying, and other revegetation measures on exposed soil surfaces, avoiding unnecessary idling of construction equipment, limiting on-site vehicle speeds, and monitoring particulate matter levels. These measures will reduce project dust deposition to acceptable levels, but will not avoid cumulative impacts of dust generation. DEIR page 3.11-3 to -4, 5.0-13. .Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or · incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, cumulative dust generation impacts will not be substantially avoided. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Findinq. The mitigation measures identify various feasible and reasonable dust control measures that .developers can take during construction activity. These measures eliminate and/or minimize the amount and effect of dust deposition in construction areas. Even with these measures, however, some small amount of additional pollution will occur. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of dust .emissions cannot be fully mitigated. 114 \eas%dub \£1nd (4) 62 IMPACT 3.11/B. Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions. Const~-6~t-i~-~ equipment operation gener~t~-d-~Iy~eXh-aU~ emissions. Normally considered a temporary impact, build0ut of the Project area over the long t~rm will be a chronic source of equipment/vehicle emissions. This is also a potentially signifi- cant cumulative impact due to the non-attainment status of the air basin. DEIR page 3.11-4, 5.0-13. Mitiqation Measures 3.11/2.'0 to 4.0. Minimize construction interference with regional non-Project traffic movement by schedUling and routing construction traffic to'non-peak times and locations. Provide ride-sharing incentives for construction personnel. Require routine low-emission tune- ups for on-site equipment. Require development projects in the Project area to prepare a Construction Impact Reduction Plan incorporating all proposed air quality mitigation strategies with clearly defined responsibilities for plan implementation and supervision. DEIR page 3.11-4, 5.0-13. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes,'the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding. The mitigations include Construction timing and siting measures that will reduce equipment and vehicle emissions over the long-term buildout of the Project. Even-with these mitigations, however, neither Project nor cumulative air quality impacts can be fully mitigated. IMPACT 3.11/C. Mobile Source Emissions: ROG or NOx. Project implementation at full buildou~ will generate 500,000 daily automobile trips .within the air~ basin. Mobile source emissions for ROG and NOx associated with these vehicle trips are precursors to ozone formation. The emissions associated with this level of vehicle use will far exceed BAAQMD thresholds for significant~'effect. This is also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.11-5, 5.0-14. ~itiqation Measures 3.11/5.0 to 11.0. Exercise interagency cooperation on a subregional and regional basis to integrate local air quality planning efforts with transportation, transit and other infrastructure plans, implement techni- ques, such as transportation demand management (TDM), shifting travel to non-peak periods, and encouraging mixed- use development which provides housing, jobs, goods and services in close proximity as a means of reducing vehicle trips and related emissions and congestion. At the development Project level, maintain consistency between 114 \ ea stdub \ find ( 4 ) 63 specific development plans and regional transportation and grow~h--mamageme.n-t--p-~a-ns, =oo~d_~n_a.%e.._l_ev~s__o.f__growth__With- .... roadway transportation facilities and improvements, 'and require linkage between housing growth and job opportunities to achieve a positive subregional jobs/housing balance. DEIR page 3.11-5, 5.0-14. . Changes or alterations have been required in, or ncorp0rated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Findinq. The various techniques described in the mitigation measures provide opportunities to reduce vehicle trips, and therefore reduce vehicle emissions. However, because of the size of this Project, neither Project nor cumulative impacts can be fully mitigated. IMPACT 3.11/E. Stationary Source Emissions, Specific Plan buildout will create emissions from a variety of sources, including but not. limited to,. fuel combustion in power plants, evaporative emissions from paints, and subsurface decay of organic materials associated with solid waste disposal. This is also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.11-6, 5.0-14. Mitiqation Measures 3.11/12.0 to 13.0. Minimize stationary source emissions associated with Project development where feasible, with the goal of achieving 10 percent above the minimum conservation target levels established in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Include solid waste recycling in all development planning. DEIR page 3 11-6, 5.0-14. · ~.' Changes Or alterations have been required in, Or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding. Focusing on reducing emissions from various sources will allow an incremental reduction in stationary source emissions. These reductions will not, however, be sufficient to avoid eithe~ Project-related or cumulative impacts. 114 \ ea stdub \ find ( 4 ) 64 Section 2 ENVIRONMENTALLY INSIGNIfiCANT IHPACTS The City Council finds that all other impacts of the proposed Project are not environmentally significant as documented in the FEIR and supported by evidence elsewhere in the record. No mitigation is required for these insignificant impacts. 1.~14 \ea stdub \ find (4) 65 Section 3 FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES The City Council is adopting Alternative 2 (with minor changes) described in the Final EIR in place of the originally proposed Project. The City hereby finds the remaining three alternatives identified and described in the Final EIR were considered and are found to be infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA Section 21081, subdivision (c). The City also declines to adopt the Project as originally proposed for the reasons set forth below. T~E ORIGINALLY PROPOSED PROJECT. Section 21081, subdivision' (c) does not require the City Council to make findings as to why the originally proposed Project not adopted. Such findings need only be made as to projectWas alternatives which would mitigate significant environmental effects. Alternative 2 has no si ' ~h ~ould be avoided by ado~tin~n~c~ ~nv~onmental effects Pr°3ec~ in its ste-~ ~ ~ ~ ._ ~ ~ orlglnall roo · =u. ~auner the ' · Y p p ced Alternative 2 wil~ ..... ' ._ C~ty Council finds would not be pose~ ~e~ts~n~~cant environmental e~ts that =ne same ex=ent (and often to a greater extent) by the'Project as originally proposed. '~ublic Resources Code section . agencies from reduci ~ ~ _ 21087 prohibits ublic pro~ect alter~=~..- ~ ~e proposed number of hou i~ · - =~ ..... "~ pursuant t ~ ~ ..... s g unlts as _ ~U~~= specific mitigation mG~ .... i ......... ?~=~ =here is another wou~u provide a com~ar~b~_ ~_--ro=~= ~.Pr~ect alternative hat ~ ~z~ xevel or ml~lga=ion. The Projecttas adopted does indeed involve a reduc ' units than were ori~i~-~ _tlon of the number of ho ado ted _~ ~ay proposed, both b~, ....... P does not provide ~=~=_~ ~ --~= une Project as Livermore Municipal for ..... =~z ~evelopment in the · Airport Protection Zone and because the Project as adopted only involves residential development approximately two-thirds of the area originally proposed for development. Moreover, these reductions do result in mitigation of some significant environmental impacts--especially impacts on Doolan Canyon. , The prohibition of residential development within the Livermore Municipal Airport Protection Zone is adopted in order to comply with Public Utilities Code section 21676 and the decision of the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission pursuant to that action to prohibit residential development in 114 \eastdub\find (4) 66 the Zone. This prohibition is, thus, not adopted merely as a ---m ~tiga t~cn- me ~su re .-put s ua-nt--t-o-. · · C-E-Q~.- ~ ..... -- The city also finds that.no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures will provide the level of mitigation of significant environmental effects as are provided by the adoption of Alternative 2 rather than the project as originally proposed. Alternative 2 will leave Doolan Canyon in its current largely undeveloped state, thereby mitigating significant impacts involving loss of open space, and biologically sensitive habitat in a way that could not be accomplished by any mitigation measure or alternative were Doolan Canyon in fact developed as originally proposed. ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT. DEIR pages 4-1 to 4-8, 4-20 Findinq: Infeasible. This option assumes the Project as proposed would not be built on the site; instead any development would be pursuant to the existing general plan. Under that plan, a limited amount of business park/industrial development could occur on the 600 acre County property and on the 200 acre portion of the Project area south of the proposed Dublin Boulevard extension. The No Project Alternative is found to be infeasible because the City's General Plan has designated the Eastern Dublin area for planned development, subject to the preparation of a Specific Plan. In addition, the No Project Alternative fails to provide needed housing. The need for housing is documented in the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, and in other plan documents of the City and other jurisdictions in the area. ALTERNATIVE 3: REDUCED LA/~D USE INTENSITIES~.. DEIR pages 4-14 to 4-19 Findinq: Infeasible. This option assumes development of both the Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendment except that 285 acres of higher traffic generating commercial uses will be replaced with lower traffic generating residential uses. The Reduced Land Use Intensities alternative is found to be infeasible for the following reasons: (1) Airport Safety. This alternative will increase the number of housing units within the Livermore Municipal Airport Protection Zone. (p. 4-15). (2) Unavoidable imDacts. 'Even with the reduced intensities of this alternative, all the unavoidable impacts identified for the Project would remain except traffic impacts at 1-580, I- 680/Hacienda, at 1-580, Tassajara/Airway, at Airway 11~ \eastdub \find ( 4 ) 67 (3) Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard and cumulative traffic impacts on Dublin. Boulevard.--(-tmpa~.~s_3~.3~.B~C 'J~--and--~)~----D~I-R--Page--4 15. ' Fiscal imDacts. This alternative may have potentially significant fiscal impacts on the City budget's cost/revenue balance by reducing commercial development which generally APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND EVALUATION EAST DUBLIN PROPERTIES FALLON ROAD ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR SHEA HOMES February 7, 2001 Job No. 2275.000 BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Via Hand Delivery February 7, 2001 Job No. 2275.000 Ms Kathryn Watt Shea Homes 2580 Shea Center Drive Livermore, California 94550 Subject: Prime Agricultural Land Evaluation East Dublin Properties Fallon Road Alameda County, California Dear Ms Watt: BGC ' BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS INTRODUCTION This report presents the results o four evaluation of the possible presence of"Prime agricultural land" in the East Dublin Properties site. "Prime agricultural land" is defined in Government Code 56064 as presented below: "Prime agricultural land" means an area of land ~vhether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, that has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and that meets any of the fbllo~2ing qualifications.- Land that qualifies, if irrigated for rating as class I or class JI in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, ,.vhether or not land is actually irrigated provided that irrigation is feasible. (b) Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Jndex Rating. Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as de. fined by the United Sates Department of Agriculture in the National Handbook on Range and Related Grazing Lands, duly, 1967, developed pursuant to Public Law 46, December J935. Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a nonbearing period of less than five years and that will return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre. SOIL ENGINEERS · ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS ,, 5587 SUNOL BOULEVARD ,, PLEASANTON, CA 94566 · (925) 484-0220 · FAX: (925~ 846-9645 /ss February 7, 2001 Job No. 2275.000 Page 2 Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre for three of the previous five calendar years. ANALYSIS To evaluate the possible presence of"Prime agricultural land" within the East Dublin Properties, we have analyzed each of the five criteria contained in Government Code 56064. Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as class ! or class H in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible. Approximately 100 acres of the southern margin of the East Dublin Properties are shown to contain class I or class II soils according to the "Soil Survey, Alameda Area, California" USDA Soil Conservation Service, issued 1966. The second part of this criteria is that irrigation be feasible. Our judgement is that irrigation of this land is not feasible. With regard to existing agricultural water supply in the Livermore Valley, the South Bay Aqueduct is the only source of surface water for irrigation. The terminus of the South Bay Aqueduct is over seven miles from the East Dublin Properties. While it is unlikely that water from this source would be available for irrigation purposes on the East Dublin Properties, the distance from the terminus of the South Bay Aqueduct would make delivery of any available water volume economically unfeasible. With regard to possible subsurface water supplies, the East Dublin Properties are situated outside the main aquifers underlying the Livermore Valley that are currently used as part of the domestic water supply for Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. As such, it is our judgement that undertaking to drill and develop water wells on the East Dublin Properties that would produce an adequate, sustainable and economically viable water supply for irrigation would likely be unsuccessful. (b) Land that qualifies for rating 80 through I00 Storie Index Rating. The Storie Index Rating for soils on the East Dublin Properties are presented in the "Soil Survey, Alameda Area, California," USDA Soil Conservation Service issued 1966. The USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Map for this area is presented on Plate 2 of this report. The soil classifications and Storie Index Rating for all soils on the East Dublin Properties are tabulated below. The highest Storie Index Rating within the East Dublin Properties is Rincon clay loam (0 to 3 percent slopes) with a Storie Index Rating of 68. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS February 7, 2001 Job No. 2275.000 Pag.e 3 Map : :' storie Index Symbol Soil Rating Aac Altamont clay, 3 to 15 percent slopes 41 Cc Clear Lake clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes 43 DbC Diablo Clay, 7 to 15 percent slopes 44 DbD Diablo Clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes 36 DbE2 Diablo Clay, 30 to 45 percent slopes, eroded 19 DvC Diablo clay, very deep, 3 to 15 percent slopes 43 LaC Linne clay loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes 51 LaD Linne clay loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 40 LaE2 Linne clay loam, 30 to 45 percent slopes, eroded 18 Pd Pescadero clay 16 RdA Rincon clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 68 RdB Rincon clay loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes 65 Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United Sates Department of Agriculture in the National Handbook on Range and Related Grazing Lands, duly, 1967, developed jgursuant to Public Law 46, December 1935. We have contacted txvo of the largest cattle ranchers in the Alameda County, Gordon Rassmussen and Robert Nielsen. Both individuals expressed the opinion that the carrying capacity of the East Dublin Properties study area would be approximately one-tenth animal unit per acre. Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crojgs that have a nonbearing period of less than five years and that will return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre. The East Dublin Properties are not planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops. Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre for three of the previous five calendar years. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS February 7, 2001 Job No. 2275.000 Page 4 Unprocessed agricultural plant products have not, to the best of our knowledge, been produced on this property for three of the previous five calendar years. CONCLUSION We have evaluated the East Dublin Properties in regard to Section 56064 of the Government Code and find that the East Dublin Properties fail each of the five specific tests required for classification as "Prime agricultural land." Please call if you have any questions or require further detail. Respectfully submitted, BERLOGAR GE OTEC~'?~~LTANTS / CE 20383, Ext. 9/30~ \[~O 2038(,~ / ~] Attac~ent' ~ Plate 1 - Site PI~ Plate 2 - SCS Soil Map Copies: Addressee (10) wp9/letter 10129 BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS SCS SOIL MAP EAST DUBLIN PROPERTIES ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR SHEA HOMES BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PLATE 2 12,/06/01 TtCC 14:59 FAX 925 225 Hand Delivery October * .~, 2001 Job No. 2275.002 Ms Connie Goldade MacKay & Somps 5142 Franklin Drive, Suite B Pleasanton, California 94566 0698 Eng ~ ~d [~]001 BGC: BERLOGAR-i. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS S ubj ecl: East Dublin Properties Fallon Road Alameda County, California Dear Ms Goldade: The purpose of this letter is to respond to several issues rMsed in written comments on the draft EIR for the subject project. The issues we are responding to, in general, relate to qualification (a) as inCluded h~ our Prime Agricultural Land Evaluation report dated February 7,2001. That qualification is as follows: (a) Land that qualifies if irrigated,.fo;' rating as Class I or Class H in the USDA Natural Resoz¢rces Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not land is ~wtually irrigated., provided that irrigation is./kasible. Issue: Zone 7 North \;alley Pipeline for the proposed Altamonr Water Treaxment Plant. Fact: While the proposed pipeline is likely to be in close proximity to the area of Class I and Class i~ soil, the ;valet will be treated (potable) water. Conclusion: The use of potable water at retail prices would be unfeasible for agricultural uses. II, Issue: DSRSD Reclaimed Water. Fact: While final pricing for the reclaimed water has not been set, it is expected that the pricing will be comparable to the retail pricing of potable water. Conclusion: The use of reclaimed water from DSRSD is expected to be priced at retail levels and would therefore be infeasible for agricultural purposes. III. Issue: Zone 7 untreated water turnout close to the area of Class I and Class II soils. Fact: Zone 7 reports there are no turnouts for untreated water beyond the terminus of the South Bay Aqueduct in Southeast Livermore. SOIL ENGINEERS · ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS · 55g7 SUNOL BOUI.EVARD ', PLEASANTC)N, CA 94566 · (925) ~84-022D · FAX: ~925) 846-9645 12/06/01 THU 15:00 FAX 925 225 0698 : MacKay & Somp Pies Eng ~002 October 3,200 t Job No. 2275.002 Page 2 IV. Conclusion: There is no turnout for untreated water in close proximity. Therefore, the site is over 7 miles from the terminus of the South Bay Aqueduct in soutlteast Livermore. Use of this water source would not be feasible for agricultural purposes. Issue: Vertical Water Wells. Fact: The approximately 80-acres of Class ~ and Class II soils are within the Camp subbasin as det~ed by Zone 7. Departmcnt of Water Resources Bulletin No. I 18-2, dated June 1974, on page 66, discusses potential yield of we[is fi'om the Camp subbasin. They conclude as tbltows: There are no datr~ available considering ~round water production in the Camp x~.tbbasin. It is estimated that domestic or stock su~lies o~ ground~4,ater mqv be oblainedfi'om sha/lo~,, u~atLx near(~: evet3.,where in the subbasin. Possible, areas where supplies wouM be limited are adjacent m the hill.&ont aiong the north edge pf the subbasin. South t}f Highw~ 580 it is estimated that there ix a s~fficient thick~ess of sediment to yieJd irrigation supply to ground water.porn the valley .fill materia&. Because of the tow permeabiliO, qf the underlying Tassc~ara sediment& it is doub(~d that the yieJds fi'om ])enetrating a deeper sediment would be increased sign[fictmtly. Misceitaneous field studies map MF-43 I. prepared by D.A. Webster, Department of Interior, U.S. GeoLogic Survey includes a map showing ranges in probable maximum well yield for Water Bearing Rocks in the San Francisco Bay Region, CaLifornia. This map delineates the subject site as Map Symbol B. The ranges in probable maximum yield of wells t?om this document is presented below: 68% chance that 95% chance that Map Adequacy of Yield maximum yields will maximum yields will Symbol (at.6.8% .... level of chance) range from (gpm) range from (gpm) A Marginal to adequate for stock or single 0.5 to 5 0.1 to 10 family domestic use B Adequate for stock or single family 5 to 50 1 to I00 domestic use, but inadequare to marginal for light industrial use C Adequate for light industry, but 50 to 500 10 to 1,000 inadequate to marginal for irrigation, heavy industry, and municipal uses. D Marginal to adequate for irrigation, 500 to 1,500 100 to 3,000 heavy industry, and municipal uses. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 1~/06/01 THU 15:00 FAX 925 225 0698 MacKaY & Somp Pies Eng October 3, 2001 Job No. 2275.002 Page 3 Conclusion: The expected range of yield from wells drilled in this area is 5 to 50 gallons per minute or less. The area of Class I and Class H soils are adjacent to the hill front area along the north ridge of the subdrain where the Department of Water Resources anticipated more iimited supplies of ground water. Such limited yields will not be adequate for agricultural irrigation. V. Issue: Slant drilled ;valet wells. Fact: Slant drilled xq~ctls have limitations on the maxinaum deviation from vertical ranging between 20 and 30 degrees depending on the particular drilling equipmem utilized. Slant well drilling that extends underneath 580 into the property south of Interstate 580 would cross Caltrans right-of-way and extend southward into private property owned by others. Conclusion: Inasmuch as the southern boundary of the Camp subbasin is approximately 500 feet south oflnterstate 580. the limitations on the drilling equipment of 20 to 30 degrees from vertical would result in wells that would stiil be located within the Camp subbasin. We conclude that such wells are unlikely to have significm~tly greater yields titan the Vertical Water Wells discussed in paragraph III above. It is highly likely that slant drilled water wells extending underneath Cattrans righ~-of-way and into private property to the south would face legal obstacles that would preclude such m~ undertaking for agricultural purposes. SUMMARY After evaluating the issues raised in the comments to the draft EIR, we arc still o'fthe opinion that irrigation of the area of Class I and Class Il: soils is not fcasiblc. Respectfully, '-T~ BERLOGAR GEO S Copies: Addressee (3) wp/9/tetrer/11027 BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS RONALD AMUNDSON, PHD S CAMINO DEL CIELO ORINDA, CA 94563 Mr. Jerry Haag Urban Planner 2029 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704 December 17, 2001 Subject: Prime agricultural land evaluation at East Dublin Properties, Fallon Rd Dear Mr Haag: This report summarizes my evaluation of the extent of prime agricultural land within the East Dublin Properties area, Fallon Road, Alameda County. Site Visit On Friday December 15, 2001, I meet with Jerry Haag and Andy Byde (senior planner, city of Dublin) at the-city of Dulbin planning office. I was provided with a scope of the project, and: (1) Definition of prime agricultural land (Govt. Code 56064), (2) report by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants "Prime Agricultural Land Evaluation, East Dublin Properties, Fallon Road, Alameda Country, California" (2/7/01), (3) report by Beflogar Consultants to Ms. Connie Goldade (MacKay and Somps) (10/3/01), and (4) Vol. 1 and 2 of "East Dublin Properties. Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation", July 2001, City of Dublin. A site visit was made to the property, and the area was viewed from Croak and Fallon Roads. Review of "Prime Agricultural Land" Criteria Below I list the definition of prime agricultural land that was provided to me and in the following section, provide a summary report of the agricultural suitability of the area. From Government Code 56064: "Prime agricultural land" means an area of land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, that has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and that meets any of the following qualifications: (a) Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as class I or class II in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible. (b) Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating. (c) Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acres as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture in the National Handbook on Range and Related Grazing. Lands, July, 1967, developed pursuant to Public Law 46, December 1935. (d) Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a nonbearing period of less than five years and that will return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than four hundred dollars ($400)per acre. (e) Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than four hundred dollars ($400)per acre for three of the previous five calendar years. Summary of Agricultural Suitability of Area Here I review each of the five criteria of "Prime agricultural land" in relation to land within the East Dublin Properties Area. (a) Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as class I or class H in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible. Table 1 list the soil types (soil series and phases of soil series) in the Area as derived from (a) "Soil Survey. Alameda Area, California", UDSA Soil Conservation Service (1966) and (b) Plate 2, Beflogar Consultants Report (2/7/01), which delineates the property area on the soil map. I note that I located one more soil mapping unit in the area than the Beflogar report (2/7/01): Clear Lake clay, drained, 0-3% slopes (CdA). However, as I report below, this addition has no bearing on the results of this report relative to those of the 2/7/01 report. There is only one map unit (Rincon clay loam) that has an irrigated Land Capability Unit of I or II (Ils-3), which is located at the southern end of. the property, just north of Interstate 580. The total area of this map unit is approximately 70 acres. The feasibility of providing irrigation water for this one map unit was discussed in a report by Beflogar Geotechnical Consultants (10/3/01 letter to,Ms. Connie Goldade, MacKay and Somps). That report concluded that the cost of reclaimed or potable water was prohibitive to agriculture. The report also concluded that the cost of transporting water from the nearest agricultural aqueduct was also prohibitive. The report also reviewed a USGS field studies map (Water Bearing Rocks in the San Francisco Bay Region, California. MF431. D.A. Webster) that reported that the maximum ground water yeild from wells had a 95% chance of falling between 1 to 100 gallons per minute, which fell below the reported limit for marginal to adequate agriculture (100 to 3,000 gallons per minute). In summary, there is one map unit in the area that would qualify as prime farmland pending the feasibility of applying irrigation water. However, assessing the economic feasibility of providing water to this tract is beyond the scope of my expertise. Table 1. Listing of soils in project area, and properties relevant to designation as "Prime Farmland". Soil Series Map Unit IDa Land Storie Rating Range (phase) ~ Capability Indexn Capabilitys Classification3 (animal unit months, nnirrigate)~ [animial unit months, irrigated and fertilized]~ Altamont (clay, AaC IIIe-5 4I Very Good 3-15% slopes) (>1) [>20] Clear Lake Cc IlIw-5 43 Very Good (clay, 0-3 % (>1) [>20] slopes) Clear Lake CdA IIIs-5 49 Very Good (clay, drained, (> 1) [>20] 0-3 % slopes) Diablo (clay, 7- DbC lIIe-5 44 Very Good 15 % slopes) (>1) [>20] Diablo (clay, DbD IVe-5 36 Very Good 15-30 % (>1) [>20] slopes) Diablo (clay, DbE2 Vie-5 19 Very Good 30-45 % slopes, (> 1) [>20] eroded) Diablo (clay, DvC IIIe-5 43 Very Good very deep, 3 to (>1) [>20] 15 % slopes) Linne (clay LaC IIIe-5 51 Very Good loam, 3-15 % (>1) [>20] slopes) Linne (clay LaD IVe-5 40 Very Good loam, 15-30 % (>1) [>20] slopes) I.inne (clay LaF~2 Vie-5 18 Very Good loam, 15-30 % (>1) [>20] slopes, eroded) Pescadero Pd VIw-2 16 Very Poor (clay) (not appropriate for grazing dry or irrigated) Rincon (clay RdA IIs-3 68 Very Good loam, 0-3 % (>1) [>20] slopes) Rincon (clay RdB IIIe-3 65 Very Good loam, 3-7% (> 1 ) [>20] slopes) Series name refers to most detailed designation of soil profile types in USDA system. Phase of series includes surface texture (e.g. clay), slope (e.g. 15-30 %), soil depth (e.g. deep), and erosional status (e.g. drained). : Map units derived from sheets 9 and 15 of "Alameda Area Soil Survey". 3 Land capability classification (unit) taken from Table 18 in "Alameda Area Soil Survey" 4 Storie Index Ratings taken from Table 8, "Alameda Area Soil Survey" 5 Grazing ratings taken from Table 9, "Alameda Area Soil Survey" 6Animal units months (# of months that one animal unit can graze one acre of land) taken from Table 10, "Alameda Area Soil Survey". 7 From Table 10, "Alameda Area Soil Survey". (b) Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating. All soils in the area had Storie Indexes of less than 80 (Table 1). (c) Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture in the National Handbook on Range and APPENDIX D: AIR QUALITY DATA Giroux & Associates Environmental Consultants July 14, 2001 Shea Homes Attn: Kerri Watt 2155 Los Positas Court, Suite T Livermore, CA 94550 Re: East Dublin SEIR Background Technical Materials Dear Ms. Watt: The following materials are attached that were used in preparing the air quality impact analysis for the above project: 1. California Air Quality Data - Voyager CD cover photocopy 2. BAAQMD CEQA Handbook - cover, update letter, TofC 3. Ozone Attainment Plan Revision Hearing Notice 4. Ozone Attainment Plan CEQA Initial Study - partial 5. Microscale CO Exposure Calculation Detail 6. URBEMiSTG Emissions Model Input/Output File Diskette Please call me if you have any questions regarding the enclosed materials. Sincerely, Senior Analyst Giroux & Associates HDG:ai 17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 210, lrvine, California 92614 - Phone (949) 851-8609 - Fax (949) 851-8612 /o0~ ooo ]00~ o00 ,/0o~ 00o /0~ ooo (g 14 a-- ._.__£..~) a- Z. I /oo; 0o0 /00~ O0 0 5; .q.'-/ lDO! ooo /0~ ~ oo0 ~' / oo ~ 0o0 C~,TK.' L /0o] 0o0 Ioo, oO 0 ( '4~6Z.:o.~' > :7.A~.'n ),', ~.~r J HO-'-. ~. H.q fool ooo ( -5~30,5¢ + '-)q-7~. z_ ~ ~ ]00 ~ o00 I Ho..~ .,- -r' ?'~.,s D,N c. /oo~ O0 0 I ~le= ..._.'. (,,.'Is'" I o0 ~ 0o0 Ioo ~ O0 0 $ i-J lO 000 .'r cl']Az, x~ '~ (,,.Is" ]00 ~ O0 0 -( Ho_--- Co.q5" ._( x 'i.s' .- f'00.~ O0 0 ------- ~ r,rr er~ g cr, o,v rt ( ~ ) x~'~) ~' (,,.'Is" I oo,, o~ . ) × I0O ~ 00~0 00 I ~i¢: _._.. "' q"/ /Ooy ooo / o0 ~ 0o0 ]00, O0 0 (.4)* %.~ __..-. Lo?) ~' Z. ~ I0o~ 0oo ( '2.0%%0.5 ~ I'"/f~s, ~ '~oTe,uecr,~ ~ ~ x~'~) '¥ (,,.?s" loO~ 0o0 [00 ~ O0 0 $1-1¢; ._.__(.'7)* Z ~ /00 ~ oo 0 IO~; _ ( 3q$'Z.z~,..<' ~ 1¢~5':'?.fi ) ~- (,,.-~.,--- 1o0; 0o0 Ioo ~ 06) 0 &/~$~r ~',--, ~ ~n/~ ,xse/-~,,w-Jl' If. I¥ !? ]oo, O0 0 _._. (,0' \."/ Io0~ ooo Ioo ~ O0 0 ~ x 3 .o? __--- Co?') * I.~ 3.0'7 }ooI 000 toss. o? ) /Ot~ ~ oO 0 X ~3.3~) /00~ v 3 .o-1 ) x 3 .O'7 / o0~ 0o0 /oO ~ O0 0 $ I HO_--- ) ~ 3 .o? ~^ ~'.o7 Z OZ~' + ~_~o,~ ) /OO ~ o00 /0% 0o0 /oo, oo 0 2 oz~ 000 I °0 ;~ Io o, oo 0 ~~ I Ho-; ----- ' /oo/ ]00 ~ oo0 · ~' 3.0'7 X Z,.oq /0~ O0 0 / o0 ~ 0o0 /oo ~ O0 0 J HCZ~- I Hrt..-- ~ $ t4e~ __---. (.?)+ ~."/ , (5o'-./Lv.¥ ff./'., 3.0--7 '55'5 ~oo~ O0 0 ,Jo /00~ O0 0 ( (.,,((¥-o -,- .~l~ ) ,,- -~.~-"7 J /o% 0oo (.4),, _.15 -- /00, oo 0 I qr.= ____ (,?)+ /o0~ O0 0 /c~I /oo, 000 3.07 .07 /00, oo 0 /o0~ OOO /oo; O0 0 ( ,q~'-z.- .4-. t./,.t,.f¢./ ) ,,, ~.o7 I Ho..--- z o z,~-"~/,~ff. L ?..~'q~ .f" .,- IHt2,. "/ ~3.~') v 3.0'-) ( 2-'3¥7,/.£ ~ z.~cg.~' > "~ .OD /o0,~ 0o0 (. '2-'t totc,..g' . ~z~. q /oo,, O0 0 I H°"; [0 ( ~i -/05 + ~-'~.~- ) ~ ~'°~ ]00 ~ o00 3.0'-7 00o ~'0~ .¢. 'Z. ) x /o0~ 0o0 Ioo ~ O0 0 ( ~o,z. oo.d' , 2.-c,,IO. :~ ) ~ ~'°? ?oo! ooo ]00 ~ aoo /o0~ O0 0 (.. .4- ') /oo; O0 0 ~ ~.~ ) ~ 3.o7, 1.7 /6101 0o0 ]00 ~ oo 0 L tlc,'.~/ ,, ~.( + Ic,¢,s /00 ~ / o0,~ 0o0 $¢9o, q ) ~ 000 I ~4¢s ~l-t,'z.~- ._.--. (.?) · I.'? ]00~ 0o0 /00, oo0 I H~-= ,- ~'. ~" ( ~.{_?~ "~.~' ~ 75~ I0O~ 3.o-? ) x 3.07 q.¥ x3.~) * 3.on (. / o0~ 0o0 /0o~ 000 I } oo ~ ooo 3 . 0'-I /00, oo0 /om~ OD 0 ~3.~ ~' 3.0? /Ooj / o0~ 0o0 /0o ~ O0 0 ( 'Z..'7.5-9'o. 5", zo(c,,.~ ) ,,, ,g'Ho..=- _.-- (..?). I.-7 2-. ~ /o01 ,< ] oo ~ o0o /oo ~ O0 0 ), ~ . :3 ') x 3.o?, Z oz~ ( + Gol.l..z. ) x s.o'~ ]00, oo0 ( q ~-7~ z'om~ 00 0 ] oo ~ ooo '3 .o'7 ~ /07o1.'~ ) ~ 3.0-7 /c:~I Oe~D /05"/. x3. "' 'Z .on /o0~ /oO ~ O0 0 'T' ,--:6/l_(,~'¢TIOA) I~( Ioo~ o'oo -4- /oo~ ooo ( q/4Bo'z.- + {900 ( '2..Co'iro ,, v 3 .o-9 ~ '3 .on /0o~ O0 0 -....-- (.o?~ ~ 1.7 ]00 ~ o00 .0'7 I fl ~; v '3.5" q ( ¢ot,z. ,, '5.; ,,- I(,,Ol ,, 3.3 ') /0~ 0oo ( q"TGIq .- S"2.~'g-3 ) 3 .o'-? .0'7 lo% Ioo, oO 0 OOO $14¢; ~)~ ~.o7 ] OO l ol3o /00, oo0 3.0-) L /oo~ O0 0 ~ Il'I; (.4) · \C1 Ioo~ Z. oz~ 4- /00, oo 0 /o0~ OD 0 5-.I Z.~ I o0 ~ 0o0 IoO, O0 0 ~ .o7 /00I ( q~,./,/I + ]00 ~ 0o0 /o0~ O0 0 3.0'7 3.0-) (. 2.-q~o I / o0~ 0o0 I0O, O0 0 ( 10o7, ,~ _--- (: o 0-,- / oo~ /0o/ DO0 /o0~ 0o0 -~' Iq7..95-.(~) x /oo, O0 0 I $ I-/ __--- (.,,?) + I.'t /00 ~ 0oo ( 9"'~~ + o,('?.l ) ~ L 3.0-') ) APPENDIX E: SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM TO KIT FOX PROTECTION PLAN APPENDIX E SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX PROTECTION PLAN (ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX E OF THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR) This document is an addendum to the East Dublin' San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan, Appendix E from the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan DEIR (1992). This document updates the information contained in that document and updates recommendations for the survey and protection measures based on the latest protocols released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1997 and 1999). Appendix E's mitigation measures are based on the assumption that the East Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan Areas support potential kit fox habitat and the impacts resulting from build out are potentially significant. The mitigation measures are divided into seven sections as follows: 1.0 Monitoring Surveys, 2.0 Land Use and Management Practices, 3.0 Pre-Construction Conditions, 4.0 Protection Measures, 5.0 Potential Dens, 6.0 Known/Natal Dens, 7.0 Interagency Coordination and 8.0 Construction Conditions. Since that document was written and adopted, a number of surveys for kit fox have been conducted in the East Dublin area (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997a) and the adjacent North Livermore Valley (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997b). None of these surveys detected kit fox with the exception of one kit fox detected while spotlighting approximately 2 miles north of the North Livermore site in Contra Costa County on Morgan Territory Road (1996). In addition, no kit fox have been incidentally detected in this area in the past nine years. The survey protocols have recently been updated (USFWS 1999) and the preconstruction survey protocol and construction measures have been updated as well (USFWS 1997) since Appendix E was written. The 1,212-acre Dublin Ranch, located just west of the subject area, was surveyed for kit fox in 1991 (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997a). The negative results were included in the earlier GPA/SP EIR (1992). Since that time, Dublin Ranch was subject to intensive kit fox surveys in 1996 and 1997 (H.T. Harvey and Associates 1997a). The Dublin Ranch and areas within 2.5 miles of the site were subject to 32 nights of spotlighting and, the property itself, to 560 track station nights and 280 camera station nights. These survey efforts yielded negative results (that is, no kit fox or kit fox sign was detected). Furthermore, the North Livermore project areas totaling 4,310-acres located just east of the GPA/SP area were also intensively surveyed for kit fox. The total level of survey effort resulted in 56 nights of spotlighting, 946 track station nights, and 991 camera station nights between 1992 and 1996 (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997b). One kit fox was detected during spotlighting on Morgan Territory Road in Contra Costa County a couple miles north of the project area. No other kit fox or sign of kit fox were detected within any project area boundary or the surrounding areas. The San Joaquin kit fox, at least during the late 80's and early 90's, were detected in areas near Frick Lake (approximately 7.5 miles to the east of the study area), in Round Valley (approximately 11 miles to the northeast), and in areas near Los Vaqueros Reservoir and the intersection of Camino Diablo and the new Vasco Road realignment (approximately 12 miles to the northeast) during surveys conducted to detect kit fox. Despite more intense efforts to detect kit fox in the East Dublin and North Livermore Appendix E: Supplemental Addendum to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan Page 1 Valley areas than these previous surveys, none' have been detected. Based on negative results within the GPA/SP Area and the surrounding areas, kit fox appear to be largely absent from both the North Livermore Valley and East Dublin area (see analysis presented in H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997c). The section "1.0 Monitoring Surveys" recommends annual monitoring surveys for approved projects following the 1989 protocol developed by the CDFG. The latest Survey Protocol for the San Joaquin Kit Fox for the Northern Range (USFWS 1999) should replace this recommendation and should only be conducted if no other kit fox survey has preceded project approval. Yearly monitoring should only be completed if recommended on a project by project basis by a regulating agency. Sections 3.0 through 6.0 and 8.0 should be replaced by the Standard Recommendation for the Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 1997) that contains updated measures to protect the kit fox. Section 7.0 Interagency Coordination is adequate. The following sections are provided to help ensure that no inadvertent harm to the San Joaquin kit fox will occur during project implementation. The following section contains updated versions of sections 1.0, 3.0 through 6.0 and 8.0: APPE / 1.0 Monitoring Surveys APPE/1.1 (updated) Survey protocol will follow most recent guidelines, San Joaquin kit fox Survey Protocol for the Northern Range, developed by the USFWS (June 1999). This survey protocol recommends that an Early Evaluation be completed by a qualified biologist prior to focused surveys. The need for further focused surveys and/or yearly monitoring should be determined during informal consultation with the Service after an early evaluation has been completed on project by project basis. An early evaluation includes the following: · Brief description of the proposed project and map · Compilation of sighting records within a ten-mile radius of the boundaries of the project site · Description of vegetative communities on site · Description of vegetative communities within a ten-mile radius of the project site · Description of habitat suitability on the project site assessed by completing one set of walking transects · Analysis of adverse effects of the project on kit foxes (if any) · Preliminary recommendations for mitigation of adverse effects and an analysis of cumulative effects. APPE/2.0 Land Use and Management Practices (see original Appendix E) APPE/3.0 Preconstruction Conditions APPE/3.1 A pre-construction survey shall be conducted not more than 30 days and not less than 14 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities or any project activity likely to impact the San Joaquin kit fox. Surveys should identify kit fox habitat features in the project area and areas within a 200-foot buffer of the project site by conducting walking surveys. The status of all dens should be with the one exception of the kit fox detected on Morgan Territory Road in 1996 Appendix E: Supplemental Addendum to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan Page 2 determined and mapped (USFWS 1997). The status of dens should be determined by monitoring them for a minimum of three nights with tracking medium and/or camera stations. The survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist. Survey results will be submitted to the City Planning Department. If the survey results are negative~ project- related ground disturbance can proceed. APPE/4.0 Protection Measures APPE/4.1 If occupied kit fox dens are detected during the preconstruction surveys, implementation of protection measures or den destruction should be conducted in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the Service. Guidelines for protection measures and den destruction are provided in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (April 1997). APPE/5.0 Potential Dens APPE/5.1 Potential dens should be monitored a minimum of three nights in order to determine if a potential den is occupied (see APPE/1.0). Destruction of potential dens should be avoided to the greatest extent possible as these dens are used for refugia among other things by kit fox. If these potential dens are to be destroyed, they should only be destroyed if they are verified vacant by a qualified biologist. Recommendations for length of time after verification of non-use of a potential den that the den can safely be destroyed should be made by the biologist who conducted the preconstruction survey. This time period shall not exceed 30 days. APPE/6.0 Known/Natal Dens APPE/6.1 Known dens should have an exclusion zone of at least 100 feet. If a natal or pupping den is detected, the USFWS should be contacted to determine the size of the exclusion zone. To ensure protection, the exclusion zone should be demarcated by fencing that encircles each den occupied by kit foxes. Exclusion zone fencing that allows kit fox to move through should be maintained until all construction-related or operational disturbances have been terminated. At that time, all fencing shall be removed to avoid attracting subsequent attention to the dens (USFWS 1997). Construction-related and other project related activities should be prohibited or greatly restricted within these exclusion zones. Only essential vehicle operation on existing roads and foot traffic should be permitted. Otherwise all construction vehicle operation, material storage, or any other type of surface-disturbing activity should be prohibited within the exclusion zone. Destruction of any known or natal/pupping dens requires take authorization/permit from the Service (USFWS 1997). APPE/7.0 Interagency Coordination (see original Appendix E: Generally, if kit fox are detected within the project boundaries, formal consultation with the USFWS for a Section 7 or Section 10 is recommended.) APPE / 8.0 Construction and Operational Requirements Appendix E: Supplemental Addendum to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan Page 3 These recommendations should be implemented during project-related construction in order to prevent kit fox or other animals from being injured or trapped during the construction phase of the project unless expressly exempted from doing so by the Service. The following recommendations with some minor modifications are taken from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (April 1997). APPE/8.1 To minimize temporary disturbance, all project-related vehicle traffic should be restricted to established roads, construction areas, and other designated areas. These areas should also be included in prec0nstruction surveys and, to the extent possible, should be established in locations disturbed by previous activities to prevent further impacts. APPE/8.2 Project-related vehicles should observe a 20-mph speed limit in all project areas, except on county roads and State and Federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. To the extent possible, nighttime construction should be prohibited during the rainy season, then minimized once the rainy season has ended (see below). Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas shall be prohibited. APPE/8.3 To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of the project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2,feet deep should be covered at the cloSe of each working day by plywood or similar materials, or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox discovered, construction in that area will be halted, and a qualified biologist will be notified immediately. The qualified biologist in conjunction with a local CDFG biologist and the Service will determine how to proceed. The Sacramento Field Office and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) will be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injured animal and any other pertinent information. APPE/8.4 All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4- inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periOds should be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe should not be moved until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) (916-414-9600) has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped. APPE/8.5 All food related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles; food scraps should be disposed of in a closed container and removed at least once a week from a construction or project site. APPE/8.6 No firearms shall be allowed on the project site. APPE/8.7 To prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes or destruction of dens by dogs or cats, no pets shall be permitted on project sites. APPE/8.8 Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary and secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds Appendix E: Supplemental Addendum to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan Page 4 should observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the Service. APPE/8.9 A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent, who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped individual. The representative will be identified during the employee education program. The representative's name and telephone number shall be provided to the Service. APPE/8.10 An employee education program should be conducted for any project that has expected impacts to kit fox or other endangered species. The program should consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and military and agency personnel involved in the project. The program should include the following: description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; address the occurrence of the kit fox in the project area; status of the species and its protection under the Endangered Species Act; and measures being taken to reduce impacts to the during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying this information should be prepared for distribution to above-mentioned people and anyone else who may enter the project site. APPE/8.11 Upon completion of the project, all areas subject to temporary ground disturbances, including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, and pipeline corridors should be recontoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of the area to pre-project conditions. An area subject to "temporary" disturbance means any area that is disturbed during the project, but that after project completion will not be subject to further disturbance and has the potential to be revegetated. Appropriate methods and plant species used to revegetate such areas should be determined on a site- specific basis in consultation with the Service, CDFG, and revegetation experts. APPE/8.12 In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the Service should be contacted for advice. APPE/8.13 Any contractor, employee(s) or military or agency personnel who inadvertently kills or injures a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their representative. This representative shall contact the CDFG immediately in the case of a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The CDFG contact for immediate assistance is State Dispatch at (916) 445-0045. They will contact the local warden or biologist. APPE/8.14 The Sacramento Field Office and CDFG will be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or activities. Notification must include the date, time, location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information. LITERATURE CITED H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997a. Dublin Ranch San Joaquin kit fox Survey. Project No. 555-13. October 9, 1997. Appendix E: Supplemental Addendum to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan Page 5 H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997b. North Livermore Valley San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys. Project No. 1037.01 (77 p.). H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997c. Distribution of the San Joaquin Kit Fox in the North Part of Its Range. Project No. 673.11. March 13, 1997. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Standard Recom'mendation for the Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. April 7, 1997. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Survey Protocol for the San Joaquin Kit Fox for the Northern Range. June 1999. Appendix E: Supplemental Addendum to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan Page 6 APPENDIX F: NOISE CALCULATIONS PAGE 02 I:;'. 1 2.000 7- ] B-2~01 8: OBPM FROM CHEUNG ENV T RONMENT 5 ] 855983 ] 2 07/09/2081 16:86 17077~67790 ILLINGWO~TN RODKIN EDUBLIN ADT FALLON RD FROM: 1-580 EXISTING 1,000 FUTURE 97,500 TO: Dublin Blvd FROM: Dublin Blvd EXISTING 1,000 FUTURE 537,700 TO: Central Parkway FROM: Central Parkway EXXSTING 1,000 FUTURE 29,90O TO: Loop Rd 2 DUBLIN BLVD FROM: Fallon Rd EXISTING 1,000 FUTUR~ 53,600 TO: Croak FROM: Croak EXISTING 1,000 FUTURE 16,600 TO: east 3 CENTRAL PA~J(WAY FROM: Fallon Rd EXISTING 1,000 FUTURE 9,800 TO: Croak FROM: croak EXISTING 1,000 FUTURE 3,800 TO: east SPEED TRUCK% AU FJT HT MT HT 40 40 40 2.g 1.0 40 40 40 2.0 1.0 40 40 40 40 2 40 40 40 35 35 35 35 35 35 2.0 1.0 o.o o.o ,4¢i ~, Z%'~ 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.O 1.0 7~ 4 LOOP RD FROM: Fallon Rd EXISTING 1,o00 35 35 35 2.0 1.0 FUTURE Zl,700 TO: Road 1 FROM: Road 1 EXISTING 1,000 35 35 35 2.0 1.0 FUTURE 14,700 TO: Road 2 FROM: Road 2 EXISTING 1,000 35 35 35 2.0 1.0 FUTL~R~ 5,900 TO: Road 1 Ldn Ldn CONTOUR DI 50' 80 75 57 0 0 77 27 85 I 57 0 0 85 130 280 6 57 0 0 70 0 0 56 0 0 66 0 0 56 0 0 62 0 0 56 0 0 69 0 0 56 0 0 68 0 0 56 0 0 64 0 0 56 0 0 73 0 34 1 57 0 0 72 0 26 APPENDIX G: LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS East Dublin Properties Level of Service Calculations In the City of Dublin July 13, 2001 RECEIVED PUBLIC WORKS PLEASANTON · SANTA ROSA East Dublin Properties Level of Service Calculations in the City of Dublin July 13,2001 Prepared by: TJKM Transportation Consultants 4234 Hacienda Drive, Suite 101 Pleasanton, CA 94588-2721 Tel: 925.463.06~ 1 Fax: 925.463.3690 LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS Table 3.6-1 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Conditions Unmitigated Intersection Control A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour * LOS * LOS 1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Blvd Signal 0.68 B 0.8 t D 2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.44 A 0.27 A 3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.28 A 0.13 A 4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.18 A 0.26 A 5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.65 A 0.68 B 6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.38 A 0.48 A 7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Blvd Signal 0.23 A 0.24 A 9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.49 A 0.36 A 13 El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps One-Way STOP 5.2 B 4.6 A -14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps One-Way STOP 3.1 A 3.1 A Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections; Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at 1-way STOP-controlled intersections. ** = The signal at Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive is currently under construction, and is not operational at this time. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 1DOUGHERTY ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 67 1125 270 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 37---- 1.0 1.1 3.1 2.0 1.0--- 113 RIGHT THRU 239 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 134 THRU RIGHT 488 --- 1.5 2.0 2.1 1.1 2.0 --- 179 LEFT v lll v N Ii+ E 92 9 1 31 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY ROAD 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD SIG ~ARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 231 231 1650 0.1400 THRU (T) 951 951 3300 0.2882 LEFT (l) 922 922' 3000 O.30D 0.30D T + R 1182 3300 0.3582 SB RIGHT (R) 67 67 1650 0.0406 THRU (T) 1125 1125 4950 0.22D 1EFT (L) 270 270 3000 0.0900 T + R 1192 4950 0.2408 0.2408 EB RIGHT (R) 488 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 239 239 3300 0.0724 0.0724 LEFT (L) 37 37 1650 0.0224 WB RIGHT (R) 113 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 134 134 3300 0.0406 LEFT (L) 179 179 3000 0.0597 0.0597 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO= 0.68 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B ........................................ INT=MASTER.INToVOL=2EXIST.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 1DOUGHERTY ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD A LEFT 75---I 1.0 THRU 518 ---> 2.0 RIGHT 88~ --- 1.5 ¥ ~+E S RIGHT THRU LEFT 8'PHASE SIGNAL 66 877 378 STREET NAME: (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 290 THRU DUBLIN BOULEVARD 2.0 2.1 1.1 2.0 --- 245 LEFT 76 8 6 53 Urb=Y, Rur=Y LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 153 153 1650 0.0927 THRU (T) 876 876 3300 0.2655 LEFT (L) 767 767 3000 0.2557 0.2557 T + R 1029 3300 0.3118 SB RIGHT (R) 66 66 1650 0.0400 THRU (T) 877 877 4950 0.1772 LEFT (L) 378 378 3000 0.1260 T + R 943 4950 0.1905 0.1905 THRU (T) 518 518 3300 0.1570 LEFT (L) 75 75 1650 0.0455 ..... ......... ..... ..... .................. THRU (T) 290 290 3300 0.0879 LEFT (l) 245 245 3000 0.0817 0.0817 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.81 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Soft,are by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 EB RAMPS C]TY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 3-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 43 794 0 <--" v ---> I sprit! N LEFT 144---I 2.0 1.9 :5.0 0.0 0,0 --- u RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 '--> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<'*' 0 THRU I 580 EB RAMPS RIGHT 1169 -~- 2.8 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT N SIG IaARRAHIS: ia + E 3 9 34 Urb=¥, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLLME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (RI 134 134 1720 0.0779 THRU (TI 349 349, 5160 0.0676 SB RIGHT (RI 43 43 1720 0.0250 THRU (TI 794 794 5160 0.1539 0.1539 EB RIGHT (RI 1169 895 * 3127 0.2862 0.2862 LEFT (L) 144 144 3127 0.0461 ................................................ L ....................... TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.44 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A ·AOJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON REO IHT=MASTER.INToVOL=2EXIST.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Soft,are by TJKM Transportation Consuttants .Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD ^ LEFT 68---I 2.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 289 --- 2.8 I ¥ S RIGHT THRU LEFT 182 336 0 <--- v ---> I Sptit?N 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 ---'0 RIGHT (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT ~'-- ^ ''-> I LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE 3-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 EB RAMPS SIG iaARRANTS: Urb=Y~ Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (RI 973 973 1720 0.5657 THRU (TI 1290 1290 5160 0.2500 0.2500 SB RIGHT (RI 182 182 1720 0.1058 THRU (TI 336 336 5160 0.0651 ..... .......... F; ..... ..... ;:';;;; .................. LEFT (L) 68 68 3127 0.0217 0.0217 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.27 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 NB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD ^ LEFT 0---I 0.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 I V N RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL 76 133 0 <--- v ---> [ Split? N 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0:-- 165 RIGHT STREET NAME: (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU I 580 WB RAMPS 0.0 3.0 1.9 2.0 --- 704 LEFT I & v SIG WARRANTS: 2 4 79 Urb=N, Rur=Y LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA ORIVE ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 279 279 1650 0.1691 THRU (T) 214 214 4950 0.0432 0.0432 SB RIGHT (R) 76 76 1650 0.0461 THRU (T) 133 133 4950 0.0269 WB RIGHT (R) 165 165 3000 0.0550 LEFT (L) 704 704 3000 0.2347 0.2347 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.28 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 108 306 0 <--- v ---> ! Sprit? N LEFT 0---J 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 70 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 2.0 --- 212 LEFT v v N W+E 32156 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE STREET NAME: I 580 WB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb:N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 1056 1056 1650 0.6400 THRU (T) 302 302 4950 0.0610 SB RIGHT (R) 108 108 1650 0.0655 THRU (T) 306 306 4950 0.0618 0.0618 WB RIGHT (R) 70 70 3000 0.0233 LEFT (L) 212 212 3000 0.0707 0.0707 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.13 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT~VOL=2EXIST.PMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB t J I I t 1 t i i J J i I LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 4 HACIENDA DRIVE/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 48 144 0 <--- v ---> I split~N LEFT 0 ---J 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1,1 --- u RIGHT THRU 48 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<--- 85 THRU RIGBT 114 --- 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 131 LEFT N SIC WARRANTS: W + E 40 4 52 Urb=N, Rur=N S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUHE VOLUHE* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 52 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 44 44 3300 0.0133 LEFT (L) 406 406 4304 0.0945 0.0945 SB RIGHT (R) 48 48 1650 0.0291 0.0291 THRU (T) 144 144 4950 0.0291 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 114 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 48 48 4950 0.0097 0.0097 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 ~B RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 85 85 4950 0.0172 LEFT (L) 131 131 3000 0.0437 0.0437 T + R 85 4950 0.0172 TOTAL VOLUME-TO~CAPACITY RATIO: 0.18 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 4 HACIENDA DRIVE/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CiTY OF DUBLIN Count Oate Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD ^ LEFT 0~--J 2.0 THRU 631 ---> 3.0 RIGHT 254 --- 2.0 I V N ~+E S RIGHT THRU LEFT 39 167 0 <--- V "-> J Split? N 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.1 --- 0 RIGHT (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<--- 72 THRU 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 83 LEFT ,,(... ,*- _..~. J LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME-' HACIENDA DRIVE 6-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD SIC WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 135 89 * 1650 0.0539 THRU (T) 103 103 3300 0.0312 LEFT (L) 291 291 4304 0.0676 0.0676 SB RIGHT (R) 39 39 1650 0.0236 THRU (T) 167 167 4950 0.0337 0.0337 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 254 142 * 3000 0.0473 THRU (T) 631 631 4950 0.1275 0.1275 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 wa RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 72 72 4950 0.0145 LEFT (L) 83 83 3000 0.0277 T + R 72 4950 0.0145 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.26 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/[ 580 EB RAMPS CiTY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 209 1176 151 STREET NAME: THRU 152 ---;,' 2.1 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1 580 EB RAMPS RIGHT 582 --~ 1.9 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 --- 199 LEFT v v N SIG NARRANTS: t4 + E 7 4 43 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 543 344 * 3000 0.1147 THRU (T) 744 744 3300 0.2255 SB RIGHT (R) 209 209 1650 0.1267 THRU (T) 1176 1176 3300 0.3564 0.3564 LEFT (L) 151 151 1650 0.0915 EB RIGHT (R) 582 582 1650 0.3527 THRU (T) 152 152 3300 0.0461 LEFT (L) 140 140 1650 0.0848 T + L 292 3300 0.0885 0.0885 WB RIGHT (R) 488 337 * 1650 0.2042 0.2042 LEFT (L) 199 199 1650 0.1206 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.65 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INTtVOL=2EXIST.AMV~CAP=C:..LO~CAP.TAB LOS Software by TJI(H Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 834 999 220 LEFT 99 .... I 1.1 1.9 2.0 1.0 1.5= - 37-5 RIGHT THRU 283 ---> 2.1 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 90 --- 1.9 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 --- 104 LEFT N ~4+E 9 1 10 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD 6-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: ] 580 EB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 1110 1006 * 3000 0.3353 0.3353 THRU (T) 978 978 3300 0.2964 SB RIGHT (R) 834 834 1650 0.5055 THRU (T) 999 999 3300 0.3027 LEFT (L) 220 220 1650 0.1333 0.1333 EB RIGHT (R) 90 90 1650 0.0545 THRU (T) 283 283 3300 0.0858 LEFT (L) 99 99 1650 0.0600 T + L 382 3300 0.1158 0.1158 WI) RIGHT (R) 37'5 153 * 1650 0.0927 0.0927 LEFT (L) 104 104 1650 0.0630 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.68 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Softuare by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 iNTERSECTION 6 TASSAJARA RGAD/I 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 185 516 0 <~-- v ---> J SpLit? N LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 1.0--- 259 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0--- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0--- 818 LEFT v v N W+E 3 73 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAO 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 WB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO VIC NB RIGHT (R) 97"5 973 1650 0.5897 THRU (T) 318 318 3300 0.0964 SB RIGHT (R) 185 185 1650 0.1121 THRU (T) 516 516 4950 0.104Z 0.1042 WB RIGHT (R) 259 259 1650 0.1570 LEFT (L) 818 818 3000 0.2727 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.38 iNTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Softuare by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 6 TASSAJARA ROAD/I 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Oate Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD ^ LEFT 0 --- 0.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 0 --' 0.0 I ¥ W+E S RIGHT THRU LEFT 109 1~1 0 <--- v ---> I SpLit? N 1.9 3.0 0.0 1.0 ~-- 220 RIGHT (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 ~-- 523 LEFT ('-' ^ ---> I LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 WB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 527 527 1650 0.3194 THRU (T) 559 559 3300 0.1694 SB RIGHT (R) 109 109 1650 0.0661 THRU (T) 1491 1491 4950 0.3012 0.3012 WB RIGHT (R) 220 220 1650 0.1333 LEFT (L) 523 523 3000 0.1743 0.1743 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.48 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INToVOL=2EXIST.PMV,CAP=C:.-LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software byTJKM Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 7 TASSAJARA ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CiTY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 3T 603 0 LEFT 15 .... I 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 75 --- 2.8 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT v v N W + E 12 3 9 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAO 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, gur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 359 359 3300 0.1088 LEFT (L) 122 122 3000 0.0407 0.0407 T + R 359 4650 0.0772 ............................................. r .......................... SB RIGHT (R) 37 29 * 1650 0.0176 THRU (T) 603 603 3300 0.1827 0.1827 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT eR) 75 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 3300 0.0000 LEFT (L) 15 15 3000 0.0050 0.0050 WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 3300 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACiTY RATIO: 0.23 iNTERSECTiON LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Softuare by TJKfl Transportation Consuttants Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 7 TASSAJARA ROAD/DUBLiN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 26 479 0 <--- v ---> I Sptit~ N LEFT 9/* ...... I 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 U RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 675 --- 2.8 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT N W+E 1 54 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: TASSAdARA ROAD 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 594 594 3300 0.1800 LEFT (L) 166 166 3000 0.0553 0.0553 T + R 594 4650 0.127-/' ...... .......... ..... ..... .................. THRU (T) 479 479 3300 0.1452 0.1452 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 3300 0.0000 LEFT (L) 94 94 3000 0.0313 WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) O. 0 3300 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACiTY RATIO: 0.24 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.PMV, CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB I LOS Software byTJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 9 TASSAJARA ROAD/GLEASON DR[VE' CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 54 591 0 I <--- v ---> I Sptit~ N LEFT 11 '-- 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 -'- RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) ' 1.0<"- 0 THRU GLEASON DRIVE RIGHT 36 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 --~ 0 LEFT N ' SIG UARRANTS: ~ + E 15 2 8 0 Urb=N, Rur=N S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAO ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 O.QO00 THRU (T) 218 218 1650 0.1321 LEFT (L) 153 153 1650 0.0927 0.0927 SB RIGHT (R) 54 54 1650 0.0327 THRU (T) 591 591 1650 0.3582 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 T + R 645 1650 0.3909 0.3909 EB RIGHT (R) 36 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 3300 0.0000 LEFT (l) 11 11 3000 0.0037 0.0037 ~B RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.49 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: ' A · ADdUSTEO FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB ^ LEFT 1.0 RIGHT THRU 1.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 155 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 --- 0 LEFT v N SIG ~JARRANTS: ~ + E 13 5 6 0 Urb:N, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N LOS Software by TJKM *Transportation Consultants ======================================================================== Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11~00 INTERSECTION 9 TASSAJARA ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CiTY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 36 381 0 I <--- v ---> 79---' 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD STREET NAME: GLEASON DRIVE ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 556 556 1650 0.3370 0.3370 LEFT (l) 139 139 1650 0.0842 SB RIGHT (R) 36 36 1650 0.0218 THRU (T) 3§1 3§1 1650 0.2309 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 T + R 417 1650 0.2527 EB RIGHT (R) 155 16 * 1650 0.0097 THRU (T) 0 0 3300 0.0000 LEFT (L) 79 79 3000 0.0263 0.0263 WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) O' 0 1650 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.36 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INTwVOL=2EXIST.PMV,CAP=C:-.LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 13 EL CHARRO ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CiTY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour 94 HCM Unsigna[ 0 15 10 · <--- ~ "'> I 18 ...... ' 1.1 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0' 0 13 ---> 1.1 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 236 --- 1.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 --- 0 I < ....... > I v ILl v N Id+ E I 2 46 $ ACCEL % ~ PEAK HOUR LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 ORIG ADJ ADd CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP OELAY LOS DELAY LOS NB L 0 0 5.0 17 1683 1683 0.0 A 0.0 A T 279 341 R 46 56 TR 325 397 0.0 A SB L 10 12 5.0 361 1153 1153 3.2 A T 15 18 LT 25 30 3,2 A EB L 18 22 6.5 363 652 647 0.7 A T 13 16 6.0 389 682 6~ R 236 288 0,0 A LT 31 38 5.8 B ========================================================================= INT TOTAL: 0.4 A MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 5.2) (B) INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EX[ST.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB N/$ CONTROL: NONE E/~/ CONTROL: STOP MAJ ST SAT FLOId: Th= 1900, Rt= 1650 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST LEFT THRU RIGHT NB 0.0 SB 0.0 ...... EB 0.0 0.0 O.O SIGNAL 14ARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 1] EL CHARRO ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Oate Time Peak Hour 94 HCM UnsignaL 0 42 7 <--- V -**> [ 10 ---~ 1.1 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 129 --- 1.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 --- 0 I Id+E 14 58 S ACCEL ~ ~ PEAK HOUR LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS DELAY LOS NB L 0 0 5.0 42 1637 1637 0.0 A 0.0 A T 114 125 R 158 174 TR 272 299 0.0 A SB L 7 8 5.0 272 1272 1272 3.0 A T 42 46 LT 49 54 3.0 A EB L 20 22 6.5 242 767 763 0.9 A T 10 11 6.0 321 740 735 R 129 142 0.0 A LT 30 33 5.0 A INT TOTAL: 0.6 A MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 4.6) (A) INT=MASTER.INToVOL=2EXIST.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB N/S CONTROL: NONE E/Id CONTROL: STOP MAJ ST SAT FLOId: Th= 1900, Et= 1650 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST LEFT THRU RIGHT NB 0.0 ...... SB 0.0 ...... EB 0.0 0.0 0.0 SIGNAL I4ARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N i t 1 I I / 1 i i I I I i I i t 1 LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 14 FALLON ROAD/I 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour 94 HCM Unsignat 7 10 0 0 ] 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.1 --- 6 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 7 0 --- 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.1 --- 43 ! < ....... > I W+E S ACCEL % ~ PEAK HOUR LANE ~ COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 ORIG ADd ADd CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS OELAY LOS NB L 134 166 5.0 19 1679 1679 2.4 A T 12 15 LT 146 179 2.4 A SBT 10 12 0.0 A R 7 9 TR 17 21 0.0 A WB L 43 53 6.5 177 836 7T~ 4.9 A T 7 9 6.0 181 876 ~0 R 6 7 5.5 13 1363 1363 LTR 56 69 4.9 A INT TOTAL: 2.8 A MINOR MOVEMENTS: (3.1) (A) INT=MASTER.INTtVOL=2ERIST.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB N/S CONTROL: NONE E/W CONTROL: STOP MAJ ST SAT FLOW: Th= 1900, Rt= 1650 CRITICAL GAP ADdUST LEFT THRU RIGHT NB 0.0 SB ~IB 0.0 0.0 0.0 SIGNAL WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00 INTERSECTION 14 FALLON ROAD/I 580 WB RAHPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour 94 HCM Unsignat 7 10 0 0--- 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.1--- 6 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 7 0 --- 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.1 --- 43 .v v W + E 13 2 0 S ACCEL ~ % PEAK HOUR LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT I APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS DELAY LOS NB L 134 16/, 5.0 19 1679 1679 I 2.4 A T 12 15 LT 146 179 2.4 A SBT 10 12 0.0 A R 7 9 0.0 A TR 17 21 ~B I 43 53 6.5 177 836 7~ 4.9 A T 7 9 6.0 181 876 790 R 6 7 5.5 13 1363 1363 LTR 56 69 4.9 A INT TOTAL: 2.8 A MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 3.1) (A) INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.PMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP-TAB N/S CONTROL: NONE E/W CONTROL: STOP MAJ ST SAT FLCR4: Th: 1900, Rt= 1650 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST LEFT THRU RIGHT NB 0.0 ...... SS ......... WB 0.0 0.0 0.0 SIGNAL WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur:N LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS EXISTING + APPROVED + PENDING CONDITIONS Table 3.6-2 dus Pendin Dublin Model)-No Project Peak Hour Intersection l~evels ol oervlce - LXl3tlll~ plU;~ ~-xpp,~,v~.u !' ........... t~ ~ ........... ~ ; * Unmitigated Mitigated Intersection Control A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Flour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour · LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS I Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.74 C 0.86 D (w/Soarlett Drive Bypass) 2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.93 E 0.86 D 0.74 C 0.73 C 3 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 1.20 F 0.74 C 0.86 D 0.56 A 4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.63 B 0.82 D 5 Santa Rita Roadfl-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.98 E 0.97 E 0.83 D 0.90 D 6 Tassajara Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.79 C 0.81 D 7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.61 B 0.84 D 8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway** Signal 0.42 A 0.50 A 9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.52 A 0.58 A 10 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard** Signal 0.55 A 0.65 B 11 Grafton Street/Central Parkway** Signal 0.22 A 0.23 A 12 Grafton Street/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.06 A 0.05 A 13 E1 Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps** Signal 0.17 A 0.31 A 14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps** Signal 0.23 A 0.38 A i 5 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard** Signal 0.42 A 0.48 A 16 Failon Road/Central Parkway** Signal 0.29 A 0.39 A 17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.09 A 0.09 A Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections; Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at l-way STOP-controlled intersections. ** = Traffic signals at these intersections are either under construction or are anticipated to be installed in thc future. Condition: am peak hour; Future Base (E+App+Pend) No Proj 06/26/01 INTERSECTION 1DOUGHERTY ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time '. Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 49 1568 227 LEFT 49 .... I 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 RIGHT THRU 858 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) ;~.0<--- 445 THRU RIGHT 569 --- 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.1 3.0 -~- 381 LEFT N W + E 69 8 7 1 04 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Spt~t? N STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY ROAD 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 1104 958 * 3000 0.3193 THRU (T) 807 807 4950 0.1630 LEFT (L) 693 693 4304 0.1610 0.1610 T + R 1~65 6300 0.2802 SB RIGHT (R) 49 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1568 1568 4950 0.3168 0.3168 LEFT (L) 227 227 3000 0.0~57 EB RIGHT (R) 569 86 * 3000 0.0287 THRU (T) 858 858 4950 0.1733 0.1733 LEFT (L) 49 49 1650 0.0297 WB RIGHT (R) 80 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 445 445 3300 0.1348 LEFT (L) 381 381 4304 0.0885 0.0885 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.74 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base (E+App+Pend) No Proj 06/26/01 INTERSECTION 1DOUGHERTY ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 66 1050 163 <--- v ---> I Sprit? N LEFT 103---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 --- 227 RIGHT THRU 834 ---> 3.0 (NO: OF LANES) 2.0<--- 952 THRU RIGHT 939 --- 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.1 3.0 --- 1075 LEFT W+ E 13 1 59 S STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY ROAD ======================================================================== ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRiTiCAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 359 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 1351 1351 4950 0.2729 LEFT (L) 999 999 4304 0.2321 0.2321 T + R 1351 6300 0.2144 SB RIGHT (R) 66 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1050 1050 4950 0.2121 0.2121 LEFT (L) 163 163 3000 0.0543 EB RIGHT (R) 939 243 * 3000 0.0810 THRU (T) 834 834 4950 0.1685 0.1685 LEFT (L) 103 103 1650 0.0624 ~B RIGHT (R) 227 137 * 1650 0.0830 THRU (T) 952 952 3300 0.2885 LEFT (L) 1075 1075 4304 0.2498 0.2498 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.86 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED - - INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB ! !! ! il ; LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Oate Time Peak Hour ...................................... ~L ................................ CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 300 1974 0 I <--- v ---> I Sprit? N LEFT 1777-" 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 '-- 0 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 1834 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT v v N W+ E 1 4 65 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 EB RAMPS S!G WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 365 365 1800 0.2028 THRU (T) 1524 1524 5400 0.2822 SB RIGHT (R) 300 300 1800 0.1667 THRU (T) 1974 1974 5400 0.3656 0.3656 EB RIGHT (R) 1834 1834 3273 0.5603 0.5603 LEFT (L) 1777 1777 3273 0.5429 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.93 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/! 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 1286 1618 0 <--- v ---> I Split~ N LEFT 1382 ...... I 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 U RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) O.O<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 218 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT N ~J + E 23 6 1 58 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: I 580 EB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 1458 1458 1800 0.8100 THRU (T) 2346 2346 5400 0.4344 0.4344 SB RIGHT (R) 1286 1286 1800 0.7144 THRU(T) 1618 1618 5400 0.2996 EB RIGHT (R) 218 218 3273 0.0666 LEFT (L) 1382 1382 3273 0.4222 0.4222 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.86 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O ........................................ INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580.~B RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 867 728 0 <--- v ---> ! Split? N LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 1151 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU I 580 NB RAMPS RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 1536 LEFT N SIG t4ARRANTS: W + E 27 9 69 Urb=Y, Rur=Y 5 LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (RI 569 569 1800 0.3161 THRU (TI 2729 2729 ~q~09 0.7581 SB RIGHT (RI 867 867 1800 0.4817 THRU (TI 728 728 5400 0.1348 ~B RIGHT (RI 1151 1151 327'3 0.3517 LEFT (L) 1536 1536 3273 0.4693 0.4693 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: F * ADJUSTED FOR RLGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1994 2225 0 <--- V ---> ! Split? N LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 500 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 538 LEFT v v N W+E 21 01 79 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA ORIVE 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 WB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (RI 1579 1579 1800 0.8772 THRU (TI 2150 2150 3)2c~-3&QB' 0.5972 sa RIGHT (R) 1994 1994 1800 1.1078 ** THRU (T) 2225 2225 5400 0.4120 WB RIGHT (RI 500 500 3273 0.1528 LEFT (L) 538 538 3273 0.1644 O~ 1644 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C I N T=MAST ER. I NT, VOL=BACKGRN D. PMV+TRANSCTR. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base (E+App+Pend) No Proj 07/03/01 INTERSECT[ON 4 HACIENDA DRIVE/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 388 608 110 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 152---I 2.0 1-0 3.0 2.0 1.0 --- 114 RIGHT THRU 594 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 844 THRU RIGHT 260 --- 2.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 511 LEFT N U+E 6 40 04 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAHE: HACIENDA DRIVE 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD SIG ~ARRANTS: Urb=Y~ Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT IR) 504 223 * 1650 0.1352 THRU IT) 430 430 3300 0.1303 LEFT IL) 673 673 4304 0.1564 0:1564 SB RIGHT IR) 388 304 * 1650 0.1842 0.1842 THRU IT) 608 608 4950 0.1228 LEFT IL) 110 110 3000 0.0367 EB RIGHT IR) 260 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU IT) 594 594 4950 0.1200 0.1200 LEFT IL) 152 152 3000 0.0507 ~B RIGHT IR) 114 54 * 1650 0.0327 THRU IT) 844 844 4950 0.1705 LEFT IL) 511 511 3000 0,1703 0.1703 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.63 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: , B · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON REO INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base (E+App+Pend) No Proj 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 4 HACIENDA DRIVE/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 268 750 179 <--- v ---> ! Split? N LEFT 361---I 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0--- 105 RIGHT THRU 1601 ---> ~.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 801 THRU RIGHT 678 --- 2.5 3.0 2.0 ' 1.0 2.0 --- 780 LEFT N tJ + E 38 5 1 ~ 04 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: OUBLIN BOULEVARD SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT IR) 604 175 * 1650 0.1061 THRU IT) 561 561 3300 0.1700 LEFT IL) 381 381 4304 0.0885 0.0885 SB RIGHT (R) 268 69 * 1650 0.0418 THRU IT) 750 750 4950 0.1515 0.1515 LEFT IL) 179 179 3000 0.0597 EB RIGHT (R) 678 412 * 3000 0.13D THRU IT) 1601 1601 4950 0.3234 0.3234 LEFT IL) 361 361 3000 0.1203 WB RIGHT IR) 105 7 * 1650 0.0042 THRU IT) 801 801 4950 0.1618 LEFT IL) 780 780 3000 0.2600 0.2600 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RAT[O: 0.82 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour;Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 5 SANTA R[TA ROAD/[ 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 495 1200 172 I <--- v ---> I Split? Y LEFT 1367 --- 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 524 RIGHT THRU 161 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 605 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 209 LEFT N W+ E 14 5 76 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD 4*PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 EB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 576 461 * 3000 0.1537 THRU (T) 1455 1455 4950 0.2939 T + R 1916 6300 0.3041 0.3041 SB RIGHT (R) 495 495 1650 0.3000 THRU (T) 1200 1200 3300 0.3636 LEFT (L) 172 172 1650 0.1042 0.1042 EB RIGHT (R) 605 605 1650 0.3667 THRU (T) 161 161 1650 0.0976 LEFT (L) 1367 1367 3000 0.4557 0.4557 WB RIGHT (R) 524 352 * 3000 0.1173 0.1173 LEFT (L) 209 209 3000 0.0697 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.98 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED [NT=NASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.ANV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour;Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour .................................................. 7 ..................... CCTA METHOD ^ LEFT 1232 ---I 2.0 THRU 303 ---> 1.0 RIGHT 183 --- 1.9 I ¥ S RIGHT THRU LEFT 1524 881 221 <--- ¥ ---> I Sprit? Y 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0:-- 391 RIGHT (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 114 LEFT <---^ ---> I LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 EB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 594 531 * 3000 0.1770 THRU (T) 1779 1779 4950 0.3594 T + R 2310 6300 0.3667 0.3667 SB RIGHT (R) 1524 1524 1650 0.9236 ** THRU (T) 881 881 3300 0.2670 LEFT (L) 221 221 1650 0.1339 0.1339 EB RIGHT (R) 183 183 1650 0.1109 THRU (T) 303 303 1650 0.1836 LEFT (L) 1232 1232 3000 0.4107 0.4107 W8 RIGHT (R) 391 170 * 3000 0.0567 0.0567 LEFT (l) 114 114 3000 0.0380 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.97 INTERSECT[ON LEVEL OF SERVICE: E · ADJUSTEO FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED ** APPROACHING OR EXCEEDING CAPACITY INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 6 TASSAJARA ROAD/] 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 1027 1247 0 LEFT 0 --- 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 - RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 894 LEFT v v N 14+E 1861 94 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD STREET NAME: i 580 WB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRiTiCAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT IR) 1094 1094 1800 0.6078 THRU IT) 1876 1876 3600 0.5211 0.5211 SB RIGHT IR) 1027 1027 1800 0.5706 THRU IT) 1247 1247 5400 0.2309 WB RIGHT IR) 738 738 3273 0.2255 LEFT IL) 894 894 3273 0.2731 0.2731 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.79 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON NED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 6 TASSAJARA ROAD/I 580 WB RAMPS CiTY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 1362 2823 0 <--- v ---> / SpLit? N LEFT 0---I 0.0 1,9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 454 RIGHT THRU 0 -*-> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 500 LEFT v v N W + E 23 1 75 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD STREET NAME: I 580 WB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT IR) 575 575 1800 0.3194 THRU IT) 2351 2351 3600 0.6531 0.6531 SB RIGHT (R) 1362 1362 1800 0.7567 THRU IT) 2823 2823 5400 0.5228 WB RIGHT IR) 454 454 3273 0.1387 LEFT IL) 500 500 3273 0.1528 0.1528 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.81 iNTERSECTiON LEVEL OF SERVICE: D * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRNO.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 7 TASSAJARA ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD ^ LEFT 103~--] 2.0 THRU 609 ---> 3.0 RIGHT 338--- 2.5 I ¥ S RIGHT THRU LEFT 243 1410 111 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0:-25- RIGHT (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 3~ THRU 3.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 --- 3~ LEFT LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA R~D 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT IR) 641 496 * 1650 0.3006 THRU IT) 635 635 6600 0.0962 LEFT IL) 817 817 4304 0.1898 0.1898 SB RIGHT IR) 243 186 * 3000 0,0620 THRU IT) 1410 1410 6600 0.2136 0.2136 LEFT IL) 111 111 3000 0.0370 EB RIGHT IR) 338 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU IT) 609 609 4950 0.1230 0.1230 LEFT IL) 103 103 3000 0.0343 WB RIGHT IR) 25 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 379 379 4950 0.0766 LEFT IL) 378 378 4304 0.0878 0.0878 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.61 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B ........................................ INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 7 TASSAJARA ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT B-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 123 1085 77 <--- v ---> I Sprit? N LEFT 399---{ 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 --- 143 RIGHT THRU 570 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 783 THRU RIGHT 1297 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 --- 1034 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: k{ + E 4 15 2 13 Upb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT IR) 613 217 * 1650 0.1315 THRU IT) 1542 1542 6600 0.2336 LEFT IL) 474 474 4304 0.1101 0,1101 SB RIGHT IR) 123 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 1085 1085 6600 0.1644 0.1644 LEFT IL) 77 77 3000 0.0257 EB RIGHT (R) 1297 967 * 3000 0.3223 0.3223 THRU IT) 570 570 4950 0.1152 LEFT (L) 399 399 3000 0.1330 WB RIGHT (R) 143 101 * 1650 0.0612 THRU IT) 783 783 4950 0.1582 LEFT IL) 1034 1034 4304 0.2402 0.2402 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.8~ INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D ........................................ I NT=MASTER · I NT, VOL=BACKGRND. PMV+TRANSCTR. PMV, CAP=C: ·. LOSCAP. TAB STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD i I i i i i J i i 1 I i f I J i t I LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 8 TASSAJARA ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 6 1405 24 LEFT 31---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 t.0 - RLGHT STREET NAME: THRU 47 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 142 THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY RIGHT 65 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 ~-- 212 LEFT I ': ....... " I v H SIG WARRAHIS: W + E 4 5 9 59 Ur~Y, Rur=Y S LEFT TRRU RIGRT Spl~t? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 59 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU IT) 589 589 4950 0.1190 LEFT el) 46 46 1650 0.0279 0.0279 SB RIGHT IR) 6 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1405 1405 4950 0.2838 0,2838 LEFT IL) 24 24 1650 0.0145 EB RIGHT (R) 65 19 * 1650 0.0115 THRU (T) 47 47 1650 0.0285 LEFT (L) 31 31 1650 0.0188 0.0188 WB RIGHT (R) 39 15 * 1650 0.0091 THRU (T) 142 142 1650 0.0861 0.0861 LEFT (L) 212 212 3000 0.0707 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.42 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.ANV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKH Transportation Consultants ======================================================================== Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 8 TASSAJARA ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD ^ LEFT 10---J 1.0 THRU 178 ---> 1.0 RIGHT 117 --- 1.0 ¥ S RIGHT THRU LEFT 8 999 54 NO. OF LANES 87 THRU <___ ^ ___> J LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: CENTRAL PARKWAY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 219 148 * 1650 0.0897 THRU (T) 1560 1560 4950 0.3152 0.3152 LEFT (L) 81 81 1650 0.0491 SB RIGHT (R) 8 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 999 999 4950 0.2018 LEFT (L) 54 54 1650 0.0327 0.0327 EB RIGHT (R) 117 36 * 1650 0.0218 THRU (T) 178 178 1650 0.1079 0.1079 LEFT (L) 10 10 1650 0.0061 ~B RIGHT (R) 43 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 87 87 1650 0.0527 LEFT (L) 129 129 3000 0.0430 0.0430 ======================================================================== TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.50 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 9 TASSAJARA ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 364 1361 22 <--- v ---> I Sprit? N LEFT 111 ......] 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 47 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 9 ~~-> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<*-- 27 THRU GLEASON DRIVE RIGHT 36 --- 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 --- 38 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 15 4 5 12 Urb=B, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEHENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 12 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 495 495 3300 0.1500 LEFT (L) 153 153 3000 0.0510 0.0510 SB RIGHT (R) 364 303 * 1650 0.1836 THRU (T) 1361 1361 3300 0.4124 0.4124 LEFT (l) 22 22 1650 0.0133 EB RIGHT (R) 36 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 9 9 3300 0.0027 LEFT (L) 111 111 3000 0.0370 0.0370 WB RIGHT (R) 47 25 * 1650 0.0152 0.0152 THRU (T) 27 27 3300 0.0082 LEFT (L) 38 38 3000 0.0127 TOTAL VOLUME-TO*CAPACITY RATIO: 0.52 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 9 TASSAJARA ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 162 888 61 THRU 30 --~> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 17 THRU RIGHT 155 --- 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 --- 24 LEFT I v N W + E 13 14 8 43 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: GLEASON DRIVE SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 43 30 * 3000 0.0100 THRU (T) 1408 1408 3300 0.4267 0.4267 LEFT (L) 139 139 3000 0.0463 SB RIGHT (R) 162 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 888 888 3300 0.2691 LEFT (L) 61 61 1650 0.0370 0.0370 EB RIGHT (R) 155 79 * 1650 0.0479 THRU (T) 30 30 3300 0.0091 LEFT (l) 339 339 3000 0.1130 0.1130 WB RIGHT (R) 40 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 17 17 3300 0.0052 0.0052 LEFT (l) 24 24 3000 0.0080 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.58 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · AOdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB ) I LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 10 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 178 123 40 THRU 784 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 298 THRU RIGHT 523 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0--- 84 LEFT I < ....... > I v )l) v N W + E 15 9 19 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HAiN STREET 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 19 19 1650 0.0115 THRU (T) 29 29 1650 0.0176 LEFT (L) 157 157 3000 0.0523 0.0523 T + R 48 1650 0.0291 SB RIGHT (R) 178 178 1650 0.1079 THRU (T) 123 123 1650 0.0745 LEFT (L) 40 40 1650 0.0242 T + R 301 1650 0.1824 0.1824 EB RIGHT (R) 523 437 * 1650 0.2648 0.2648 THRU (T) 784 784 4950 0.1584 LEFT (L) 37 37 1650 0.0224 WB RIGHT (R) 8 0 * 1650 0,0000 THRU (T) 298 298 4950 0.0602 LEFT (L) 84 84 1650 0.0509 0.0509 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.55 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A ......................................... INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 10 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 87 39 19 LEFT 182 .... 'l 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 RIGHT THRU 743 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1138 THRU RIGHT 212 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 52 LEFT v N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 69 1 7 85 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 85 85 1650 0.0515 THRU (T) 127 127 1650 0.0770 LEFT (l) 692 692 3000 0.2307 0.2307 T + R 212 1650 0.1285 SB RIGHT (R) 87 87 1650 0.0527 THRU (T) 39 39 1650 0.0236 LEFT (L) 19 19 1650 0.0115 T + R 126 1650 0.0764 0.0764 EB RIGHT (R) 212 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 743 743 4950 0.1501 LEFT (L) 182 182 1650 0.1103 0.1103 WB RIGHT (R) 39 20 * 1650 0.0121 THRU (T) 1138 1138 4950 0.2299 O. 2299 LEFT (L) 52 52 1650 0,0315 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.65 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT =MAST ER. I N T, VOL=BACKGRND. PMV+T RANSCT R. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECT[ON 11 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT .. ........... 148 20 32 <--- v ---> LEFT 50---I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 THRU 50 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) RIGHT 24 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET 5-PHASE SIGNAL ^ I SpLit? N 1.0 --- 11 RIGHT STREET NAME: 2.0<--- 126 THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY 1LO --- 106 LEFT ¥ SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUHE VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 25 25 1650 0.0152 THRU (T) 13 13 1650 0.0079 LEFT (L) 69 69 1650 0.0418 0.0418 T + R 38 1650 0.0230 SB RIGHT (R) 148 148 1650 0.0897 THRU (T) 20 20 1650 0.0121 LEFT (L) 32 32 1650 0.0194 T + R 168 1650 0.1018 0.1018 EB RIGHT (R) 24 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 50 50 3300 0.0152 0.0152 LEFT (L) 50 50 1650 0.0303 WB RIGHT (R) 11 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 126 126 3300 0.0382 LEFT (L) 106 106 1650 0.0642 0.0642 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.22 iNTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: · A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT~VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 ======================================================================== INTERSECTION 11 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD ^ I LEFT 172 --- 1.0 THRU 163 ---> 2.0 RIGHT 69 ~-- 1.0 ¥ S RIGHT THRU LEFT 96 18 21 <--- v ---> I SpLit? N 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0'-- 37 RIGHT (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 102 THRU 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 32 LEFT LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET 5-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: CENTRAL PARKWAY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N~ Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 108 108 1650 0.0655 THRU (T) 26 26 1650 0.0158 LEFT (L) 44 44 1650 0.0267 0.0267 T + R 134 1650 0.0812 SB RIGHT (R) 96 96 1650 0.0582 THRU (T) 18 18 1650 0.0109 LEFT (L) 21 21 1650 0.0127 T + R 114 1650 0.0691 0.0691 EB RIGHT (R) 69 25 * 1650 0.0152 THRU (T) 163 163 3300 0.0494 LEFT (L) 172 172 1650 0.1042 0.1042 WB RIGHT (R) 37 16 * 1650 0.0097 THRU (T) 102 102 3300 0.0309 0.0309 LEFT (L) 32 32 1650 0.0194 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACiTY RATIO: 0.23 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMVoCAP=C;..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 12 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 0 0 <'-- V LEFT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 THRU 16 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) RIGHT 27 --- 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 I <___ ^ W+E 7 0 9 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET 4-PHASE SIGNAL ^ {Split~ N 0.0 -'~ EIGHT STREET NAME: 2:0<--- 42 THRU GLEASON DRIVE 1.0 --- 1 LEFT I v SIG NARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 9 8 * 1650 0.0048 LEFT (L) 70 70 1650 0.0424 0.0424 EB RIGHT (R) 27 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 16 16 3300 0.0048 WB THRU (T) 42 42 3300 0.0127 0.0127 LEFT (L) I 1 1650 0.0006 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.06 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRNO.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB ^ LEFT 0---I 0.0 THRU 54 ---> 2.0 RIGHT 79 --- 1.0 ¥ S LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 12 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 0 0 <--- v ---> J Split? N 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT STREET NAME: (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 32 THRU GLEASON DRIVE 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 --- 2 LEFT <---^ ---> I 5 0 6 Urb=N, Rur=N LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? M STREET NAME: MAIN STREET ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 6 4 * 1650 0.0024 LEFT (L) 50 50 1650 0.0303 0.0303 EB RIGHT (R) 79 29 * 1650 0.0176 0.0176 THRU (T) 54 54 3300 0.0164 NB THRU (T) 32 32 3300 0.0097 LEFT (L) 2 2 1650 0.0012 0.0012 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.05 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INToVOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 13 EL CHARRO ROAD/I 580-EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 343 67 0 LEFT 179---I 2.0 1.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 - RIGHT THRU 0 --~> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES)' 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 236 --- 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT N N+E 37 46 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: EL CHARRO ROAD 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 EB RAMPS SIG NARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 46 46 1800 0.0256 THRU (T) 397 397 3600 0.1103 0.1103 SB RIGHT (R) 343 343 1800 0.1906 THRU (T) 67 67 1800 0.0372 E8 RIGHT (R) 236 236 1800 0.1311 LEFT (L) 179 179 3273 0.0547 0.0547 TOTAL VOLUME-TO*CAPACITY RATIO: 0.17 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A *AOJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM'Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 13 EL CHARRO ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD ^ LEFT 57~---I 2.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 129 ~-- 1.9 ¥ S RIGHT THRU LEFT 608 247 0 1.9 1.0 0.0 0.0: - O- RIGHI (NO. OF L^HES) 0.0<--- 0 IH~U 0.0 2.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: EL CHARRO R~D 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 EB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 158 158 1800 0.0878 THRU (T) 296 296 3600 0.0822 SB RIGHT (R) 608 608 1800 0.3378 THRU (T) 247 247 1800 0.1372 0.1372 EB RIGHT (R) 129 129 1800 0.0717 LEFT (L) 5~ 5~ 3273 0.1751 0.1751 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.31 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=HASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 07/02/01 iNTERSECTION 14 FALLON ROAD/] 580 WB .RAMPS CiTY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL 267 396 0 <--- v ---> / Split? N LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 2.0 0.0 2.0--- 384 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU I 580 WB RAMPS RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 43 LEFT N SIG ~/ARRANTS: U + E 3 1 3/* Urb=N, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 134 134 1800 0.0744 THRU (T) 351 351 3600 0.0975 SB RIGHT (R) 267 267 1800 0.1483 THRU (T) 396 396 3600 0.1100 0.1100 ~B RIGHT (R) 384 384 3273 0.1173 0.117'5 LEFT (L) 43 43 3273 0.0131 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.23 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRHD.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 07/p2/01 INTERSECTION 14 FALLON ROAD/I 580 ~B RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 417 816 0 I <-'- v '--> ! Split? N LEFT 0 -" 0.0 1.9 2.0 0.0 2.0 -- 497 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 63 LEFT N ~/+E 76 34 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: ] 580 WB RAMPS SIG ~ARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 134 134 1800 0.0744 THRU (T) 756 ~56 3600 0.2100 SB RIGHT (R) 417 617 1800 0.2317 THRU (T) 816 816 3600 0.2267 0.2267 WB RIGHT (R) 497 497 3273 0.1518 0.1518 LEFT (l) 43 43 3273 0.0131 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.38 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base (E+App+Pend) No Proj 06/26/01 INTERSECTION 15 FALLON ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 14 709 0 I <~-- V 10---'' 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 LEFT THRU RIGHT N W+E S 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 315 - -- ¥ 2.5 2.O 2.0 0.0 <_._ ^ ___> J Io LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD ^ 0.0 RIGHT 0.0<--- 0 THRU 0.0 --- 0 LEFT I V STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB THRU (T) 357 357 3300 0.1082 LEFT (L) 587 587 3000 0.1957 0.1957 SB RIGHT (R) 14 4 * 1650 0.0024 THRU (T) 709 709 3300 0.2148 0.2148 EB RIGHT (R) 315 0 * 3000 0.0000 LEFT (L) 10 10 1650 0.0061 0.0061 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.42 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT:MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRNO.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base (E+App+Pend) No Proj 06/26/01 INTERSECTION 15 FALLON ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF OUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 46 683 0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 RIGHT 823 --- 2.5 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT N W+ E 45 109 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: THRU DUBLIN BOULEVARD SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB THRU (T) 1089 1089 3300 0.3300 LEFT (L) 458 458 3000 0.1527 0.1527 SB RIGHT eR) 46 2 * 1650 0.0012 THRU (T) 683 683 3300 0.2070 0.2070 EB RIGHT (R) 823 365 * 3000 0.1217 0.1217 LEFT (l) 44 44 1650 0.0267 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.48 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software byTJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 16 FALLON/CEflTRAL PARKNAY CiTY OF DUBLIN Count Oate Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT /,-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 10 223 0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 523 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT I < ....... > I v v N W+ E 31 2 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON STREET NAME: CENTRAL PARKNAY SIG UARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB THRU (T) 52 52 3300 0.0158 LEFT (L) 313 313 3000 0.1043 0.1043 sa RIGHT (R) 10 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 223 223 3300 0.0676 0.0676 EB RIGHT (R) 523 351 * 3000 0.1170 0.1170 LEFT (L) 10 lQ 1650 0.0061 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.29 iNTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON REO INT=MASTER.iNT0VOL=BACKGRNO.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 ' INTERSECTION 16 FALLON/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 10 175 0 LEFT 20 .... I 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 RIGHT 566 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 ~-- 0 LEFT v v N W+E 95 16 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB THRU CT) 196 196 3300 0.0594 LEFT (L) 957 957 3000 0.3190 0.3190 SB RIGHT (R) 10 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 175 175 3300 0.0530 0.0530 ES RIGHT (R) 566 40 * 3000 0.0133 0.0133 LEFT (L) 20 20 1650 0.0121 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.39 iNTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 17 FALLON ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA HETHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL LEFT 4 --- 1.0 1.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. RIGBT 88 --- 1.0 1.0 ~+E S LEFT 122 0 2.0 0.0 0.0 - RIGHI OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 2.0 0.0 0.0 -~- THRU RIGHT Split? N 0 LEFT STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD STREET NAME: GLEASON DRIVE S]G WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB THRU (T) 49 49 3300 0.0148 LEFT (L) 5 5 1650 0.0030 0.0030 SB RIGHT (R) 7 3 * 1650 0.0018 THRU (T) 122 122 3300 0.0370 0.0370 EB RIGHT (R) 88 83 * 1650 0.0503 0.0503 LEFT (L) 4 4 1650 0.0024 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.09 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition= pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 17 FALLON ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CiTY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 6 80 0 I <--- V ---> 9 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 ^ I Split? N LEFT 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU GLEASON ORIVE RIGHT 90 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT v N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 10 5 0 Urb=N, Rur=N S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB THRU (T) 85 85 3300 0.0258 LEFT (L) 105 105 1650 0.0636 0.0636 SB RIGHT (R) 6 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 80 80 3300 0.0242 0.0242 EB RIGHT (R) 90 0 * 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 9 9 1650 0.0055 0.0055 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.09 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants ======================================================================== Condition: am peak hour; Future Base - mitigation 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 300 1974 0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 1834 --- E.O 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT v N la+ E 15 4 65 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE E-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 EB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 365 365 1800 0.2028 THRU (T) 1524 1524 5400 0.2822 SB RIGHT (R) 300 300 1800 0.1667 THRU (T) 1974 1974 5400 0.3656 0.3656 EB RIGHT (R) 1834 1834 3273 0.5603 LEFT (L) 1777 1777 4695 0.3785 , TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MITIGa. INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak houri Future Base - mitigation 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1286 1618 0 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 1382 ...... I 3.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0- 0 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 218 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT I N t4 + E 23 6 1 58 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 EB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS= Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 1458 1458 1800 0.8100 THRU (T) 2346 2346 5400 0.4344 0.4344 SB RIGHT (R) 1286 1286 1800 0.7144 THRU (T) 1618 1618 5400 0.2996 EB RIGHT (R) 218 218 3273 0.0666 LEFT (l) 1382 1382 4695 0.2944 0.2944 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: O.T'5 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MITIGa. INToVOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base - mitigation 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 867 728 0 <-"~ v ---> I Split? N LEFT 0--~1 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 1151 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU I 580 WB RAMPS RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 1536 LEFT N SIG t~ARRANTS: t4 + E 27 9 69 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (RI 569 569 1800 0.3161 THRU (TI 2729 2729 5400 0.5054 0.5054 SB RIGHT (RI 867 867 1800 0.4817 THRU (T) 728 728 5400 0.1348 ~B RIGHT (R) 1151 1151 327'3 0.3517 0.3517 LEFT (L) 1536 1536 4695 0.3272 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.86 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MITIGS.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base - mitigation 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 WB RAMPS. CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL 1994 1.9 2225 0 LEFT 0-~-' 0.0 3;0 0.0 THRU 0 --~> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) RIGHT 0 ~-- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 S ^ 2.0 J Split? N --- 500 RIGHT O.O<--~ 0 THRU 3.0 --- 538 LEFT I V LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE STREET NAME: I 580 ~B RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (RI 1579 1579 1800 0.8772 THRU (T) 2150 2150 5400 0.3981 SB RIGHT (RI 1~4 1~4 1800 1.1078 ** THRU (T) 2225 2225 5400 0.4120 0.4120 ~B RIGHT (RI 500 500 327~ 0.1528 0.1528 LEFT (L) 538 538 4695 0.1146 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.56 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED ** APPROACHING OR EXCEEDING CAPACITY INT=MITIGS-INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants INTERSECTION 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 495 1200 172 <--- v ---> ISpLit? Y LEFT 1367---I 3.1 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.5 --- 524 RIGHT THRU 161 ---> 1.1 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--~ 0 THRU RIGHT 605 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 209 LEFT N 1~+ E 14 5 76 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 EB RAMPS SIG ~ARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 576 461 * 3000 0.1537 THRU (T) 1455 1455 4950 0.2939 T + R 1916 6300 0.3041 0.3041 SB RIGHT (R) 495 495 1650 0.3000 THRU (T) 1200 1200 3300 0.3636 LEFT (L) 172 172 1650 0.1042 0.1042 EB RIGHT (R) 605 605 1650 0.3667 THRU (T) 161 161 1650 0.0976 LEFT (L) 1367 1367 4304 0.3176 T + L 1528 4304 0.3550 0.3550 ~B RIGHT (R) 524 211 * 3000 0.0703 0.0703 LEFT (L) 209 209 3000 0.0697 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.83 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D ........................................ INT=MITIGS. INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKH Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: ~ peak hour;Future Base .~ ~[~:~O'~X 06/29/01 ============================================== ========================= INTERSECTIO~ 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD ^ LEFT 1232 ---I 3.1 THRU 303 ---> 1.1 RIGHT 183 --~ 1.9 ¥ S RIGHT THRU LEFT 1524 881 221 <--- ¥ ---> I Sprit? Y 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.5 --- 391 RIGHT (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 114 LEFT <''' ^ ---> LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 EB RAMPS SIG ~ARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 594 531 * 3000 0.1770 THRU (T) 1779 1779 4950 0.3594 T + R 2310 6300 0.3667 0.3667 ..................................................................... ?-. SB RIGHT (R) 1524 1524 1650 0.9236 ** THRU (T) 881 881 3300 0.2670 LEFT (L) 221 221 1650 0.1339 0.1339 ........................................................................ EB RIGHT (R) 183 183 1650 0.1109 THRU (T) 303 303 1650 0.1836 LEFT (L) 1232 1232 4304 0.2862 T + L 1535 4304 0.3566 0.3566 ........................................................................ ~8 RIGHT (R) 391 0 * 3000 0.0000 LEFT (L) 114 114 3000 0.0380 0.0380 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.90 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D INT=MITIGa. INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS EXISTING + APPROVED + PENDING + PROJECT CONDITIONS Table 3.6-4 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing plus Approved plus Pending plus Project (Dublin Model) Unmitigated Mitigated Intersection Control A.M. Peak Hour P.M: Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour * LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS I Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.75 C 0.88 D (w/Scarlett Drive Bypass) 2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.93 E 0.87 D 0.75 C 0.74 C 3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 1.21 F 0.76 C 0.86 D 0.57 A 4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.67 B 0.90 D 5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.99 E 0.98 E 0.84 D 0.90 D 6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.80 C 0.82 D 7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.66 B 0.85 D 8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway** Signal 0.44 A 0.54 A 9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.52 A 0.60 A 10 Gmfion Street/Dublin Boulevard** Signal 0.55 A 0.72 C 11 Grafion Street/Central Parkway** Signal 0.23 A 0.25 A 12 Graflon Street/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.06 A 0,06 A 13 El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps** Signal 0.38 A 0.81 D 14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps** Signal 0.42 B 0.75 C 15 Falion Road/Dublin Boulevard** Signal 0.54 A 0.83 D 16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway** Signal 0.60 A 0.67 B 17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.13 A 0.13 A 18 Street D/Dublin Boulevard One-Way STOP 13.4 C 140.1 F Street D/Dublin Boulevard- Mitigated Signal ........ 0.22 A 0.31 A 19 Fallon Road/"Project Road" One-Way STOP 60.7 F 50.0 F Fallon Road/"Project Road"** Signal ........ 0.42 A 0.41 A 20 Street D/Central Parkway One-Way STOP 3.3 A 3.9 A 21 Street B/Central Parkway One-Way STOP 3.2 A 3.2 A Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections; ~ Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at l-way STOP-controlled intersections. · * ~ Traffic signals at these intersections are either under construction or are anticipated to be installed in the futt,re. LOS Soft.are by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants ~ ~j 0~ Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/26/01 INTERSECTION t DOUGHERTY ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 49 1568 288 <--- v ---> [ sprit? N LEFT ~9---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0--- 149 RIGHT THRU 898 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2,0<.-~ 495 THRU RIGHT 569 --- 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.1 3.0 --- 381 LEFT v v N g + E 69 8 7 1 04 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY ROAD 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y~ Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 1104 958 * 3000 0.3193 THRU (T) 807 807 4950 0.1630 LEFT (L) 693 693 4304 0.1610 0.1610 T + R 1765 6300 0.2802 SB RIGHT (R) 49 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1568 1568 4950 0.3168 0.3168 LEFT (L) 288 288 3000 0.0960 EB RIGHT (R) 569 86 * 3000 0.0287 THRU (T) 898 898 4950 0.1814 0.1814 LEFT (L) 49 49 1650 0.0297 WB RIGHT (R) 149 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 495 495 3300 0.1500 LEFT (L) 381 381 4304 0.0885 0.0885 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.75 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/26/01 INTERSECTION 1 DOUGHERTY ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 66 1050 280 <--- v ---> / Sprit? N LEFT 103---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0'-- 344 RIGHT THRU 915 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 1029 THRU RIGHT 939 --- 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.1 3.0 --- 1075 LEFT v N SIG ~ARRANTS: W + E 99 13 1 59 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 359 0 * 3000 THRU (T) 1351 1351 4950. LEFT (L) 999 999 4304 T + R 1351 6300 SB RIGHT(R) 66 0 * 1650 THRU (T) 1050 1050 4950 LEFT (L) 280 280 3000 EB RIGHT (R) 939 243 * 3000 THRU (T) 915 915 4950 LEFT (L) 103 103 1650 STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD 0.0000 0.2729 0.2321 0.2321 0.2144 0.0000 0.2121 0.2121 0.0933 0.0810 0.1848 0.1848 0.0624 WB RIGHT (R) 344 190 * 1650 0.1152 THRU (T) 1029 1029 3300 0.3118 LEFT (L) 1075 1075 4304 0.2498 0.2498 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.88 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:-.LOSCAP-TAB 'tware by TJKM Transportation Consultants ~Jl/ OOt~) ~[ ,0n: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/26/01 I"-TION ~te A !~98 ---> 3.0 ~69 --- 2.5 I ¥ 1 DOUGHERTY ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Time :rHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 49 1568 288 '<=-- V ---> 1.0 3.0 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0 3.1 2,1 LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTED ~ 4ENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPAC 1TY Peak Hour 8-PHASE SIGNAL ^ SpLit? N 1.0 =-- 149 RIGHT 2.0<--- 495 3.0 --- 381 LEFT ¥ STREET NAME: THRU DUBLIN BOULEVARD SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y V/C CRITICAL RATIO V/C liT (R) 1104 958 * 3000 0.3193 lJ (T) 807 807 4950 0.1630 3r (L) 693 693 4304 0.1610 R 1765 6300 0.2802 I~T (R) 49 0 * 1650 0.0000 IJ (T) 1568 1568 4950 0.3168 '[ (L) 288 288 3000 0.0960 I~T (R) 569 86* 3000 0.0287 IJ (T) 898 898 4950 0.1814 'f (L) 49 49 1650 0.0297 I~T (R) 149 0 * 1650 0.0000 Id (T) 495 495 3300 0.1500 'r (L) 381 381 4304 0.0885 'fAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 'TERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: 0.1610 0.3168 0.1814 0.0885 0.75 C TED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED 'TER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB 10S Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: pm peak houri Future Base + Project 06/26/01 INTERSECTION 1DOUGHERTY ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 66 1050 280 <--- v ---> J Split? N LEFT 103---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 --- 344 RIGHT THRU 915 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 1029 RIGHT 939 --- 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.1 3.0 --- 1075 LEFT W+ E 9 13 1 59 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY ROAD STREET NAME: THRU DUBLIN BOULEVARD SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 359 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 1351 1351 4950. 0.2729 LEFT (L) 999 999 4304 0.2321 0.2321 T + R 1351 6300 0.2144 SB RIGHT (R) 66 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1050 1050 4950 0.2121 0.2121 LEFT (L) 280 280 3000 0.0933 EB RIGHT (R) 939 243 * 3000 0.0810 - -' THRU (T) 915 915 4950 0.1848 0.1848 LEFT (L) 103 103 1650 0.0624 WB RIGHT (R) 344 190 * 1650 0.1152 THRU (T) 1029 1029 3300 0.3118 LEFT (L) 1075 1075 4304 0.2498 0.2498 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.88 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01 iNTERSECT[ON 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/! 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD 2-PHASE SIGNAL LEFT 1777---I 2.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 1834 --- 2.0 ¥ S RIGHT THRU LEFT 300 2007 0 <--- V ---> 1.9 3.0 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE I Split? N . 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT STREET NAME: 0 THRU 0 LEFT 580 EB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 365 365 1800 0.2028 THRU (T) 1551 1551 5400 0.2872 SB RIGHT (R) 300 300 1800 0.1667 THRU (T) 2007 2007 5400 0.3717 0.3717 EB RIGHT (R) 1834 1834 3273 0.5603 0.5603 LEFT (L) 1777 1777 3273 0.5429 ======================================================================== TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.93 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E w ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MIDPT.AMV~CAP=C:--LOSCAP- LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Oate Time Peak Hour ........................... L ............................................ CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 1286 1669 0 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 1382---[ 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- O THRU ! 580 EB RAMPS RIGHT 218 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 24 0 1 58 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA ORIVE ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 1458 1458 1800 0.8100 THRU (T) 2400 2400 5400 0.4444 0.4444 SB RIGHT (R) 1286 1286 1800 0.7144 THRU (T) 1669 1669 5400 0.3091 EB RIGHT (R) 218 218 3273 0.0666 LEFT (L) 1382 1382 3273 0.4222 0.4222 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.87 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED 1NT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP. LEFT 0---I 0.0 THRU 0 ~~-> 0.0 RIGHT ~0 --- 0.0 I ¥ N+E S LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01 INTERSECTION ] HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 WB RAHPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 867 761 0 <--- v ---> I SpLit? N 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 1151 RIGHT STREET NAME: (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU I 580 NB RAMPS 0.0 2.0 1.9 2,0 --- 1536 LEFT 27 6 69 Urb=Y, Rur=Y LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 569 ....... ~ ....... ;~ ..... ~:~;~; ...... :~-~ ..... THRU (T) 2756 2756 ~O~JGa~ 0.7656 ~ SB RIGHT (R) 867 867 1800 0.4817 THRU (T) 761 761 5400 0.1409 NB RIGHT (R) 1151 1151 3273 0.3517 LEFT (L) 1536 1536 3273 0.4693 0.4693 ..... ;;;~=;;~;:;;:;;;;;?;;=;;;?;? ......................... ~=~--~= INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: F * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NASTER.iNT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MiDPT.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP- LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 NB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1~94 2276 0 J <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 0 --- 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 500 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 538 LEFT v N N + E 22 4 1 79 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1 580 NB RAMPS SIG NARRANTS: Urb=Y~ Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C THRU (T) 2204 2204 ~0"~368~* 0.6122 SB RIGHT (R) 1994 1994 1800 1.1078 ** THRU (T) 2276 2276 5400 0.4215 NB RIGHT (R) 500 500 3273 0.1528 LEFT (L) 538 538 327"3 0.1644 0.1644 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 4 HACIENDA DRIVE/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA HETHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 388 622 110 <--- v .... > I Split? N LEFT 152---J 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0--- 114 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 757 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1032 THRU DUBLIN BOULEVARD RIGHT 260 --- 2.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 530 LEFT I < ....... > I v N SIG t4ARRANTS: 14 + E 6 4 6 25 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPAC I TY RAT I 0 V/C NB RIGHT (R) 525 234 * 1650 0.1418 THRU (T) 436 436 3300 0.1321 LEFT (L) 673 673 4304 0.1564 0.1564 ..... ........ ..... ..... ..... --' THRU (T) 622 622 4950 0.1257 LEFT (L) 110 110 3000 0.0367 EB RIGHT (R) 260 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 757 757 4950 0.1529 0.1529 LEFT (L) 152 152 3000 0.0507 WB RIGHT (R) 114 54 * 1650 0.0327 THRU (T) 1032 1032 4950 0.2085 LEFT (L) 530 530 3000 0.1767' 0.1767 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.67 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED 1N T=MAST ER. l NT, VOL =BACKGRND. AMV+TRANSCTR. AMV+N I OPT. AMY, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 4 HACIENDA DRIVE/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 268 764 179 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 361 ......I 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 105 RIGHT THRU 1915 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1111 THRU RIGHT 678 --- 2.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 817 LEFT N 14 + E 38 5 I ~ 38 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD SIG NARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 638 189 * 1650 0.1145 THRU (T) 581 581 3300 0.1761 LEFT (L) 381 381 4304 0.0885 0.0885 SB RIGHT (R) 268 69 * 1650 0.0418 THRU (T) 764 764 4950 0.1543 0.1543 LEFT (L) 179 179 3000 0.0597 EB RIGHT (R) 678 412 * ]000 0.1373 THRU (T) 1915 1915 4950 0.3869 0.3869 LEFT (L) 361 361 3000 0.1203 WB RIGHT (R) 105 7 * 1650 0.0042 THRU (T) 1111 1111 4950 0.2244 LEFT (L) 817 817 3000 0.2723 0.2723 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.90 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=HASTER.INT~VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+M1DPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour;Future Base + Project 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 495 1233 172 <~-~ v ---> J Split? Y LEFT 1367---I 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0--- 524 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 161 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU I 580 EB RAMPS RIGHT 605 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 209 LEFT v N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 14 2 76 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUHE VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 576 461 * 3000 0.1537 THRU (T) 1482 1482 4950 0.2994 T + R t943 6300 0.3084 0.3084 SB RIGHT (R) 495 495 1650 0.3000 THRU (T) 1233 1233 3300 0.3~6 LEFT (LB 172 172 1650 0.1042 0.1042 EB RIGHT (R) 605 605 1650 0.3667 THRU (T) 161 161 1650 0.0976 LEFT (LB 1367 1367 3000 0.4557 0.4557 WB RIGHT (R) 524 352 * 3000 0.1175 0.1173 LEFT (LB 209 209 3000 0.0697 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.99 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANRC~g-AMV+M[DPT-AMV,CAP=C:-'LO~A~:.~ LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: ~ peak hour;Future Base + Project 06/29/01 ======================================================================== INTERSECTION 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/[ 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1524 932 221 <--- v ---> { Split? Y LEFT 1232---{ 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 391 RIGHT THRU 303 ---> 1.0 CNO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 183 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 114 LEFT v Ill v N W+ E 18 3 94 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 EB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 594 531 * 3000 0.1770 THRU (T) 1833 1833 4950 0.3703 T + R 2364 6300 0.3752 0.3752 SB RIGHT (R) 1524 1524 1650 0.9236 ** THRU (T) 932 932 3300 0.2824 LEFT (L) 221 221 1650 0.1339 0.1339 EB RIGHT (R) 183 183 1650 0.1109 THRU (T) 303 303 1650 0.1836 LEFT (lB 1232 1232 3000 0.4107 0.4107 WB RIGHT (R) 391 170 * 3000 0.0567 0.0567 LEFT (lB 114 114 3000 0.0380 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.98 INTERSECT[ON LEVEL OF SERVICE: E · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED ** APPROACHING OR EXCEEDING CAPACITY INT=MASTER.INT~VOL=BACKGRND,PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT-PMV,CAP=C:.-LOSCAP- LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 6 TASSAJARA ROAD/I 580 NB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1027 1280 0 LEFT 0 .... J 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 894 LEFT v v N W+E 19319/+ S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 WB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 1094 1094 1800 0.60?8 THRU (T) 1903 1903 3600 0.5286 0.5286 SB RIGHT (R) 1027 1027 1800 0.5706 THRU (T) 1280 1280 5400 0.2370 WB RIGHT (R) 738 738 3273 0.2255 LEFT (L) 894 894 3273 0.2731 0.2T31 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.80 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT~VOL=BACKGRND~AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C~..LOSCAP. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 6 TASSAJARA ROAD/I 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Oate Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD ^ I LEFT 0 --- 0.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 I ¥ W+E S RIGHT THRU LEFT 1~62 28~ 0 <--- ¥ ---> / SpLit? N 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0:-- 454 R1GHT (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 500 LEFT ~-'- ^ ---> I LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: TASSAdARA ROAD 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 WB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 575 575 1800 0.3194 THRU (T) 2405 2405 3600 0.6681 0.6681 SB RIGHT (R) 1362 1362 1800 0.7567 THRU (T) 2874 2874 5400 0.5322 WB RIGHT (R) 454 454 3273 0.1387 LEFT (L) 500 500 327"5 0.1528 0.1528 TOTAL VOLUME~TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.82 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP, LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants' Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01 INTERSECTION. 7 TASSAJARA ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 243 1424 111 <--- V LEFT 103 --*1 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 THRU 793 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) RIGHT 338 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 v N 14+E 81 61 2 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAO 8-PHASE SIGNAL I Split? N 1.0 --- 25 RIGHT STREET NAME: 3.0<--- 587 THRU DUBLIN BOULEVARD 397 LEFT SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 662 510 * 1650 0.3091 THRU (T) 641 641 6600. 0.0971 LEFT (L) 817 817 4304 0.1898 0.1898 SB RIGHT (R) 243 186 * 3000 0.0620 . THRU (T) 1424 1424 6600 0.2158 0.2158 LEFT (L) 111 111 3000 0.0370 EB RIGHT (R) 338 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 793 793 4950 0.1602 0.1602 LEFT (L) 103 103 3000 0.0343 WB RIGHT (R) 25 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 587 587 4950 0.1186 LEFT (L) 397 397 4304 0.0922 0.0922 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.66 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR-AMV+MIDPT-AMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP- LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 7 TASSAJARA ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CiTY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 123 1099 77 <-'' V ---> LEFT 399 ---I 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 THRU 918 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) RIGHT 1297 --~ 2.5 3.0 4.0 1.0 <_.. ^ __.> S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD B-PHASE SIGNAL I Split? N 1.0 --- 143 RIGHT 3.0<--- 1130 3.0 --- 1071 LEFT I v STREET NAME: THRU DUBLIN BOULEVARD SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 647 236 * 1650 0.1430 THRU (T) 1562 1562 6600 0.2367 LEFT (L) 474 474 4304 0.1101 0.1101 SB RIGHT (R) 123 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 1099 1099 6600 0.1665 0.1665 LEFT (L) 77 77 3000 0.0257 EB RIGHT (R) 1297 967 * 3000 0.3223 0.3223 THRU (T) 918 918 4950 0.1855 LEFT (L) 399 3~) 3000 0.1330 WB RIGHT (R) 143 101 * 1650 0.0612 THRU (T) 1130 1130 4950 0.2283 LEFT (L) 1071 1071 4304 0.2488 0.2488 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.85 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR-PMV+MIDPT-PMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP- LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base +* Project 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 8 TASSAJARA ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 6 1405 24 LEFT 31 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 - RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 63 -~-> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<""- 183 THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY RIGHT 65 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 .... 226 LEFT v N SIG WARRANTS: la + E 4 5 9 65 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAdARA ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPAC I TY RAT I 0 V/C NB RIGHT (R) 65 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 589 589 4950' 0.1190 LEFT (L) 46 46 1650 0.0279 0.0279 SB RIGHT (R) 6 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1405 1405 4950 0.2838 0.2838 LEFT (L) 24 24 1650 0.0145 EB RIGHT (R) 65 19 * 1650 0.0115 THRU (T) 63 63 1650 0.0382 LEFT (L) 31 31 1650 0.0188 0.0188 laB RIGHT (R) 39 15 * 1650 0.0091 THRU (T) 183 183 1650 0.1109 0.1109 LEFT (L) 226 226 3000 0.0753 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.44 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED I NT=MAST ER. ] NT ~ VOL=BACKGRND. AMV+TRAN SCTR. AMV+M I DPT. AMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants ' Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base+ Project 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 8 TASSAJARA ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 8 999 54 <--- v---> I LEFT 10---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0---,,, RIG,T THRU 234 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 124 THRU RIGHT 117 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 143 LEFT N W+ E 8 15 0 39 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: CENTRAL PARKWAY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 239 160 * 1650 0.0970 THRU (T) 1560 1560 4950 0.3152 0.3152 LEFT (L) 81 81 1650 0.0491 SB RIGHT (R) 8 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 999 999 4950 0.2018 LEFT (L) 54 54 1650 0.0327 0.0327 E8 RIGHT (R) , 117 36 * 1650 0.0218 THRU (T) 234 234 1650 0.1418 0.1418 LEFT (L) 10 10 1650 0.0061 lab RIGHT (R) 43 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 124 124 1650 0.0752 LEFT (L) 143 143 3000 0.0477 0.0477 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.54 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRNO.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT'PMV,CAP=C:''LOSCAP' LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 9 TASSAJARA ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... )64 1)61 )5 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 111 ......I 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 64 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 9 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 27 THRU GLEASON DRIVE RIGHT 36 --- 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 --- 38 LEFT I < ....... > I v v N SIG IdARRANTS: ~d + E 15 4 5 12 UPb=B, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 12 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 495 495 3300 0.1500 LEFT (l) 15) 153 3000 0.0510 0.0510 SB RIGHT (R) 364 303 * 1650 0.18)6 THRU (T) 1361 1361 3300 0.4124 0.4124 LEFT (L) 35 35 1650 0.0212 EB RIGHT (R) 36 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 9 9 3)00 0.0027 LEFT (L) 111 111 3000 0.0)?0 0.0370 WB RIGHT (r) 64 29 * 1650 0.0176 0.0176 THRU (T) 27 27 3300 0.0082 LEFT (L) 38 38 3000 0.0127 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.52 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 9 TASSAJARA ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 162 888 88 <--- v ---> ! LEFT ))9 .... I 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU )0 -~-~ 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0~~-- 17 THRU GLEASON DRIVE RIGHT 155 --- 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 --- 24 LEFT v N SIG ~]ARRANTS: W + E 13 14 8 4) Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRLTICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 45 30 * )000 0.0100 THRU (T) 1408 1408 3300 0.4267 0.4267 LEFT (L) 139 139 3000 0.0,463 SB RIGHT (R) 162 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 888 888 3300 0.2691 LEFT (L) 88 88 1650 0.0533 0.0533 T,RU CT) )0 30 )000.0091 LEFT eL) )39 ))9 3000o.11)o o.113o ~B RIGHT (R) 66 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 17 17 3300 0.0052 0.0052 LEFT (L) 24 24 3000 0.0080 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.60 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01 INTERSECTION IO MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 178 123 40 [ <--- v ---' [ Spt it~ N LEFI 37 --- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- RIGHT THRU 989 ---> 3.0 (NO, OF LANES) 3.0<--- 526 THRU RIGHT 523 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 84 LEFT S LEFT THRU RIGHI Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB .RIGHT (R) 19 19 1650 0.0115 THRU (T) 29 29 1650 0.0176 LEFT (L) 157 157 3000 0.0523 0.0523 T + R 48 1650 0.0291 SB RIGHT (R) 17§ 178 1650 0.1079 THRU (T) 123 123 1650 0.0745 LEFT (L) 40 40 1650 0.0242 T + R 301 1650 0.1824 0.1824 EB RIGHT (R) 523 437 * 1650 0.2648 0.2648 THRU (l) 989 989 4950 0.1~8 LEFT (L) 37 37 1650 0.0224 WB RIGHT (R) 8 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 526 526 4950 0.1063 LEFT (L) 84 84 1650 0.0509 0.0509 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.55 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED 1NT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR'AMV+MIDPT'AMV'CAP=C:"LOSCAP' LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01 ...................................................................... Count Date Time Peak Hour ....................................................................... CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8~PHASE SIGNAL ........... 87 39 19 <--= V LEFT 182 ---I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 THRU 1125 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) RIGHT 212 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 V S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET OR I G ! NAL ADJUSTED V/C CR 1T I CAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPAC I TY RAT I 0 V/C ........................................................................ NB RIGHT (R) 85 85 1650 0.0515 THRU (T) 127 127 1650 0.0770 LEFT (L) 692 692 3000 0.2307 0.2307 T + R 212 1650 0.1285 ........................................................................ SB RIGHT (R) 87 87 1650 0.0527 THRU (T) 39 39 1650 0.0236 LEFT (L) 19 19 1650 0.0115 T + R 126 1650 0.0764 0.0764 ........................................................................ EB RIGHT (R) 212 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1125 1125 4950 0.2273 LEFT (L) 182 182 1650 0.1103 0.1103 ........................................................................ WB RIGHT (R) 39 20 * 1650 0.0121 THRU (T) 1522 1522 4950 0.3075 0.3075 LEFT (L) 52 52 1650 0.0315 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.72 INTERSECIION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED I NT =MAST ER. I NT, VOL=BACKGRND. PMV+T RAN SCTR. PMV+M I DPT. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP - Split? N 1.0 =-- 39 RIGHT STREET NAME: 3.0<--- 1522 THRU DUBLIN BOULEVARD 1.0 --" 52 LEFT I V SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 11 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKbiAY CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 5'PHASE SIGNAL ........... 148 20 32 <--- v ---> I Sprit? NRiGHT LEFT 50 ...... I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 11 STREET NAME.' THRU 71 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 181 THRU CENTRAL PARKL4AY RIGHT 24 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 106 LEFT v v N SIG biARRANTS: bi + E 6 3 25 UPb=No Rur=N S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (Ri 25 25 1650 0.0152 THRU (Ti 13 13 1650 0.0079 LEFT (L) 69 69 1650 0.0418 0.0418 T + R 38 1650 0.0230 SB RIGHT (Ri 148 148 1650 0.0897 THRU (Ti 20 20 1650 0.0121 LEFT (L) 32 32 1650 0.0194 T + R 168 1650 .0.1018 0.1018 EB RIGHT (Ri 24 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (Ti 71 71 3300 0.0215 0.0215 LEFT (L) 50 50 1650 0.0303 WB RIGHT (Ri 11 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (Ti 181 181 3300 0.0548 LEFT (L) 106 106 1650 0.0642 0.0642 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.23 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR~AMV+MIDPT.AMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 11 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKbiAY CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 5-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 96 18 21 STREET NAME: THRU 259 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<~~- 15/, THRU CENTRAL PARKbiAY RIGHT 69 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- ]2 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 4 6 08 Urb=N, Rur=N S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (Ri 108 108 1650 0.0655 THRU (T) 26 26 1650 0.0158 LEFT (L) 44 44 1650 0.0267 0.0267 T + R 1~4 1650 0.0812 SB RIGHT (Ri 96 96 1650 0.0582 THRU (Ti 18 18 1650 0.0109 LEFT (L) 21 21 1650 0.0127 T + R 114 1650 0.0691 0.0691 EB RIGHT (Ri 69 25 * 1650 0.0152 THRU (Ti 239 239 3300 0.0724 LEFT (L) 172 172 1650 0.1042 0.1042 bib RIGHT (Ri ]7 i~-; ..... i~ ..... ~:~ .................. THRU (Ti 154 15/, ~00 0.0467 0.0467 LEFT (L) ~2 ~2 1650 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.25 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP. ^ LEFT 0 --- 0.0 THRU 29 ---> 2.0 RIGHT 27 --- ¥ W+E S LOS Software by TJKN Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01 IHTERSECTION 12 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 0 0 <--- v ---> I Sprit? N 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT STREET NAME= (kO. OF LAHES) 2.0<°-° 59 THRU GLEASON DRIVE 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 --- 1 LEFT 7 0 9 Urb=N, Rur=N LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 9 8 * 1650 0.0048 LEFT (L) 70 70 1650 0.042/+ 0.042/+ EB RIGHT (R) 27 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 29 29 3300 0.0088 WB THRU (T) 59 59 3300 0.0179 0.0179 LEFT (L) 1 I 1650 0.0006 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.06 INTERSECTIOk LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=MRSTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR-AMV+MIOPT-AMV,CAP=C:"LO$CAP' ^ LEFT 0---I' 0.0 THRU 81 ---> 2.0 RIGHT 79 --- I ¥ S LOS Software bi/ TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 12 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN Count Oate Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT /+-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 0 0 <--- v ---> I sprit? N 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ---'0 RIGHT STREET NAME: (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 58 THRU GLEASON DRIVE 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 --- 2 LEFT 5 0 6 Urb=N, Rur=N LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET ORIGINAL ADdUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 6 /+ * 1650 0.00;)6 LEFT (L) 50 50 1650 0.0303 0.0303 EB RIGHT (R) 79 29 * 1650 0,.0176 THRU (T) 81 81 3300 0.0245 0.0245 WB THRU (T) 58 58 3300 0.0176 LEFT (L) 2 2 1650 0.0012 0.0012 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.06 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED I MT=MAST ER. INT, VOL=BACKGRND. PMV+TRAHSCTR. PMV+M 1 DPT. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP- LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 13 EL CHARRO ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 446 391 0 <--- v ---> I Split! N LEFT531---I 2.o 1.9 1.oo.o o.o --- u RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<~-- 0 THRU I 580 EB RAMPS RIGHT 236 --- 1.9 0.0 2.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT v N SIG laARRANIS: ~ + E 6 4 46 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: EL CHARRO ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 46 46 1800 0.0256 THRU (T) 674 674 3600 0.1872 SB RIGHT (R) 446 446 1800 0.2478 THRU (T) 391 391 1800 0.2172 0.2172 EB RIGHT (R) 236 236 1800 0.1311 LEFT (L) 531 531 327'5 0.1622 0.1622 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.38 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 13 EL CHARRO ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD ^ LEFT 1255 ---I 2.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 129 --' 1.9 I ¥ ~+E S RIGHT THRU LEFT 776 776 0 <--- v ---> I Split? N 1.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 0.0 2.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT <--- ^ ''';> I L v LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: EL CHARRO ROAD 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 EB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 158 158 1800 0.0878 THRU (T) 835 835 3600 0.2319 S8 RIGHT (R) 776 776 1800 0.4311 THRU (T) 776 776 1800 0.4311 0.4311 EB RIGHT (R) 129 129 1800 0.0717 LEFT (L) 1255 1255 3273 0.3834 0.3834 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.81 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP. 677 823 0 I <--- v '--> I Split? N LEFT 0 '~- 0.0 1.9 2.0 0.0 2.0 --- 472 R]GHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU I 580 WB RAHPS RIGHT ~ --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 43 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 9 0 34 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 14 FALLON ROAD/] 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD OR]G]NAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUHE VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 134 134 1800 0.0744 THRU (T) 980 980 3600 0.2722 0.2722 SB RIGHT (R) 6~ 677 1800 0.3761 THRU (T) 823 823 3600 0.2280 WB RIGHT (R) 472 472 3273 0.1442 0.1442 LEFT (L) 43 43 3273 0.0131 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.42 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=MASTER.INT~VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR-AMV+MIOPT-AMV,CAP=C:"LOSCAP' LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 14 FALLON ROAD/I 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1088 1513 0 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 0---J 0.0 1.9 2.0 0.0 2.0"-- 668 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 43 LEFT S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split?'N STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1 580 WB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 134 134 1800 0.0744 THRU (T) 1977 1977 3600 0.5492 0.5492 SB RIGHT (R) 1088 1088 1800 0.6044 THRU (T) 1513 1513 3600 0.4203 WB RIGHT (RI 668 668 3273 0.2041 0.2041 LEFT (L) 43 43 3273 0.0131 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.75 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON REO INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR-PMV+MIDPT-PMV,CAP=C:''LOSCAP' Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 15 FALLON ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 193 1392 152 v---> THRU 141 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 48 THRU RIGHT 31~ ---1.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 --- 154 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 58 6 4 70 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD OR]GINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 470 411 * 3000 0.1370 THRU (T) 604 604 4950 0.1220 LEFT (L) 587 587 3000 0.1957 0.1957 SB RIGHT (R) 193 119 * 1650 0.0721 THRU (T) 1392 1392 4950 0.2812 0.2812 LEFT (L) 152 152 3000 0.0507 EB RIGHT (R) 315 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 141 t41 4950 0.0285 0.0285 LEFT (L) 74 74 1650 0.0448 WB RIGHT (R) 64 0 * 1650 O.OOOO THRU (T) 48 48 4950 0.0097 LEFT (L) 154 154 4304 0.0358 0.0358 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.54 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANS~TR.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP. STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants ======================================================================== Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 15 FALLON ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 191 1253 181 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 272---I 1,0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 --- 246 RIGHT THRU 929 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 239 THRU RIGHT 548 --- 1.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 --- 797 LEFT v v N W + E 45 19 2 08 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: DUBLIN BOULEVARD S[G WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 508 202 * 3000 0.0673 THRU (T) 1972 1972 4950 0.3984 0.3984 LEFT (l) 458 458 3000 0.1527 SB RIGHT (R) 191 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1253 1253 4950 0.2531 LEFT (L) 181 181 3000 0.0603 0.0603 ~--~;~-i~; ..... ~ ........ ~¢;-; ..... ;;;; ..... ~:;~¢~ .................. THRU (T) 929 929 4950 0.1877 0.1877 LEFT (l) 272 272 1650 0.1648 ~'-~;~;*i~; ..... ~; ........ ;~;-; ..... ;;¢; ..... ;:;~ .................. THRU (T) 239 239 4950 0.0483 LEFT (L) 797 797 4304 0.1852 0.1852 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.83 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 16 FALLOW/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL 3O 9O7 5 THRU 10 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 35 THRU RIGHT 523 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 315 LEFT . v j jo L v W+E S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON STREET NAME: CENTRAL PARKWAY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (ET 85 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 340 340 3300 0.1030 LEFT (L) 313 313 3000 0.1043 0.1043 SB RIGHT (R) 30 9 * 1650 0.0055 THRU CT) 907 907 3300 0.2748 0.2148 LEFT (L) 5 5 1650 0.0030 EB RIGHT (R) 523 351 * 3000 0.1170 0.1170 THRU (T) . 10 10 1650 0.0061 LEFT (L) 21 21 1650 WB RIGHT (R) 19 19 1650 0.0115 THRU (T) 35 35 1650 0.0212 LEFT (L) 315 315 3000 0.1050 0.1050 T + R 54 1650 0.0327 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.60 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANScTR-AMV+MIDPT-AMV,CAP=C:''LOSCAP' LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 16 FALLON/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN COunt Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 41 885 21 i <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 58 --' 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1 --- 11 RIGHT THRU 38 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--" 21 THRU RIGHT 566 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 180 LEFT N SIG WARP. ANTS: W + E 95 12 1 37 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPAC I TY RAT I 0 V/C NB RIGHT (R) 337 238 * 1650 0.1442 THRU (T) 1201 1201 3300 0.3639 LEFT (l) 957 957 3000 0.3190 0.3190 SB RIGHT (R) 41 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 8(35 885 3300 0.2682 0.2682 LEFT (L) 21 21 1650 0.0127 EB RIGHT (R) 566 40 * 3000 0.0133 THRU (T) 38 38 1650 0.0230 0.0230 LEFT (L) 58 58 1650 0.0352 WB RIGHT (R) 11 11 1650 0.0067 THRU (T) 21 21 1650 0.0127 LEFT (L) 180 180 3000 0.0600 0.0600 32 1650 0.0194 T+R ....... ~___ ............................................................. ....... TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED I NT =MAST ER. I N T, VOL=BACKGRN D. PMV+T RAN SCT R. PMV+M I DP T. PMV, CAP=£: -. LOSCAP. STREET NAME: CENTRAL PARKWAY LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base +' Project 06/29/01 iNTERSECTION 17 FALLON ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CiTY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 7 203 0 THRU 0 -""> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 115 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 .... 0 LEFT I N W+E 3 16 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: GLEASON DRIVE SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB THRU (T) 126 126 3300 0.0382 LEFT (L) 31 31 1650' 0.0188 0.0188 SB RIGHT (R) 7 3 * 1650 0.0018 THRU (T) 203 203 3300 0.0615 0.0615 EB RIGHT (R) 115 84 * 1650 0.0509 0.0509 LEFT (L) 4 4 1650 0.0024 ======================================================================== TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.13 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A ........................................ INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 17 FALLON ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 6 161 0 <--- v ---> J Split? N LEFT 9 ...... I 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 117 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT v v N W+E 13 12 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: GLEASON DRIVE SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB THRU (T) 162 162 3300 0.0491 LEFT (L) 131 131 1650 0.0794 0.0794 THRU (T) 161 161 3300 0.0488 0.0488 EB RIGHT (R) 117 0 * 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 9 9 1650 0.0055 0.0055 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACiTY RATIO: 0.13 iNTERSECTiON LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MiDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base +-Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 18 Street D/Dublin Blvd. Dublin Count Date Time Peak Hour 94 HCM Unsignal 49 0 169 <~-- V ---> 16"--I 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 --- 52 400 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 156 0 --- 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0---- 0 v 1{I v W+E { 0 0 S ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR LANE % COHBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT { APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS I DELAY LOS SB L 169 207 7.0 636 415 410 17.4 C I 14.1 C R 49 60 5.5 87 1251 1251 3.0 A I EB L 16 20 5.5 231 1288 1288 2.8 A J 0.1 A T 400 489 O. 0 A I R 0 0 0.0 A ~ WB L 0 0 5.5 444 990 990 0.0 A { 0.0 A T 156 191 0.0 A I R 52 64 0.0 A, INT TOTAL: 3.7 A MINOR MOVEMENTS: (13.4) (C) INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C:.-LOSCAP-TAB N/S CONTROL: STOP E/W CONTROL: NONE MAJ ST SAT FLOW: Th= 1900, Rt= 1650 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST LEFT THRU RIGHT SB 0.0 --- 0.0 EB 0.0 ...... WB 0.0 ...... SIGNAL WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants ' Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 18 Street D/Dublin Blvd. Dublin COunt Date Time Peak Hour 94 HCM Unsignat N/S CONTROL: STOP 32 0 104 <:--- V -'-> 56 ---J 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 --- 189 804 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 532 0 --- 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 --- 0 W+E 0 0 S ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR LANE % COHBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 - 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 - 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 ORIG ADJ ADd CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT J APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS ~ DELAY LOS SB L 104 127 7.0 1547 109 100 254.0 F }195.2 F R 32 :59 5.5 296 981 981 3.8 A I ......................................................... + EB L 56 68 5.5 801 637 637 6.3 B I 0.4 A T 804 983 0.0 A I R 0 0 0.0 A WB L 0 0 5.5 893 568 568 0.0 A I 0.0 A T 532 650 O. 0 A I R 189 231 0.0 A ~NT TOTAL: 15.7 C MINOR MOVEMENTS: (140.1) (F) I NT=MASTER. I NT, VOL=M I DPT. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB E/W CONTROL: NONE MAJ ST SAT FLOW: Th= 1900, Rt= 1650 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST LEFT THRU RIGHT SB 0.0 -°- 0.0 EB 0.0 ...... WB 0.0 ...... SIGNAL WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=Y % LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/26/01 INTERSECTION ~ Fa[lon Rd./Project Driveway CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date t~ Time Peak Hour 94 HCM Unsignal 0 276 10 <~-- v ---> 0 ...... { 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 31 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 --- 557 W + E 8 83 S ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT { APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOSI DELAY LOS ......................................................... + NB T 98 108 0.0 A I 0.0 A R 183 201 0.0 A I SB L 10 11 5.5 281 1211 1211 3.0 A I 0.1 A T 276 304 0.0 A I WB L 557 613 7.0 384 602 597 65.0 F { 61.7 F R 31 34 5.5 49 1308 1308 2.8 A I INT TOTAL: 31.4 E MINOR MOVEMENTS: (60.7) (F) INT:MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB N/S CONTROL: NONE E/W CONTROL: STOP MAJ ST SAT FLOW: Th= 1900, Rt= 1650 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST LEFT THRU RIGHT NB ......... SB 0.0 ...... WB 0.0 --- 0.0 SIGNAL WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=Y LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/26/01 [NTE~;ECTION ~' Fa[lon Rd./Project Driveway CI;~-OF-36/t[;N Count Date IC~ Time Peak Hour 94 HCM Unsigna[ 0 258 35 0 ...... I 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0' 20 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 0 --' 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 --- 357 I < .......> I W+E 2 38 S ACCEL % %. PEAK HOUR LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT I APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS I DELAY LOS NB T 299 329 0.0 A { 0.0 A R 638 702 0.0 A I SB L 35 39 5.5 937 538 538 7.2 B I 0.9 A T 258 284 0.0 A t4B L 357 393 ?.0 592 443 418 56.8 F I 54.0 F R 20 22 5.5 150 1163 1163 3.2 A INT TOTAL: 12.8 C MINOR MOVEMENTS: (50.0) (F) I NT :MAST ER. I NT, VOL=BACKGRND. PMV+M I DPT. PMV~ CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB N/S CONTROL: NONE E/W CONTROL: STOP MAJ ST SAT FLOW: Th= 1900, Rt= 1650 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST LEFT THRU RIGHT NB ......... SB 0.0 ...... WB 0.0 --- 0.0 SIGNAL WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 20 Street D/CentraL DubLin Count Date Time Peak Hour 94 HCfl Unsigna[ N/S CONTROL: STOP 0 0 0 E/W CONTROL: NONE Ill ,AJSTSATFLO,: ^ ^ Th= 1900, Rt= 1650 I <--- v ---> I 0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST 29 ---> 1.1 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 88 LEFT THRU RIGHT NB 0.0 --- 0.0 62 ~-- 1.1 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0-'- 152 EB ......... I < ....... > J WB 0.0 ...... N SIGNAL WARRANTS: W + E 4 0 51 Urb=N, Rur=N S ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT J APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS DELAY LOS NB L 48 53 6.5 300 110 651 6.0 B J 4.4 A R 51 56 5.5 60 1291 1291 2.9 A EB T 29 32 I 0.0 A R 62 68 TR 91 100 0.0 A WB L 152 167 5.0 91 1551 1551 2.6 A I 1.6 A T 88 97 0.0 A INT TOTAL: 1.9 A MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 3.3) (A) iNT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR-AMV+MIDPT'AMV,CAP=C:"LO$CAP' LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 20 Street D/Central Dublin Count Date Time Peak Hour 94 XCM Unsignat N/S CONTROL: STOP 0 0 0 E/W CONTROL: NONE ^ , ^ Th= 1900, Et= 1650 I <--- v ---> I 0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST 101 ---> 1.1 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 57' LEFT THRU RIGHT NB 0.0 - -- 0.0 69--~1.11.0 0.01.0 1.0 --- 98 EB ......... j < .......> I WB o.o ...... v v N SIGNAL WARRANTS: W + E 0 75 Urb=N, Rur=N S ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 - 0 0 0 1.00 1,00 1.00 ......... MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL . CAP CAP DELAY LOS ) DELAY LOS NB L 7'6 84 6.5 290 7'19 677' 6.1 B I 6.4 A R 175 193 5.5 155 1182 1182 5.6 A E8 T 101 111 I 0.0 A R 69 76 TR 17'0 187 0.0 A WB L 98 108 5.0 170 1423 1423 2.7 A J 1.7' A T 57' 63 0.0 A INT TOTAL: 2.4 A MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 3.9) iA) I MT=MASTER. I NT,VOL=BACKGRND-PMV+TRANSCTR-PMV+MI DPT. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 21 Street B/Central Dub[in Count Date Time Peak Hour 94 HCH Unsigna[ 133 0 5 I <--- V ---} 44 ......' 1.0 1.1 0.0 1.1 1.1 5 36 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 107 0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 N W+E { 0 0 $ ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR LANE ~ COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 ORIG ADd ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT { APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS I DELAY LOS SB L 5 6 6.5 190 822 803 { 3.5 A T 0 0 6.0 190 868 840 I R 133 146 5.5 109 1219 1219 LTR 138 152 3.5 A EB L 44 48 5.0 112 1516 1516 2.5 A I 1.3 A T 36 40 0.0 A I gB T 107 118 I 0.0 A R 5 6 I TR 112 124 0.0 A INT TOTAL: 1.8 A MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 3.2) (A) INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MIDPT-AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP. N/S CONTROL: STOP E/W CONTROL: NONE MAJ ST SAT F£OW: Th= 1900, Rt= 1650 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST LEFT THRU RIGHT SB 0.0 --- 0.0 EB 0.0 ...... SIGNAL WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 21 Street B/Centra[ Oubtin Count Date Time Peak Hour 94 HCM Unsi gna [ 133 0 5 I ~--- V ---> 44---' 1.0 t.1 0.0 1.1 1.1 ---- 5 36 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 107 0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 W+E 0 0 S ACCEL ~ % PEAl< HOUR LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT N 0 0 O 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT ~ APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS I DELAY LOS SB L 5 6 6.5 190 822 803 { 3.5 A T 0 0 6.0 190 868 840 I R 133 146 5.5 109 1219 1219 LTR 138 152 3.5 A EB L 44 48 5.0 112 1516 1516 2.5 A I 1.3 A T 36 40 0.0 A I WB T 107 118 I 0.0 A R 5 6 I TR 112 124 0.0 A INT TOTAL: 1.8 A MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 3.2) (A) I MT=MASTER. I NT,VOL=BACKGRND. PMV+TRANSCTR. PMV+M I DPT. PMV~ CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. N/S CONTROL: STOP E/W CONTROL: NONE MAJ ST SAT FLOW: Th= 1900, Rt= 1650 CRITICAL GAP ADdUST LEFT THRU RIGHT SB 0.0 --- 0.0 EB 0.0 ...... SIGNAL WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base+Proj.-mitigation 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Oate Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 300 2007 0 LEFT--I 3.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 - RIGHT THRU 0 --~> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 1834 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT I < ....... > I v v W+E 15 1 65 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE Z-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: ] 580 EB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 365 365 1800 0.2028 THRU (T) 1551 1551 5400 0.2872 SB RIGHT (R) 300 300 1800 0.1667 THRU (T) 2007 2007 5400 0.3717 0.3717 EB RIGHT (R) 1834 1834 3273 0.5603 LEFT (L) 1777 1~7 4695 0.3785 ~ '~ ~ 8~ .... TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.~3 0,'~ INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MITIG8. INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR-AMV+MIDPT-AMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP' LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base+Proj.-mitigation 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 1286 1669 0 <--- v ---> j Split? N LEFT 1~82---I 3.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU I 580 EB RAMPS RIGHT 218 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 24 0 I 58 Urb=Y, Rur:Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 1458 1458 1800 0.8100 THRU (T) 2400 2400 5400 0.4444 0,4444 SB RIGHT (R) 1286 1286 1800 0.7144 THRU (T) 1669 1669 5400 0.3091 EB RIGHT (R) 218 218 3273 0.0606 LEFT (l) 1382 1382 4695 0.2944 0.2944 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.74 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED 1NT=MIT1GS.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT-PMVoCAP=C:--LOSCAP- LEFT 0 ...I 0.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT ~3 -" 0.0 ¥ ~+E S LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base+Proj.-mitigation 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 UB RAMPS CiTY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 867 761 0 <--- v ---> { Split? N 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 1151 RIGHT STREET NAME: (NO. OF LANES) 0~0<--- 0 THRU I 580 UB RAMPS 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 1536 LEFT 27 6 69 Urb=Y, Rur=Y LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 569 569 1800 0.3161 THRU (T) 2756 2756 5400 0.5104 0.5104 SB RIGHT (R) 867 867 1800 0.4817 THRU (l) 761 761 5400 0.1409 WB RIGHT (R) 1151 1151 3273 0.3517 0.3517 LEFT (L) 1536 1536 4695 0.3272 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.86 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MITIGS. INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MIDPT.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base+Proj.-mitigation 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/! 580 ~B RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1994 2276 0 <--- v ---> { Split? N LEFT 0---{ 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 500 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 538 LEFT v v N W+E 2241 ?'9 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 WB RAMPS SIG ~ARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 1579 1579 1800 0.87Z2 THRU (T) 2204 2204 5400 0.4081 SB RIGHT (R) 1994 1994 1800 1.1078 ** THRU (T) 2276 2276 5400 0.4215 0.4215 WB RIGHT (R) 500 500 3273 0.1528 0.1528 LEFT (L) 538 538 4695 0.1146 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.5?' INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED ~ APPROACHING OR EXCEEDING CAPACITY lNT=MITI68.1NT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour;Future Base+Proj - Mitigation 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/I 580 E8 RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 495 1233 172 <--- v ---> / Split? Y LEFT 1367---I 3.1 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.5--- 524 RIGHT THRU 161 ---> 1.1 (NO. OF LANES) O.O<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 6{)5 ~-- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 -~- 209 LEFT v v N W+E ~ 142 76 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: SANTA AlTA ROAD 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 EB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 5?6 461 * 3000 0.1537 THRU (T) 1482 1482 4950 0.2994 T + R 1943 6300 0.3084 0.3084 SB RIGHT (R) 495 495 1650 0.3000 THRU (T) 1233 1233 3300 0.3736 LEFT (L) 172 172 1650 0.1042 0.1042 EB RIGHT (R) 605 605 1650 0.3667 THRU (T) 161 161 1650 0.0976 LEFT (L) 1367 1367 4304 0.3176 T + L 1528 4304 0.3550 0.3550 WB RIGHT (R) 524 211 * 3000 0.0703 0.0703 LEFT (L) 209 209 3000 ,0.0697 TOTAL VOLUME'TO-CAPACiTY RATIO: 0.84 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MITIGS. IflT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=~:..LOSCAP. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour;Future Base+Proj - Mitigation 06/29/01 INTERSECTION 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN Count Oate Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1524 932 221 <--~ v ---> / Split? Y LEFT 1232---I 3.1 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.5--- 391 RIGHT THRU 303 ---> 1.1 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 183 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 114 LEFT v 111 v N 14+ E 183 94 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: I 580 EB RAMPS SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 594 531 * 3000 0.1770 THRU (T) 1833 1833 4950 0.3703 T + R 2364 6300 0.3752 0.3752 SB RIGHT (R) 1524 1524 1650 0.9236 ** THRU (T) 932 932 3300 0.2824 LEFT (L) 221 221 1650 0.1339 0.1339 EB RIGHT (R) 183 183 1650 0.1109 THRU (T) 303 303 1650 0.1836 LEFT (L) 1232 1232 4304 0.2862 T + L 1535 4304 0.3566 0.3566 WB RIGHT (R) 391 0 * 3000 0.0000 LEFT (L) 114 114 3000 0.0380 0.0380 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.90 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT ~URN ON RED ** APPROACHING OR EXCEEDING CAPACITY INT=MITIGS. INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP:C:..LOSCAP. ^ LEFT 16---I 1.o THRU 400 ---> 2.0 RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 ¥ S LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Proj - mitigation 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 18 Street D/Dublin Blvd. Dublin Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 49 0 169 <--- v ---> '--- 1.0 0.0 1.0 '1.0- - ~- RIGHT STREET NAME: (NO. OF LANES) 2,0<--- 156 THRU Dublin Blvd. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 --- 0 LEFT <_.. A .__> I 0 0 Urb=N, Rur=N LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Street D ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C SB RIGHT iR) 49 33 * 1650 0.0200 LEFT il) 169 169 1650 0.1024 0.1024 EB RIGHT iR) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU iT) 400 400 3300 0.1212 0.1212 LEFT il) 16 16 1650 0.0097 WB RIGHT iR) 52 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU iT) 156 156 3300 0.0473 LEFT il) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.22 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MITIGS. INT,VOL=MIDPT.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Proj - mitigation 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 18 Street D/Dublin Blvd. Dublin Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 32 0 104 <--- v ---> I Split.? N LEFT 56 ...... { 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 189 RIGHT THRU 804 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 532 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 --- 0 LEFT N W+E 0 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Street D STREET NAME: Dublin Blvd. SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C SB RIGHT (R) 32 0 * 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 104 104 1650 0.0630 0.0630 EB RIGHT iR) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU iT) 804 804 3300 0.2436 0.2436 LEFT il) 56 56 1650 0.0339 WB RIGHT (ET 189 85 * 1650 0.0515 THRU iT) 532 532 3300 0.1612 LEFT il) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.31 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MITIGS.INT,VOL=MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project -I'f~!_~t~ 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 19 Fal[on Rd,/Project Oriveway CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 276 10 ^ LEFT 0 --- 0.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 I V W+E S III 0.0 2,0 1,0 1,0 ---' 31 RIGHT (NO, OF LANES) 0,0<--- 0 THRU 0,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 --- 55? LEFT LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project - Iv~_~ev~ 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 19 Fa[ton Rd./Project Driveway CITY OF DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT LEFT 0 __.l 0,0 0,0 STREET NAME: Project Driveuay THRU 0 ---> 0,0 (NO, RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 / V S[G WARRANTS: N Urb=N, Rur=Y W + E S LEFT STREET NAME: FaLton Rd. ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 183 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 98 98 3300 0.0297 SB THRU (T) 276 276 3300 0.0§36 0.0836 LEFT (l) 10 10 1650 0.0061 WB RIGHT (R) 31 21 * 1650 0.0127 LEFT (L) 557 557 1650 0.33?6 0.3376 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.42 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=HASTER.INT~VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR-AMV+MIDPT'AMV~CAP=c:''LOSCAP' THRU LEFT 258 35 II 2,0 1.0 OF LANES) 2.0 1.0 ^ STREET NAME: Fallon Rd. 4-PHASE SIGNAL ^ I spti~N 1.0 --- RIGHT 0,0<-"- 0 THRU 1.0 --- 35? LEFT I v STREET NAME: Project Driveway SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME . VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C ,B ............................. RIG,T (.) ...... ; ..... ..... ....... THRU (T) 299 299 3300 0.0906 SB THRU (T) 258 258 3300 0.0782 LEFT (L) 35 35 1650 0.0212 0.0212 WB RIGHT (R) 20 0 * 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 357 357 1650 0.2164 0.2164 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0,41 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT-PMV~CAP=C:--LOSCAP- LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS CUMULATIVE YEAR 2025 - NO PROJECT Table 3.6-5 ortation Model Cumulative Year 2025 (No Projec0 Peak Hour Intersection LeVelS OI ~efvlcg -- · rt- v ittt~:y a a q~a~p~,z za~,~,,, · .................. . .... n ir · Umnitigated Mitigated Intersection Control A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour * LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS I Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.94 E 1.00 E ....... 2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.73 C 0.84 D 3 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Westbound Rampg Signal 0.84 D 0.93 E 0.66 B 0.72 C 4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.84 D 0.97 E ........ 5 Santa Rita Road/l~580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.85 D 0.77 C 6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.71 C 0.75 C 7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.72 C 0.88 D 8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.71 C 0.63 B 9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.59 A 0.50 A 10 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.3 ! A 0.41 A I I Grafton Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.06 A 0.09 A 12 Graf~on Street/Gleason Drive Signal 0.44 A 0.36 A 13 El Charro Road/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.47 A 0.54 A 14 Fallon Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.57 A 0.69 B 15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.67 B 0.88 D 16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.54 A 0.72 C 17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.42 A 0.28 A Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections. Table 3.6-6 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service-Tri-Valley Transportation Model ,Cumulative Year 2025 plus Project Intersection Control Unmitigated Mitigated A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour * LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS I Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.93 E 1.03 F 2 Hacienda Drive/l~580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.72 C 0.81 D 3 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.83 D 0.96 E 0.65 B 0.75 C 4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.82 D 1.00 E ........ 5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.86 D 0.74 C 6 Tassajara Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.69 B 0,73 C 7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.74 C 0.86 D 8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.70 B 0.61 B 9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.56 A 0.47 A I 0 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.35 A 0.44 A I I Graflon Street/Central Parkway Signal 0. l0 A 0.12 A 12 Grafton Street/Gleason Drive Signal 0.44 A 0.37 A ! 3 El Charro Road/l-580 Eastbound Ralllps Signal 0.60 A 0.63 B 14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.63 B 0.76 C 15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.88 D l.l I F ........ 15A Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. w/New Int. Signal ...... 0.77 C 0.91 E XX Fallon Road/New Intersection Signal ........ 0.62 B 0.71 C 16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.83 D 0.84 D 17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.51 A 0.31 A 18 Street D/Dublin Boulevard One-Way STOP >120 F >120 F Street D/Dublin Boulevard - Mitigated Signal ........ 0.80 C 0.83 D 19 Fallon Road/"Project Road", One-Way STOP >120 F >120 F Fallon Road/"Project Road" - Mitigated Signal ........ 0.55 A 0.49 A 20 Street D/Central Parkway One-Way STOP 7.6 B 7.6 B 21 Street B/Central Parkway One-Way STOP 7.7 B 4.9 A Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections; Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at l-way STOP-controlled intersections. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; C~ulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 3977DOUGHERTY RD./DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN Count Oate YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 ~/0 PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 135 2101 9 <''' V LEFT 14 ---I 1.0 1.1 4.1 2.0 THRU 940 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) RIGHT 914 --- 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 ~:.._ ^ S LEFT THRU RIGHT split? N STREET NAME: OOUGNERTY MO. 8-PHASE SIGNAL ^ 1.1 RIGHT STREET NAME: 3.1<--~ 1204 THRU OUBLIN BLVD. 3.0 --- 622 LEFT ¥ SIG ~ARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 553 119 * 3000 0.0397 THRU (T) 718 718 4950 0.1451 LEFT (L) 1164 1164' 4304 0.2704 0.2704 SB RIGHT (R) 135 135 1650 0.0818 THRU (T) 2101 2101 ~00 0.31~ LEFT (L) 9 9 3000 0.0030 T + R 2236 6600 0.3388 0.3388 EB RIGHT (R) 914 103 * 3000 0.0343 THRU (T) 940 940 4950 0.1899 0.1899 LEFT (L) 14 14 1650 0.0085 ~B RIGHT (R) 33 33 1650 0.0200 THRU (T) 1204 1204 4950 0.2432 LEFT (L) 622 622 4304 0.1445 0.1445 T + R 1237 4950 0.2499 ======================================================================== TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.94 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV~CAP=C:-.LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 3977 DOUGHERTY RD./DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN Count Oate YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 N/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 31 1465 60 v ---> ! THRU 1334 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<--- 1204 THRU RIGHT 1191 --- 2.5 3.0 '3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 744 LEFT N ~J + E 142 20 7 ~ S 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: DUBLIN BLVD. SIG ~ARRANTS: Urb=Y~ Rur=Y LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY RD. ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 773 254 * 3000 0.0847 THRU (T) 2017 2017 4950 0.4075 LEFT (L) 1429 1429 4304 0.3320 0.3320 SB RIGHT (R) 31 31 1650 0.0188 THRU (T) 1465 1465 6600 0.2220 LEFT (L) 60 60 3000 0.0200 T + R 1496 6600 0.2267 0.2267 ~4~'~iGHT (~; .... i191 .... 195 * 3000 0.0650 THRU (T) 1334 1334 4950 0.2695 0.2695 LEFT (L) 62 62 1650 0.0376 WB RIGHT (R) 25 25 1650 0.0152 THRU (T) 1204 1204 4950 0.2432 LEFT (L) 744 744 4304 0.1729 0.1729 T + R 1229 4950 0.2483 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 1.00 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT~VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: am peak hour; CumuLative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 8302 Hacienda Dr/l~580 EB ramp Pteasanton Count Date YR,2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 ~/0 PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 1682 0 LEFT 681---I 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0:-0- RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 1186 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT I ~ ....... ~ I N ~ + E 19 1 91 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumutative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 8302 Hacienda Dr/i-580 EB ramp Pteasanton Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 ~/0 PRJ Peak'Hour PM PEAK VOL 2-PHASE SIGNAL CCTA METHOD RIGHT LEFT 636---I 2.0 1.9 STREET NAME: 1-580 EB ramp THRU 0 -:-> 0.0 (NO. RIGHT 1100 --- 2.0 0.0 SIG ~ARRANTS: N v / Ur'b=Y~ Rur=Y W + E S LEFT ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 491 491 1800 0.2728 THRU (T) 1991 1991 5400 0.3687 0.3687 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1682 1682 5400 0.3115 ~--~;~Fi~; .... ;;~ ....... ;i~; ....... ~ ..... ;~;~ ..... ~;~ ....... LEFT (L) 681 681 3273 0.2081 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.73 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB THRU LEFT 1916 0 II 3.0 0.0 OF LANES) 3.0 1.9 THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr ^ 0.0 I Sprit? N --- 0 RIGHT 0.0<--- 0 THRU 0.0 -~- 0 LEFT ¥ 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 EB ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 763 76~ 1800 0.4239 THRU (T) 2702 2702 5400 0.5004 0.5004 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1916 1916 5400 0.3548 EB RIGHT (R) 1100 1100 3273 0.3361 0.3361 LEFT (L) 636 636 3273 0.1943 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.84 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 NB. ramp Dublin Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 N/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 587 1621 0 <--- v ---> { Split? N LEFT 0 .... I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 -- 1017 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2~0 --- 645 LEFT v v N N+E 182 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 NB ramp S[G WARRANTS: Urb=¥, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED VIC CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1892 1892 ~qZO.~ 0.5256 -E~.5256 SB RIGHT (R) 587 587 1800 0.3261 THRU (T) 1621 1621 5400 0.3002 NB RIGHT (R) 1017 1017 3273 0.3107 0.3107 LEFT (l) 645 645 3273 0.1971 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUM4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 NB ramp Dublin Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 N/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1217 2209 0 <--- v ---> J Split? N LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 990 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 692 LEFT v v N W+E 223 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 WB ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=YI Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 2243 2243 3q?O.,T~ 0.6231 0.6231 SB RIGHT (R) 1217 1217 1800 0.6761 THRU (T) 2209 2209 5400 0.4091 WB RIGHT (R) 990 990 3273 0.3025 0.3025 LEFT (L) 692 692 3273 0.2114 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: -0~93' INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E * ADJUSTED FOR'RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 8306 Hacienda Dr/Dublin BLvd Dublin Count Date YR,2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 9 912 137 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 57 .... I 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 -- 40 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 517 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1009 THRU Dubkin Blvd RIGHT 456 --- 2.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 958 LEFT N SIG WARRANIS: W + E 99 5 2 87 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 387 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 572 572 4950 0.1156 LEFT (L) 998 998 4304 0.2319 0.2319 SB RIGHT (R) 9 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 912 912 4950 0.1842 0.1842 LEFT (L) 137 137 3000 0.0457 EB RIGHT (R) 456 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 517 517 4950 0.1044 0.1044 LEFT (L) 57 57 3000 0.0190 WB RIGHT (R) 40 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1009 1009 4950 0.2038 LEFT (L) 958 958 3000 0.3193 0.3193 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.84 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED [NT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMViCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 8306 Hacienda Dr/Oubtin Btvd Dublin Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 N/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 5 916 148 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 82 ...... I 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 33 RIGHT THRU 1242 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 685 THRU RIGHT 877 --- 2.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 634 LEFT v N W + E 138 7 7 40 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr STREET NAME: Dublin Btvd WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 940 591 * 1650 0.3582 THRU (T) 757 757 4950 0.1529 LEFT (L) 1387 1387 4304 0.3223 0.3223 SB RIGHT (R) 5 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 916 916 4950 0.1851 0.1851 LEFT (L) 148 148 3000 0.0493' ..... .......... F; ..... ..... .................. THRU (T) 1242 1242 4950 0.2509 0.2509 LEFT (L) 82 82 3000 0.02T3 .. RIGHT eR) ..... THRU (T) 685 685 4950 0.1384 LEFT eL) 634 634 3O0O0.2113 0.2113 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACiTY RATIO: 0.97 INTERSECT[ON LEVEL OF SERVICE: E · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB I ~ I I f I .I ~ I l I I I I I t I I I LOS Software byTJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 4041 Santa Rita Rd/I-580 eb-off PLEASANTON Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4.W/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD A I LEFT 831 "- 2.0 THRU 104 ---> 1.0 RIGHT 181 --- 1.9 I ¥ S RIGHT THRU LEFT 0 1326 151 <--- v ---> I split? Y 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0 :-- 678 RIGHT (NO. OF LANES) 0:0<--- 0 THRU 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 eb-off SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 423 423 3000 0.1410 THRU (T) 634 634 4950 0.1281 T + R 1057 6300 0.1678 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1326 1326 3300 0.4018 0.4018 LEFT (L) 151 151 1650 0.0915 EB RIGHT (R) 181 181 1650 0.1097 THRU (T) 104 104 1650 0.0630 LEFT (L) 831 831 3000 0.2770 0.2770 tis EIGHT (R) 678 527 * 3000 0.1757 0.1757 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.85 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: 0 · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEtiSRP.INToVOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 4041 Santa Rita Rd/I-580 eb-off PLEASANTON Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 ti/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 1389 289 I <-~- V ---> ! SpLit? Y LEFT 530 --- 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0 -- 290 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 208 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 eb-off RIGHT 113 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT v N SIG tiARRANTS: ti + E 20 5 2 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPAC I TY RAT I 0 V/C NB RIGHT (R) 2 2 3000 0.0007 THRU (T) 2085 2085 4950 0.4212 0.4212 T + R 2087 6300 0.3313 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1389 1389 3300 0.4209 LEFT (L) 289 289 1650 0.1752 0.1752 EB RIGHT (R) 113 113 1650 0.0685 THRU (T) 208 208 1650 O. 1261 LEFT (L) 530 530 3000 0.1767 0.1767 LiB RIGHT (R) 290 1 * 3000 0.0003 0.0003 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.77 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED I NT=NEtiSRP. I NT ~ VOL=NXRUN4.PMV~ CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; CumuLative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 3988 Tassajara Rd/l-580 wb-off PLEASANTON Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour AN PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1077 1333 0 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 743 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --~ 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 474 LEFT N W+E 174 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET HAME: 1-580 wb-off SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACI'TY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1754 1754 3600 0.4872 0.4872 SB RIGHT (R) 1077 1077 1800 0.5983 THRU (T) 1333 1333 5400 0.2469 WB RIGHT (R) 743 743 3273 0.2270 0.2270 LEFT (L) 474 474 3273 0.1448 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.71 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C ........................................ ]NT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LEFT 0---J 0.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 ¥ W+E S LOS Software by TJKMTransportation ConsuLtants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 3988 Tassajara Rd/I-580 wb-off PLEASANTON Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 ~/0 PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 1199 1762 0 <--- v ---> { SpLit? N 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 650 RIGHT STREET NAME: (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 wb-off 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 493 LEFT ~--- ^ '--> 19 2 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1972 1972 3600 0.5478 0.5478 SB RIGHT (R) 1199 1199 1800 0.6661 THRU (T) 1762 1762 5400 0.3263 ~B RIGHT (R) 650 650 3273 0.1986 0.1986 LEFT (L) 493 493 3273 0.1506 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.75 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants ( ~ondition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01 Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 g/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD ^ LEFT 397---I 2.0 THRU 380 -'-> 3.0 RIGHT 203 --- 2.5 I ¥ S RIGHT THRU LEFT 742 1912 82 <-~- ¥ -'-> I Split? N 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 --- 47 RIG}ti (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<-~- 966 THRU 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 516 LEFT ,.._ ^ ___). J LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd 8-P}IASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: Dublin Btvd SIG WARRANTS: Urb:Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 524 326 * 3000 0.1087 THRU (T) 1192 1192 6600 0.1806 LEFT (L) 421 421 4304 0.0978 0.0978 SB RIGHT (R) 742 524 * 3000 0.1747 THRU (T) 1912 1912 6600 0.2897 0.2897 LEFT (L) 82 82 3000 0.0273 · EB RIGHT (R) 203 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 380 380 4950 0.0768 LEFT (L) 397 397 3000 0.1323 0.1323 NB RIGHT (R) 47 2 * 1650 0.0012 THRU (T) 966 966 4950 0.1952 0.1952 LEFT (L) 516 516 4304 0.1199 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.72 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: , C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=NEWSRP.INToVOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:.-LOSCAP.TAB LOS SOftware by TJKM 'Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 1573 Tassajara Rd/Oublin Blvd Alameda County Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 U/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 353 1579 76 <*-- v ---> ! LEFT 906---J 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 - RIGHT T}IRU 1363 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 326 RIG}IT 384 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1031 LEFT N W + E 54 17 34 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd STREET NAME: THRU Dublin Blvd SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 434 39 * 3000 0.0130 THRU (T) 1776 1776 6600 0.2691 LEFT (L) 545 545 4304 0.1266 0.1266 SB RIGHT (R) 353 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU CT) 1579 1579 6600 0.2392 0.2392 LEFT (L) 76 76 3000 0.0253 EB RIGHT (R) 384 4 * 3000 0.0013 THRU (T) 1363 1363 4950 0.2754 0.2754 LEFT (L) 906 906 3000 0.3020 WB RIGHT (R) 63 21 * 1650 0.0127 THRU (T) 326 326 4950 0.0659 LEFT (L) 1031. 1031 4304 0.2395 0.2395 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.88 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:.-LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKWY DUBLIN Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 42 2004 140 LEFT 35--- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1,0 - RIGHT THRU 48 '--> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1,0<~-- 56 THRU RIGHT 188 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 516 LEFT v v N W + E 16 2 08 -S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD. 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: CENTRAL PKWY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 408 124 * 1650 0.0?52 THRU (l) 772 772 4950 0.1560 LEFT (L) 168 168 1650 0.1018 0.1018 SB RIGHT (R) 42 7 * 1650 0.0042 THRU (T) 2004 2004 4950 0.4048 0.4048 LEFT (L) 140 140 1650 0.0848 EB RIGHT (R) 188 20 * 1650 0.0121 THRU (T) 48 48 1650 0.0291 0.0291 LEFT (L) 35 35 1650 0.0212 WB RIGHT (R) 67 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 56 56 1650 0.0339 LEFT (L) 516 516 3000 0.1720 0.1720 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.71 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKWY DUBLIN Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 22 1009 93 I <-'- v --'> ! Split? N LEFT 42 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 -- 146 RIGHT THRU 55 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<.~" 75 THRU RIGHT 163 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 638 LEFT W +N E 18~ ~ [16 5 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD. 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: CENTRAL PKWY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 654 303 * 1650 0.1836 THRU (T) 1615 1615 4950 0.3263 0.3263 LEFT (L) 188 188 1650 0.1139 SB RIGHT (R) 22 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1009 1009 4950 0.2038 LEFT (L) 93 93 1650 0.0564 0.0564 EB RIGHT (R) 163 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 55 55 1650 0.0333 0.0333 LEFT (L) 42 42 1650 0.0255 WB RIGHT (R) 146 53 * 1650 0.0321 THRU (T) 75 75 1650 0.0455 LEFT (L) 638 638 3000 0.2127 0.2127 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.63 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak houri Ct~u[ative 2025 No Project ' 07/03/01 ======================================================================== I]INIERSEClION 3987 lassajara Rd/G[eason Ave Alameda County ~..~Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 352 1681 80 <--- v ---> / Split? N LEFT 39---I 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0--- 49 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU /.1 --'> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 179 THRU Gteason Ave RIGHT 99 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 --- 475 LEFT N SIG NARRANTS: la + E 22 4 5 95 Urb:Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 195 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 475 475 4950 0.0960 LEFT (L) 227 227 3000 0.0757 0.0757 SB RIGHT (R) 352 331 * 1650 0.2006 THRU (T) 1681 1681 4950 0.3396 0.3396 LEFT (L) 80 80 1650 0.0485 EB RIGHT (R) 99 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 41 41 3300 0.0124 0.0124 LEFT (L) 39 39 3000 0.0130 WB RIGHT (R) 49 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 179 179 3300 0.0542 LEFT (l) 475 475 3000 0.1583 0.1583 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.59 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/Gteason Ave ALameda County Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 48 633 58 <--- v ---> I Sprit? N LEFT 418 ...... I 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 59 RIGHT THRU 235 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 36 THRU RIGHT 27'5 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 --- 271 LEFT v v N ~l + E 19 13 1 52 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: Gteason Ave SIG ~ARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 352 203 * 3000 0.0677 THRU (T) 1361 1361 4950 0.2749 0.2749 LEFT (L) 195 195 3000 0.0650 SB RIGHT (R) 48 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 633 633 4950 0.1279 LEFT (L) 58 58 1650 0.0352 0.0352 EB RIGHT (R) 2~ 166 * 1650 0.1006 0.1006 THRU (T) 235 235 3300 0.0712 LEFT (L) 418 418 3000 0.1393 NB RIGHT (R) 59 1 * 1650 0.0006 THRU (T) 36 36 3300 0.0109 LEFT (L) 271 271 3000 0.0903 0.0903 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.50 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION ~17 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 0 65 THRU 82i ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1363 RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT v 131 v N W+E 0 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET 6-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: TNRU DUBLIN BLVD SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 65 65 1650 0.0394 0.0394 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGNT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 821 821 4950 0.1659 LEFT (L) O 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 ~B RIGHT (R) 14 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1363 1363 4950 0.2754 0.2754 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.31 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGNT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT~VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 ======================================================================== INTERSECTION ~17 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/D PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 0 37 STREET NAME; THRU 1922 ---> ).0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 90}' THRU DUBLIN BLVD RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT v N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 0 0 Urb=N, Rur=N S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 · LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0..0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 37 37 1650 0.0224 0.0224 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1922 1922 4950 0.3883 0.3/),03 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 WB RIGHT (R) 44 7 * 1650 .0.0042 THRU (T) 907 907 4950 0.1832 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.41 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED I RT=NEWSRP. INT ~ VOL=NXRUN4. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 6615 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKNAY DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 0 0 <--- V ---> I Sptit~ N LEFT 0 ---I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- u RIGHT THRU 35 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 49 THRU RIGHT 87 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT W+E 7 0 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET 5-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: CENTRAL PARKWAY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 o.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 78 78 1650 0.0473 0.0473 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 87 9 * 1650 0.0055 THRU (T) 35 35 3300 0.0106 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 49 49 3300 0.0148 0.0148 LEFT (l) 0 0 1650 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.06 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 6615 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 0 0 <--- v ---> I Split?,, N LEFT 0---I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- u RIGHT THRU 68 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<-~- 9 THRU RIGHT 95 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT I < ....... ~ I v N W+E 11 0 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET 5-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: CENTRAL PARKIdAY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT eL) 114 114 1650 0.0691 0.0691 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 95 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 68 68 3300 0.0206 0.0206 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 ~B RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 9 9 3300 O.OOZ? LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consu£tant$ Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 6618 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 399 33 14 THRU 123 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 308 THRU RIGHT 1 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT N W+E ? 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: GLEASON DRIVE SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 17 17 1650 0.0103 LEFT (L) 1 1 1650 0.0006 0.0006 T + R 17 1650 0.0103 SB RIGHT (R) 399 399 1650 0.2418 THRU (T) 33 33 1650 0.0200 LEFT (L) 14 14 1650 0.0085 T + R 432 1650 0.2618 0.2618 EB RIGHT (R) 1 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 123 123 3300 0.0373 LEFT (L) 136 136 1650 0.0824 0.0824 WB RIGHT (R) 11 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 308 308 3300 0.0933 0.0933 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.44 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConSultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 6618 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 165 16 7 I <---v ---> I Sptit? N LEFT 348 --- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 ---10 RIGHT THRU 309 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 122 THRU RIGHT 2 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT I < ....... > I v v N W+E 4 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET STREET NAME: GLEASON DRIVE SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 34 34 1650 0.0206 LEFT (L) 1 1 1650 0.0006 0.0006 T + R 34 1650 0.0206 SB RIGHT (R) 165 165 1650 0.1000 THRU (T) 16 16 1650 0.0097 LEFT (l) 7 7 1650 0.0042 T + R 181 1650 0.1097 0.1097 EB RIGHT (R) 2 1 * 1650 0.0006 THRU (T) 309 309 3300 0.0936 LEFT (L) 348 348 1650 0.2109 0.2109 WB RIGHT (R) 10 3 * 1650 0.0018 THRU (T) 122 122 3300 0.0370 0.0370 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.36 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A ======================================================================== · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP. INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 9957 Et Charro Rd/I-580 EB ramp Alameda County Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL 0 1218 0 THRU 0 "--> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<"" 0 THRU RIGHT 103 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT v v N 14+E 63 51 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? H STREET NAME: Et Charro Rd STREET NAME: 1-580 EB ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (Ri 851 851 1800 0.4728 THRU (Ti 633 633 5400 0.1172 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (Ti 1218 1218 5400 0.2256 0.2256 EB RIGHT (R) 103 103 3273 0.0315 LEFT (L) 798 798 3273 0.2438 0.2438 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.47 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.]NT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 9957 El Charro Rd/I-S80 EB ramp Alameda County Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD LEFT 895---I 2.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 48 --- 2.0 ¥ $ RIGHT THRU LEFT 0 1453 0 III <--- v ---> I sprit?_. 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0--- 0 RIGHT (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 0.0 ~.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? ~1 STREET NAME: El Charro Rd Z-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 EB ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 977 977 1800 0.5428 THRU (T) 810 810 5400 0.1500 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (Ti 1453 1453 5400 0.2691 0.2691 EB RIGHT (R) 48 48 ~Z7~ 0.0147 LEFT (L) 895 895 3273 0.2734 0.2734 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.54 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED I~T=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project INTERSECTION 9956 Fatton Rd/I-580 WB ramp Alameda County Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 1051 LEFT 0 --- 0,0 1.9 THRU 0 "--> 0.0 (NO. RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 IS LEFT 1747 0 II v ---> / Split? N 3.0 0.0 2.0-'-~ 806 RIGHT STREET NAME: OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 t4B ramp 3.0 1.9 2.0 --- 693 LEFT 14 0 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Falton Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1410 1410 5400 0.2611 SB RIGHT (R) 1051 1051 1800 0.5839 THRU (T) 1747 1747 5400 0.3235 0.3235 WB RIGHT (R) 806 806 3273 0.2463 0.2463 LEFT (L) 693 693 3273 0.2117 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.57 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.1NT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 9956 Fatton Rd/I-580 WB ramp Alameda County Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL 1334 1632 0 <~-- v ---> I Split/ N LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0---1254 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 2.0 --- 747 LEFT v v N W+E 150 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Fatton Rd STREET NAME: 1-580 WB ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NH RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1590 1590 5400 0.2944 SB RIGHT (R) 1334 1334 1800 0.7411 THRU (T) 1632 1632 5400 0.3022 0.3022 WB RIGHT (R) 1254 1254 3273 0.3831 0.3831 LEFT (L) 747 747 3273 0.2282 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.69 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB lOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01 ======================================================================== (~'~INTERSECTION 8336 Fat[on Rd/Dublin 8tvd ALameda County CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 1 1082 177 I <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 0 --- 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 --- 0 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 223 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<-~- 899 THRU Dublin BLvd RIGHT 278 --- 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 -~~ 1456 LEFT N SIG ~ARRANTS: ~ + E 36 4 11 83 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Fat[on Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 1183 625 * 3000 0.2083 THRU (T) 411 411 6600 0.0623 LEFT (L) 364 364 3000 0.1213 0.1213 SB RIGHT (R) 1 1 1650 0.0006 THRU (T) 1082 1082 6600 0.1639 0.1639 LEFT (L) 177 177 3000 0.0590 EB RIGHT (R) 278 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 223 223 4950 0.0451 0.0451 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 . NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 899 899 4950 0.1816 LEFT (L) 1456 1456 4304 0.3383 0.3383 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.67 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 8336 Fatlon Rd/Dublin Blvd ALameda County Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 ~/0 PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 460 0 v ---> ! THRU 1206 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 188 THRU RIGHT 444 --- 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0--- 1692 LEFT N 14 + E 29 10 3 1 92 S STREET NAME: Dublin Btvd SIG gARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Fa[[on Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 1392 743 * 3000 0.2477 0.2477 THRU (T) 1083 1083 6600 0.1641 LEFT (L) 298 298 ~000 0.0993 SB RIGHT (R) 0 '0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 460 460 6600 0.0697 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 444 146 * 3000 0.0487 THRU (T) 1206 1206 4950 0.2436 0.2436 LEFT (L) 1 1 3000 0.0003 ~B RIGHT (R) 81 81 1650 0.0491 THRU (T) 188 188 4950 0.0380 LEFT (L) 1692 1692 4304 0.3931 0.3931 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.88 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O ........................................ INT=NENSRP.INT~VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 6438 FALLON ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 10 1051 304 <--- v ---> [ sprit? N LEFT 14---I 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1 --- 218 RIGHT THRU 66 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 103 RIGHT 207 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 0 LEFT v N W+E 6 30 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 350 350 3300 0.1061 LEFT (L) 61 61 3000 0.0203 0.0203 SB RIGHT (R) 10 O * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1051 1051 3300 0.3185 0.3185 lEFT (L) 304 304 1650 0.1842 EB RIGHT (R) 207 1~3 * 3000 0.0577 THRU (T) 66 66 1650 0.0400 LEFT (L) 14 14 1650 0.0085 0.0085 ~B RIGHT (R) 218 218 1650 0.1321 THRU (T) 103 103 1650 0.0624 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 I + R 321 1650 0.1945 0.1945 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.54 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.1NT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: pm peak hour; CumuLative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 6438 FALLON ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PAd Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 12 385 300 <--- v -'-> J sprit? N LEFT 7---I 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1--- 337 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 175 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<-~- 56 THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY RIGHT 75 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 0 LEFT v N StG WARRANTS: W + E 17 9 6 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 986 986 3300 0.2988 0.2988 LEFT (L) 177 177 3000 0.0590 SB RIGHT (R) 12 5 * 1650 ' 0.0030 THRU (T) 385 385 3300 0.1167 LEFT (L) 300 300 1650 0.1818 0.1818 EB RIGHT (R) 75 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 175 175 1650 0.1061 LEFT (L) 7 7 1650 0.0042 0.0042 WB RIGHT (R) 337 337 1650 0.2042 THRU (T) 56 56 1650 0.0339 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 T + R 393 1650 0.2382 0.2382 ======================================================================== TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.72 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C '* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 ======================================================================== iNTERSECTION 9954 FaLton Rd/G[eason Rd Atameda County Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 ~/0 PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 39 1361 0 I <--- v ---> I SpLit~ N LEFT 20 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT v N ~4+E 53 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FaLton Rd 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: Gteason Rd S[G WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB THRU (TI 583 583 4950 0.1178 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 58 RIGHT (RI 39 19 * 1650 0.0115 THRU (T) 1361 1361 3300 0.4124 0.4124 EB RIGHT (RI 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 20 20 1650 0.0121 0.0121 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.42 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: pm peak hour: CUmULative 2025 No Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 9954 Fat[on Rd/Gieason Rd Alameda County count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PERK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 12 697 0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT N la+E 135 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N STREET NAME: FaL[on Rd STREET NAME: Gteason Rd SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB THRU (T) 1325 1325 4950 0.2677 0.2677 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 O.O000 SB RIGHT (RI 12 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (TI 697 697 3300 0.2112 EB RIGHT (RI 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 25 25 1650 0.0152 0.0152 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.28 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project ~{~d~f~.YIGy~07/03/01 Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour R~ PERK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 587 1621 0 <--- v ---> ~ Split? N LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 1017 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<-" 0 THRU 1-580 WB ramp RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 645 LEFT I < ....... > I N SIG WARRANTS: ~ + E 18 2 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1892 1892 5400 0.3504 0.3504 SB RIGHT (R) 587 587 1800 0.3261 THRU (T) 1621 1621 5400 0.3002 WB RIGHT (R) 1017 1017 327'5 0.3107 0.3107 LEFT (L) 645 645 4695 0.1374 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.66 INTERSECT]ON LEVEL OF SERVICE: B * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED 'INT=MITIGS.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV~CAP=C:.-LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants ======================================================================== Condition: pm peak hour; CumuLative 2025 No Project-l~l~V07/O~/01 INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 NB ramp DubLin Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour'PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1217 2209 0 I <--- v ---> I SpLit? N LEFT 0--- 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 990 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 692 LEFT v Ill v N W+E 223 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 WB ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 2243 2243 5400 0.4154 0.4154 SB RIGHT (R) 1217 1217 1800 0.6761 THRU (T) 2209 2209 5400 0.4091 ~B RIGHT (R) 990 990 3273 0.3025 0.3025 LEFT (L) 692 692 4695 0.1474 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.7~ INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MITIG8.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION CUMULATIVE YEAR 2025 + PROJECT LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 L._~fCount Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 127 2216 9 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 14---I 1.0 1.1 4.1 2.0 1.1 --- 41 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 908 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<"- 1337 THRU DUBLIN BLVD. RIGHT 949 --~ 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 616 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: u + E 10 9 17 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Spt~t? N STREET NAHE: DOUGHERTY RD. ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL HOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 517 88 * 3000 0.0293 THRU (T) 689 689 4950 0.1392 LEFT (L) 1076 1076 4304 0.2500 0.2500 SB RIGHT (R) 127 127 1650 0.0770 THRU (T) 2216 2216 6600 0.3358 LEFT (L) 9 9 3000 0.0030 T + R 2343 6600' 0.3550 0.3550 EB RIGHT (R) 949 199 * 3000 0.0663 THRU (T) 908 908 4950 0.1834 0.1834 LEFT (L) 14 14 1650 0.0085 WB RIGHT (R) 41 41 1650 0.0248 THRU (T) 1337 1337 4950 0.2701 LEFT (L) 616 616 4304 0.1431 0.1431 T + R 1378 4950 0.2784 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.93 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:.-LOSCAp-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 3977 DOUGHERTY RD./DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 31 1457 63 <--- v --'> ! Split? N LEFT 60---J 1.0 1.1 4.1 2.0 1.1 -- 25 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 1371 ---> 3,0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<-" 1159 THRU DUBLIN BLVD. RIGHT 1180 --' 2.5 '3.0 3.0 2,5 3.0 --- 763 LEFT v ~1 SIG I~ARRANTS: W + E 148 19 2 46 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY RD. IORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 746 '214 * 3000 0.0713 THRU (T) 1952 1952 4950 0.3943 LEFT (L) 1488 1488 4304 0.3457 0.3457 S8 RIGHT (R) 31 31 1650 0.0188 THRU CT) 1457 1457 6600 0.2208 LEFT (L) 63 63 3000 0.0210 T + R 1488 6600 0.2255 0.2255 EB RIGHT (R) 1180 143 * 3000 0.0477 THRU (T) 1371 1371 4950 0.2770 0.2770 LEFT (L) 60 60 1650 0.0364 ~JB RIGHT (R) 25 25 1650 0.0152 THRU (T) t159 1159 4950 0.2341 LEFT (L) 763 763 4304 0.1~ 0.1~ T + R 1184 4950 0.2392 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 1.03 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: F · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED l NT=NEt4SRP. l NT,VOL=MI DNOFSA.PMVo CAP=C:. · LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM TransportatiOn Consultants Condition: am peak hour; CumutatiYe 2025 + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 8302 Hacienda Dr/I-580 EB ramp PLeasanton Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 1600 0 <--- v ---> { Split? N LEFT 701 ......J 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 0 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB ramp RIGHT 1200 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 19 6 39 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 539 539 1800 0.2994 THRU (T) 1916 1916 5400 0.3548 0.3548 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1600 1600 5400 0.2963 EB RIGHT (R) 1200 1200 3273 0.3666 0.3666 LEFT (L) 701 701 3273 0.2142 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.72 iNTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software byTJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumutative 2025 + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 8302 Hacienda Dr/I-580 EB ramp Pteasanton Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 1949 0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 1056 -~- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT N W+E 2 6 32 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr 2'PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 EB ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 832 832 1800 0.4622 THRU (T) 2626 2626 5400 0.4863 0.4863 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1949 1949 5400 0.3609' .... 13 ; ....... ....... ..... ..... ....... LEFT (L) 717 717 3273 0.2191 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.81 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB i 1 t i J I J I I I J I J t i i J i LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/l-580 NB ramp Dublin Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 518 1588 0 <--- v ---> J Sprit? N LEFT 0---J 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--' 1000 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<'" O THRU 1-580 NB ramp RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 606 LEFT v N SIG ~/ARRANTS: 14 + E 18 3 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C ND ........................................................ RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 .... ~'~'~ THRU (T) 1883 1883 ~:S~OG' 0.5231 4)?~ SB RIGHT (R) 518 518 1800 0.2878 THRU (T) 1588 1588 5400 0.2941 NB RIGHT (R) 1000 1000 3273 0.3055 0.3055 LEFT (L) 606 606 327-5 0.1852 ................................. ======================================= ..... ~[-~[~F~:~;-~,o: - o,,~o. iNTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=HIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01 iNTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 NB ramp Dublin Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1170 2246 0 LEFT 0 ~--J 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 N+E 220 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? M STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr 2-PHASE SIGNAL J Sprit? N 2.0 --- 1096 RIGHT STREET NAME: 0.0~--o 0 THRU 1-580 NB ramp 2.0 --- 675 LEFT I V SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 2240 2240 ~D"'~88' 0.6222 SB RIGHT (R) 1170 1170 1800 0.6500 THRU (T) 2246 2246 5400 0.4159 NB RIGHT (R) 1096 1096 3273 0.3349 0.3349 LEFT (L) 675 675 3273 0.2062 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants ConditiOn: am peak hour~ Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 8306 Hacienda Dr/Dublin ~lvd Dublin Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 9 920 150 <--- v ---> ! Split? N LEFT 52---J 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0--- 42 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 529 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1147 THRU Dublin Btvd RIGHT 411 --~ 2.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 904 LEFT N SIG I,JARRANTS: tJ + E 98 5 5 84 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 384 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 575 575 4950 0.1162 LEFT (L) 982 982 4304 0.2282 0.2282 SB RIGHT (R) 9 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 920 920 4950 0.1859 O. 1859 LEFT (L) 150 150 3000 0.0500 THRU (T) 529 529 4950 0.1069 0.1069 LEFT (L) 52 52 3000 0.0173 WB RIGHT (R) 42 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1147 1147 4950 0.2317 LEFT (L) 904 904 3000 0.3013 0.3013 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.82 INTERSECTIO)I LEVEL OF SERVICE: D ........................................ I NT=N EWSRP. I NT, VOL=M I DNOF SA. AMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 8306 Hacienda Dr/Dublin BIvd Dublin Count Date Time Peak Hour ...................... L ................................................. CCTA METHOD ^ LEFT 78---I 2.O THRU 1282 ---> 3.0 RIGHT 861 --- 2.5 ¥ RIGHT THRU LEFT 5 882 152 1.0 3.0 2.0 t.0 - RIGHT (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 685 THRU - 3.0 3.0 1.0 ~.0 --- 689 LEFT LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? ~1 STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr 8~PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: Dublin Btvd SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 979 600 * 1650 0.3636 THRU (T) 780 780 4950 0.1576 LEFT (l) 1435 1435 4304 0.3334 0.3334 sa RIGHT (R) 5 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 882 882 4950 0.1782 0.1782 LEFT (L) 152 152 3000 0.0507 EB RIGHT (R) 861 ..... ~-; ..... ~ ..... ~:~ .................. T,RU 1 82 1 82 4950 0.2590 0.259o LEFT (L) 78 78 3000 0.0260 ...... .......... ..... ..... .................. THRU (T) 685 685 4950 0.q384 LEFT (L) 689 689 3000 0.2297 0.2297 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 1.00 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED [NT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV0CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB ! : J LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01 CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 1353 156 I <-~-v---> ISplit? Y LEFT 805 --- 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 686 RIGHT THRU 102 ---> 1.0 (340. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 181 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT v v N W+ E 106 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 eb-off SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) O 0 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 1036 1036 4950 0.2093 T + R 1036 6300 0.1644 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1353 1353 3300 0.4100 0.4100 LEFT (L) 156 156 1650 0.0945 EB RIGHT (R) 181 181 1650 0.1097 THRU (T) 102 102 1650 0.0618 LEFT (L) 805 805 3000 0.2683 0.2683 WB RIGHT (R) 686 530 * 3000 0.1767 0.1767 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.86 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: p~ peak hour; CUmUlative 2025 + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 4041 Santa Rita Rd/I-580 eb-off PLEASANTON Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 1365 300 <--- v ---> I Split? Y LEFT 418--'J 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0--- 295 RIGHT THRU 203 ~--> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 110 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT v v N W+E 207 2 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 eb-off SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, RuP=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 2 2 3000 0.0007 THRU (T) 2097 2097 4950 0.4236 0.4236 I + R 20~ 6300 0.3332 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1365 1365 3300 0.4136 LEFT (L) 300 300 1650 0.1818 0.1818 EB RIGHT (R) 110 110 1650 0.0667 THRU (T) 203 203 1650 0.1230 LEFT (l) 418 418 3000 0.1393 0.1393 ~B RIGHT (R) 295 0 * 3000 0.0000 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.74 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C=..LOSCAP.TAB EOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour~ Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 3988 Tassajara Rd/I-580 wb-off PLEASANTON ................... ................ .............. CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1050 1322 0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --" 512 LEFT v 113 v N W+E 167 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 wb-off SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1687 1687 3600 0.4686 0.46B6 SB RIGHT (R) 1050 1050 1800 0.5833 THRU (T) 1322 1322 5400 0.2448 ~B RIGHT (R) 731 731 3273 0.2233 0.2233 LEFT (L) 512 512 3273 0.1564 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.69 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B ;=~;~=;;;=;~;=;~=~=;~ ........................................ INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LEFT 0 --- 0.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 0 ,-- 0.0 ¥ ~+E S LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants Condition: pm peak hour; C~nulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 3988 Tassajara Rd/i-580 wb-off PLEASANTON Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT Z-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 1072 1723 0 <--- v ---> iSprit? N 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 679 RIGHT STREET NAME: (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 wb-off 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0--- 508 LEFT ~__. ^ ...> [ 18 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1875 1875 3600 0.5208 0.5208 SB RIGHT (R) 1072 1072 1800 0.5956 THRU (T) 1723 1723 5400 0.3191 WB RIGHT (R) 679 679 3273 0.2075 0.2075 LEFT (L) 508 508 3273 O. 1552 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.73 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C ........................................ I NT=NEWSRP. I NT ~ VOL=M I DNOFSA. PMV o CAP=C: ·. LOSCAP · TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants ('~ondition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 ~,.._~IINTERSECTION 157'5 Tassajara Rd/Dublin Btvd Alameda County Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 714 1893 112 <--- v ---, LEFT 397---I 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0- - 35- RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 420 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1114 THRU Dublin Blvd RIGHT 200 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 500 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 41 11 2 02 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 502 310 * 3000 0.1033 THRU (T) 1152 1152 6600 0.1745 LEFT (L) 417 417 4304 0.0969 0.0969 SB RIGHT (R) 714 496 * 3000 0.1653 THRU (T) 1893 1893 6600 0.2868 0.2868 LEFT (L) 112 112 3000 0.0373 EB RIGHT (R) 200 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 420 420 4950 0.0848 LEFT (L) 397 397 3000 0.1323 0.1323 WB RIGHT (R) 53 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1114 1114 4950 0.2251 0.2251 LEFT (L) 500 500 4304 0.1162 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.74 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 157-5 Tassajara Rd/Dublin Btvd Alameda County Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD R,GHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 390 1492 82 I <--- ', -'-> I spli ,i" LEFT 978 '-- 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 --- RIGHT THRU 1412 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 366 THRU RIGHT 375 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 '2.0 3.0 --- 960 LEFT N W + E 54 17 0 27 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd STREET NAME: Dublin Btvd SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 427 59 * 3000 0.0197 THRU (T) 1710 1710 ~00 0.2591 LEFT (L) 541 541 4304 0.1257 0.1257 SB RIGHT (R) 390 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 1492 1492 6600 0.2261 0.2261 LEFT (L) 82 82 3000 0.02~ EB RIGHT (R) 375 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 1412 1412 4950 0.2853 0.2853 LEFT (L) 978 978 3000 0.3260 WB RIGHT (R) 61 16 * 1650 0.0097 THRU (T) 3~ 366 4950 0.0~9 LEFT (L) 960 960 4304 0.2230 0.2230 TOTAL VOLt,ME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.86 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour~ Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKWY DUBLIN Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL CCTA METHOD ^ LEFT 34---I 1.0 THRU 54 ---~ 1.0 RIGHT 189 --- 1.0 ¥ W+E S RIGHT THRU LEFT 41 1916 133 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 - RIGHI (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 70 IHRU 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 551 LEFT <._. ^ ___> { LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD. 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: CENTRAL PKWY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT iR) 406 103 * 1650 0.0624 THRU iT) 754 754 4950 0.1523 LEFT il) 166 166 1650 0.1006 0.1006 SB RIGHT iR) 41 7 * 1650 0.0042 THRU iT) 1916 1916 4950 0.3871 0.3871 LEFT (L) 133 133 1650 0.0806 EB RIGHT iR) 189 23 * 1650 0.0139 THRU iT) 54 54 1650 0.0327 0.0327' LEFT (L) 34 34 1650 0.0206 NB RIGHT (R) 64 ' 0 * 1650 0'0000 THRU (T) 70 70 1650 0'0424 LEFT (l) 551 551 3000 0.1837 0.1837 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.70 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B ........................................ INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants Condition: pm peak hour; Cu~Jtative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKWY DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 21 985 88 <--- v ---> { Sprit? N LEFT 41---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0--- 138 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 62 '--> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<-" 82 THRU CENTRAL PKWY RIGHT 162 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 619 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: 14 + E 18 15 94 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sptit? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD. ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT iR) 694 354 * 1650 0.2145 THRU (T) 1573 15F3 4950 0.3178 0.3178 LEFT (L) 189 189 1650 0.1145 SB RIGHT (R) 21 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 985 985 4950 O. 1990 LEFT (L) 88 88 1650 0.0533 0.0533 EB RIGHT (R) 162 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 62 62 1650 0.0376 0.0376 LEFT (L) 41 41 1650 0.0248 ..... ......... ..... ..... .................. THRU (T) 82 82 1650 0.0497 LEFT (L) 619 619 3000 0.2063 0.2063 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.61 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED ] NT=NEWSRP. I NT, VOL=M I DNOFSA. PMV,, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODE[ Peak Hour FROM MODE[ CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 371 1594 70 LEFT 37---'2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0--- IG.T SIREET NAME: THRU 39 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 230 THRU Gteason Ave RIGHT 109 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 --- 454 LEFT N SIG ~ARRANTS: W + E 22 4 9 85 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? ~ STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd' ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT {R) 185 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 459 459 4950 0.0927 LEFT (L) 229 229 3000 0.0763 0.0763 SB RIGHT (R) 371 351 * 1650 0.2127 THRU (T) 1594 1594 4950 0.3220 0.3220 LEFT (L) 70 70 1650 0.0424 EB RIGHT (R) 109 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU CT) 39 39 3300 0.0118 0.0118 LEFT (L) 37 37 3000 0.0123 ~B RIGHT (R) 49 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 230 230 3300 0.0697 LEFT (L) 454 454 3000 0.1513 0.1513 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.56 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED [NT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software byTJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/GLeason Ave ALameda County Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD LEFT 437---I 2.0 THRU 264 ---> 2.0 RIGHT 270 --- 1.0 ¥ S RIGHT THRU LEFT 47 614 57 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0: - 61- RIeHl ~0. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 48 IHRU ~.0 3.0 ~.0 2.0 --- 258 LEFT <---^ ---> I LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: Gleason Ave SIG UARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 353 211 * 3000 0.0703 THRU (T) 1283 1283 4950 0.2592 0.2592 LEFT (L) 208 208 3000 0.0693 SB RIGHT (R) 47 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 614 614 4950 0.1240 LEFT (L) 57 57 1650 0.0345 0.0345 EB RIGHT (R) 270 156 * 1650 0.0945 0.0945 THRU (T) 264 264 3300 0.0800 LEFT (L) 437 437 3000 0.1457 ~B RIGHT (R) 61 4 * 1650 0.0024 THRU (T) 48 48 3300 0.0145 LEFT (L) 258 258 3000 0.0860 0.0860 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.47 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP. INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 6617 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 0 66 <--- v ---> [ Split? fl LEFT 0---I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0'-- 32 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 890 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1530 THRU DUBLIN BLVD RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT v N SIG NARRANTS: N + E O 0 Urb=N, Rur=N S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 S~ RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 66 66 1650 0.0400 0.0400 T + R 0 1650 O.O00O EB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 890 890 4950 0.1798 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 ~B RIGHT (R) 32 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1530 1530 4950 0.3091 0.3091 LEFT (L) 0 0 lr650 O.O00O TOTAL VOLUME--TO--CAPACITY RATIO: 0.35 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR EIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP,INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 6617 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 0 55 STREET NAME: THRU 2014 ~--> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 927 THRU DUBLIN BLVD RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT v N SIG WARRANTS: W + E I 0 0 Urb=N, Rur=N S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET ======================================================================== ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 55 55 1650 O. 0333 0.0333 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 2014 2014 4950 0.4069 0.4069 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 liB RIGHT (R) 53 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 927 927 4950 0.1873 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.44 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED l NT =N EIJSRP. I N T, VOL=M I DNOFSA. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 6615 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 0 0 <--- v ---> ] Split? N LEFT 0---[ 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- 0 RIGHT THRU 42 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 137 THRU RIGHT 111 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT I ~ ....... · I v N W+E 9 0 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET 5-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: CENTRAL PARKWAY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C ~B RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 O.O00O THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 91 91 1650 0.0552 0.0552 T + R 0 1650 0,0000 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 111 20 * 1650 0.0121 THRU (T) 42 42 3300 0.0127 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 ~B RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 137 137 3300 0.0415 0.0415 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.10 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 6615 MAIN STREE1/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 0 0 <--- v ---> [ Split? N LEFT 0---] 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- 0 RIGHT THRU 151 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) ~,0<--- 34 THRU RIGHT 120 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT v v N W+E 11 0 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? PI STREET NAME: MAIN STREET S-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: CENTRAL PARKWAY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 119 119 1650 0.0721 0.0721 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0,0000 LEFT (l) 0 0 1650 0.0000 I + R 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 120 I * 1650 0.0006 THRU (T) 151 151 3300 0.0458 0.0458 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 34 34 3300 0.010~ LEFT (l) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0,0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0,12 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A ·AOJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cgmulative 2025 + Project 07102101 INTERSECTION 6618 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 389 32 13 LEFT 126---I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 - RIGHT THRU 109 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 371 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 1 LEFT N W+E 5 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: GLEASON DRIVE SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 15 15 1650 0.0091 LEFT (L) 1 1 1650 0.0006 0.0006 T + R 15 1650 0.0091 SB RIGHT (R) 389 389 1650 0.2358 THRU (T) 32 32 1650 0.0194 LEFT (L) 13 13 1650 0.0079 I + R 421 1650 0.2552 0.2552 EB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 109 109 3300 0.0330 LEFT (L) 126 126 1650 0.0764 0.0764 WB RIGHT (R) 10 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 371 371 3300 0.1124 0.1124 LEFT (L) 1 1 1650 0.0006 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.44 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07102101 INTERSECTION 6618 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHO0 RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 158 16 6 <'-- v ---> I Sptit~ N LEFT 374 ......I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 V RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 359 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 132 THRU GLEASON DRIVE RIGHT 2 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: 14 + E 1 0 Urb=N, Rur=B S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET ORIGINAL ADdUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPAC I TY RAT I 0 V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 31 31 1650 0.0188 LEFT (L) 1 1 1650 0.0006 0.0006 T + R 31 1650 0.0188 SB RIGHT (R) 158 158 1650 0.0958 THRU (T) 16 16 1650 0.0097 LEFT (L) 6 6 1650 0.0036 T + R 174 1650 0.1055 0.1055 EB RIGHT (R) 2 1 * 1650 0.0006 THRU (T) 359 359 3300 0.1088 LEFT (L) 374 374 1650 0.2267 0.2267 WB RIGHT (R) 9 3 * 1650 0.0018 THRU (T) 132 132 3300 0.0400 0,0400 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME'TO'CAPACITY RATIO: 0.37 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED I NT=NEWSRP. I NT, VOL=MI DNOFSA. PMV~ CAP=C:.. LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA HETHOD ^ I LEFT 1133 --~ 2.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 100 "-- 2.0 ¥ S RIG~HRU LEFT 0 1367 0 <--- v ---> I SpLit? N 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT <___ ^ _._> { LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAHE: EL Charro Rd 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAHE: 1-580 EB ramp SIG ~ARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL HOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 931 931 1800 0.5172 THRU (T) 743 743 5400 0.1376 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1367 1367 5400 0.2531 0.2531 EB RIGHT (R) 100 100 3273 0.0306 LEFT (L) 1133 1133 3273 0.3462 0.3462 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.60 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:-.LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: p~peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 9957 Et Charro Rd/l-580 EB ramp Alameda County Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 1603 0 <--- v "-> J SpLit[ N LEFT 1077---J 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- u RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 46 --- 2.0 0.0 ].0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT v v t~+ E 10 1 63 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: Et Charro Rd 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 EB ramp SIG gARRANTS: Urb=¥, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 963 963 1800 0.5350 THRU (T) 1001 1001 5400 0.1854 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1603 1603 5400 0.2969 0.2969 EB RIGHT (R) 46 46 3273 0.0141 LEFT (L) 1077 1077 3273 0.3291 0.3291 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.63 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants ======================================================================== Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 ======================================================================== INTERSECTION 9956 Fatlon Rd/I-580 WB ramp Alameda County Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ^ LEFT 0---I 0.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 0 --- I ¥ ~+E S 1354 2001 0 <--- v ~--> I SpLit? N 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 855 RIGHT (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 0,0 0.0 3.0 1.9 2.0 --- 643 LEFT ~C--- ^ ---) I LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET' NAME: FaLton Rd STREET NAME: 1-580 WB ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NR RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1856 1856 5400 0.3437 SB RIGHT (R) 1354 1354 1800 0.7522 THRU (T) 2001 2001 5400 0.3706 0.3706 WB RIGHT (R) 855 855 3273 0.2612 0.2612 LEFT (L) 643 643 3273 0.1965 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.63 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project . 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 9956 Fatton Rd/I-580 WB ramp ALameda County Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2'PHASE SIGNAL ........... 1727 1792 0 ! <--- v ---> [ SpLit? N LEFT 0-,-' 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0-'--1299 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<'-- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 .0.0 3.0 1.9 2.0 --- .715 LEFT I < ....... > I N W+E 199 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: 1-580 WB ramp SIG WARRANTS: urb=Yo Rur=Y STREET NAME: Fa[ton Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1969 1969 5400 0.3646 0.3646 SB RIGHT (R) 1727 1727 1800 0.9594 ** THRU (T) 1792 1792 5400 0.3319 WB RIGHT (R) 1299 1299 3273 0.3969 0.3969 LEFT (L) 715 715 3273 0.2185 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.76 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED ** APPROACHING OR EXCEEDING CAPACITY INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIONOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025+Proj-no new int. 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 8336 Fallon Rd/Dublin Blvd Count Date Time Alameda County Peak Hour CCTA METHOD LEFT 75 RIGHT THRU LEFT 69 1853 509 <--- v ---> I Split? N 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 --- 8 RIGHT THRU 296 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1017 THRU RIGHT N W + E S 301 - -- I 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1438 LEFT 629 654 992 LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Fallon Rd 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: Dublin Blvd SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO CRITICAL v/c NB RIGHT (R) 992 441 * 3000 THRU (T) 654 654 6600 LEFT (L) 629 629 3000 SB RIGHT (R) 69 28 * 1650 THRU (T) 1853 1853 6600 LEFT (L) 509 509 3000 0.1470 0.0991 0.2097 0.2097 0.0170 0.2808 0.1697 0.2808 EB RIGHT (R) 301 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 296 296 4950 0.0598 0.0598 LEFT (L) 75 75 3000 0.0250 WB RIGHT (R) 8 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1017 1017 4950 0.2055 LEFT (L) 1438 1438 4304 0.3341 0.3341 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: 0.88 D * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV, CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025+Proj-no new int. 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 8336 Fallon Rd/Dublin Blvd Alameda County Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 19 846 354 I <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 295 --- 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 --- 256 RIGHT THRU 1190 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 190 THRU 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: Dublin Blvd RIGHT 548 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 2095 LEFT N W + E 566 1748 1141 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y~ Rur=Y STREET NAME: Fallon Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 1141 338 * 3000 0.1127 THRU (T) 1748 1748 6600 0.2648 0.2648 LEFT (L) 566 566 3000 0.1887 SB RIGHT (R) 19 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU. (T) 846 846 6600 0.1282 LEFT (L) 354 354 3000 0.1180 0.1180 EB RIGHT (R) THRU (T) LEFT (L) WB RIGHT (R) THRU (T) LEFT (L) 548 0 * 3000 0.0000 1190 1190 4950 0.2404 295 295 3000 0.0983 256 61 * 1650 0.0370 190 190 4950 0.0384 2095 2095 4304 0.4868 0.2404 0.4868 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: 1.11 F * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV, CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants cOndition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project w/~y~.,j~C~' 07/03101 ount Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 69 1853 315 STREET NAME: THRU 296 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1017 THRU Dublin Bird RIGHT 301 --- 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1330 LEFT v N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 37 6 4 2 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: Fa[ton Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 992 482 * 3000 0.1607 THRU (T) 654 654 6600 0.0991 LEFT (L) 376 376 3000 0.1253 0.1253 SB RIGHT (R) 69 58 * 1650 0.0352 THRU (T) 1853 1853 6600 0.2808 0.2808 LEFT (L) 315 315 3000 0.1050 EB RIGHT (R) 301 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 296 296 4950 0.0598 0.0598 LEFT CL) 20 20 3000 0.0067 WB RIGHT (R) 8 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1017 1017 4950 0.2055 LEFT (L) 1330 1330 4304 0.3090 0.3090 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.77 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C ........................................ [NT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project~/~'L~ 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 8336 Fa[ton Rd/Dublin B[vd ALameda County Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 19 846 179 <--- v ---> I SpLit? N LEFT 80 I 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 ---- 256 RIGHT THRU 1190 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3,0<--- 190 THRU RIGHT 548 --- 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1471 LEFT W + E 35 17 8 1 41 S 8'PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: Dublin Btvd SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FaLton Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C MB RIGHT (R) 1141 577 * 3000 0.1923 THRU (T) 1748 1748 ~00 0.2648 0.2648 LEFT (L) 353 353 3000 0.1177 ...... i¢ .......... F; ..... ..... .................. THRU (T) 846 846 ~00 0.1282 LEFT (L) 179 179 3000 0.0597 0.0597 EB RIGHT (R) 548 195 * 3000 0.0650 THRU (T) 1190 1190 4950 0.2404 0.2404 LEFT (L) 80 80 3000 0.0267 ..... ........ i F; ..... ..... .................. THRU (T) 190 190 4950 0.0384 LEFT (L) 1471 1471 4304 0.3418 0.3418 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.91 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E · ADdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIONOFSA.PMV, CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM TransPortation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; cumulative 2025 + Project 07103/01 INTERSECTION 6760 Falton Road/New Intersection Dublin Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD ^ LEFT 49---I 2.0 THRU 13 ---> 1.0 RIGHT 71 --- 2.0 ¥ $ RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL 136 3178 171 <--- v ---> ~ Split? N 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.1:-- 45 RIGHT STREET NAME: (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 13 THRU New Intersection 2.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 --- 106 LEFT <.~. ^ ..~> ~ 25 19 7 31 Urb=B, Rur=Y LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Fatlon Road ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 531 490 * 1650 0.2970 THRU (T) 1927 1927 6600 0.2920 LEFT (L) 252 252 3000 0.0840 0.0840 S8 RIGHT (R) 136 109 * 1650 0.0661 THRU (T) 3178 3178 6600 0.4815 0.4815 LEFT (L) 171 171 3000 0.0570 EB RIGHT (R) 71 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 13 13 1650 0.0079 LEFT (L) 49 49 3000 0.0163 0.0163 .WB RIGHT (R) 45 ' 45 1650 0.0273 THRU (T) 13 13 1650 0.0079 LEFT (L) 106 106 4304 0.0246 T + R 58 1650 0.0352 0.0352 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RAT[O: 0.62 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEUSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 6760 Fat[on Road/New Intersection Dublin Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 119 2569 176 <--- v ---> [ Split? N LEFT 212---I 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.1 ---' 208 RIGHT THRU 35 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 35 THRU RIGHT 392 --- 2.0 2.0 4,0 1.0 3.0 --- 558 LEFT N W + E 21 2 2 27 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sptit? N STREET NAME: Fallon Road 8'PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: New Intersection SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, RuP=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 227 13 * 1650 0.0079 THRU (T) 2822 2822 6600 0.4276 0.4276 LEFT (L) 218 218 3000 0.0727 SB RIGHT (R) 119 2 * 1650 0.0012 THRU (T) 2569 2569 6600 0.3892 LEFT (L) 176 176 3000 0.0587 0.0587 EB RIGHT (R) 392 272 * 3000 0.0907 0.0907 THRU (T) 35 35 1650 0.0212 LEFT (L) 212 212 3000 0.0707 WB RIGHT (R) 208 208 1650 0.1261 THRU (T) 35 35 1650 0.0212 LEFT (L) 558 558 4304 0.1296 0.1296 T + R 243 1650 0.1473 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.71 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NENSRP. INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 6438 FALLON ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY OUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 111 1716 218 I <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 61 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1 --- 256 RIGHT THRU 69 -~-> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 152 THRU RIGHT 223 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 80 LEFT v v N W+E 6 57 19 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD 8'PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: CENTRAL PARICdAY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C THRU (T) 537 537 3300 0.1627 LEFT (L) ~ 66 3000 0.0220 0.0220 SR RIGHT (R) 111 50 * 1650 0.0303 THRU (T) 1716 1716 3300 0.5200 0.5200 LEFT (L) 218 218 1650 0.1321 EB RIGHT (R) 223 187 * 3000 0.0623 THRU (T) 69 69 1650 0.0418 LEFT (L) 61 61 1650 0.0370 0.0370 WB RIGHT (R) 256 256 1650 0.1552 THRU (T) 152 152 1650 0.0921 LEFT (L) 80 80 3000 0.0267 T + R 408 1650 0.24D 0.24D TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.83 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 6438 FALLON ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 51 789 206 I <--- v ---> [ Split? N LEFT 106---' 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1--- 214 RIGHT THRU 152 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 58 THRU RIGHT 151 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 28 LEFT v v N W + E 21 16 0 69 s LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON ROAO 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: CENTRAL PARKWAY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C ...... ;¢ ......... ..... ..... .................. THRU (T) 1610 1610 ~300 0.4879 0.4879 LEFT (L) 216 216 3000 0.0720 SB RIGHT (R) 51 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 789 789 3300 0.2391 LEFT (l) 206 206 1650 0,1248 0.1248 EB RIGHT (R) 151 32 * 3000 0.0107 THRU (T) 152 152 1650 0.0921 LEFT (L) 106 106 1650 0.0642 0.0642 WB RIGHT (R) 214 214 1650 0.1297 THRU (T) 58 58 1650 0.0352 LEFT (L) 28 28 3000 0.0093 T + R 272 1650 0.1648 0,1648 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.84 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~$RP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PHV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 9954 Fatton Rd/Gteason Rd ALameda County Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 44 1487 0 <--- v ---> [ Sptit~ N LEFT 18 ...... I 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 U RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 22 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT ~I+E 7 64 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FaL[on Rd 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: G[eason Rd SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Nf Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB THRU (T) 694 694 4950 0.1402 LEFT (L) 77 77 1650 0.0467 0.0467 SB RIGHT (R) 44 26 * 1650 0.0158 THRU (T) 1487 1487 3300 0.4506 0.4506 EB RIGHT (R) 22 0 * 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 18 18 1650 0.0109 0.0109 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.51 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A INT:NEWSRP.INT,VOL:MIDNOFSA.AMVfCAP:C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01 INTERSECTION 9954 Fa[Ion Rd/G[eason Rd ALameda County Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 13 791 0 <--- v --->I Sptit~ N LEFT 19 ...... ] 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 U RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- O' THRU RIGHT 65 --- 1.0 1,0 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT I < I N W+E 2 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FatLon Rd 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: Gleason Rd SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB THRU (T) 1417 1417 4950 0.286~ 0.2863 LEFT (L) 20 20 1650 0.0121 SB RIGHT (R) 13 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 791 791 3300 0.2397 EB RIGHT (R) 65 45 * 1650 0.027~ 0.02~ LEFT (L) 19 19 1650 0.0115 ======================================================================== TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.31 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT~VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 18 Street D/Dublin BLvd Dublin Count Date Time Peak Hour AM PEAK 94 HCM UnsignaL 49 0 169 <--- V -'-> 16 ...... { 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 52 1637 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 2285 0 -,- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 I ~+E ~ 0 0 S ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 - 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT I APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOSI DELAY LOS ......................................................... + SB L 169 207 7.0 4376 2 1 999+ F { 999+ F R 49 60 5.5 1269 315 315 14.1 C I EB L 16 20 5.5 2597 69 69 71.9 F I 0.7 A T 1637 2001 0.0 A I ~B T 2285 2793 0.0 A { 0.0 A R 52 64 0.0 A I INT TOTAL: 999+ F MINOR MOVEMENTS: (999+) (F) INT=NEgSRP.INT,VOL=M~DNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB N/S CONTROL: STOP E/W CONTROL: NONE MAJ ST SAT FLO~/: Th= O, Rt= 0 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST LEFT THRU RIGHT SB 0.0 --- 0.0 EB 0.0 ...... ~B ......... SIGNAL ~ARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak houri Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 18 Street D/Dublin Btvd Dubtin Count Date Time Peak Hour AM PEAK 94 HCM Unsignal 32 0 104 <--- V ---> 56 ...... I 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 189 2540 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<"- 1902 0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 N W+E 0 0 S ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT g 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT { APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS I DELAY LOS SB L 104 127 7.0 4998 1 0 999+ F I 999+ F R 32 39 5.5 1057 404 404 9.9 B I EB L 56 68 5.5 2323 97 97 97.2 F J 2.1 A T 2540 3104 0.0 A I NB T 1902 2325 0.0 A I 0.0 A R 189 231 0.0 A I INT TOTAL: 999+ F MINOR MOVEMENTS: (999+) (F) i NT=NE~/SRP. I NT, VOL=MI DNOFSA.PMV, CAP=C :.. LOSCAP. TAB N/S CONTROL: STOP E/W CONTROL: NONE MAJ ST SAT FLOr4: Th= O, Rt= 0 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST LEFT THRU RIGHT SB 0.0 --- 0.0 EB 0.0 ...... ~B ......... SIGNAL WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=Y LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 19 Fatlon Road/Project Driveway Dublin Count Date Time Peak Hour AM PEAK 94 HCM Unsigna[ 0 1496 8 <--- v -'-> 1 0{ 0---I 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 . --- 33 0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 --- 153 W + E 1 8 55 S ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT I APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOSI DELAY LOS NB T 168 205 6.0 207 850 757 6.5 B J 5.6 B R 55 67 5.5 0 1385 1385 2.7 A I SB L 8 10 6.5 263 745 516 7.1 B J598.6 F T 1496 1828 6.0 170 888 791 601.8 F I EB I 0 0 5.0 37 1647 1647 0.0 A 0.0 A I 0 0 0.0 A WB L 153 187 5.0 0 1714 1714 2.4 A 1.9 A R 33 40 0.0 A INT TOTAL: 471.5 F MINOR ~OVEMENTS: (479.7) (F) ]NT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB N/S CONTROL: STOP E/W CONTROL: NONE MAJ ST SAT FLOW: Th: O, At: 0 CRITICAL GAP ADdUST LEFT THRU RIGHT NB --- 0.0 0.0 SB 0.0 0.0 --- EB 0.0 ...... WB 0.0 ...... SIGNAL WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 19 Falton Road/Project Driveway Dublin Count Date Time Peak Hour . 94 HCM Unsigna[ 0 786 30 I <--- V ---> J 0 ...... ' 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 5 0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 --- 63 I < ....... · I N W + E 14 1 41 S ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT ~ APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOSI DELAY LOS NB T 1431 1574 6.0 68 1005 964 297.5 F 1271.t F R 141 155 5.5 0 1385 1385 2.9 A I SB L 30 33 6.5 779 375 0 999+ F 1391.5 F T 786 865 6.0 63 1011 970 25.0 O I EB L 0 0 5.0 5 1705 1705 0.0 A J 0.0 A T 0 0 0.0 A I WB L 63 69 5.0 0 1714 1714 2.2 A J 2.0 A R 5 6 0.0 A I INT TOTAL: 303.6 F MINOR MOVEMENTS: (304.3) (F) ! NT=N EWSRP. I NT ~ VOL=M I DNOFSA. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB N/S CONTROL: STOP E/W CONTROL: NONE MAJ ST SAT FLOW: Th= O, Rt: 0 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST LEFT THRU RIGHT NB --- 0.0 0.0 SB 0.0 0.0 --- EB 0.0 ...... WB 0.0 ...... SIGNAL WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N J I~l ~s J 1 i 1 t I ~' t, I I i I l I I i i. I 1 I LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 20 Street D/Central Parkway Dub[in Count Date Time Peak Hour AM PEAK 94 HCM Unsignat 0 0 0 0 ...... - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0- 0 306 ---> 1.1 (NO, OF LANES) 1.0<--- 488 62 --- 1.1 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 --- 152 S ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT I APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS] DELAY LOS NB L 48 59 6.5 1086 249 217 22.7 D I 13.) C R 51 62 5.5 374 895 895 4.3 A I EB T 306 374 0.0 A R 62 ?6 TR 368 450 0.0 A WB L 152 186 5.0 409 1095 1095 4.0 A 0.9 A T 488 596 0.0 A INT TOTAL: 1.7 A MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 7.6) (B) INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB N/S CONTROL: STOP E/W CONTROL: NONE MAd ST SAT FLOW: Th= O, Rt= 0 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST LEFT THRU RIGHT NB 0.0 --- 0.0 EB ......... WB 0.0 ...... SIGNAL WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=B LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 20 Street D/CentraL Parkway DubLin Count Date Time Peak Hour 94 HCM Unsigna[ 0 0 0 ~--- V ---> { 0 ......{ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0' 0 427 ---> 1.1 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 300 69 --- 1.1 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 --- 98 I < ....... > I v v N t~+ E 7 0 75 S ACCEL % ~ PEAK HOUR LAN E % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU ~GHT N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1,00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 ORIG ADJ ADd CONFL POT ACT -MVMT MVT I APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOSI DELAY LOS NB L 78 86 6.5 860 337 309 16.1 C I 9.0 B R 175 193 5 . 5 461 808 808 5 . 8 B I EB T 427 470 I 0.0 A R 69 76 I TR 496 546 0.0 A WB L 98 108 5.0 496 995 995 4.1 A I 1.o A T 300 330 O. 0 A I INT TOTAL: 2.3 A MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( ?.6) CB) · I N T=N EWSRP. I NT, VOL=M I DNOFSA. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB N/S CONTROL: STOP E/W CONTROL: NONE MAJ ST SAT FLOW: Th= O, Rt= 0 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST LEFT THRU RIGHT NB 0.0 --- 0.0 EB ......... WB 0.0 ...... SIGNAL WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=Y LOS Software bY TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/0~/01 INTERSECTION 21 Street B/Central Parkway Dublin Count Date Time Peak Hour AM PEAK 94 HCM Unsigna[ 133 0 5 <--- v ---> 44 ...... ' 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 5 357 ---> ?.0 (NO. OF LANES) ~.1<--- 640 0--- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0--- 0 W+E 0 0 S ACCEL % ~ PEAK HOUR LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT { APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS I DELAY LOS SB L 5 6 6.5 1159 226 214 17.3 C J 8.5 B R 133 163 5.5 714 602 602 8.2 B I EB L 44 54 5.0 717 781 781 5.0 A { 0.5 A T 357 436 0.0 A I WB T 640 782 I 0.0 A R 5 6 I TR 645 788 0.0 A INT TOTAL: 1.2 A MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 7.7) (8) INT=NEWSRP.[NT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB N/S CONTROL: STOP E/W CONTROL: NONE MAd ST SAT FLOW: Th= O, Rt= 0 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST LEFT THRU RIGHT SB 0.0 --- 0.0 EB 0.0 ...... WB ......... SIGNAL WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=Y LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project . 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 21 Street B/Central Parkway Dublin Count Date Time Peak Hour 94 HCM Unsignal 133 0 5 <--- V '-'> [ 44---' 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 ---- 5 602 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<-'- 398 0--- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0--- 0 N W+E 0 0 S ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR ..... FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT I APP APP MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS { DELAY LOS SB L 5 6 6.5 1047 262 c I , R 133 146 5.5 400 868 868 5.0 A I EB L 44 48 5.0 403 1102 1102 3.4 A ) 0.2 A T 602 662 0.0 A I 'dB T 398 438 I 0.0 A R 5 6 I T R 40~ 444 0.0 A INT TOTAL: 0.7 A MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 4.9) (A) I N T =N EWSRP. I NT, VOL=M ] DNOF SA. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB N/S CONTROL: STOP E/W CONTROL: NONE MAJ ST SAT FLO~: Th= O, Rt= 0 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST LEFT THRU RIGHT SB 0.0 --- 0.0 EB 0.0 ...... ~B ......... SIGNAL WARRANTS: Urb=N~ Rur=Y LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project -~k~-~a~07/03/01 CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 518 1588 0 <--- v ---> ] SpLit? N LEFT 0 .... ' 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 -- 1000 RIGHT THRU 0 --~> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 606 LEFT N ~/+E 183 O S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? H STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 WB ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1883 1883 5400 0.3487 0.3487 SB RIGHT (R) 518 518 1800 0.2878 THRU (T) 1588 1588 5400 0.2941 ~B RIGHT (R) 1000 1000 327-5 0.3055 0.3055 LEFT (L) 606 606 4695 0.1291 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.65 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B ........................................ INT=MITIG8.1NT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: pm peak hour; CumuLative 2025 + Project-I~X~G~(/v~ 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 Wa ramp Dub[in Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1170 2246 0 <--- v ---> J SpLit? N LEFT 0'--J 0.0 1.9 ~.0 0.0 2.0---1096 RIGHT THRU 0 ~-'> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<-"' 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 675 LEFT v v N W+E 220 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 ta~ ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUHE VOLUHE* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 2240 2240 5400 0.4148 SB RIGHT (R) 1170 1170 1800 0.6500 THRU (T) 2246 2246 5400 0.4159 0.4159 WB RIGHT (R) 1096 1096 327"5 0.3349 0.3349 LEFT (L) 675 675 4695 0.1438 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.75 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C ........................................ INT=MITIGS. INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cunu[ative 2025 + Proj. mitigate 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 18 Street D/Dub[in Blvd Dublin Count Date Time Peak Hour AM PEAK CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4~PHASE SIGNAL 49 0 169 <--- v ---> ~ Split? N LEFT16---I1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0--- 52 RIGHT THRU 1637 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2,0<-"- 2285 RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT v llo) N t4+E 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: THRU Dublin B[vd SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y STREET NAME: Street D ======================================================================== ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C SB RIGHT iR) 49 33 * 1650 0.0200 LEFT il) 169 169 1650 0.1024 0.1024 EB THRU iT) 1637 1637 3300 0.4961 LEFT il) 16 16 1650 0.0097 0.0097 WB RIGHT iR) 52 0 * 1650 0,0000 THRU iT) 2285 2285 3300 0.6924 0.6924 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.80 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MITIGS.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Proj. mitigate 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 18 Street D/Dublin Btvd Dublin Count Date Time Peak Hour AM PEAK CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 32 0 104 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 56---I 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0--- 189 RIGHT THRU 2540 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 1902 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT N t,l+E 0 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Street D 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: Dublin Blvd SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C sa RIGHT (R) 32 0 * 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 104 104 1650 0.0630 0.0630 EB THRU iT) 2540 2540 3300 0.7697 0.7697 LEFT (L) 56 56 1650 0.0339 WB RIGHT (R) 189 85 * 1650 0.0515 THRU (T) 1902 1902 3300 0.5764 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.83 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D ======================================================================== · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED [NT=MIT[GS.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Proj. mitigate 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 19 Fat[on Road/Project Driveway Dub[in Count Date Time Peak Hour AM PEAK CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 1496 8 THRU 0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 --- 153 LEFT W+E 1 55 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Fatton Road 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: Project Driveway SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (Ri 55 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (l) 168 168 3300 0.0509 SB THRU (Ti 1496 1496 3300 0.4533 0.4533 LEFT (L) 8 8 1650 0.0048 EB THRU (Ti 0 0 3300 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 WB RIGHT (R) 33 25 * 1650 0.0152 LEFT (L) 153 153 1650 0.0927 0.0927 TOTAL VOLUME'TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.55 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A ........................................ INT=MITIG8. INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.A~V,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKH Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Proj. mitigate 07/03/01 INTERSECTION 19 Fa[ton Road/Project Driveway Dub[in Count Date Time Peak Hour CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 786 30 <--- v ---> i SpLit? N LEFT 0 ...... I 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 5 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- O' THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 --- 63 LEFT N W + E 14 1 41 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FaL[on Road 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: Project Driveway SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C MB RIGHT (R) 141 78 * 1650 0.04T5 THRU (T) 1431 1431 3300 0.4336 0.4336 SB THRU (T) 786 786 3300 0.2382 LEFT (L) ~0 30 1650 0.0182 0.0182 EB THRU (Ti 0 0 3300 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 WB RIGHT (R) 5 0 * 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 63 63 1650 0.0382 0.0382 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.49 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A ........................................ INT=MITIG8.1NT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS CUMULATIVE YEAR 2025 + ECAP ALTERNATIVE Table 4.2-1 ,rtation Model Cumulative ~/ear 2025 ~ ECAP Alternative l'eag Hour lntersecnon ld..evels Ol oervlcc -i ! s- v ancO' ~t z an~p~,t ,a,l~,,, ~.--, ....................... t Intersection Control Unmitigated Mitigated A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour * LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS ! Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.93 E 1.03 F ..... 2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.71 C 0.81 D 3 Hacienda Drive~I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.80 D 0.93 E 0.65 B 0.76 C 4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.82 D 1.03 F ........ 5 Santa Rita Road/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.84 D 0.77 C 6 Tassajara Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.72 C 0.73 C 7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.72 C 0.87 D 8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.71 C 0.62 B 9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.57 A 0.47 A l0 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.33 A 0.45 A 11 Grafton Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.10 A 0.13 A 12 Grafton Street/Gleason Drive Signal 0.41 A 0.35 A 13 E1 Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.70 B 0.67 B 14 Fallon Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.74 C 0.84 D 15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.89 D 1.35 F ........ 15A Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. w/New Int. Signal ...... 0.74 C 0.86 D XX Fallon Road/New Intersection Signal ........ 0.78 C 0.96 E 16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.84 D 0.89 D 17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.54 A 0.33 A , Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants ======================================================================== Condition: am peak hour; ECAP Alternative 07/12/01 INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKWY DUBLIN Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 40 1944 132 <--- v ---> { Split? N LEFT 3]---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0--- 64 RIGHT THRU 54 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 70 THRU RIGHT 197 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 557 LEFT N W + E 16 7 2 29 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD. 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: CENTRAL PKWY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 429 123 * 1650 0.0745 THRU (T) 772 772 4950 0.1560 LEFT (L) 166 166 1650 0.1006 0.1006 SB RIGHT (R) 40 7 * 1650 0.0042 THRU (T) 1944 1944 4950 0.3927 0.3927 LEFT (L) 132 132 1650 0.0800 EB RIGHT (R) 197 31 * 1650 0.0188 THRU (T) 54 54 1650 0.0327 0.0327 LEFT (L) 33 33 1650 0.0200 WB RIGHT (R) 64 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 70 70 1650 0.0424 LEFT (L) 557 55? 3000 0.1857 0.1857 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.71 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=ECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; ECAP Alternative 07/12/01 INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKWY DUBLIN Count Oate FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 21 975 88 <"-- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 39---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 --- 136 RIGHT THRU 63 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 84 THRU RIGHT 164 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 629 LEFT v N t4 + E 19 15 4 04 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD. 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: CENTRAL PKWY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 704 358 * 1650 0.2170 THRU (T) 1554 1554 4950 0.3139 0.3139 LEFT (L) 198 198 1650 0.1200 ...... ii .......... ;'; ..... ..... .................. THRU (T) 975 9~5 4950 0.1970 LEFT (L) 88 88 1650 0.0533 0.0533 EB RIGHT (R) 164 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 63 63 1650 0.0382 0.0382 LEFT (L) 39 39 1650 0.0236 WB RIG,T 136 -' 48'; ..... ..... .................. THRU CT) 84 84 1650 0.0509 LEFT (L) 629 629 3000 0.2097 0.2097 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.62 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B · ADdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=ECAP.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants ................................................................ ondition: am peak hour; ECAP Alternative ~.~/INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/G[eason Ave Alameda County Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 317 1657 71 I <--- v ---> I Spli~ N LEFT 37 --- 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 --~ RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 36 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 182 THRU Gleason Ave RIGHT 115 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 --- 413 LEFT N SIG ~IARRAHTS: I,/ + E 24 4 9 84 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? )1 STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (RI 184 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 459 459 4950 0.0927 LEFT (L) 249 249 3000 0.0830 0.0830 SB RIGHT (R) 317 297 * 1650 0.1800 THRU (T) 1657 1657 4950 0.3347 0.3347 LEFT (L) 71 71 1650 0.0430 EB RIGHT (RI 115 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 36 36 3300 0.0109 0.0109 LEFT (L) 37 37 3000 0.0123 WB RIGHT (RI 48 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (TI 182 182 3300 0.0552 LEFT (L) 413 413 3000 0.1377 0.1377 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.57 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=ECAP.AMV,CAP=C:.-LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; ECAP Alternative 07/12/01 INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/GIeason Ave Alameda County Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 46 617 58 <--- v -'-> ! Split? N I LEFT 422--- 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0:-- 62 RIGHT THRU 238 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 46 THRU RIGHT 264 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 --- 252 LEFT v N t/ + E 21 12 I 34 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: Gleason Ave SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (RI 334 195 * 3000 0.0650 THRU (TI 1281 1281 4950 0.2588 0.2588 LEFT (L) 216 216 3000 0.0720 SB RIGHT (RI 46 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (TI 617 617 4950 0.1246 LEFT (L) 58 58 1650 0.0352 0.0352 EB RIGHT (RI 264 145 * 1650 0.0879 0.0879 THRU (T) 238 238 3300 0.0721 LEFT (L) 422 422 3000 0.1407 WB RIGHT (RI 62 4 * 1650 0.0024 THRU (T) 46 46 3300 0.0139 LEFT (L) 252 252 3000 0.0840 0.0840 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.47 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT:NEUSRP.INT,VOL=ECAP.PMV,CAP=C:-.LOSCAP.TAB Table 4.2-1 -Tri-Valle ~ortation Model Cumulative Year 2025 dus ECAP Alternative intersection Control Unmitigated Mitigated A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour * LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS I Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.93 E 1.03 F .... 2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.71 C 0.81 D 3 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.80 D 0.93 E 0.65 B 0.76 C 4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.82 D 1.03 F ........ 5 Santa Rita Roadfl-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.84 D 0.77 C 6 Tassajara Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.72 C 0.73 C 7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.72 C 0.87 D 8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal .0.5! 9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal 10 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.33 A 0.45 A I I Grafton Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.10 A 0.13 A 12 Grafton Street/Gleason Drive Signal 0.41 A 0.35 A 13 El Charro Road/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.70 B 0.67 B 14 Fallon Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.74 C 0.84 D 15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.89 D 1.35 F ....... ! 5A Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. w/New Int. Signal ...... 0.74 C 0.86 D XX Fallon Road/New Intersection Signal ........ 0.78 C 0.96 E 16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.84 D 0.89 D 17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.54 A 0.33 A Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants / ................... '-~"~.~.~ LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Alternative ~,..C~e~ ~. 07/09/01 LJp Condition: pm ~ak hour; Alternative ~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 3977 DOUGHERTY RD./DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 125 2058 9 <--- v ! I LEFT 14 ....I 1.0 1.1 4.1 2.0 1.1 RIGHT LEFT 62 --- 1.0 STREET NAME: THRU 967 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<--- 1216 THRU DUBLIN BLVD. THRU 1363 --~> 3.0 RIGHT 1005 --- 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 609 LEFT RIGHT 1174 --- 2.5 N SIC UARRANTS: N I~ + E 112 6 7 68 Urb=Y, Rur=Y t~ + E S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N S STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY RD. ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (RI 568 144 * 3000 0.0480 THRU (T) 697 697 4950 0.1408 LEFT (L) 1124 1124 4304 0.2612 0.2612 SB RIGHT (R) 125 125 1650 0.0758 TBRU (T) 2058 2058 6600 0.3118 LEFT (L) 9 9 3000 0.0030 T + R 2183 6600 0.3308 0.3308 EB RIGHT (R) 1005 222 * 3000 0.0740 THRU (T) 967 967 4950 0.1954 0.1954 LEFT (L) 14 14 1650 0.0085 UB RIGHT (R) 35 35 1650 0.0212 THRU (TI 1216 1216 4950 0.2457 LEFT (L) 609 609 4304 0.1415 0.1415 T + R 1251 4950 0.2527 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.93 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB INTERSECTION 3977 DOUGHERTY RD./DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 31 1442 61 <--- v ---~> ] Sprit? N 1.1 4.1 2.0 1.1 --- 24 RIGHT STREET NAME: (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<--- 1208 THRU DUBLIN BLVD. 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 78] LEFT <''' ^ '''> I I [ v SIG I~ARRANTS: 150 19 9 62 Urb=Y, Rur=Y LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY RD. ======================================================================== ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (RI 762 216 * 3000 0.0720 THRU (T) 1969 1969 4950 0.3978 LEFT (L) 1507 1507 4304 0.3501 0.]501 SB RIGHT (R) 31 ]1 1650 · 0.0188 THRU (TI 1442 1442 6600 0.2185 LEFT (L) 61 61 3000 0.0203 T + R 14T3 6600 0.2232 0.2232 EB RIGHT (R) 1174 124 * 3000 0.0413 THRU CT) 1363 1363 4950 0.2754 0.2~4 LEFT (L) 62 62 1650 0.0376 ~B RIGHT (R) 24 24 1650 0.0145 THRU (T) 1208 1208 4950 0.2440 LEFT (l) 783 783 4304 0.1819 0.1019 T + R 1232 4950 0.2489 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 1.03 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: F ======================================================================== · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED I NT=NEWSRP. I NT, VOL=RUNECAP. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB m ~ LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Alternative J~L(~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 8302 Hacienda Dr/I-580 EB ramp Pteasanton Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 1666 0 I <--- v '--> I Split? N LEFT 667 --- 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB ramp --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT RIGHT 1157 v SIG ~ARRANTS: N 19 0 79 UPb=Y, Rur=Y w+E S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 579 579 1800 0.3217 THRU (T) 1940 1940 5400 0.3593 0.3593 RIGHT(R) ~ 0 1800 0.~ SB THRU (T) 166 1666 5400 O. EB RIGHT (R) 1157 1157 3273 0.3535 0.3535 LEFT (L) 667 667 3273 0.2038 0.71 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: C INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: * ADdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAp'TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative ~C~ 07/09/01 iNTERSECTION 8302 Hacienda Or/i-580 EB ramp Pteasanton Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK: VOL ...................................... 2-PHASE SIGNAL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 1938 0 I <--- v ---> ! s. plit~. LEFT 647 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 - RIGHT --- STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB ramp --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT RIGHT 1072 I <--- " -"> v I ~ I v S]G WARRANTS: i~ 25 2 01 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C ............................. ~i ....... ;~ ..... ~:;.;.~ .................. NB RIGHT (R) 801 THRU (T) 2592 2592 5400 0.4800 0.4800 ~F';;~;'i~ ....... ~ .......... ~'- 18oo o.o& THRU (T) 1938 1938 5400 0.35.8. y ............. LEFT (L) 6/+7 647 327"~ 0.19" ........................................................... ................................................ --.= ........... ~:~ ....... TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: D iNTERSECT[ON LEVEL OF SERVICE: ............ ====-_ * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED I NT=N E~SRP. i NT, VOL=RUN ECAP · PMV, CAP=C: - - LOSCAP. TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Alternative ~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 WB ramp Dublin Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 539 1607 0 <--- v ---> /Split? N LEFT 0--'1 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 998 RIGHT THRU 0 '--> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 644 LEFT v N 14+E 180 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 ~B ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 o.~ THRU (T) 1840 1840 ~IZo3(~ 0.5111 SB RIGHT (R) 539 539 1800 0.2994 THRU (T) 1607 1607 5400 0.2976 ~B RIGHT (R) 998 998 3273 0.3049 0.3049 LEFT (L) 644 644 3273 0.1968 ..... ;~;2~=~;:;;~2;2~;;;=;2;~; ......................... INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJIG4 Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak houri Alternative ~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 ~B ran~o Dublin Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1157 2267 0 <--- v ---> { Spt i t? N LEFT 0---{ 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0---1097 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2,0 --- 658 LEFT v v N Id+E 229 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 WB ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 2209 2209 3~i-L~ ~ 0.6136 SB RIGHT (R) 1157 1157 1800 0.6428 THRU (T) 2267 2267 5400 0.4198 NB RIGHT (R) 1097 1097 3273 0.3352 0.3352 LEFT (L) 658 658 3273 0.2010 ..... ;~;2~_=;~; .=;~.--~2;2~;;=;2;~. ......................... INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN OH RED ] NT=NE~SRP. [ NT ~ VOL=RUNECAP. PHV ~ CAP=C:,. LOSCAP. TAB LOS Software by TJKM Trans~rtation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Alternative ~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 8306 Hacienda Dr/Dublin Blvd Dublin Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E ~/ EEAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL 8 882 193 <--- v -"> ! Split? N 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0c-- 44 RIGHT LEFT 58 --- 2.0 THRU 605 ---> 3.0 RIGHT 483 --- 2.5 I ¥ S (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1127 THRU 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N 893 LEFT STREET NAME: Dublin Blvd SIG UARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 419 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 543 543 4950 0.1097 LEFT (L) 962 962 4304 0.2235 0.2235 SB RIGHT (R) 8 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 882 882 4950 0.1782 0.1782 LEFT (L) 193 193 3000 0.0643 EB RIGHT (R) 483 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 605 605 4950 0.1222 0.1222 LEFT (L) 58 58 3000 0.0193 ~B RIGHT (R) 44 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1127 1127 4950 0.2277 LEFT (L) 893 893 3000 0.2977 0.2977 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.82 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:-.LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; ALternative J~_CJ~) 07/09101 INTERSECTION 8306 Hacienda Dr/Oublin Blvd Dublin Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E N/ EEAP Peak flour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 5 875 159 J <--- V ''-> LEFT 69 --- 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 THRU 1343 '--> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) RIGHT 858 --- 2.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 ~+E S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N 1.0 --- RIGHT 3.0<--- 739 THRU 2.0 --- 715 LEFT I V STREET NAME: Dublin Btvd SIG NARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C .. NB RIGHT (R) 928 535 * 1650 0.3242 THRU (T) 761 761 4950 0.1537 LEFT (L) 1466 1466 4304 0.7~,06 0.3406 SB RIGHT (R) 5 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 875 875 4950 0.1768 0.1768 LEFT (L) 159 159 3000 0.0530 EB RIGHT (R) 858 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 1343 1343 4950 0.2713 0.2713 LEFT (L) 69 69 3000 0.0230 ~B RIGHT (R) 36 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 739 739 4950 0.1493 LEFT (L) 715 715 3000 0.2383 0.2383 ======================================================================== TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 1.03 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: F · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV, CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Alternative ~ C~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 4041 Santa Rita Rd/I~580 eb-off PLEASANTON Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E g/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 1315 154 <'-- V ---> LEFT 781---I 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 THRU 102 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) RIGHT 169 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 <.._ ^ ___> W+E 108 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd 4-PHASE SIGNAL ^ ! Split? Y 2.0 z._ 698 RIGHT STREET NAME: 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 eb-off 2.0 --- 0 LEFT V SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 1078 1078 4950 0.2178 T + R 1078 6300 0.1711 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1315 1315 3300 0.3985 0.3985 LEFT (L) 154 154 1650 0.0933 EB RIGHT (R) 169 169 1650 0.1024 THRU (T) 102 102 1650 0.0618 LEFT (L) 781 781 3000 0.2603 0.2603 ~B RIGHT (R) 698 544 * 3000 0.1813 0.1813 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.84 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: 0 · ADdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative ~CA~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 4041 Santa Rita Rd/I-580 eb-off PLEASANTON Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 1370 324 <--- v ---> I Split? Y LEFT 448---I 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 300 RIGHT THRU 200 --~> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 110 --~ 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT N W+E 202 2 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 eb-off SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 2 2 3000 0.0007 THRU (T) 2082 2082 4950 0.4206 0.4206 T + R 2084 6300 0.3308 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1370 1370 3300 0.4152 LEFT (L) 324 324 1650 0.1964 0.1964 EB RIGHT (R) 110 110 1650 0.0~7 THRU (T) 200 200 1650 0.1212 LEFT (L) 448 448 3000 0.1493 0.1493 WB RIGHT (R) 300 0 * 3000 0.0000 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.77 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants condition: am peak hour; Alternative ~A~ 07/09/01 ======================================================================== INTERSECTION 3988 Tassajara Rd/I-580 wb-off PLEASANTON Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL 1032 1294 0 I <*-- v ---> ! SpLit? N LEFT 0-'- 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 -' 80~ RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 'THRU RIGHT 0 --~ 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 -~- 504 LEFT v N W+E 161 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? ~1 STREET NAME: L-580 wb-off WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1691 1691 3600 0.4697 0.4697 SB RIGHT (R) 1032 1032 1800 0.5733 THRU (T) 1294 1294 5400 0.2396 WB RIGHT (R) 803 803 3273 0.2453 0.2453 LEFT (L) 504 504 3273 0.1540 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.72 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERV%CE: C * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants Condition: pm peak hour; ALternative ~C~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 3988 Tassajara Rd/I-580 wb-off PLEASANTON Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL 1079 1740 0 [ <--- v ---> I SpLit? N LEFT 0--- 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 708 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 -"- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 551 LEFT g+E ~1 9 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: 1-580 wb-off SIG WARRANTS: Urb:Y, Rur=Y STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO VIC NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1849 1849 3600 0.5136 0.5136 SS RIGHT (R) 107~ 1079 1800 0.5994 THRU (T) 1740 1740 5400 0.3222 WB RIGHT (R) 708 708 3273 0.2163 0,2163 LEFT (L) 551 551 3273 0.1683 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.73 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hoUr; Alternative ~D~D 07/09/01 Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN '~ime RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 760 1834 132 I <--- V --=> LEFT 398 ---' 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 THRU 534 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES} RIGHT 200 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 g N+ E V 46} 11~8 }26 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd 8-PHASE SIGNAL ^ 1.0 RIGHT STREET NAME: 3.0<--- 973 THRU Dublin B[vd 3.0 --- 502 LEFT I ¥ SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 526 334 * 30DO 0.1113 THRU (T) 1188 1188 6600 0.1800 LEFT (L) 466 466 4304 0.1083 0.1083 SB RIGHT (R) 760 541 * 3000 0.1803 THRU (T) 1834 1834 6600 0.2779 0.2779 LEFT (L) 132 132 3000 0.0440 EB RIGHT (R) 200 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 534 534 4950 0.1079 LEFT (L) 398 398 3000 0.1327 0.1327 gB RIGHT (R) 64 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 973 973 4950 0.1966 0.1966 LEFT (L) 502 502 4304 0.1166 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.72 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NENSRP. INToVOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C=..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak houri Atternative ECd~7 07/09/01 INIERSEClION 15T3 lassajara Rd/Dub[in B[¥d Alameda County Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 393 1488 86 I <'-- V LEFT 949 ---' ?.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 THRU 1458 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES} RIGHT 369 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 I 4:___ ^ V S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd 8-PHASE SIGNAL ^ I spti~ N 1.0 --- RIGHT STREET NAME: 3.0<--- 441 THRU DubLin Btvd 3.0 --- 980 LEFT I V SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Yo Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C ..... ......... ..... ..... .................. THRU (T) 1724 1724 6600 0.2612 LEFT (L) 546 546 4304 0.1269 0.1269 SB RIGHT (R) 393 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 1488 1488 6600 0.2255 0.2255 LEFT (L) 86 86 3000 0.0287 EB RIGHT (R) 369 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU CT) 1458 1458 4950 0.2945 0.2945 LEFT (L) 949 949 3000 0.3163 ~B RIGHT (R) 66 19 * 1650 0,0115 THRU (T) 441 441 4950 0.0891 LEFT (L) 980 980 4304 0.22?7 0.2277 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.8~ INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D ·AOJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEI~SRP. tNT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Co~ition: am peak hour; Alternative ~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PK~Y DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Tim RUN E ~/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL I <--- v ---> I Split~ N LEFT 33 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 '-- RIGHT LEFT 39 -'- 1.0 STREET NAME: THRU 0 "'> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 0 THRU CENTRAL PKWY THRU 0 ---> 1.0 --- 1.0 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 0 LEFT RIGHT 164 RIGHT 197 I <--' ^ "-> I v N SIG WARRANTS: N W + E t 7 2 0 Ur~Y, Rur=Y W + E S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N S LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative ~k~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKI~Y DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL · 8-PHASE SIGNAL CCTA METHOD RIGHT 1HRU LEFT 21 975 0 STREET NAME: (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- ?/~.THRU CENTRAL PKWY 1.0 3~0 1.0 ._ '2'0 -jO LEFT 19 15 4-'~ Urb=Y, Rur=Y .- it? LEFT .TH~b RIGHT Sp(' . STR,E~T/NAME: TASSAdARA RD. StREEt NAME: TASSAJArA rD. : ........... ~:~;;~;~[ ........ ........................................................................ ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C MOVEMENT/ VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO _.~ .g RIG.T (RI 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 166 166 1650 0.~006 0.1006 // L:~m ~ ~ ' ... ............................. ~/'/ .................................................................... ........................................... ~' SB RIGHT (ri 21 0 * 1650 0.0000 SB RIGHT (ri 40 7 * 1650 0.0042 THRU (TI 1944 1944 4950 0.~927 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 ................................ E..XG,T 3! * THRU (TI / 200 LEFT (L) 33 33 1650 0.0200/,' 0.0 gB RIGHT (RI 0 0 1650 0~00~0 0.0000 THRU (TI 0 0 1650 ~.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 ,/ 0.0000 ..... ~J;~t ~OLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: ,?= 0.51 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: ~'-' A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED // I NT =N EWSRP. I NT, VOL=RUN ECAP. AMV,--t~,~P=C:.. LOSCAP TAB THRU (TI 975 975 4950 0.1970 0.1970 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT (RI 164 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (TI 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 39 39 1650 0.0236 0.0236 WB RIGHT (RI 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (TI 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.34 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A ======================================================================== · ADJUSTEO FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:,,LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/Gteason Ave Alameda County Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AR PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 317 1657 0 THRU 0 ~--> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 0 THRU STREET NAME: G[eason Ave LOS Software by TJKM TransportatiOn Consultants : INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/G[eason Ave Alameda County Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 46 617 0 STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 0 THRU Gleason Ave RIGHT 115 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 --- 0 LEFT RIGHT 264 --- 1.0. 2.0 3.0 2.0>~..2.0 --~ 0 LEFT , Ill v SIG ~ARRANTS: . v ~y/'I~,~'~ I v SIG ~ARRANTS: ~ + E 249 459 0 Urb=B, Rur=Y ~ + E ,~ 216 1281 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N S ~ LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd ~STREET__==N=AME: TassajaraRd ............... ~---~ ................ ~ ..... ~ ...... ~~===~---~ ................ ~ ..... ~[ ...... MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C ~ MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C ~--~i~-i~i ....... ~ .......... ~ ....... ~ ..... ~ ............ ~ ~F'~i~Fi~i ....... ~ .......... ~ ....... ~ ..... ~ ..... ' ............ THRU (T) 459 459 4950 0.0927 / THRU (T) 1281 1281 4950 0.2588 0.2588 LEFT (L) 249 249 3000 0.0830 0~.08~0 LEFT (L) 216 216 3000 0.0720 ~ RIGHT (R) 317' 297 * 1650 0.1800 ~,// SB RIGHT (R) 46 0 * 1650 0.0000 - - THRU (T) 1657 1657 4950 0.33&T~ 0.3347 THRU (T) 617 617 4950 0.1246 o.,e~OO LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 EB RIGHT (R) 115 0 * 1650.' .... 0 . 0000 THRU (T) 0 0 3300/ 0.0000 1EFT (l) 37 37 .30bO 0.0123 0.0123 .................................... -~.' ................................. ~JB RIGHT (R) 0 0 //' 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 Q-" 3300 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 .~_j_~_ 3000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACitY RATIO: 0.43 ..... L. T ~ELs _E CT Lo._ _ LE _v_E ~_~_?_ _ s ~ [ ~ ~ ............................. A_ LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 264 145 * 1650 0.0879 THRU (T) 0 0 3300 0.0000 LEFT (l) 422 422 3000 0.1407 0.1407 WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 3300 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.40 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants ======================================================================== Condition" am ~ak hour; Alternative ~C~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6617 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E ~/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 0 72 <--- v ---> I Split? N 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- 3~ RIGHT LEFT 0 --- 1.0 THRU 1065 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1408 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 Z.O 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT v v N Id+E 0 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sptit? N STREET NAME: DUBLIN BLVD SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 i~ ~ ~ T,.U 0 0 65o o.oooo LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0,0000 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 O.OOOO LEFT (L) 72 72 1650 0.0436 0.0436 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1065 1065 4950 0.2152 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 NB RIGHT (R) 32 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1408 1408 4950 0.2844 0.2844 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.33 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED 1NT=NEgSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAp'TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative [C..~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6617 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 E.OUBLIN Time RUN E ~/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHO0 RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL 0 0 55 I <--- v '-'> I Spti~ N LEFT 0 --- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- RIGHT THRU 2055 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1057 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT v v N id+E 0 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: DUBLIN BLVO SIG ~ARRANTS: Urb=N~ Rur=N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET ======================================================================== ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0,0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 55 55 1650 0.0333 0.0333 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU CT) 2055 2055 4950 0.4152 0.4152 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 ~B RIGHT (R) 64 9 * 1650 0.0055 THRU CT) 1057 1057 4950 0.2135 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.45 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants INTERSECTION 6615 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN lime RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 0 0 THRU 61 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 139 THRU RIGHT 117 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT N W+E 9 0 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET 5-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: CENTRAL PARKWAY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 O 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 90 90 1650 0.0545 0.0545 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT (RI 117 27 * 1650 0.0164 THRU (TI 61 61 3300 0.0185 LEFT el) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 139 139 3300 0.0421 0.0421 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.10 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A ........................................................................ ........................................ INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB ! ! LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants INTERSECTION 6615 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 0 0 THRU 172 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 56 THRU RIGHT 120 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT v v N W+E 12 0 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET 5-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: CENTRAL PARKWAY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 O 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 128 128 1650 0.0~6 0.077'6 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 120 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (TI 172 172 3300 0.0521 0.0521 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 WB RIGHT (ET 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 56 56 3300 0.0170 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.13 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A ................ ' ....................... INT=NEWSRP. INT~VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Alternative ~k~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6618 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 373 30 14 THRU 108 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 275 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- I LEFT v N W+E 5 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: GLEASON DRIVE SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 15 15 1650 0.0091 LEFT (L) 1 I 1650 0.0006 0.0006 T + R 15 1650 0.0091 SB RIGHT (R) 373 373 1650 0.2261 THRU (T) 30 30 1650 0.0182 LEFT (l) 14 14 1650 0.0085 T + R 403 1650 0.2442 0.2442 EB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 108 108 3300 0.0327 LEFT (L) 129 129 1650 0.0782 0.0782 WB RIGHT (R) 10 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 275 275 3300 0.0833 0.0833 LEFT (L) 1 1 1650 0.0006 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.41 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.tNT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; ALternative ~.~? 07/09/01 I)4TERSECTION 6618 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 151 14 6 <--- V 343 --- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 LEFT THRU RIGHT 2 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 ~+E 0 1 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N 305 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) STREET NAME: MAIN STREET I spt% N 1.0 -"- RIGHT 2.0<--- 134 THRU 1.0 --- 0 LEFT I V STREET NAME: GLEASON DRIVE SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 1 1 1650 0.0006 THRU (T) 30 30 1650 0.0182 LEFT (L) I 1 1650 0.0006 0.0006 T + R 31 1650 0.0188 SB RIGHT (R) 151 1~1 1650 0.0915 THRU (T) 14 14 1650 0.0085 LEFT (L) 6 6 1650 0.0036 T + R 165 1650 0.1000 0.1000 EB RIGHT (R) 2 1 * 1650 0.0006 THRU (T) 305 305 3300 0.0924 LEFT (L) 343 343 1650 0.2079 0.2079 NB RIGHT (R) 9 3 * 1650 0.0018 THRU (T) 134 134 3300 0.0406 0.0406 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 TOTAL VOLL~4E-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.35 I~TERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants Condition: am peak hour; Alternative E(..A~D 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 9957 E[ Charro Rd/I-580 EB ramp Alameda County Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E ~/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 1372 0 <--- v ---> I Sprit! N LEFT 1467 ---I 2.0 1,9 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- u RIGHT THRU 0 -''> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<~~- 0 THRU RIGHT 101 -'- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT v 111 N ~+E 98 86 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: E[ Charro Rd 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 EB ramp SIG WARRANTS: UFb=Y0 Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 886 886 1800 0.4922 THRU (TM 948 948 5400 0.1756 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (TM 1372 1372 5400 0.2541 0.2541 EB RIGHT (R) 101 101 327'5 0.0309 LEFT (L) 1467 1467 3273 0.4482 0.4482 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.70 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB ^ LEFT 1067~--I 2.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 45 --- 2.0 I ¥ ~+E S LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative E-(.~/ekP 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 9957 El Charro Rd/I-580 EB ramp Alameda County Count Date YR.2025 E.OUBLIN Time RUN E la/ ECAP Peak H'our PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 1869 0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 - RIGHT STREET NAME: (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB ramp 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT 1 7 60 Urb=Y, Rur=Y LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Et Charro Rd ORIGINAL ADdUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 960 960 1800 0.5333 THRU (T) 1017 1017 5400 0.1883 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1869 1869 5400 0.3461 0.3461 EB RIGHT (R) 45 '45 3273 0.0137 LEFT (L) 1067 1067 3273 0.3260 0.3260 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.67 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED I NT=N EWSRP · I NT, VOL =RUN ECAP. PMV o CAP=C: · · LOSCAP · TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; ALternative ~.~A~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 9956 Fallon Rd/I-580 ~B ramp Alameda County Count Date YR.2025 E.DUSLIN Time RUN E g/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT ........... 1230 LEFT 0 ---I 0.0 1.9 THRU 0 --~> 0.0 (NO. RIGHT 0 --' 0.0 0.0 W+E S LEFT THRU LEFT 1981 0 3.0 0.0 OF LANES) 3.0 1.9 STREET HAME: FatLon Rd ^ Split? N 2.0 !-- 966 RIGHT 0.0<-"- 0 THRU 2.0 --- 635 LEFT ¥ 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 gB ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (RI 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (TI 2396 2396 5400 0.4437 0.4437 SB RIGHT (RI 1230 1230 1800 0.6833 THRU (TI 1981 1981 5400 0.3669 ~B RIGHT (RI 966 966 3273 0.2951 0.2951 LEFT (L) 635 635 3273 0.1940 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.74 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C * AOdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUHECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; ALternative ~j~:~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 9956 FaLlon Rd/I-580 NB ramp Alameda County Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1995 2371 0 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0,0 2.0--- 1306 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<"' 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 2.0 --- 695 LEFT ¥ N '19 6 0 W+E S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Falton Rd 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 WB ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUHE VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (TI 1976 1976 5400 0.3659 SB RIGHT (R) 1995 1995 1800 1.1083 ** THRU (TI 2371 2371 5400 0.4391 0.4391 WB RIGHT (R) 1306 1306 3273 0.3990 0.3990 LEFT (L) 695 695 3273 0.2123 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.84 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED ** APPROACHING OR EXCEEDING CAPACITY ]NT=NEWSRP.INT~VOL=RUNECAP.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB 0 II · . Il II II ti " II II II 11 II II o~0o o IJ'l o 0oo ooo ooo l'o 0~ o 00 I, zl o o ,-.1 o ,0'~ Ln F~ ~o~0 ~oLn ~ObO0 0oo o 0oo I. J1 o ~0 Il II II II 12'rJ II I| 011 II ~ ["r] II II II II O~ll I-~ ~11 I-u , I;J II II II ~1 II 13J II H II II 0 II II ("1 II ~l.-r II II II II II II II II II m I I I I I I ,q--i t V ~ A ~-,,1 [ · Hk.O IL',) ~ I I A I--' I · I o I N I · I o I v o o A I-- ). I I 0 l'1' 0 II II 0 II ~ II 03 II ~ II ~ II I~-II 03 O~ II Fr II O ~mll I-'- II O II O II rt II II m II (~ II ~l II II II 1~ ~0 II '~ II N II I~ II 1_4 II ~ II 0'~ II ~ II C..I II II ~ ~ II ~ II m II O II O II-. II m l:l II II II ~ II m II ~1~ Il ~,Ill ~0 I~l II II I-~ ~ II ~ II ~ o- II~ II rt i-J II ri' II I~- I-- II. II O II ~ II ~ II II O ~ II (~ II m II II l--, II l-~-II rt II ri' II ~l II · II rt II II ~ II II II II II II II II II II II II ~ II II II II · II II ~I II II (1) II II ~ II II  f~ II II II II ('3 II II O II II II II II 0 II FI' II '-,,1 II - ~ II ~ II II I'~ II II I0 II II N II II 0 II II I-~ II ~,~ II il II II [_~ II II 0 II II L~ ~) 0'~ Eli II II o 0'1 o"1 (-~ II II gbs o o ~ II II  II II II II II II II I1 ooo II II ~ ~ o II II ~ ~ o II II II II II II II II II II II II o II II · II I'~ II t~ II -- II 0 II b~ II L~ II ~IU1 II ~0 Il II II II II II II II II II II II II II ooqo ooo ooo ooLfl ooo ooo ~0oo Ul~oo ~.~ ~00o o01o o0o ooo oo0 II II II ['~ II II II II 1-411 L'x'J ~ 11 II II [-1--J II ,' 11 N ~11 0 II II ~ II ~ II II II II II 'o II II II II ~ II ~ II ~ II ~ II II II II II ~+~ L~ 1 t I A I I 0 ~'101' 0 Ii M II ~ M II I~ II D II ('I' II 0 ~1~ II I-" II I-h (I) H II" II P) 0 il II M  Iltl~ II (1) ·II II L~ ~ II ~ II ~ 0 ~ II (1) II L~ II PJ II t-] ~C~ II ~i~ II ~ II II II ~ ?,," 0= ,, ~I~II I~ II ~ I~ II Fl II ~{ 0 II-. II ~i L~ ~I II II ~ II ~ II ia II II 0 ..I%1 II II II II ~ II ~ II I-I II II 0 IL'zJ ~ II ~ II ~ ~., II · II II II I-~ II iI- II ~  II (-t II ~ II · II II II CA II II II II ~ II II (1) II II PJ II II ~i~ II II ~ II II II II II Ii II II II I~ II II I1~ ~!1 II II ~ II II {~ II II tO 0 II II I~1~ II II ~ II 0 II I II ~l II ~ II N II I ~ II I~ II I0 II ~ II  I~ IIN II i II0 II I III-J II LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants INTERSECTION 8336 Fat ton Rd/Dublin atvd Alameda County Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E t4/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL ........................................................................ CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 50 1903 382 THRU 325 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 902 THRU RIGHT 454 --- 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1058 LEFT N $J+ E 41 9 8 66 S STREET NAME: Dublin Btvd SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FallOn Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 966 560 * 3000 0.1867 THRU (T) 928 928 6600 0.1406 LEFT (L) 413 413 3000 0.1377 0.1377 SB RIGHT (R) 50 30 * 1650 0.0182 THRU (T) 1903 1903 6600 0.2883 0.2883 LEFT (L) 382 382 3000 0.1273 EB RIGHT (R) 454 41 * 3000 0.0137 THRU (T) 325 325 4950 0.0657 0.0657 LEFT (L) 37 37 3000 0.0123 idb RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 902 902 4950 0.1822 LEFT (l) 1058 1058 4304 0.2458 0.2458 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.74 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C ........................................ INT=NEIdSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative ~(~.~,p 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 8336 Fat[on Rd/Dublin Blvd A[amecla County Count Date YR.2025 E.DUDLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 42 1344 168 <--- v ---> / Split? N LEFT 85---I 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0--- 339 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 1132 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<'" 225 THRU Dublin BLvd RIGHT 703 --- 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1167 LEFT v v N SIG WARRANTS: id + E 45 19 0 7 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Fal[on Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 787 340 * 3000 0.1133 THRU (T) 1940 1940 6600 0.2939 LEFT (l) 456 456 3000 0.1520 0.1520 SB RIGHT (R) 42 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1344 1344 6600 0.2036 0.2036 LEFT (L) 168 168 3000 0.0560 EB RIGHT (R) 703 247 * 3000 0.0823 THRU (T) 1132 1132 4950 0.2287 0.2287 LEFT (L) 85 85 3000 0.0283 idb RIGHT (R) 339 247 * 1650 0.1497 THRU (T) 225 225 4950 0.0455 LEFT (L) 1167 1167 4304 0.2711 0.2711 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.86 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED I NT=NEIdSRP. 1NT,VOL=RUNECAP. PMV, CAP=C:,. LOSCAP. TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Alternative ~l~k~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6760 Fatlon Road/New Intersection Dublin Count Date ¥R.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 122 2843 450 I <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 47 --- 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.1 --- 130 RIGHT THRU 25 -"-> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 25 THRU RIGHT 7"5 --- 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 3,0 --- 295 LEFT v [[1 N SIG ~ARRANTS: W + E 26 21 1 68 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Fatton Road ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 968 855 * 1650 0.5182 0.5182 THRU (Ti 2131 2131 6600 0.3229 LEFT (L) 263 263 3000 0.0877 SB RIGHT (R) 122 96 * 1650 0.0582 THRU (Ti 2843 2843 6600 0.4308 LEFT (L) 450 450 3000 0.1500 0.1500 EB RIGHT (Ri 73 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (Ti 25 25 1650 0.0152 LEFT (L) 47 47 3000 0.0157 0.0157 WB RIGHT (Ri 130 130 1650 0.0788 THRU (T) 25 25 1650 0.0152 LEFT (L) 295 295 4304 0.0685 T + R 155 1650 0.0939 0.0939 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.78 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB STREET NAME: New Intersection LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative ~(.~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6760 Fal[on Road/New Intersection Dublin Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 115 2590 509 <--- v --'> I Split? N LEFT 193---I 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.1--- 507 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 73 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1o1<--- 75 THRU New Intersection RIGHT 347 -'- 2.0' 2.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 --- 1429 LEFT I < ....... · I v N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 20 24 2 97 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT split? N STREET NAME: FalLon Read ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (Ri 597 49 * 1650 0.0297 THRU (Ti 2482 2482 6600 0.3761 0,3761 LEFT (l) 203 203 3000 0.0677 SB RIGHT (R) 115 9 * 1650 0,0055 THRU (T) 2590 2590 6600 0.3924 LEFT (L) 509 509 3000 0.1697 0.1697 EB RIGHT (R) 347 235 * 3000 0.0783 THRU (Ti 75 7'5 1650 0.0442 LEFT (L) 193 193 3000 0.0643 0.0643 NB RIGHT (R) 507 507 1650 0.3075 THRU (T) 7-5 75 1650 0.0442 LEFT (L) 1429 1429 4304 0.~320 T + R 580 1650 0.3515 0.3515 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.96 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:-.LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants condition: am peak hour~ Alternative 1~_~[:::~ 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6438 FALLOW ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E N/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 163 1970 17-5 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 106---I 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1--- 197 RIGHT THRU 43 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 63 lHRU RIGHT 268 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 0 LEFT v v N 14+E 6 67 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: FALLOW ROAD 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: CENTRAL PARKWAY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT iR) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU iT) 637 637 3300 0.1930 LEFT il) 67 67 3000 0.0223 0.0223 SB RIGHT iR) 163 57 * 1650 0.0345 THRU iT) 1970 1970 3300 0.5970 0.5970 LEFT il) 173 173 1650 0.1048 EB RIGHT iR) 268 231 * 3000 0.0770 THRU iT) 43 43 1650 0.0261 LEFT il) 106 106 1650 0.0642 0.0642 gB RIGHT iR) 197 197 1650 0.1194 THRU iT) 63 63 1650 0.0382 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 T + R 260 1650 0.1576 0.1576 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RAT[O: 0.84 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT~VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative ~.~p 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6438 FALLOW ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RI'GHT THRU LEFT ........... 92 991 160 '(''' V LEFT 164---I 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 THRU 97 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- RIGHT 174 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- Ill v N W+ E 26 18 1 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N 8-PHASE SIGNAL ^ 1.1 RIGHT 49 0 STREET NAME: THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY LEFT SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y STREET NAME: FALLOW ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTEO V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT iR) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU iT) 1851 1851 3300 0.5609 0.5609 LEFT (L) 265 265 3000 0.0883 SB RIGHT iR) 92 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 991 991 3300 0.3003 LEFT (L) 160 160 1650 0.0970 0.0970 EB RIGHT (R) 174 28 * 3000 0.0093 THRU (T) 97 97 1650 0.0588 LEFT (L) 164 164 1650 0.0994 0.0994 ~B RIGHT (R) 168 168 1650 0.1018 THRU (T) 49 49 1650 0.0297 LEFT il) 0 0 3000 0.0000 T + R 217 1650 0.1315 0.1315 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.89 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.[NT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants condition: am peak hour; Alternative F-~ ................. ~ INTERSECTION 9954 FaIIon Rd/Gteason Rd Alameda County Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 15 1661 0 I <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 18 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 26 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT v v N W+E 5 78 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Fa[Ion Rd STREET NAME: Gteason Rd SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB THRU (TI 708 708 4950 0.1430 LEFT (L) 50 50 1650 0.0303 0.0303 SB RIGHT (RI 15 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1661 1661 3300 0.5033 0.5033 EB RIGHT (RI 26 0 * 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 18 18 1650 0.0109 0.0109 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.54 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:.,LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative Er-AP ............. INTERSECTION 9954 Fatton Rd/Gteason Rd Atameda County Count Oate YR.2025 E.DIJBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 14 814 0 <--- V ---> 1.0 2.0 0.0 ^ LEFT 11 --- 1.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 39 --- 1.0 ¥ ~+E $ (NO. OF LANES) I Sptit~ N 0.0 --- RIGHT 0.0<--- 0 THRU STREET NAME: Gleason Rd 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N 0 LEFT SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N STREET NAME: Fa[ton Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUHE VOLLME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB THRU (TI 1604 1604 4950 0.]~40 0.~240 LEFT (L) 23 23 1650 0.0139 SB RIGHT (R) 14 3 * 1650 - 0.0018 THRU (T) 814 814 3300 0.2467 ~'-RIGHT (R) 39 16 * 1650 0.0097 0.0097 LEFT (L) 11 11 1650 0.0067 TOTAL VOLLq4E-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.33 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMVoCAP=C:-.LOSCAP-TAB ^ LEFT 0---I 0.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 0 '-- 0.0 I V N S LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; ECAP Alternative - mitigation 07/12/01 INTERSECT[ON 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 MB ramp Dublin Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E M/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 539 1607 0 <--' v ---> { Split? N 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 998 RIGHT STREET NAME: (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 MB ramp 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 644 LEFT ~-'- ^ -~"> I 18 0 0 Urb=¥o Rur=¥ LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1840 1840 5400 0.3407 0.3407 SB RIGHT (R) 539 539 1800 0.2994 THRU (T) 1607 1607 5400 0.2976 WB RIGHT (R) 998 998 3273 0.3049 0.3049 LEFT (L) 644 644 4695 0.1372 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.65 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B * ADdUSTEO FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MITIGS.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants condition: pm peak hour; ECAP Alternative - mitigation 07/12/01 INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 WB ramp Dublin Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 1157 2267 0 I <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 0--- 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 1097 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 WB ramp RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 658 LEFT v N SiG t4ARRANTS: M + E 22 9 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 2209 2209 5400 0.4091 SB RIGHT (R) 1157 1157 1800 0.6428 THRU (T) 2267 2267 5400 · 0.4198 0.4198 WB RIGHT (R) 1097 1097 3273 0.3352 0.3352 LEFT (L) 658 658 4695 0.1401 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.76 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MITIG8.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS CUMULATIVE YEAR 2025 + MITIGATED TRAFFIC ALTERNATIVE Table 4.3-1 ~ortation Model Cumulative Year 2025 ~lus Mitigated Traffic Alternative Peak Hour Intersection Levels o! ~erwce-i ri-v utter' a l air,pot tauma x.t,,,~,.~ .... ~ ............... .' -o ., ,, Intersection Control Unmitigated Mitigated A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour * LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS ! Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.94 E 1.02 F .- - - - 2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.72 C 0.82 D 3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.83 D 0.96 E 0.65 B 0.75 C 4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.84 D 1.01 F ........ 5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.86 D 0.76 C 6 Tassajara Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.71 C 0.73 C 7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.73 C 0.88 D 8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.72 C 0.61 B 9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.58 A 0.47 A 10 Graf'ton Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.34 A 0.44 A - 11 Grafton Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.09 A 0.12 A 12 Grafton Street/Gleason Drive Signal 0.45 A 0.37 A 13 El Charro Road/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.58 A 0.63 B 14 Fallon Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.62 B 0.75 C 15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.86 D 1.04 F ....... 15A Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. w/New Int. Signal ...... 0.75 C 0.87 D XX Fallon Road/New Intersection Signal ........ 0.60 A 0.68 B 16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.76 C 0.85 D 17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.50 A 0.31 A Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections ........... 42 1994 136 I <--- v ---> ! Split? N LEFT 34 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 -- 66 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 51 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- ~ THRU CENTRAL PKWY --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 541 LEFT RIGHT 192 I < ..... > v N Urb=Y, Rur=Y N + E 16 7 0 10 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants 07/12/01 ,/~?,Condition:~ am peak hour; Traffic Mitigated ALternative Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD. ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NH RIGHT (R) 410 112 * 1650 0.0679 THRU (T) 760 760 4950 0.1535 LEFT (L) 167 167 1650 0,1012 0.I012 SB RIGHT (R) 42 8 * 1650 0.0048 THRU (T) 1994 1994 4950 0.4028 0.4028 LEFT (L) 136 136 1650 0.0824 EB RIGHT (R) 192 25 * 1650 0.0152 THRU (T) 51 51 1650 0.0309 0.0309 LEFT (L) 34 34 1650 0.0206 WB RIGHT (R) 66 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 68 68 1650 0.0412 LEFT (L) 541 541 3000 0.1803 0.1803 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.72 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75ALT.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Traffic Mitigated ALternative 07/1Z/01 INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKWY DUBLIN Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 21 988 91 I <--- v ---> I SpLit? N LEFT 42 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 --- 141 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 64 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 77 THRU CENTRAL PKWY RIGHT 163 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 629 LEFT W +N E 19 15 1 95 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD. ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRIIICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RAIIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 695 349 * 1650 0.2115 THRU (T) 1541 1541 4950 0,311~ 0.~113 LEFT (L) 192 192 1650 0.1164 SB RIGHT (R) 21 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 988 988 4950 0.1996 LEFT (L) 91 91 1650 0.055~ 0.0552 ............................... ..... ..... EB RIGHT (R) 16~ THRU (T) 64 64 1650 0.0388 0.0388 LEFT (L) 42 42 1650 0.0255 WB RIGHT (R) 141 50 * 1650 0.0303 THRU (T) 77 77 1650 0.0467 LEFT (L) 629 629 3000 0.2097 0.2097 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.61 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON REO 1NT=NEgSRP.INT,VOL=75ALT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condit~on: am peak hour~ Traffic Mitigated ALternative 07/12/01 N,.~INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/Gleason Ave ALameda County Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 356 1640 STREET NAME: THRU 37 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 213 THRU Gteason Ave RIGHT 109 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 -~- 491 LEFT v N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 22 4 6 90 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 190 0 * 3000 O.OODO THRU (T) 466 466 4950 0.0941 1EFT (L) 226 226 3000 0.0753 0.0753 SB RIGHT (R) 356 335 * 1650 0.2030 THRU (T) 1640 1640 4950 0.3313 0.3313 LEFT (L) 71 71 1650 0.0430 EB RIGHT (R) 109 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 37 37 3300 0.0112 0.0112 LEFT (L) 38 38 3000 0.0127 WB RIGHT (R) 50 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 213 213 3300 0.0645 LEFT (L) 491 491 3000 0.1637 0.1637 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.58 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75ALT.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Traffic Mitigated Alternative 07/12/01 INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/Gteason Ave ALameda County Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Nour FROM MODEL CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 47 620 58 THRU 292 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 43 THRU RIGHT 263 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 --- 267 LEFT N W + E 20 12 9 53 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: Gleason Ave SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MovEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 353 206 * 3000 0.0687 THRU (T) 1269 1269 4950 0.2564 0.2564 LEFT (L) 205 205 3000 0.0683 SB RIGHT (R) 47 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 620 620 4950 0.1253 LEFT (L) 58 58 1650 0.0352 0.0352 EB RIGHT (R) 263 150 * 1650 0.0909 0.0909 THRU (T) 292 292 3300 0.0~5 LEFT (l) 459 459 3000 0.1530 WB RIGHT (R) 59 1 * 1650 0.0006 THRU (T) 43 43 3300 0.0130 LEFT (l) 267 267 3000 0.0890 0.0890 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.47 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=?'SALT.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB Table 4.3-1 ~ortation Model Cumulative Year ~025~ ~lus Mitigated Traffic Alternative Peak Hour Intersection l~eVelS ol ~ervlcc Intersection Consol Unmitigated Mitigated A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Pe~ Hour * LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS I Doughe~ Road~ublin Boulevard Si~al 0.94 E !.02 F .... 2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 E~tbound Ramps Signal 0.72 C 0.82 D 3 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.83 D 0.96 E 0.65 B 0.75 C 4 Hacienda Drive~ublin Boulevard Si~al 0.84 D 1.01 F ....... 5 Santa Rita Roa~-580 Eastbound Ramps Si~al 0.86 D 0.76 C 6 Tassajara Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.71 C 0.73 C 7 T~sajara Roa~Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.73 C 0.88 D 8 Tassajara Roa~Central Parkway Sisal 9 Tassajam Road/Gleason Drive Sisal I 0 Gm~on StreeqDublin Boulevard Si~al 0.34 A 0.~ A I 1 Gm~on StreeqCentml Parkway Si~al 0.09 A 0.12 A 12 Gm,on SWeeqGleason Drive Si~al 0.45 A 0.37 A 13 El Charro Roa~l-580 Eastbound Ramps Si~al 0.58 A 0.63 B 14 Fatlon Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.62 B 0.75 C 15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Sisal 0.86 D 1.04 F ........ 15A Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. w/New Int. Sisal ....... 0.75 C 0.87 D XX Fallon Road~ew Intersection Signal ........ 0.60 A 0.68 B 16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.76 C 0.85 D 17 Fallon Roa~Gleason Drive Si~al 0.50 A 0.31 A Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 ..... ........... Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR · CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 131 2131 9 <--- v ---> / split? N LEFT 14 -~- 1.0 1.1 4.1 2.0 1.1:-- 37 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 930 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<--- 1267 THRU DUBLIN BLVD. RIGHT 975 --- 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 618 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 113 7 44 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: OOUGHERTY RD. ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 544 113 * 3000 0.0377 THRU (T) 707 707 4950 0.1428 LEFT (L) 1130 1130 4304 0.2625 0.2625 SB RIGHT (R) 131 131 1650 0.0794 THRU (T) 2131 2131 6600 0.3229 LEFT (L) 9 9 3000 0.0030 T + R 2262 6600 0.3427 0.3427 EB RIGHT (R) 975 187 * 3000 0.0623 THRU (T) 930 930 4950 0.1879 0.1879 LEFT (L) 14 14 1650 0.0085 WB RIGHT (R) 37 37 1650 0.0224 THRU (T) 1267 1267 4950 0.2560 LEFT (L) 618 618 4304 0.1436 0.1436 T + R 1304 4950 0.2634 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.94 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative . 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 3977 DOUGflERTY RD./DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75~ Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 31 1433 62 I <--- v "-> I sprit? N LEFT 63 -'- 1.0 1.1 4.1 2.0 1.1 "- 25 RIGHT THRU 1381 '--> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<--- 1178 THRU RIGHT 1188 --- 2.5 .3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 764 LEFT iii v N W + E 14 19 9 87 S 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: DUBLIN BLVD. SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET HAME: DOUGHERTY RD. ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 787 254 * 3000 0.0847 THRU (T) 1979 1979 4950 0.3998 LEFT (L) 1473 1473 4304 0.3422 0.3422 SB RIGHT (R) 31 31 1650 0,0188 THRU (T) 1433 1433 ~00 0.2171 LEFT (L) 62 62 3000 0.0207 T + R 1466 6000 0.2218 0.2218 EB RIGHT (R) 1188 161 * 3000 0.0537 THRU (T) 1381 1381 4950 0.2790 0.2790 LEFT (L) 63 63 1650 0.0382 WB RIGHT (R) 25 25 1650 0.0152 THRU (T) 1178 1178 4950 0.2380 LEFT (L) 764 70/+ 4304 0.1775 0.1775 T + R 1203 4950 0.2430 TOTAL VOLUME'TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 1.02 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: F · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 8302 Hacienda Dr/l-580 EB ramp Pleasanton Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 1667 0 LEFT 672 --- 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 - RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<-"- 0 THRU 1-580 EB ramp RIGHT 1173 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT N SIG ~ARRANTS: ~ + E 19 1 28 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET ~AME: Hacienda Or ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLLIME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 528 528 1800 0.2933 THRU (T) 1931 1931 5400 0.3576 0.3576 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1667 1667 5400 0.3087 EB RIGHT (R) 1173 1173 3273 0.3584 0.3584 LEFT (L) 672 672 3273 0.2053 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.72 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; ALternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 8302 Hacienda Dr/I-580 EB ramp Ple~$anton Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT Z-PHASE SIGNAL I LEFT 669---- 2.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 1082 --- 2.0 ¥ 0 1943 0 <--- v '--> I Sptit~ N 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- g RIGHT (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr STREET NAME: 1-580 EB ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 796 796 1800 0.4422 THRU (T) 2662 2662 5400 0.4930 0.4930 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1943 1943 5400 0.3598 EB RIGHT (R) 1082 1082 3273 0.3306 0.3306 LEFT (L) ~9 669 32~ 0.2044 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.82 IMTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 W8 ramp Dublin Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 598 1605 0 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 0 .... I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 -- 1010 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 W8 ramp RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 641 LEFT v N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 18 1 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1861 1861 3600 0.5169 0.5169 SB RIGHT (R) 598 598 1800 0.3322 THRU (T) 1605 1605 5400 0.2972 WB RIGHT (R) 1010 1010 3273 0.3086 0.3086 LEFT (L) 641 641 3273 0.1958 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.83 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 W8 ramp Dublin Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1171 2292 0 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0---1080 RIGHT THRU 0 -"> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 656 LEFT N W+E 220 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 WB ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 2270 2270 3600 0.6306 0.6306 SB RIGHT (R) 1171 1171 1800 0.6506 THRU (T) 2292 2292 5400 ' 0.4244 WB RIGHT (R) 1080 1080 3273 0.3300 0.3300 LEFT (L) 656 656 3273 0.2004 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.96 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E ........................................ INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; ALternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 8306 Hacienda Dr/Dublin Blvd Dublin Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time ~% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 9 918 160 I <--- V -'-> LEFT 56 --- 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 THRU 548 ---· 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) I Split? N 1.0 --- 44 RIGHT 3.0<--- 1130 THRU RIGHT 444 --- 2.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 958 LEFT N SIG ~ARRANTS: ~ + E 96 5 7 86 UFb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Dub:in Btvd STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT iR) 386 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU iT) 567 567 4950 0.1145 LEFT (L) 967 967 4304 0.2247 0.2247 SB RIGHT (R) 9 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 918 918 4950 0.1855 0.1855 LEFT il) 160 160 3000 0.0533 EB RIGHT (R) 444 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU iT) 548 548 4950 0.1107 0.1107 LEFT il) 56 56 3000 0.0187 ~B RIGHT (R) 44 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1130 1130 4950 0.2283 LEFT (L) 958 958 3000 0.3193 0.3193 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.84 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MID,AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 8306 Hacienda Dr/Dublin Blvd Dublin Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK ~OUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 6 889 154 <--- v --'> ! SpLit? N LEFT 79---{ 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1 .O -- 33 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 1298 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 686 THRU Dubtin Btvd RIGHT 885 --- 2.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 699 LEFT N SIG gARRANTS: g + E 146 7 7 46 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? H STREET NAME: Hacienda Or ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) - 946 562 * 1650 0.3406 THRU (T) 797 797 4950 0.1610 LEFT (L) 1464 1464 4304 0.3401 0.3401 SB RIGHT iR) 6 0 * 1650 0,0000 THRU iT) 889 889 4950 0.1796 0.1796 LEFT (L) 154 154 3000 0.0513 EB RIGHT (R) 885 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU iT) 1298 1298 4950 0.2622 0.2622 LEFT iL) 79 79 3000 0.0263 ~B RIGHT (R) 33 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU iT) 686 686 4950 0.1386 LEFT iL) 699 699 3000 0.2330 0.~330 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 1.01 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: F · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MIO.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TM LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 (;~SE~T~--[~-~;~;-~;~-~;-~-~-off .... P~E~SANTON Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75~ Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR £CTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ~ .......... 0 1352 154 <--- v ---> I Split? Y LEFT813 ___12.o 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 690 RIGHT THRU 103 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 177 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT v Ill v N I,/+E 103 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 eb-off SIG ~ARRANTS: UrI~Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 1053 1053 4950 0.2127 T + R 1053 6300 0.1671 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1352 1352 3300 0.4097 0.4097 LEFT (L) 154 154 1650 0.0933 EB RIGHT (R) 177 177 1650 0.1073 THRU (T) 103 103 1650 0.0624 LEFT (L) 813 813 3000 0.2710 0.2710 · ~B RIGHT (R) 690' 536 * 3000 0.1787 0.1787 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.86 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TA8 LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 404.1 Santa Rita Rd/I-580 eb-off PLEASANTON Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak H6ur PM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 0 1368 303 <--- v ---> I Split? Y LEFT 458---I 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 2,0 --- 295 RIGHT THRU 206 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 112 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT N W+E 213 2 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 eb-off SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 2 2 3000 0.0007 THRU (T) 2103 2103 4950 0.4248 0.4248 T + R 2105 6300 0.3341 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1368 1368 3300 0.4145 LEFT (L) 303 303 1650 0.1836 0.1836 EB RIGHT (R) 112 112 1650 0.0679 THRU (T) 206 206 1650 0.1248 LEFT (L) 458 458 3000 0.1527 0.1527 ~B RIGHT (R) 295 0 * 3000 0.0000 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.76 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT~VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LEFT 0 --- 0.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 0 V W+E S LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants ======================================================================== Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 ======================================================================== INTERSECTION 3988 Tassajara Rd/I-580 wb-off PLEASANTON Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 1023 1332 0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 - RIGHT STREET NAME: (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 wb-off 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 504 LEFT ^ ---~ 17 0 Urb~=Y, Rur=Y LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRIIICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (RI 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (TI 1715 1715 3600 0.~764 0.476~ SB RIGHT (RI 1023 1023 1800 0.5683 THRU (TI 1332 1332 5400 0.2467 WB RIGHT (RI 754 754 327'5 0.2304 0.2304 LEFT (L) 504 504 32~ 0.1540 TOTAL VOLUHE-TO-CAPAC1TY RATIO: 0.71 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=NEWSRP.INToVOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:.-LOSCAP,TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 3988 Tassajara Rd/I-580 wb-off PLEASANTON Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 1112 1728 0 I <--- v ---> I Spl~_~ N LEFT 0 "' O.O 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 -'- RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<-'- O' THRU RIGHT 0 "-- 0.0 0.0 2.0 t.9 2.0 --- 519 LEFT . v v W+ E 188 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 wb-off SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (RI 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (TI 1888 1888 3600 0.5244 0.5244 SB RIGHT (RI 1112 1112 1800 0.6178 THRU (TI 1728 1728 5400 0.3200 WB RIGHT (RI 677 677 3273 0.2068 0.2068 LEFT (L) 519 519 327'5 0.1586 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: O.T5 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; AlternatiVe 07/09/01 iNTERSECTION 1573 Tassajara Rd/D~blin Hlvd .... ~ameda County Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 778 1865 111 LEFT 401---I 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 THRU 442 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) RIGHT 200 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd 8-PHASE SIGNAL ^ 1.0 --- RIGHT STREET NAME: 3.0<--- 1055 THRU Dublin Blvd 3.0 --- 506 LEFT ¥ SIG ~ARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 515 321 * 3000 0.1070 THRU (T) 1169 1169 6600 0.1771 LEFT (l) 431 431 4304 0.1001 0.1001 SB RIGHT (R) 778 557 * 3000 0.1857 THRU (T) 1865 1865 6600 0.2826 0.2826 LEFT (L) 111 111 3000 0.0370 EB RIGHT (R) 200 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 442 442 4950 0.0893 LEFT (L) 401 401 3000 0.1337 0.1337 ~B RIGHT (R) 48 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1055 1055 4950 0.2131 0.2131 LEFT (L) 506 506 4304 0.1176 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RAT[O: 0.73 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED [NT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 157-5 Tassajara Rd/Dublin B[vd Alameda County Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time ~5% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 389 1505 85 <-'- V LEFT 913 ---I 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 THRU 1447 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) RIGHT 380 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 .2.0 I <... A _._> S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd 8-PHASE SIGNAL ^ I Split? N 1.0 --- 64 RIGHT STREET NAME: 3.0<--- 371 THRU Dublin Btvd 3.0 --- 986 LEFT I v S]G ~ARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPAC[TY RATIO V/C ..... ......... ..... ..... .................. THRU (T) 1738 1738 6600 0.2633 LEFT (L) 544 544 4304 0.1264 0.1264 SB RIGHT (R) 389 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 1505 1505 6600 0.2280 0.2280 LEFT (L) 85 85 3000 0.0283 EB RIGHT (R) 380 1 * 3000 0.0003 THRU (T) 1447 1447 4950 0.2923 0.2923 LEFT (l) 913 913 3000 0.3043 ~B RIGHT (R) 64 17 * 16~0 0.0103 THRU (T) 371 371 49S0 0.0749 LEFT (L) 986 986 4304 0.2291 0.2291 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED [NT=NENSRP. INT,VOL=75MID.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PK~Y DUBLIN Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% M~dpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 42 1994 0 <--- v --->' - ~ Split~N LEFT 34---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0--- . RIG.T STREET ~AME: THRU 0 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 0 THRU CENTRAL PKNY RIGHT 192 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 0 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 16 7 0 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD. ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT IR) 0 0 1650 0.0000 ,. THRU (l) 760 760 4950 0.1535 LEFT IL) 167 167 1650 0.1012 0.1012 SB RIGHT IR) 42 8 * 1650 0.0048 THRU IT) 1994 1994 4950 0.4028/ 0.4028 LEFT IL) 0 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT IR) 192 25 * 1650 .//0.0152 THRU (T) 0 0 165~' 0.0000 LEFT IL) 34 34 1650 0.0206 0.0206 ~B RIGHT (R) 0 0 ,-"'1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 .... "1650 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACIT~/~ATIO: 0.52 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF/SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75141D.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB ^ LEFT 42 --- 1.0 THRU 0 ---> 1.0 RIGHT 163--- 1.0 ~ 3;,0 1.0 2.0--- I /<--: , :--> I LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD. LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak houri Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKNY DUBLIN Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 21 988 0 <--- v '"> ~1 Spt;t? 1.0 3.0 1..0~1.0 :-- 0 NRIGHT O~A~) STREET NAME: (NO. 1.0<--- 0 THRU CENTRAL PK~Y 0 LEFT SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT IR) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1541 1541 4950 0.3113 LEFT IL) 192 192 1650 0.1164 0.1164 SB RIGHT (R) 21 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 988 988 4950 0.1996 0.1996 LEFT IL) 0 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 163 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU CT) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT IL) 42 42 1650 0.0255 0.0255 NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.34 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB EOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; A~ternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/G[eason Ave Alameda County Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time ?5% ~idpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT .8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 356 1640 0 STREET NAME: THRU 0 --~> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 0 THRU G[eason Ave RIGHT 109 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 ~-- 0 LEFT LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 398? Tassajara Rd/Gleason Ave Alan~da County Count Date Year 2025 E, Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 47 620 0 <--- v ---> I Sptit~ N LEFT459---I 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0--- u RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 0 THRU G[eason Ave RIGHT 263 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 --- 0 LEFT 22~ 4~6 ' 0 Urb=N, Rur=Y W + E ..~205 1269 0 . Urb=Y, Rur=~ . - ~ LEFT THRU RIGHT Sp[~t? N S ~LEFT THRU RIGHT Spt~t. N ~_~_~_~ .................................. ~~~-~-~ ................................ ~[---~ ............... ,~ ..... ~;~ ........~ ....... ~;~[---~ ....... , ........ ~ ..... ~;;~;~[ ...... ~ ..... ~ .... ~o~F- -F~ ............ -/~"*~,;-i~; ....... ~ .......... ~ ....... ~ .... ~ .................. ~ 466 4950 0'09&1 ~/ THRU (T) 1269 1269 4950 0.2564 0.25~ ~ ~ ~ooo o:oz~ o.oz~ .~. ~,,~ ~ ~o~ ~o~ ~ooo ~0 ~640 4~so 0.33~3 ~3 ~..u ~ ~0 ~0 ~so o o ~o o.oooo ~ ~,,~ ~,o o ~o o.oooo o.oooo ;~ -'- F;--- ;[~--Looo~~' ~, ,~,,~ ~,;-' ~ ';~o * ~o- o.o,o, .... ~, ~, ~ooo~ o.o~ ~,~ ~ ~, ~ ~ooo o.~o o.~o o o ~o/o.oooo o.oooo ,, ,,~,, ~,~ o o ,~o o.ooooo.oooo o o ~oo/o.oooo 300~' 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: /' 0.42 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: ../_/ A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB THRU (T) 0 0 3300 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.41 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6617 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 0 69 v ---> '--- LEFT 0 ---I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0'-Zb- RIGHT STREET NAME= THRU 926 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1469 THRU DUBLIN BLVD RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 0 0 Urb=N, Rur=N S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? M STREET NAME: MAIN STREET ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 I + R 0 1650 0.0000 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (l) 69 69 1650 0.0418 0.0418 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT (r) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 926 926 4950 0.1871 LEFT (l) 0 0 1650 0.0000 OMO000 ~B RIGHT (R) 26 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 1469 1469 4950 0.2968 0.2968 LEFT (l) 0 0 1650 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.34 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED IMT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; ALternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6617 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 0 52 ---> ! :.,if;. STREET NAHE: THRU 2028 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 946 THRU DUBLIN BLVD RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 · 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT I < ....... > I v N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 0 0 Urb=N, Rur=N S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? M STREET NAME: MAIN STREET ======================================================================== ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0,0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 52 52 1650 0.0315 0.0315 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 2028 2028 4950 0.409? 0.4097 LEFT (l) 0 0 1650 O, 0000 WB RIGHT (R) 57 5 * 1650 0.0030 THRU (T) 946 946 4950 0.1911 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO.' 0.44 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED I NT=NEgSRP. I NT · VOL=75M I D. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6615 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75~ Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR CClA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 5-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 0 0 LEFT 0 --- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 - RIGHT THRU 39 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 105 THRU RIGHT 110 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT v v W+E 8 0 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET STREET NAME: CENTRAL PARKWAY SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 88 88 1650 0.0533 0.0533 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 110 22 * 1650 0.0133 THRU (T) 39 39 3300 0.0118 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 ~B RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 105 105 3300 0.0318 0.0318 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.09 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6615 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARIG/AY DUBLIN Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% M~dpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 5-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 0 0 <-" v ---> ] Split~ N LEFT 0--'1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- u RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 132 -'-> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 27 THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY RIGHT 121 --- 1.0 ' I~0 1.1 1.1 1.0 .... 0 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 12 0 0 Urb=N, Rur=N S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NS RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 124 124 1650 0.0752 0.0752 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 ....... .......... ....... ..... ..... ....... THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 T + R 0 1650 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 121 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 132 132 3300 0.0400 0.0400 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 27 27 3300 0.0082 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.12 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB ^ I Split? N LEFT 1.0 --- 10 RIGHT THRU 2.0<--- 362 THRU RIGHT 1 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT H SIG WARRANTS: W + E 5 0 Ur~N, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N LOS software by TJKM Transportation Consultants .......................................................... = ..... ~;~;~ Condition: am peak hour; Alternative INTERSECTION 6618 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 403 32 13 I <--- V '--> 131 --- 1.0 1.t 1.1 1.0 115 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) STREET NAME: MAIN STREET STREET NAME: GLEASON DRIVE ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 15 15 1650 0.0091 LEFT (L) 1 1 1650 0.0006 0.0006 T + R 15 1650 0.0091 SB RIGHT (R) 403 403 1650 0.2442 THRU (T) 32 32 1650 0.0194 LEFT (L) 13 13 1650 0.0079 T + R 435 1650 0.2636 0.2636 EB RIGHT (R) 1 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 115 115 3300 0.0348 LEFT (L) 131 131 1650 0.0794 0.0794 ~B RIGHT (R) 10 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (l) 362 362 3300 0.1097 0.1097 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 ..... ......................... ....... INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.1NT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6618 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PERK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 160 15 6 I <-*- v '"> I Spli~ N LEFT 371 --- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 353 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 133 THRU GLEASON DRIVE RIGHT 2 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT v v N StG t4ARRANTS: W + E 2 0 Urb=N, Rur=B S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: MAIN STREET ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 32 32 1650 0.0194 LEFT (L) I I 1650 0.0006 0,0006 T + R 32 1650 0.0194 SB RIGHT (R) 160 160 1650 0.09?0 THRU (T) 15 15 1650 0.0091 LEFT (L) 6 6 1650 0.0036 T + R 175 1650 0.1061 0.1061 EB RIGHT (R) 2 1 * 1650 0.0006 THRU (T) 353 353 3300 0.1070 LEFT (l) 371 371 1650 0,2248 0.2248 WB RIGHT (R) 10 4 * 1650 0.0024 THRU (T) 133 133 3300 0.0403 0.0403 LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.37 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A ·AOJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT =NEWSRP. ! NT, VOL=75M I O. PMV, CAP=C: · · LOSCAP. TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants ======================================================================== Condition: am peak hour; ALternative 07/09/01 Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time ~g Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 0 1379 0 I <--- v ---> I N SpLit? LEFT 1059 ...... ' 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 0 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU ]-580 EB ramp RIGHT 101 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 9 88 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: EL Charro Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CR]TICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 888 888 1800 0.4933 THRU (T) 739 739 5400 0.1369 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1379 1379 5400 0.2554 0.2554 EB RIGHT (R) 101 101 3273 0.0309 LEFT (L) 1059 1059 3273 0.3236 0.3236 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.58 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; ALternative 0~/09/01 INTERSECTION 9957 E[ Charro Rd/I-580 EB ramp ALameda County Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD LEFT 1098 ---I 2.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 RIGHT 46 --- 2.0 I ¥ ~+E S RIGHT THRU LEFT 0 1590 0 <'" v "'> I SpLit? N 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT (~10. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT ~--- ^ ---> I LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N STREET NAME: EL Charro Rd 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 EB ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y~ Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUNE VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 978 978 1800 0.5433 THRU (T) 920 920 5400 0.1704 SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1590 1590 5400 0.2944 0.2944 EB RIGHT (R) 46 46 3~73 0.0141 LEFT (L) 1098 1098 3273 0.3355 0.3355 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.63 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants . Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 9956 Fallon Rd/I-580 WB ramp Alameda County Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 1283 LEFT 0 --- 0.0 1.9 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 S LEFT 1951 0 3.0 0.0 OF LANES) 3.0 1.9 ^ sprit? N 2.0 ;-- 863 RIGHT 0.0<--- 0 THRU 2.0 --- 699 LEFT V STREET NAME: 1-580 WB ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y STREET NAME: Fatton Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1778 1778 5400 0.3293 SB RIGHT (R) 1283 1283 1800 0.7128 THRU (T) 1951 1951 5400 0.3613 0.3613 WB RIGHT (R) 863 863 3273 0.2637 0.2637 LEFT (L) 699 699 327-5 0.2136 ======================================================================== TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.62 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Atternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 9956 FalLon Rd/I-580 WB tango ALameda County Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% MJdpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD LEFT 0 --- 0.0 THRU 0 --'> 0.0 RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 I V N W+E S RIGHT THRU LEFT 1596 1854 0 1.9 3.0 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2-PHASE SIGNAL 0.0 3.0 1.9 STREET NAME: Fatton Rd split? N 2.0 :-- 1298 RIGHT 0.0<--- 0 THRU 2.0 --- 728 LEFT I V STREET NAME: 1-580 WB rmnp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1907 1907 5400 0,3531 0.3531 SB RIGHT (R) 1596 1596 1800 0.8867 THRU CT) 1854 1854 5400 0.3433 WB RIGHT (R) 1298 1298 3273 0.3966 0.3966 LEFT (L) 728 728 3273 0.2224 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.?5 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED I~T=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKMTransportation.Consultants  Condition: am peak hour;Traffic Mit. Alt. no new int INWERSECTION 8336 07/12/01 Fallon Rd/Dublin Blvd Count Date YEAR 2025 E. DUB Time 75% MIDPT RUN CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 53 1704 407 I <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 65 --- 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 --- 0 RIGHT ~ Alameda County Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR THRU 306 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 964 THRU 8 - PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: Dublin Blvd RIGHT 320 --- 2.5 N W + E S 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1419 641 595 1052 LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N LEFT S IG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y STREET NAME: Fallon Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY v/c RATIO CRITICAL v/c NB RIGHT (R) 1052 508 * 3000 THRU (T) 595 595 6600 LEFT (L) 641 641 3000 SB RIGHT (R) 53 17 * 1650 THRU (T) 1704 1704 6600 LEFT (L) 407 407 3000 0.1693 0.0902 0.2137 0.0103 0.2582 0.1357 0.2137 0.2582 EB RIGHT (R) 320 0 * 3000 THRU (T) 306 306 4950 LEFT (L) 65 65 3000 0.0000 0.0618 0.0217 0.0618 WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 THRU (T) 964 964 4950 LEFT (L) 1419 1419 4304 0.0000 0.1947 0.3297 0.3297 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: 0.86 D * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL .... 75MID.AMV, CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour;Traffic Mit. Alt. no new int. ~NTERSECTION 8336 Fallon Rd/Dublin Blvd Count Date YEAR 2025 E. DUB Time 75% MIDPT RUN CCTAMETHOD LEFT THRU RIGHT 271 --- 2.0 1229 ---> 3.0 531 --- 2.5 V N W + E S RIGHT THRU LEFT 15 760 239 <--- V ---> 1.0 4.0 2.0 07/12/01 Alameda County Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR Split? N --- 195 RI~I-IT (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 198 THRU 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 2010 579 1602 1211 LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: Dublin Blvd SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y STREET NAME: Fallon Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY NB RIGHT (R) 1211 440 * 3000 THRU (T) 1602 1602 6600 LEFT (L) 579 579 3000 v/c RATIO CRITICAL v/c 0.1467 0.2427 0.1930 0.2427 SB RIGHT (R) 15 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 760 LEFT (L) 239 EB RIGHT (R) 531 THRU (T) 1229 LEFT (L) 271 W-B RIGHT (R) 195 THRU (T) 198 LEFT (L) 2010 760 6600 0.1152 239 3000 0.0797 0 * 3000 0.0000 1229 4950 0.2483 271 3000 0.0903 0.0797 022483 64 * 1650 0.0388 198 4950 0.0400 2010 4304 0.4670 0.4670 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: 1.04 F * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=...75MID.PMV, CAP=C: .LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; ALternative 07/09/01 Count Date Year 2025 E. Oub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHAGE SIGNAL ........... 53 1704 251 <--- v --->' - - I sptit~ N LEFT 17---I 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 ---U RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 306 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 964 THRU Dublin BLvd RIGHT 320 --- 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1332 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: g + E 37 5 5 1 52 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Fatton Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 1052 541 * 3000 0.1803 THRU (T) 595 595 6600 0.0902 LEFT (L) 375 375 3000 0.1250 0.1250 SB RIGHT (R) 53 44 * 1650 0.0267 THRU (T) 1704 1704 6600 0.2582 0.2582 LEFT (L) 251 251 3000 0.0837 EB RIGHT (R) 320 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 306 306 4950 0.0618 0.0618 LEFT (L) 17 17 3000 0.0057 WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 964 964 4950 0.1947 LEFT (L) 1332 1332 4304 0.3095 0.3095 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.75 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB LOS Software by TJKM TransDortation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 8336 Fa[ton Rd/Dublin Btvd Alameda County Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 15 760 103 J <--- v ---> J Split? N LEFT 64--- 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0--- 195 RIGHT THRU 1229 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 198 THRU RIGHT 531 --- 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1488 LEFT W+E 35 1621 1 S 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: Dublin Btvd SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME= Fa[Ion Rd ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C HB RIGHT (R) 1211 641 * 3000 0.2137 THRU (T) 1602 1602 6600 0.2427 0.2427 LEFT (L) 350 350 3000 0.1167 SB RIGHT (R) 15 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 760 760 6600 0.1152 LEFT (L) 103 103 3000 0.0343 0.0343 EB RIGHT (R) 531 181 * 3000 0.0603 THRU (T) 1229 1229 4950 0.2483 0.24~ LEFT (l) 64 64 3000 0.0213 WB RIGHT (R) 195 138 * 1650 0.0836 THRU (T) 198 198 4950 0.0400 LEFT (L) 1488 1488 4304 0.3457 0.3457 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.8? INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6760 Falton Road/New Intersection Dublin Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 131 3068 156 <--- v ---> I Spti~t~, THRU 9 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 9 THRU RIGHT 78 --- 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 --- 87 LEFT v v 14 + E 26 19 0 35 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Fatton Road 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: New Intersection SIG ~ARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRIT]CAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C MB RIGHT iR) 435 402 * 1650 0.2436 THRU iT) 1940 1940 6600 0.2939 LEFT il) 266 266 3000 0.0887 0.0887 SB RIGHT iR) 131 105 * 1650 0.0636 THRU (T) 3068 3068 6600 0.4648 0.4648 LEFT il) 156 156 3000 0.0520 EB RIGHT iR) 78 0 * 3000 0.0000 THRU (T) 9 9 1650 0.0055 LEFT il) 48 48 3000 0.0160 0.0160 gB RIGHT iR) 34 34 1650 0.0206 THRU iT) 9 9 1650 0.0055 LEFT il) 87 87 4304 0.0202 T + R 43 1650 0.0261 0.0261 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.60 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 6760 Fa[[on Road/New Intersection Dublin Count Bate Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 116 2527 136 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 207---I 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.1 --- 162 RIGHT THRU 26 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 26 THRU RIGHT 401 --- 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 --- 522 LEFT N t4 + E 22 27 5 82 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Fation Road 8-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: New Intersection SIG ~ARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT iR) 182 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU iT) 2795 2795 6600 0.4235 0.4235 LEFT (L) 229 229 3000 0.0763 SB RIGHT (R) 116 2 * 1650 0.0012 THRU (T) 2527 2527 ~00 0.3829 LEFT (L) 136 136 3000 0.0453 0.0453 EB RIGHT iR) 401 275 * 3000 0.0917 0.0917 THRU iT) 26 26 1650 0,0158 LEFT il) 207 207 3000 0.0690 ~B RIGHT iR) 162 162 1650 0.0982 THRU (T) 26 26 1650 0.0158 LEFT il) 522 522 4304 0.1213 0.1213 T + R 188 1650 0.1139 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.68 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 81 1548 291 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 53---I 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1 --- 252 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU ~ ---> 1.0 (NO. OF lANES) 1.1<--- 143 THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY RIGHT 226 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 64 LEFT N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 6 4 6 15 Ur~Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 15 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 486 486 3300 0.1473 LEFT (L) 62 62 3000 0.0207 0.0207 SB RIGHT (R) 81 28 * 1650 0.0170 THRU (T) 1548 1548 3300 0.4691 0.4691 LEFT (L) 291 291 1650 0.1764 EB RIGHT (R) 226 192 * 3000 0.0640 THRU (T) 77 77 1650 0.0467 LEFT (L) 53 53 1650 0.0321 0.0321 WB RIGHT (R) 252 252 1650 0.1527 THRU (T) 143 143 1650 0.0867 LEFT (L) 64 64 3000 0.0213 T + R 395 1650 0.2394 0.2394 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.76 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTIOH 6438 FALLON ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIH Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Tine 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 43 674 248 <--- v ---> I Split? N LEFT 84---I 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1 '" 282 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 159 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 63 THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY RIGHT 126 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 21 LEFT N $IG WARRAHIS: g + E 21 14 1 53 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 53 41 * 1650 0.0248 THRU (T) 1451 1451 3300 0.4397 0.4397 LEFT (L) ' 211 211 3000 0.0703 Sa RIGHT (R) 43 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 674 674 3300 0.2042 LEFT (L) 248 248 1650 0.1503 0.1503 EB RIGHT (R) 126 10 * 3000 0.0033 THRU (T) 159 159 1650 0.0964 LEFT (L) 84 84 1650 0.0509 0.0509 WB RIGHT (R) 282 282 1650 0.1709 THRU (T) 63 63 1650 0.0382 LEFT (L) 21 21 3000 0.0070 T + R 345 1650 0.2091 0.2091 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.85 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants ======================================================================== condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION 9954 Fallon Rd/Gleason Rd Alameda County Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 38 1484 0 I <--- v ---> ISplit? N LEFT 18 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) O.O<--- RIGHT 20 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT W+EN 6~ ~ 60 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Fallon Rd 4-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: THRU Gteason Rd SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB THRU (T) 660 660 4950 0.1333 LEFT (L) 60 60 1650 0.0364 0.0364 SB RIGHT (R) 38 20 * 1650 0.0121 THRU (T) 1484 1484 3300 0.4497 0.449T EB RIGHT (R) 20 0 * 1650 0.0000 LEFT (L) 18 18 1650 0.0109 0.0109 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.50 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=NEWSRP.INToVOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01 INTERSECTION ~54 Fatlon Rd/Gleason Rd Alameda County Count Date Year 2025 E, Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 13 761 0 LEFT 24 ---I 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) RIGHT 53 --- 1.0 1.0 :3.0 0.0 W+E 1 140 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Falion Rd 4-PHASE SIGNAL O.olSptit~N --- RIGHT 0.0<--- 0.0 --- 0 LEFT ¥ STREET NAME: 0 THRU Gleason Rd SIG WARRANTS: Urb=N, Rur=N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB THRU (T) 1420 1420 4950 0.2869 0.2869 LEFT (L) 16 16 1650 0.0097 SB RIGHT (R) 13 0 * 1650 0.0000 THRU (T) 761 761 3300 0.2306 EB RIGHT (R) 53 3? * 1650 0.0224 0.0224 LEFT (L) 24 24 1650 0.0145 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.31 iNTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED iNT=NE~SRP.[NT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: am peak hour;Traffic Mitigated Alt.-mitigation 07/12/01 INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 WB ramp Dublin Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ........... 598 1605 0 I <---v ---> I Split? N LEFT 0 --- 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 1010 RIGHT THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 641 LEFT v v N W + E 18 1 0 S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr 2-PHASE SIGNAL STREET NAME: 1-580 NB ramp SIG WARRANTS: Urb=Y, Rur=Y ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT iR) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 1861 1861 5400 0.3446 0.3446 SB RIGHT iR) 598 598 1800 0.3322 THRU iT) 1605 1605 5400 0.2972 14B RIGHT iR) 1010 1010 3273 0.3086 0.3086 LEFT iL) 641 641 4695 0.1365 ======================================================================== TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.65 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B · ======================================================================== · ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=MITIGS.INT,VOL=...75MID.AMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants Condition: pm peak hour;Traffic Mitigated Alt.-mitigation 07/12/01 INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/l-580 WB ramp Dublin Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL ........... 1171 2292 0 <--- v ---> I sprit? N LEFT 0"'1 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--' 1080 RIGHT STREET NAME.' THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 14B ramp RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 656 LEFT v v N SIG WARRANTS: 14 + E 22 0 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 THRU (T) 2270 2270 5400 0.4204 SB RIGHT iR) 1171 1171 1800 0.6506 THRU iT) 2292 2292 5400 0.4244 0.4244 I,/B RIGHT iR) 1080 1080 3273 0.3300 0.3300 LEFT (L) 656 656 4695 0.1397 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.75 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED 1N T =M I T 168.1N T, VOL=... 75M I D. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB APPENDIX H: POPULATION, HOUSING, AND JOBS ANALYSIS APPENDIX H: POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT Introduction Although no potential supplemental impacts were identified with respect to population or housing, (see Appendix A, Initial Study p. 49), several comments on the July 2001 DSEIR addressed population, housing and jobs/housing balance issues. The purpose of this appendix is to present the information generated in response to those comments for background and informational purposes. As noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR, population, employment and housing projections are not analyzed "in terms of environmental impacts because the physical environmental effects associated with population, employment and housing are addressed in the appropriate environmental analysis subject areas [in] this EIR." (Eastern Dublin DEl-R, hereafter, "DEIR" p. 3.2-1.) Similarly, the Revised DSEIR does not analyze population and housing as environmental effects; the physical environmental effects are, however, addressed in the appropriate supplemental impact topic areas. Eastern Dublin EIR Discussion Population, housing and employment was discussed in Chapter 3.2 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. The discussion included a "general description of expected Bay Area growth as well as more detailed population, jobs and housing development projections for the Th-Valley subregion and for the City of Dublin ... [and] for both the Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendment." (Id.) Based on the 1990 U.S. Census and ABAG Projections '90, projections for the Tri-Valley area (Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and San Ramon) were presented for the years 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005 (See generally, DEIR Tables 3.2-1 to -3). Even then, ABAG described "inadequate housing production [as] the most serious persistent obstacle to a healthy regional economy." (DEIR p. 3.2-3.) Th-Valley employees increasingly sought less expensive housing in San Joaquin communities such as Tracy and Modesto. (Id., Eastern Dublin Specific Plan p. 30.) Reflecting the Eastern Dublin project objectives to balance employment and housing and reduce traffic congestion and air pollution effects, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan proposed land uses and development policies to emphasize affordable housing opporttmities and work towards a jobs/housing balance. (DEIR pp. 3.2-9, -10.) These include Policy 4-7 (encouraging the development of affordable housing throughout the planning area), Policy 4-8 (ensure that projects developed in the plan area provide affordable housing in compliance with the City's Housing Element and other applicable housing requirements), Policy 4-9 (affordable housing to include both rental and "for sale" housing), Policy 4-10 (future developers to include affordable housing in each development), Program 4F (develop an inclusionary housing program), Program 4G (explore the possibility of an in-lieu housing fee), Program 4H (develop a monitoring program to track residential growth by unit type and price categories), Program 4I (develop a specific numerical goal for a percentage of affordable units in Eastern Dublin). Other Specific Plan policies are cited in the Eastern Dublin EIR to assist in establishing and maintaining a city-wide jobs/housing balance. These include Policy 4-26 (maintain balanced growth of residential and employment uses), Policy 4-27 (discourage Specific Plan Amendments that would increase employment at the expense of residential), Program 4K (develop a monitoring program to track employment uses). Eastern Dublin Project Approval: The Reduced Planning Area Alternative The City Council did not approve the General Plan Amendment as identified and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Instead, the Council approved a modified version of Alternative 2, the Reduced Planning Alternative. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that Alternative 2 would "result in a less-favorable jobs/balance ..." (p. 4-10), however, the alternative had a number of environmental benefits, induding much less loss of habitat area than the original General Plan Amendment. The currently proposed annexation and prezoning Project is consistent with the land uses and patterns approved for Eastern Dublin and would have no different contribution to the jobs/homing balance than as described in the Eastern Dublin EIR discussion. Summary of Changes in Population, Housing and Employment Projections Since Adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Analysis of supplemental impacts related to physical environmental changes from the Project is contained in Chapter 3.0 of the main text of the Revised DSEIR. The following sttmmary of changes to population, housing and employment since adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan is presented for informational purposes. Population. Total population of the Bay Area is likely greater in 2000 and projected to be greater in 2005 than estimated in the Eastern Dublin ErR. According to ABAG's Projections 2000, total Bay Area population was 6,930,600 in 2000 and was projected to increase to 7,380,100 in 2005. The Eastern Dublin EIR included population figures of 6,610,500 in 2000 and 7,380,100 in 2005. For the Tri-Valley area, the Eastern Dublin EIR projected a population level of 234,500 in 2000 and 265,600 in 2005 (Table 3.2-1). ABAG Projections 2000 include Tri-Valley populations of 222,800 in 2000 (approximately 11,700 fewer people) and 259,800 in 2005, which is similar, although less than the Eastern Dublin EIR projections. For the City of Dublin, population projections contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR are less than anticipated by ABAG in Projections 2000. Specifically, the Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated a total City population of 29,500 in 1995 and 37,100 by 2005. More recent estimates from ABAG include a City population of 26,400 in1995 and 31,500 in 2005. Employment. ABAG's Projections 2000 includes estimates of employed residents for the entire Bay Area of 3,538,000 in 2000 and 3,799,000 in 2005. These numbers are slightly lower estimates than in the Eastern. Dublin EIR on Table 3.2-3:3,631,200 (2000) and 3,751,600 (2005). Thus, on a regional level although somewhat lower, the number of employed residents estimated by ABAG is substantially the same as identified in the Eastern Dublin ErR. For the Tri-Valley subregion, Projections 2000 anticipates the number of employed residents at 118,900 (2000) and 138,900 (2005). These more recent projections are lower than those on Table 3.2-3 of the Eastern Dublin ErR for the Tri-Valley area (129,800 in 2000 and 146,700 in 2005): For the City of Dublin, the number of employed residents is estimated at 13,600 in 2000 by ABAG, which is lower than the Eastern Dublin EIR projection of 17,500. Jobs/Housing Balance. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that the jobs/housing balance was a major issue in the subregion. Among the difficulties cited in attempting to establish such a balance were the lack of comprehensive planning among the numerous Tri-Valley jurisdictions; and the need for California cities to raise revenue in the post-Proposition 13 economic climate, often leading to competition for housing or employment-generating uses without considerations of regional implications. Addressing these difficulties on a policy level, the approved Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan attempt to avoid the impacts that can arise from the imbalance between jobs and housing by establishing a mix of residential and employment-generating land uses. This mixed use community concept is reflected throughout the Eastern Dublin area, and in the current Project area as well. The Project area at buildout would generate fewer jobs than employed residents (0.63 jobs per employed resident), while the City of Dublin currently has substantially more jobs than employed residents, (1.99 jobs per employed resident), as shown in Table 1 below. If the future jobs and employed residents of the Project area are added to the existing jobs and employed residents of the City of Dublin, the combined jobs/housing balance would fall to approximately 1.67 jobs per employed resident. TABLE 1 EXISTING AND PROJECTED JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE Dwelling Jobs Employed Balance Ratio Units (a) Residents (c) (d) (b) Existing City of 9,230 (f) 27,050 13,600 -13,450 1.99:1.0 Dublin (e) Project Area 2526 2,575 4,092 (g) 1518 0.63:1.0 TOTAL: 11,756 29,624 17,692 -11,932 1.67:1.0 (a) "Jobs" is defined as jobs existing within the City of Dublin and its Sphere of Influence, regardless of the location of the workers' residence. (b) "Employed Residents" is defined as job-holding residents of the City of Dublin and its Sphere of Influence, regardless of the location of their employment. (c) "Balance" refers to the number of employed residents in relation to the number of jobs (i.e., a positive number means there are more employed residents than jobs). (d) Ratio of jobs to employed residents (e) Source: ABAG's Projections 2000. (f) Measured by number of Households (g) Projections assume a ratio of 1.62 employed residents per household based on ABAG's Projections 1990. Over time, the ratio of jobs to housing will vary in Eastern Dublin EIR depending on the nature of projects that have been or are being developed at the time. Through the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City planned for the area in consideration not only of land use and housing policy but also of environmental effects. Implementing projects such as the current Project must be consistent with the comprehensive planning for development of Eastern Dublin, providing the mix of housing and jobs anticipated when the Eastern Dublin project was approved. APPENDIX I: RESPONSES TO PARKS COMMENTS APPENDIX I: RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS COMMENTS FROM LIVERMORE AREA PARKS AND RECREATION DISTRICT AND EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Responses to Letter 6: Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District Response 6.1: The commentor notes that the District's request for an extension of time for the 45-day pubhc review period was not granted. The City of Dublin transmitted copies of the SEIR to all affected public agencies and organizations at the commencement of the pubhc review period, including the LAPRD. The City did not believe that a substantial reason for granting an extension existed at the time of the District's request and therefore chose not to extend the review period. Response 6.2: The commentor notes that the District is concerned that their environmental issues as expressed in response to the Notice of Preparation have not been addressed in the DSEIR. The City of Dublin considered all responses to the Notice of Preparation in determining the scope of review for recreation and other topics. The City beheves that the Initial Study prepared for the proposed Project clearly indicates that the project is consistent with the existing Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan with respect to land use and recreation facilities. Recreational impacts were fully identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and mitigation measures were adopted to ensure that any potential recreational impacts would be less-than-significant. (See Chapter 3.4 of the Eastern Dublin EIR.) The City of Dublin has no record that the LARPD submitted comments during the 45 day public review period for the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 regarding inadequacies in the analysis of recreation. Response 6.3: The commentor notes that it was not consulted regarding preparation of the DSEIR. The City determined to prepare a Supplemental EIR and no new impacts were identified in the Initial Study for the Project with respect to Parks and Recreation that have not been addressed in Chapter 3.4 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Therefore the City of Dublin did not believe consultation with the LARPD was required. Response 6.4: The commentor notes that it is surprised at the City of Dublin's approach in assessing environmental impacts for the proposed project through preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. The City's reasons for preparing a Supplemental EIR are outlined in the Initial Study and in Section 2.3, Update of Prior Environmental Documentation, Project Description, of the DSEIR. That section details the background of the Project and the reason why a supplemental EIR has been prepared to comply with CEQA. Response 6.5: The commentor notes that it concurs with the City of Livermore's comments on the DSEIR and states that environmental concerns have changed since the adoption of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Please refer generally to responses to Letter 8. In addition, as noted in the Response 6.4, Section 2.0 of the DSEIR outlines in detail the changed conditions and/or new information that result in new or intensified significant impacts beyond those in the Eastern Dublin EIR, and consequently that necessitate preparation of a Supplemental EIR. These include a change In status of previously identified sensitive biological species and identification of new sensitive species not previously identified, changes in regional traffic patterns, possible related changes in noise and air quality conditions, potential for cancellation of Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreements on certain properties, and changes in the provision and distribution of schools and other public utilities. The Initial Study prepared for the Project, contained in Volume 2 of the DSEIR,'does not identify major or substantial changes to parks or recreational facilities that would require new environmental analysis, since the type, density and location of potential development pursuant to the Project is consistent with that addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Addenda. Response 6.5a: The commentor notes that the DSEIR fails to consider impacts to LARPD and its facilities and programs. As identified in the following Responses 6.5b, 6.7, and 6.8, the City of Dublin believes that impacts to LARPD facilities and programs would be less-than-significant based on the facts that the Eastern Dublin project plans to supply local and community parks in a manner consistent with the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the close proximity of other City of Dublin community parks and facilities to the Project area (including regional park facilities in Pleasanton operated by the Eastern Dublin Park District) and the distance and inconvenience of future Project residents to LARPD facilities. Response 6.5b: The commentor notes that the DSEIR fails to consider impacts to LARPD and its facilities and programs, including timing of providing parks. The City of Dublin does not believe the proposed Project would result In significant impacts to LARPD facilities or programs. This has been reflected in both the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and Initial Study for the Eastern Dublin Project. As noted in the response to Comment 6.7, the Stage 1 Planned Development application shows that Project would provide a greater amount of neighborhood and community park facilities that currently required by the City of Dublin. The City of Dublin has also constructed major community park and recreation facilities near the Project areas, as identified in the response to Comment 6.8. Therefore, there will be minimal need for Project residents to travel outside of Dublin in order to use park facilities so that impacts to LARPD facilities would be less than significant. Timing of park development will be considered by the City of Dublin as part of individual Stage 2 Planned Development rezoning applications for individual projects within the Project area. Response 6.5c: This comment notes that the 1993 EIR and DSEIR do not consider the proximity of proposed development to LARPD's core service area and estimated increase on District facilities. As noted in Responses 6.3, 6.5a, 6.5b, 6.7 and 6.8, the City of Dublin does not anticipate significant impacts to LARPD facilities as a result of the approval of the Project since ample park land is proposed to be provided within the Project area, consistent with City of Dublin standards, proximity of other nearby community park and recreation facilities in the Eastern Dublin area and the distance of LARPD facilities within Livermore from the Project area. Response 6.6: The commentor states that the DSEIR fails to consider changes to and the addition of regional parklands in the Tri-Valley area since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. The provision of new regional parklands by the LARPD is not a substantial change or significant new information. The type, density and location of development within the Project area, as detailed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan, have been available to the District for planning park facilities since 1993. The City of Dublin also notes that the location of the new LARPD facilities (Sycamore Grove Regional Park and Brushy Peak Regional Park) is sited some distance (estimated 10-12 miles) from the project site. Use of these facilities by future residents of the Project area is therefore anticipated to be limited due to the inconvenience of the new facilities from Eastern Dublin and the Project site, in particular. Use of other regional park and recreational facilities, such as the Iron Horse Trail and Shadow Cliffs Regional Park in the City of Pleasanton, is anticipated to be greater from project residents due to closer proximity to the Project area and associated convenience of use. Response 6.7: The commentor states there will be a potential lack of sufficient parklands within the Project area and impacts to LARPD facilities. Consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the Stage 1 Development Plan for the Project provides for 40.8 gross acres of park land, of which 14.1 acres are community parks, 24 acres are neighborhood parks and 2.7 are neighborhood squares. This total acreage is equivalent to 5.72 acres of parkland per 1,000 anticipated residents within the Project area. This number exceeds the 5 acres per 1,000 resident park ratio established by the City of Dublin (see DSEIR [p. 2-8], Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 [Quimby Act Ordinance] and Resolution 60-99 [requiring payment of a Public Facilities Fee to provide a ratio of 5 acres of parks per 1,000 residents]). Therefore, there will be sufficient parklands in the Project area; no significant impacts are anticipated on LARPD park facilities, which are located 8 to 10 miles east of the Project area. Response 6.8: The commentor expresses concern that development of the Project would impact demand for the District's planned Community Center and services and programs which will be offered at this facilitv. The District's Community Center is located over 8 miles east of the Project area on the corner of East Avenue and Lovola Way. Users of this facility from the City of Dublin would have to use the 1-580 freeway to access the site, which is sometimes congested. The City believes that future residents of the Project are more likely to use the parks and recreation facilities provided by the City of Dublin because they are closer and more easily accessible. According to the City of Dublin Parks and Community Services Department, the following services and facilities are either presently available to Dublin residents or have been funded for construction in the near term: Emerald Glen Park, is a community-level park containing 29.6 acres of land located on the west side of Tassajara Road between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive, approximately 2 miles west of the site. This park includes baseball fields, soccer fields, lighted tennis and basketball courts, a skateboard park, a children's play area, picnic and open areas. Future expansions are planned so that the ultimate size of Emerald Glen Park will encompass over 57 acres of land with a 29,000 square foot recreation/gymnasium center, 23,000 square foot community center, outdoor amphitheater, aquatic center and additional playfields. This park is such that future residents of the Project area could drive due west on Central Parkway to reach the facility. Ted Fairfield Park is a recently constructed 5-acre facility located approximately two miles due west of the Project area containing a combination baseball/soccer field, basketball court, sand volleyball court, play and picnic areas. Dublin Ranch Sports~Community Park is being developed in Dublin Ranch jUst west of the Project area; a portion of the park will be located within the adjacent Project area. Planned to contain approximately 68 acres, this park will provide a wide range of active and passive activities as well as being a focus of organized activities by the Dublin Parks and Community Services Department. The Dublin Senior Center is currently located at 7437 Larkdale Avenue, but is being planned for relocation and expansion to 7600 Amador Valley Boulevard by mid-2004. The relocated Senior Center would be located approximately 5 miles west of the Project area and accessible via Dublin Boulevard and the planned extension of Central Parkway. Recreation programs currently offered by the City of Dublin in the Eastern Dublin area (primarily at Emerald Glen Park but also at Dougherty Elementary School) include after school recreation programs, summer fun-in-the-sun programs, tennis programs, youth t-ball, Little League, the Dublin United Soccer League and on-going special events. The City does not anticipate any significant impacts to LARPD's Community Center. Response 6.9: The commentor asserts that neither the Eastern Dublin EIR nor the DSEIR addressed whether the parks planned in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan will meet LARPD's Master Plai~ if the Project area is not detached from LARPD. The Project meets City of Dublin park requirements (see Response 6.7); all park and recreation facilities are also consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The entire Project area lies within the City of Dublin's sphere of influence as approved by LAFCO. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the impact of jurisdictional boundary issues with respect to parks and found that the issue was adequately addressed by General Plan Implementing Policy J which requires the City to work to revise jurisdictional boundaries. The Project includes detachment from LARPD. Should the Local Agency Formation Commission not detach the Project area from the LARPD, the City and LARPD would need to discuss ownership and maintenance of the planned park and recreational facilities. Response 6.10: The commentor states that the DSEIR does not include a detailed discussion regarding overlapping ~urisdictional boundaries between the LARPD and East Bay Regional Park District. Approval of the proposed Project as proposed ensures that any overlapping jurisdictional boundaries would be eliminated between these two districts. This action is consistent with Implementing Pohcy J of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: "Work with the LARPD to revise jurisdictional lines so that City of Dublin departments have jurisdiction over ail parkland within the Dublin Sphere of Influence." Upon the approval of the Project, the Project area would be removed from LARPD jurisdiction but left within the East Bay Regional Park District. Thus, only one agency would be responsible for providing regional park facilities, not two districts as presently exists. Jurisdictional issues have been adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, no further environmental analysis is required. Response 6.11: The commentor states that the DSEIR fails to discuss regional park fees and states that the loss of property tax revenues if the Project area is detached from LARPD will be an impact that the LARPD cannot absorb. The City's Public Facilities Fee will be required of all future developers of individual projects within the Project area upon approval of individual projects. As noted by the commentor, this fee is intended to cover development of neighborhood and community park facilities as well as a new community library, a new senior center and other related community facilities. Since the City does not provide regional park facilities, this responsibility would continue to reside with the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). Funding of regional facilities and services by the EBRPD is anticipated to continue to be from property taxes, assessments, bond revenues, facility use fees and other sources of funding. There would be no funding of LARPD facilities from the Project area, since the Project area would no longer be within the District unless LAFCO approves the continuation of bonded debt. However, the City and EBRPD facilities are located significantly closer to the project area than LARPD facilities, including, for example, an EBRPD staging area on the west side of Tassajara Road. As noted earlier, use of LARPD facilities by Project residents is anticipated to be minimal. The Eastern Dublin EIR and Project Initial Study have adequately addressed the environmental effects of future Project development on all levels of park facilities and are not required to address economic effects. The potential detachment of the Project area from LARPD has been a part of the City's Eastern Dublin planning since the 1993 Eastern Dublin approvals. Response 6.12: The commentor states that the failure to include regional park land in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP area will impact LARPD. The Eastern Dublin EIR clearly identifies the East Bay Regional Parks District as the primary provider of regional parks with~ the Eastern Dublin planning area. No existing or future regional parks are identified on the Project area in terms of future EPRPD or LARPD park facilities, so no direct impacts would occur. Although approval and construction of the Project would likely increase usage of regional parks, this use would be offset with additional property taxes and use fees. Any impacts related to increased use of regional park facilities have been adequately addressed; no further CEQA analysis is required for this Project. Response 6.13: The commentor states that the DSEIR fails to analyze the impacts of detachment of the Project from the LARPD. The City of Dublin believes approval of the proposed project would have no significant environmental impacts on the District. Future 'project residents would be far more likely to use City facilities and East Bay Regional Parks District facilities that are significantly closer to the project area. As noted in Response 6.7, the City of Dublin offers a similar level and range of parks and recreational services as provided by LARPD. In regards to child care services, the City of Dublin does not provide these services to local residents, but instead relies on local private entities within the community. Given the significant distance of LARPD child care facilities (approximately 8-10 miles from the Project area), use of LARPD child care facilities is not anticipated to be significant when competing services are available in closer proximity. Also, use of LARPD child care facilities may be limited to residents of the District. If the Project is approved, future Project residents would not be eligible to use District facilities since they would be outside of District boundaries. Responses to Letter 7: East Bay Regional Park District Response 7.1: The commentor is concerned with potential impacts on regional park facilities maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) from the Project. Approval of the Project would increase use of EBRPD facilities since additional population would be located in the Eastern Dublin area. However, the type, density and location of proposed housing is consistent with the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan, which plans have been available to the EBRPD for long range planning. Given the large extent of EBRPD district facilities and services offered to East Bay residents (over 92,000 acres of park and open space lands in Alameda and Contra Costa County, including 59 regional parks, recreation areas, wilderness areas, shorelines, preserves and land bank areas, according to the District's official web site), an increase of 2,526 dwelling units within the project area would represent a less-than-significant increase in use of EBRPD facilities. Potential impacts to District facilities would be off-set by increased property tax revenues received by the District, additional assessment revenues from new housing and revenues from user fees charged by the District. Response' 7.2: The Commentor is concerned with impacts from the Project on the ownership, management and maintenance of open space areas within the Project area. The proposed Stage 1 Development Plan (SDEIR Figure 2-G) indicates that steeper lands located along the northerly and westerly periphery of the project area would be designated as "RRA-Rural Residential/Agricultural." At this time and subject to refinements as part of more refined Stage 2 Planned Development actions, these properties are intended to be privately owned and managed. Options for this would include private individual ownership, ownership and management by one or more owner's associations or dedication to a land trust. No impacts are anticipated to the East Bay Regional Park District.