3.12 - Transportation and Traffic

Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic 3.12 ‐ Transportation and Traffic 3.12.1 ‐ Introduction This section describes the existing transportation setting and potential environmental effects from the Project on the Project Site and its surroundings. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on, among other things, information contained in the Contra Costa County General Plan and the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for Tassajara Parks, prepared by Kimley‐Horn & Associates and included in this Draft EIR as Appendix I. 3.12.2 ‐ Environmental Setting Existing Roadway Network The following provides a description of the principal roadways within the study area. The Project study area and roadways are depicted in Exhibit 3.12‐1. The existing conditions lane geometry and traffic controls for the study area intersections can be seen in Exhibit 3.12‐2. Local Roadways Camino Tassajara Camino Tassajara is a principal two‐ to four‐lane arterial, with the intersection of Fallon Road and Tassajara Road at its southern terminus in Alameda County, and the intersection with Diablo Road in Contra Costa County at its northern terminus. It is a two‐lane rural road from the southern extent to the Town of Danville, where it widens to a four‐lane arterial with a median and bike lanes on both sides. The land uses for the two‐lane portion are predominantly uncultivated agricultural lands, rural open space, and equestrian facilities; the topography along this portion can be defined as rolling terrain. The land uses for the four‐lane portion are predominantly residential neighborhoods (located on collector streets) for most of the extent, along with commercial uses within the Town of Danville. Camino Tassajara is classified as a route of regional significance in the 2009 Tri‐Valley Transportation and Action Plan Update.1 The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph) for most extents. Crow Canyon Road Crow Canyon Road is a principal, four‐ to six‐lane, divided arterial with a northern terminus at Camino Tassajara where it becomes Blackhawk Road, and a southern terminus at East Castro Valley Boulevard in Castro Valley within Alameda County. It is one of the few inter‐regional arterial roadways providing access outside of the Tri‐Valley Area to the west. As such, it is classified as a route of regional significance in the 2009 Tri‐Valley Action Plan. Within the study area, the surrounding land uses are predominantly residential. The street section contains a center median, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes on both sides within San Ramon and Danville. On‐street parking is prohibited and the posted speed limit is 40 mph. Sycamore Valley Road Sycamore Valley Road is a principal, four‐lane, divided arterial with an eastern terminus at Camino Tassajara and a western terminus at San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Interstate 680 (I‐680). It is classified as a route of regional significance in the 2009 Tri‐Valley Action Plan. Within the study area, 1 The 2009 Tri‐Valley Transportation and Action plan Update is the latest available, adopted version of this document. The more recent revised version was never finalized or adopted. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐1 Transportation and Traffic Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR the primary land uses are residential. Commercial land uses occur at the roadway’s western terminus at its intersection with san Ramon Valley Road. It contains a center median, bicycle lanes on both sides, and sidewalks along the southern side. On‐street parking is prohibited and the posted speed limit is 45 mph. Blackhawk Road Blackhawk Road is a major, two‐ to four‐lane collector with a southern terminus at Camino Tassajara where it becomes Crow Canyon Road, and a northern terminus at Mt. Diablo Scenic Boulevard. It is a two‐lane undivided roadway until Maplewood Drive where it widens to three and eventually a four‐lane median divided roadway. The primary land uses are connections to residential neighborhood collectors. An area of commercial land uses occurs at the roadways southern terminus at its intersection with Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon Road. On‐street parking is prohibited and the posted speed limit is 40 mph. Dougherty Road Dougherty Road is a short, four‐lane, median‐divided minor arterial with a southern terminus at Bollinger Canyon Road and a northern terminus at Crow Canyon Road. The primary land uses are connections to residential neighborhood collectors. Bicycle lanes and sidewalks exist on both sides. On‐street parking is prohibited and the posted speed limit is 50 mph. Finley Road Finley Road is a two‐lane, undivided rural, local road that intersects Camino Tassajara at its southern terminus. The land uses are predominately uncultivated agricultural lands, equestrian facilities, and residential uses. The street’s winding geometry contains narrow lanes and sharp curves. The sharp horizontal curves along the street make sight distances on certain approaches short. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. Ballfields Entrance Road The Ballfields Entrance is a three‐lane driveway for the Mustang Soccer League facilities located on the south side of Camino Tassajara. There are two lanes providing egress from the driveway and one driveway entry lane. Lusitano Street Lusitano Street is an undivided, residential, local road that intersects Camino Tassajara at its northern terminus. On‐street parking is utilized and it serves as one of the primary access points and arteries for the Alamo Creek residential development. The roadway shares a signalized intersection with the Tassajara Hills Elementary School Driveway at Camino Tassajara. During the nearby Tassajara Hills Elementary School’s start and end times, it is used by parents who pick‐up and drop‐off children. Charbray Street Charbray Street is a two‐lane, divided, residential collector that serves as a primary access point and a major artery of the Alamo Creek residential development neighborhood. Bike lanes exist on both sides of the roadway and many school crossings are striped to accommodate school‐aged pedestrians. Street parking is prohibited. Charbray Street intersects Camino Tassajara at its northern terminus. 3.12‐2 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Source: Kimley Horn, 2016
I
26480008 • 05/2016 | 3.12-1_studyarea.cdr
Exhibit 3.12-1
Project Study Area and Vicinity
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • TASSAJARA PARKS PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Source: Kimley Horn, 2016
26480008 • 05/2016 | 3.12-2_existing_lane_geo.cdr
Exhibit 3.12-2
Existing Conditions Lane Geometry
and Traffic Control
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • TASSAJARA PARKS PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Blackhawk Drive Blackhawk Drive is a two‐lane, undivided local road that intersects Camino Tassajara at its southern terminus and Blackhawk Road at its northern terminus. The only land uses are residential, and street parking is utilized. Hansen Lane Hansen Lane is a short, two‐lane, undivided local road that intersects Camino Tassajara at its southern terminus. There are a few residential land uses along the roadway segment, while most of the land remains undeveloped. This roadway shares a signalized intersection with Diablo Vista Middle School at Camino Tassajara. Lawrence Road Lawrence Road is a two‐lane local road that intersects Camino Tassajara at its northern terminus. It is mostly undivided, with a divided median at the Camino Tassajara intersection only. Most of the land uses are residential, and the roadway ends in a cul‐de‐sac at its southern terminus. Oakgate Drive Oakgate Drive is a short, two‐lane local road that intersects Camino Tassajara at its southern terminus. It is mostly undivided, with a divided median at the Camino Tassajara intersection only. All of the adjoining land uses are residential. Jasmine Way Jasmine Way is a short, two‐lane local road that intersects Camino Tassajara at its northern terminus. It is mostly undivided with a divided median at the Camino Tassajara intersection only. All of the adjoining land uses are residential. Mansfield Drive Mansfield Drive is a short, two‐lane local road that intersects Camino Tassajara at its southern terminus. It is mostly undivided, with a divided median at the Camino Tassajara intersection only. All of the adjoining land uses are residential, and it serves as a primary access point and artery for the residential neighborhood. Parkhaven Drive Parkhaven Drive is a two‐lane, local road that intersects Camino Tassajara at its northern terminus. It is mostly undivided, with divided medians at and near the Camino Tassajara intersection only. Most of the adjoining land uses are residential, and it serves as a primary access point and artery for the residential neighborhood. Rassani Drive Rassani Drive is a two‐lane, undivided local road that intersects Camino Tassajara at its northern terminus. All of the adjoining land uses are residential. Buckingham Drive Buckingham Drive is a short, two‐lane local road that intersects Camino Tassajara at its southern terminus. It is mostly undivided, with a divided median at the Camino Tassajara intersection only. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐7 Transportation and Traffic Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR All of the adjoining land uses are residential, and it serves as a primary access point and artery for the residential neighborhood. Conejo Drive Conejo Drive is a short, two‐lane, undivided local road that intersects Camino Tassajara at its southern terminus. All of the adjoining land uses are residential, and it serves as a primary access point and artery for the residential neighborhood. Tassajara Ranch Drive Tassajara Ranch Drive is a short, two‐lane local road that intersects Camino Tassajara at its northern terminus. It is mostly undivided, with a divided median at the Camino Tassajara intersection. All of the adjoining land uses are residential, and it serves as a primary access point and artery for the residential neighborhood. The roadway shares a signalized intersection with a large commercial shopping center at Camino Tassajara. Tassajara Village Drive Tassajara Village Drive is a short, two‐lane entranceway to a large commercial shopping center development on the south side of Camino Tassajara. It serves as the primary signalized entry point for the development, and is separated from the general parking lot by landscaped dividers. Liverpool Street Liverpool Street is a two‐lane, undivided local road that intersects Camino Tassajara at its northern terminus. All of the adjoining land uses are residential. Old Blackhawk Road Old Blackhawk Road is a two‐lane, undivided local road that intersects Camino Tassajara at its southern terminus. All of the adjoining land uses are residential. Holbrook Drive Holbrook Drive is a two‐lane, undivided entryway that serves as the primary driveway and only access point to Sycamore Valley Elementary School. The roadway intersects Camino Tassajara at its southern terminus and leads to the school’s pick‐up/drop‐off loop and parking lots to the north. Creekside Avenue Creekside Avenue is a short, two‐lane, divided residential entryway that intersects Sunshine Circle at its southern terminus and Camino Tassajara at its northern terminus. There are no land uses directly accessing the roadway, and on‐street parking is prohibited. Regional Roadways I‐680 I‐680 is a south to north regional interstate that extends from I‐280 in San Jose at the southern extent, to I‐80 in Cordelia at the northern extent. Several portions contain high‐occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes within the study area, express or High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes are currently present on the southern segments, and HOT lanes are under construction in central and southern areas of 3.12‐8 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Contra Costa County. Within the study area, the freeway is three to four lanes and it serves as a major north‐south route for the Tri‐Valley area. The posted speed limit is 65 mph. I‐580 I‐580 is a west‐to‐east regional interstate that extends from I‐80 in Emeryville/Oakland at the western extent, to I‐5 southeast of Tracy at the eastern extent. HOT lanes are currently in construction (to be completed early 2016) and will extend from approximately I‐680 to Greenville/Altamont Pass Rd. The freeway serves as a major east‐west route providing the eastern valleys access to the greater San Francisco Bay area. Within the study area, the freeway is three to four lanes and the posted speed limit ranges from 55 to 65 mph. Study Facilities Roadway facilities in the Project vicinity, including intersections, queues, and freeway segments were selected for analysis. Each is listed below. Intersections Seventeen existing intersections, as shown in Exhibit 3.12‐1, were selected for evaluation in relation to the Project using the guidance in the CCTA Technical Procedures. In addition, the Finley Rd/Project Driveway (Equestrian Staging Area) intersection will be evaluated. Each intersection and the jurisdiction responsible for the intersection are listed below: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Camino Tassajara/Ballfields (Future Project Driveway)—Contra Costa County Camino Tassajara/Lusitano St–Tassajara Elementary School Driveway—Contra Costa County Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk Dr–Charbray St—Contra Costa County Camino Tassajara/Hansen Ln–Diablo Vista MS Driveway—Town of Danville Camino Tassajara/Oak Gate Dr–Lawrence Rd—Town of Danville Camino Tassajara/Mansfield Dr–Jasmine Wy—Town of Danville Camino Tassajara/Parkhaven Dr–Town of Danville Camino Tassajara/Buckingham Dr–Rassani Dr—Town of Danville Camino Tassajara/Conejo Dr–Town of Danville Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Ranch Dr–Town of Danville Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Village Dr–Town of Danville Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk Rd–Crow Canyon Rd—Town of Danville Camino Tassajara/Old Blackhawk Rd–Liverpool St—Town of Danville Camino Tassajara/Holbrook Dr–Town of Danville Camino Tassajara/Sycamore Valley Rd–Town of Danville Dougherty Rd/Crow Canyon Rd–Town of San Ramon Camino Tassajara/Finley Rd–Contra Costa County Finley Rd/Project Driveway (Future Equestrian Staging Area)—Contra Costa County Study intersections were identified using guidelines from the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’s) TIS Guidelines, Contra Costa County Transportation Authority’s Technical Procedures, and the Contra Costa County General Plan as well as the Town of Danville and City of San Ramon General Plans based on the anticipated Project trip generation and distribution. In H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐9 Transportation and Traffic Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR general, intersections with at least 50 peak‐hour Project trips utilizing the intersection were selected for analysis. All study intersections are signalized except #17 (Camino Tassajara/Finley Road) which is a side‐street stop‐controlled intersection. Critical Queues The locations of critical queue spillbacks were identified within the study area based on the assessment of existing intersection turning movement counts and existing storage lengths, in addition to AM and PM operations observed in the field. The following intersections were selected for a queuing assessment: 1. Intersection #2: Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Hills Elementary School Driveway‐Lusitano Street 2. Intersection #12: Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk Road‐Crow Canyon Road Freeway Segments Freeway segments were chosen in accordance with the Caltrans TIS Guidelines and subsequent to consultation with Contra Costa County. Study freeway segments were divided based on the presence of interchanges. The following segments along I‐580 and I‐680 (bi‐directional) were included in the analysis: 1. I‐580: Eden Canyon Road to Fallon Road‐El Charro Road–Caltrans 2. I‐680: West Las Positas Boulevard to El Charro Boulevard–Caltrans Existing Conditions Existing Intersection Levels of Service Weekday intersection turning movement counts for the 17 existing study intersections (excluding the future Project driveway) were collected in March 2015 in a manner consistent with traffic count protocol as cited in the CCTA Technical Procedures and consistent with input from Danville and San Ramon. Volumes were collected during the AM (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and PM (4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.) peak periods of the weekday when local schools were in session. Additional counts, at the request of the Town of Danville, were collected at Intersection #2 (Camino Tassajara/Lusitano Street/Tassajara Hills Elementary School Driveway) during a typical weekday during the school dismissal period (2:30 to 3:30 p.m.) to analyze the intersection’s operations during the dismissal time. Intersection volume data sheets for all traffic counts are provided in Appendix I. The resulting intersection turning movement volumes can be seen in Exhibit 3.12‐3. Traffic operations were evaluated at the study intersections under existing traffic conditions. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 3.12‐1. As shown, all intersections function within acceptable standards in this scenario. Analysis sheets are provided in Appendix I. 3.12‐10 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐1: Existing Conditions Intersection Delay and LOS Results Existing Int# Intersection LOS Criteria Jurisdiction
AM Peak PM Peak Control LOS Delay LOS Delay 1 Camino Tassajara/Ballfields–Project Driveway (Full Access) E County Signal A 1.4 A 2.1 2 Camino Tassajara/Lusitano St–Tassajara Hills ES Driveway E County Signal D 43.7 A 7.2 3 Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk Dr–
Charbray St E County Signal B 17.6 B 11.3 4 Camino Tassajara/Hansen Ln–Diablo Vista MS Driveway E Danville Signal D 44.1 A 7.2 5 Camino Tassajara/Oak Gate Dr–
Lawrence Rd E Danville Signal D 47.5 A 9.1 6 Camino Tassajara/Mansfield Dr–
Jasmine Wy E Danville Signal B 18.4 A 6.9 7 Camino Tassajara/Parkhaven Dr E
Danville
Signal
A 7.4 A
4.8
E Danville Signal C 25.7 B 10.1 9 Camino Tassajara/Conejo Dr E
Danville
Signal
B 10.5 A
6.0
10 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Ranch Dr
E
Danville
Signal
C 32.6 B
19.8
11 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Village Dr
E
Danville
Signal
A 5.4 B
10.4
8 Camino Tassajara/Buckingham Dr–
Rassani Dr 12 Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk Rd–Crow Canyon Rd E Danville Signal D 47.7 D 40.0 13 Camino Tassajara/Old Blackhawk Rd–
Liverpool St E Danville Signal B 15.5 A 9.3 14 Camino Tassajara/Holbrook Dr E
Danville
Signal
D 35.9 A
9.7
15 Camino Tassajara/Sycamore Valley Rd
E
Danville
Signal
C 34.4 C
22.4
16 Dougherty Rd/Crow Canyon Rd E San Ramon Signal B 15.7 D 40.7 17 Camino Tassajara/Finley Rd E
County
SSSC*
C 21.4 D
26.7
Notes: * For side‐street stop‐controlled (SSSC) intersections the worst approach delay and LOS is reported. – Intersection delay, LOS, and v/c ratios calculated with Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology using Synchro® software. – Intersections #4 and #5 above are coordinated intersections with leading exclusive pedestrian phases. HCM 2010 methodology does not support the inclusion of exclusive pedestrian phases. To be consistent with the methodology, the leading pedestrian phases only were not implemented in Synchro®. – Existing traffic counts conducted on March 3, 2015 Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc., 2016. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐11 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Existing Queues at Critical Locations Vehicle queues were evaluated at the locations identified as critical queue spillback locations under existing traffic conditions. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 3.12‐2. As shown, the calculated 95th percentile queues do not exceed the existing turn pocket storage at any study locations. It should be noted, however, that while the Synchro analysis did not indicate that queues would spill back, spillback was physically observed for a short period (10 minutes) during the Existing AM peak hour due to school traffic. Table 3.12‐2: Existing Conditions Queuing Results Existing # 2 Intersection Camino Tassajara/Lusitano Street‐
Tassajara Hills Elementary School Driveway Movement Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk Road‐Crow Canyon Road 95th Percentile Queue (ft) AM PM NBL/T/R
—
146 28
SBT/L
—
77 17
SBR
70
12 13
EBLa
660
353 32
WBL
350
67 43
—
394 167
NBL
500
241 243
SBL
310
133 160
EBL
245
119 135
WBL
—
284 159
WBT/R
12 Storage Length (ft) Notes: th
– 95 Percentile queue lengths were obtained from Synchro v8 software. – Storage lengths are not given for through lanes or segment lengths, but rather, only shown for turn pockets. a
The Synchro analysis did not indicate that queues would spillback, but this was observed for a short period during the Existing AM peak hour due to school traffic. Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc., 2016. Existing Freeway Segment Level of Service Traffic operations were evaluated at the study freeway segments under existing traffic conditions. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 3.12‐3. Analysis sheets are provided in Appendix I. 3.12‐12 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐3: Existing Conditions Freeway Analysis Existing Conditions Facility AM Peak LOS HOV Volume (vph) SOV Volume (vph)(a) Density (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS 28.7 D
—
8,004
45.2
F
7,023
34.9 D
—
6,528
31.0
D
—
6,370
29.8 D
—
8,210
47.9
F
4
—
7,203
39.9 E
—
6,695
35.3
E
EB
5
—
1,704
5.5 A
—
11,320
53.4
F
E WB
4
—
8,768
54.6 F
—
4,827
22.9
C
I‐580–Dougherty Road/Hacienda Drive E EB
7
—
1,665
4.5 A
—
11,059
30.3
D
E WB
5
—
8,566
33.7 D
—
4,715
17.9
B
5* I‐580–Hacienda Drive/Tassajara Road‐Santa Rita Road E EB
5
123
1,625
6.2 A
1,992
9,620
40.6
E
E WB
4
—
8,993
58.8 F
—
4,950
23.4
C
6* I‐580–Tassajara Road/Fallon Road‐El Charro Road E EB
4
117
1,544
7.3 A
1,892
9,139
61.8
F
E WB
4
— 8,543
51.0 F
—
4,703
22.3
C
I‐680–W Las Positas Boulevard/Stoneridge Drive E NB
3
— 3,634
19.6 C
—
5,595
34.6
D
E SB
3
— 6,901
54.3 F
—
3,804
20.5
C
I‐680–Stoneridge Drive/I‐580 Junction E NB
3
— 3,909
21.2 C
—
6,019
39.6
E
E SB
3
— 7,424
68.1 F
—
4,092
22.3
C
E NB
3
— 4,597
26.0 C
—
7,079
59.2
F
F SB
3
— 8,731
170.2
F
—
4,813
27.6
D
No. 1 Interstate 580 2 3 4 7 Interstate 680 PM Peak 8 9 Study Segment I‐580–Eden Canyon Road/Foothill Road I‐580–Foothill Road/I‐680 Junction I‐580–I‐680 Junction/Dougherty Road I‐680–I‐580 Junction/Dublin Boulevard Direction SOV Lanes HOV Volume (vph) SOV Volume (vph)(a) Density (pc/mi/ln)(b) E EB
4
—
6,211
E WB
4
—
E EB
4
E WB
E LOS Criteria H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐13 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐3 (cont.): Existing Conditions Freeway Analysis Existing Conditions Facility AM Peak Direction SOV Lanes HOV Volume (vph) SOV Volume (vph)(a) Density (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS HOV Volume (vph) SOV Volume (vph)(a) Density (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS E NB
4
— 4,597
18.6 C
—
7,079
32.0
D
E SB
4
—
8,731
48.0 F
—
4,813
19.5
C
E NB
3
659
3,883
21.1 C
1,331
5,664
35.6
E
E SB
3
1,550
7,077
59.2 F
783
3,973
21.7
C
12* I‐680–Bollinger Canyon Road/Crow Canyon Road E NB
4
623
3,671
14.8 B
1,258
5,355
22.0
C
F SB
4
1,466
6,691
29.3 D
740
3,756
15.2
B
13* I‐680–Crow Canyon Road/Sycamore Valley Road E NB
4
651
3,836
15.5 B
1,315
5,595
23.1
C
F SB
4
1,531
6,991
31.4 D
773
3,925
15.8
B
14* I‐680–Sycamore Valley Road/Diablo Road E NB
3
711
4,189
23.1 䛖
1,436
6,110
41.2
E
F SB
3
1,672
7,634
77.0 F
844
4,286
23.7
C
15* I‐680–Diablo Road/El Charro Boulevard E NB
3
703
4,142
22.8 C
1,420
6,041
40.2
E
F SB
3
1,653
7,548
73.6 F
835
4,237
23.4
C
No. Study Segment 10 I‐680–Dublin Boulevard/Alcosta Boulevard 11* I‐680–Alcosta Boulevard/Bollinger Canyon Road Interstate 680 PM Peak LOS Criteria Notes: – Segments operating below acceptable LOS as shown in the LOS Criteria column are shown in bold. – The analysis was performed using HCS 2010 software. – For freeway segments where an auxiliary lane is > 2,500 feet in length, weaving does not apply; therefore, the auxiliary lane is considered to be a basic freeway lane for the purposes of this analysis. – AADT obtained from Caltrans Traffic Data Branch (2013). * An asterisk indicates the freeway segment contains a high‐occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. For these segments, the HOV lanes and traffic volumes were excluded from the analysis. HOV traffic volumes were removed from the Caltrans’s indicated peak‐hour traffic volumes using information obtained from the Caltrans 2013 Managed Lanes Report. (a) Directional volumes in vehicles per hour (vph) calculated as: AADT x K‐Factor x D‐Factor percentage. The K‐Factor is the percentage of AADT during the peak hour for both directions of travel. The D‐Factor is the percentage of the peak‐hour travel in the peak direction. “K” and “D” factors multiplied with the AADT gives the one way peak period directional flow rate or the design hourly volume (DHV). (b)
pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc., 2016. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐14 Source: Kimley Horn, 2016
26480008 • 05/2016 | 3.12-3_existing_peak_turning.cdr
Exhibit 3.12-3
Existing Conditions Peak
Hour Turning Movements
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • TASSAJARA PARKS PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic As shown, several segments operate below acceptable LOS standards (see LOS Criteria column). The following freeway segments do not function within acceptable standards according to criteria set forth by CCTA and Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) under existing conditions: I‐580 Eastbound PM Peak Hour 1. 2. 3. 6. I‐580–Eden Canyon Road/Foothill Road I‐580–Foothill Road/I‐680 Junction I‐580–I‐680 Junction/Dougherty Road I‐580 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road‐El Charro Road I‐580 Westbound AM Peak Hour 3. I‐580–I‐680 Junction/Dougherty Road 5. I‐580–Hacienda Drive/Tassajara Road‐Santa Rita Road 6. I‐580–Tassajara Road/Fallon Road‐El Charro Road I‐680 Northbound PM Peak Hour 9. I‐680–I‐580 Junction/Dublin Boulevard I‐680 Southbound AM Peak Hour 7. I‐680–W Las Positas Boulevard/Stoneridge Drive 8. I‐680–Stoneridge Drive/I‐580 Junction 10. I‐680–Dublin Boulevard/Alcosta Boulevard 11. I‐680–Alcosta Boulevard/Bollinger Canyon Road Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities In the immediate Project vicinity, sidewalks are present in the eastbound and westbound directions on Camino Tassajara from Lusitano Street to Sycamore Valley Road. A sidewalk is also present in the eastbound direction on Camino Tassajara between Lusitano Street and the Ballfields signalized T‐
intersection. Additionally, sidewalks are present in northbound and southbound directions on Crow Canyon Road from Camino Tassajara to Dougherty Road. No other existing pedestrian facilities were observed within the Project study area on major arterials or collectors. Class II bicycle facilities are currently present on both northern and southern sides of Camino Tassajara from Lusitano Street to the Ballfields signalized T‐intersection. Additionally, bike lanes are present in the northbound direction on Crow Canyon Road from Camino Tassajara to Dougherty Road and southbound on Crow Canyon Road from Center Way to Dougherty Road. No other existing bicycle facilities were observed along major collectors or arterials within the Project study area. Existing Transit Service The Central Contra Costa Transit Authority ( CCCTA—”County Connection”) operates bus service within the Town of Danville and City of San Ramon along the I‐680 corridor. The closest connection to this transit system is the Route 35 bus line, which operates along Bollinger Canyon Road between Wedgewood Road and Dougherty Road in San Ramon. The route runs from 6:00 a.m. to 8:17 p.m. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐17 Transportation and Traffic Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR during the weekdays, and has typical peak headways of 30 minutes and off‐peak headways of 60 minutes (CCCTA 2010). County Connection also operates flex service in the vicinity of the Project Site. TRAFFIX school bus service also operates in the vicinity and is operated by a joint powers authority2. Annexation into the County Service Area (CSA) T‐13 is expected for the Project Site; thus, flex and TRAFFIX service would be extended. In addition, County Connection operates a shuttle van to provide transportation services for those travelling out of the Alamo Creek, Monterosso, and Ponderosa Colony developments to the Danville Park and Ride lot and the Walnut Creek BART Station as funded by homeowners in those developments. 3.12.3 ‐ Regulatory Framework State California Department of Transportation Caltrans builds, operates, and maintains the state highway system, including the interstate highway system. Caltrans’s mission is to improve mobility statewide. The department operates under strategic goals to provide a safe transportation system, optimize throughput and ensure reliable travel times, improve the delivery of state highway projects, provide transportation choices, and improve and enhance the State’s investments and resources. Caltrans controls the planning of the state highway system and accessibility to the system. Caltrans establishes LOS goals for highways and works with local and regional agencies to assess impacts and develop funding sources for improvements to the state highway system. Caltrans requires encroachment permits from agencies or new development before any construction work may be undertaken within the State’s right‐of‐
way. For projects that would impact traffic flow and levels of services on state highways, Caltrans would review measures to mitigate the traffic impacts. However, Caltrans has adopted the 2013 ACTC CMP and 2013 CCTA CMP standards, which are the criteria used to identify impacts in this study. Senate Bill 743 In response to Senate Bill (SB) 743, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is updating California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines to include new transportation‐related evaluation metrics. Draft guidelines were developed in August 2014 and public comments were received on the draft guidelines through November 2014. On January 20, 2016, revised draft guidelines were publicly released and public comments were received through February 2016. As of the writing of this Draft EIR, new guidelines have not yet been adopted and the final guidelines may change based on the comments received. The new guidelines that will be adopted to address SB‐743 will require lead agencies to assess Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) impacts for projects. The draft guidelines indicate that “a development 2
Town of Danville, City of San Ramon, Contra Costa County, and SRVUSD CSA T‐1 provides flex transit to an unincorporated area east of Danville of approximately 1.17 square miles consisting of approximately 804 dwelling units directly south of Camino Tassajara and the Project Site. Transit to and from CSA T‐1 is fully funded by fees collected from homeowners in the CSA. The travel area is defined as a 1.5‐mile corridor along Camino Tassajara between CSA T‐1 and I‐680, and along I‐680 to the Walnut Creek and Dublin BART stations. 3
3.12‐18 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic project that is not exempt and that results in vehicle miles traveled greater than regional average for the land use type may indicate a significant impact.” However, the lead agency has yet to establish specific local VMT thresholds and industry‐wide standards are still in the advisory stage. The latest direction from OPR also lists new exemptions for certain projects with revised screening thresholds (e.g., 100 trips/day, map based, or near transit stations). In addition, the policy implementation will begin in early 2017 with a 2‐year phase‐in period. As such, a VMT analysis is not provided as a part of this CEQA analysis at this time. However, a brief VMT analysis is provided in the TIS for informational purposes only. Regional Contra Costa Transportation Authority The CCTA is a regional public agency responsible for maintaining and improving the County’s regional transportation system by planning, funding, and delivering critical transportation infrastructure projects and programs. The CCTA is also charged with monitoring the implementation of all elements of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) for the County and determining conformance with the CMP’s requirements, through the assessment of multimodal transportation service objectives (MTSOs). 2013 CCTA Growth Management Program (GMP) The GMP is a component of Measure J that is used by Contra Costa County to manage continued growth in population, households, and jobs that are expected to occur through the year 2035. The overall goal of the GMP is to achieve a cooperative process for Growth Management on a countywide basis while maintaining local authority over land use decisions and the establishment of performance standards. Two relevant requirements of the GMP in the context of this study are the implementation of the action plans for their respective RTPC and new or continued development mitigation programs. 2009 Tri‐Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance The 2009 Tri‐Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan assesses transportation issues within the Tri‐
Valley area and outlines a recommended package of vision statements, goals, policies, objectives, and actions for addressing those issues. In addition to serving as a guide for transportation planning through 2040, the Plan represents the Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance for Contra Costa County jurisdictions, as mandated by Measures C and J, and provides information that can be incorporated into the CMP for Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon Road are defined as Routes of Regional Significance in the Tri‐
Valley Transportation Plan and the Congestion Management Program. 2013 CCTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) The CMP is one part of an overall strategy to reduce congestion, improve mobility, and increase overall sustainability of the transportation system in the County. The CMP fulfills the requirements of California Government Code Section 65088 and has been prepared by the CCTA in consultation with local jurisdictions, other public agencies and members of the public. Consistent with state law, the program contains five elements: H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐19 Transportation and Traffic Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR 1. Traffic Level of Service (LOS) standards; 2. A performance element that includes performance measures to evaluate current and future multi‐modal system performance for the movement of people and goods; 3. A seven‐year capital improvement program (CIP); 4. A program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems; and 5. A travel demand element that promotes transportation alternatives to the single‐occupant vehicle. The CMP also includes the CCTA Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP contains those roadway, transit, and trail projects that are already programmed (and thus have committed funding), those proposed for funding through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s) Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) process, Transportation Systems Management (TSM) projects, Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) projects, and those developer‐funded projects where funding through the fee programs is imminent. 2013 CCTA Technical Procedures The 2013 CCTA Technical Procedures is a document created to establish a uniform approach, methodology, and tool set from which public agencies in Contra Costa County may apply to evaluate the impacts of land use decisions and related transportation projects on the local and regional transportation system. Compliance with the Measure J Growth Management Program requires that local jurisdictions use the Technical Procedures to analyze the impact of proposed development projects, General Plans, and General Plan Amendments. Measure C/Measure J In 1988, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure C, which was designed to facilitate cooperation between the County and local jurisdictions within the County on regional transportation and growth issues. Measure C established a countywide half‐cent sales tax to be collected for 20 years, through 2008, in order to fund roadway and transportation system improvements. The CCTA distributes sales tax revenues collected under Measure C to jurisdictions that implement the required growth management goals, policies, and actions adopted as part of their general plans. In 2004, County voters approved Measure J, extending the growth management requirements of Measure C through 2034. Tri‐Valley Transportation Council’s Tri‐Valley Transportation Development Fee The Tri‐Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) consists of one representative of each of the following entities: County of Alameda, County of Contra Costa, City of Dublin, City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton, City of San Ramon, and Town of Danville. The TVTC periodically evaluates the impacts of projected land uses on regional transportation infrastructure in the Tri‐Valley area and establishes a cost nexus between land use projections and impacts to the regional transportation infrastructure. The Tri‐Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) fee establishes a regional funding source for transportation improvement projects in the Tri‐Valley Development Area. The fee for residential 3.12‐20 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic developers shall be calculated based on the number of new residential dwelling units. If the developer constructs the improvements or facilities itself, the developer shall be reimbursed or given a credit towards the remaining impact fees due for the development. Alameda County Transportation Commission 2013 Congestion Management Program The Alameda County Transportation Commission 2013 Congestion Management Program (ACTC CMP) describes the strategies to assess and monitor the performance of Alameda County’s multimodal transportation system, address congestion and improve the performance of a multimodal system, and strengthen the integration of transportation and land use planning. The CMP acts as a short‐range plan to implement the long‐range Countywide Transportation Plan. Local Contra Costa County General Plan The General Plan establishes the following goals and policies related to transportation and traffic that are relevant to this analysis:  Goal 1: To provide a safe, efficient and integrated multimodal transportation system.  Policy 1: The design and the scheduling of improvements to arterials and collectors shall give priority to intermodal safety over other factors including capacity.  Program 1.1: Design local streets so that the widths and curvatures fit the needs of all users, 








the appropriate speed of travel, and the character of the surrounding site. Policy 2: The use of freeways for community circulation shall be minimized by prioritizing transit circulation, safe, direct non‐motorized routes, and secondarily by additional arterials and expressways. Policy 3: The use of pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall be encouraged. Proper facilities shall be designed to accommodate bikes, pedestrians, and transit. Program 3.1: Design a system of local and collector streets within a development to connect pedestrians and bicyclists with transit stops, activity centers and adjacent neighborhoods. Policy 4: Use of alternative forms of transportation, such as transit, bike and pedestrian modes, shall be encouraged in order to provide basic accessibility to those without access to a personal automobile and to help minimize automobile congestion and air pollution. Policy 5: Emergency response vehicles shall be accommodated in development project design. Goal 2: To permit development only in locations of the County where appropriate traffic level of service standards are ensured. Policy 6: Development shall be allowed only when transportation performance criteria are met and necessary facilities and/or programs are in place or committed to be developed within a specified period of time. Goal 3: To provide access to new development while minimizing conflict between circulation facilities and land uses. Policy 7: Transportation facilities serving new urban development shall be linked to and compatible with existing and planned roads, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and pathways of adjoining areas, and such facilities shall use presently available public and semi‐
public rights of way where feasible. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐21 Transportation and Traffic Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR  Policy 8: New development (including redevelopment and rehabilitation projects) shall 


















contribute funds and/or institute programs to reduce parking demand and/or provide adequate parking. Policy 9: New development shall contribute funds and/or institute programs to provide adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities where feasible. Policy 10: The use of local and collector roadways for neighborhood circulation shall be encouraged. Policy 11: New arterial roadways shall be routed around, rather than through neighborhoods, to minimize traffic impacts on residential areas. Goal 4: Plan for the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. Policy 12: Accommodate and encourage other agencies to accommodate the needs for mobility, accessibility and safety of bicyclists and pedestrians when planning, designing and developing transportation improvements. Program 12.1: Incorporate sidewalks, bike paths, bike lanes, crosswalks, pedestrian cutthroughs, or other bicycle pedestrian improvements into new projects. Program 12.1: Accommodate cyclists and pedestrians during construction of transportation improvements and other development projects. Goal 5: Expand, improve and maintain facilities for walking and bicycling. Policy 13: Describe a system of bicycle facilities and key attractors of bicycle and pedestrian traffic so that all travelers, including people with disabilities, can travel safely and independently. Program 13.1: Where possible, roads selected for the comprehensive bikeway system should be 35 mph or less. Program 13.2: Ensure that pedestrian connectivity is preserved or enhanced in new developments by providing short, direct pedestrian connections between land uses and to building entrances. Program 13.3: Promote planning and coordination of pedestrian and bicycle facilities among cities, transit agencies and public utilities. Policy 14: Identify gaps in the bicycle network and needed improvements to pedestrian districts and key activity centers and define priorities for eliminating these gaps and making needed improvements. Facilities shall be designed to the best currently available standards and guidelines. Program 14.1: Pedestrian Districts should be created in areas of mixed or dense land use and intense or potentially intense pedestrian activity. Program 14.2: Streetscape improvements should be included in the design of high usage pedestrian facilities to encourage pedestrian activity. This would include improvements such as benches, public art, drinking fountains and pedestrian‐scale lighting fixtures. Program 14.3: Traffic calming measures should be designed so they improve pedestrian and bicycle movement in residential neighborhoods and commercial districts as well as strategic corridors between them that help form the comprehensive bicycle network. Goal 6: Improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Policy 15: Reduce conflicts among motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. Program 15.1: Use traffic control devices such as signs, signals or lights to warn motorists that pedestrians or bicyclists are in the roadway. 3.12‐22 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic  Program 15.2: Provide buffers between roads and sidewalks utilizing planter strips or buffer 





zones that provide streetscape improvements. Goal 7: To identify, preserve and enhance scenic routes in the County. Policy 16: Scenic corridors shall be maintained with the intent of protecting attractive natural qualities adjacent to various roads throughout the county. Policy 17: For lands designated for urban use along scenic routes, planned unit developments shall be encouraged in covenant with land development projects. Measure 17.1: Consider the visual qualities and character of the corridor in reviewing plans for new roads, road improvements, or other public projects. This should include width, alignment, grade, slope and curvatures of traffic islands and side paths, drainage facilities, additional setbacks, and landscaping. Policy 18: Aesthetic design flexibility of development projects within a scenic corridor shall be encouraged. Measure 18.1: Attain development project design flexibility within the scenic corridor through application of the Planned Unit Development District Zoning. 3.12.4 ‐ Methodology Analysis in this section was based on, among other things, the traffic analysis prepared by Kimley‐
Horn and Associates for the Project. The following is a summary of the analysis methodology. Scenario Development Conditions The scenarios analyzed in the TIS were based on the following development conditions:  Existing (2015) Conditions—Based on current traffic volumes collected in March 2015, existing roadway geometry, and traffic control.  Existing (2015) Plus Project Conditions—Based on existing traffic volumes, existing roadway geometry, and traffic control, and generated by the Project.  Near‐Term Conditions—Based on current traffic volumes, existing roadway geometry and traffic control, and traffic generated by approved and pending (but not yet completed) developments anticipated to occur at the time the Project is constructed.  Near‐Term Plus Proposed Project Conditions—Based on current traffic volumes, existing roadway geometry and traffic control, traffic generated by approved and pending (but not yet completed) developments, and traffic generated by the Project.  Cumulative (2035) Conditions—Based on future year traffic forecasts obtained from the 2014 Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Travel Demand Model (TDM). The TDM includes Capital Improvement Program (CIP) transportation projects anticipated to be completed by Year 2035. These CIP projects are included in the corresponding facilities’ General Plans.  Cumulative (2035) Plus Project Conditions—Based on future year forecasts obtained from the 2014 CCTA TDM and adding traffic generated by the Project. Includes roadway geometry and traffic control improvement projects indicated in the most recent CIP. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐23 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Intersection Delay and LOS Analysis Methodology Analysis of significant environmental impacts at intersections is based on the concept of Level of Service (LOS). The LOS of transportation facilities is a qualitative measure used to describe operational conditions. LOS ranges from A (best), which represents minimal delay, to F (worst), which represents heavy delay and a facility that is operating at or near its functional capacity. Levels of Service for this study were based on methods defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 (HCM) using Synchro® analysis software. The HCM includes procedures for analyzing multimodal side‐street stop‐controlled (SSSC), all‐way stop‐controlled (AWSC), and signalized intersections. For AWSC and signalized intersections, LOS is defined as a function of average control delay for the intersection as a whole. For SSSC intersections, LOS is defined as a function of average control delay for each minor street approach movement. Table 3.12‐4 relates the operational characteristics associated with each LOS category for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 3.12‐4: Intersection LOS Definitions LOS Description Signalized (Average control delay per vehicle sec/veh.) Unsignalized (Average control delay per vehicle sec/veh.) ≤10 ≤10 A Free flow with no delays. Users are virtually unaffected by others in the traffic stream
B Stable traffic. Traffic flows smoothly with few delays.  10–20  10–15 C Stable flow but the operation of individual users becomes affected by other vehicles. Modest delays.
20–35  15–25 D Approaching unstable flow. Operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by other vehicles. Delays may be more than one cycle during peak hours.
 35–55  25–35 E Unstable flow with operating conditions at or near the capacity level. Long delays and vehicle queuing.
 55–80  35–50 F Forced or breakdown flow that causes reduced capacity. Stop and go traffic conditions. Excessive long delays and vehicle queuing.  80  50 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010. Traffic Signal Warrants Traffic signals may be justified when traffic operations fall below acceptable thresholds and when one or more signal warrants are satisfied. Traffic volumes at the unsignalized study intersections were compared against the peak‐hour warrant in the 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). Traffic Signal Warrant #3—Peak Hour Volume Warrant is satisfied when traffic volumes on the major and minor approaches exceed thresholds for one hour of the day. The Peak Hour Warrant is generally the first warrant to be satisfied. Other warrants such as for minimum vehicle volumes, interruption of continuous traffic, and traffic progression were not 3.12‐24 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic evaluated because they require higher traffic volumes to be satisfied. Signal warrants have no bearing on potentially significant impacts. However, if signalization of an unsignalized intersection is either part of the project or could serve as a potential project‐level mitigation, then a signal warrant is required to be met pursuant to MUTCD guidance. Vehicle Queuing Methodology As congestion increases, it is common for traffic at signals and stop signs to form lines of stopped (or queued) vehicles. The effects of vehicle queueing were analyzed at critical study intersections and the 95th percentile queue is reported for right and left turn pockets as these are the movements which could spill into the mainline if overcapacity. The 95th percentile queue length represents a condition where 95 percent of the time during the peak period, traffic volumes and related queuing will be at, or less, than the queue length determined by the analysis. This is referred to as the “95th percentile queue.” Average queuing is generally less. Queues were estimated for each development scenario using Synchro® analysis software. Freeway Density and LOS Methodology As outlined in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, the measure of effectiveness (MOE) for a multi‐lane highway or freeway facility is measured by density of the freeway (passenger cars per mile per lane). LOS definitions based on freeway segment density are presented in Table 3.12‐5. Table 3.12‐5: Freeway Segment LOS Criteria LOS Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln)* A ≤ 11
B > 11–18
C > 18–26
D > 26–35
E > 35–45
F > 45
Note: * Passenger cars (pc) per mile (mi) per lane (ln) Source: Transportation Research Board, 2010.
Trip Generation Trip generation for development projects is typically calculated based on information contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) publication, Trip Generation 9th Edition. Trip Generation is a standard reference used by jurisdictions throughout the country for the estimation of trip generation potential of proposed developments. A trip is defined in Trip Generation as a single or one‐directional vehicle movement with either the origin or destination at the Project Site. In other words, a trip can be either “to” or “from” the site. In addition, a single visit to a site is counted as two trips (i.e., one to and one from the site). H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐25 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic For purposes of determining the reasonable worst‐case impacts of traffic on the surrounding street network, the trips generated by the Project are estimated for the highest peak hour between the hours of 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:30 and 6:30 p.m. on a weekday. While the Project itself may generate more traffic during other times of the day such as around noon, the peak of “adjacent street traffic” represents the time period when the combined uses consistently create the greatest amount of congestion, with the PM peak commonly being the greatest congestion period. As the Project consists principally of residential development, no weekend peak hour was considered in the analysis, as the weekend trip generation rates are typically lower for residential uses compared with weekday trip generation rates. Even though, individually, the park and recreational uses may generate higher trips on the weekend, the Project as a whole will generate significantly more trips during the typical weekday. Therefore, the weekday AM and PM peaks represent “worst‐case” scenarios in terms of potential traffic impacts. The proposed residential development is most appropriately classified as Single‐Family Detached Housing, which is represented by ITE Land Use Code 210. However, consistent with direction from local traffic engineering staff, alternative trip generation rates for single‐family residential homes were provided by the Town of Danville for use in this study. These trip generation rates are more conservative than ITE rates. There is no similar use for the equestrian facilities listed in ITE’s Trip Generation Manual. Trip generation rates for the equestrian facilities were developed based on research of similar facilities. The study that best represented the Project estimated trip generation rates given raw count data of an equestrian facility use during the AM and PM peak hours (LLG 2008). The trip generation rates were developed using the number of anticipated parking spaces as an independent variable. No internal capture, diverted link or pass‐by trip reductions were taken for the Project given the land use types and land uses within the vicinity of the Project Site. Some reductions could be claimed for school site adjacency, particularly because of the two pedestrian paths on the Northern Site’s western boundary. The pedestrian paths would provide direct connection to the adjacent Tassajara Hills Elementary School, thereby allowing potential future on‐site students the option to walk to school, potentially reducing related traffic trips. However, in the interest of a conservative traffic study, these potential trip reductions were not accounted for. The final trip generation was approved by Contra Costa County, the Town of Danville, and the City of San Ramon before being applied in this analysis (see Appendix I). The final trip generation can be seen in Table 3.12‐6. Table 3.12‐6: Tassajara Parks Trip Generation Total Trip Generation Rates AM PM Unit Daily AM PM In/Out In/Out Single Family Residential1 Dwelling Units
(DU) 12.17 1.40 1.02 25%/75% 63%/37% Park Parking Spaces (Equestrian)2 Parking Space
(PS) 2.00 0.13 0.28 70%/30% 46%/54% 3.12‐26 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐6 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Trip Generation Total Trip Generation Rates AM PM Unit Daily AM PM In/Out In/Out Parking Space
(PS) 2.00 1.00 1.00 61%/39% 61%/39% Single Family Residential 125
DU 1,522 175 128 44/131 81/47 Future Equestrian Staging Area 30
PS 60 4 8 3/1 4/4 Pedestrian Staging Area 25
PS 50 25 25 15/10 15/10 1,632
204
161
62/142 100/61
Park Parking Spaces (Pedestrian)3 North Tassajara Parks (155 Acres)4 Total Trips Notes: 1
Trip generation rates developed by the Town of Danville were used in this study. The Town of Danville’s rates are higher than ITE rates and thus more conservative. 2 Trip generation rates were developed based on research of similar equestrian facilities. One such study was Sycamore Trails Stables Trip Generation Study (Linscott, Law, & Greenspan Engineers 2008), in which trip generation rates were estimated given raw count data of an equestrian facility use during the AM and PM peak hours. 3 Trip generation rates were developed based on a conservative number of parking spaces and therefore exceed those proposed to be provided at the site. 4 The Northern Site is the only portion of the Project Site that generates trips. The approximately 609 acres of the Southern Site would be permanently preserved for park, recreation, open space agriculture, scenic, grazing, wetland preservation and creation, and habitat mitigation purposes and would be conveyed to the EBRPD by fee simple transfer or other appropriate legal mechanism (subject to a conservation easement approved by resource agencies). The remaining approximately 7 acres of the Southern Site has been contingently offered for dedication, to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (SRVFPD) for potential future use in a manner consistent with the ULL. If the SRVFPD accepts the offer and eventually seeks to pursue development of this Parcel, that proposal would be required to comply with all applicable environmental review requirements under CEQA (which would be triggered because the SRVFPD would be required to obtain a discretionary land use permit from the County). Therefore, for purposes of this EIR, it is speculative to assume any development on this parcel. Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc., 2016. Project Trip Distribution and Assignment The Project trip distribution was derived by performing a select zone analysis using the 2013 CCTA Travel Demand Model received from Contra Costa County. The travel demand model takes into account the Project’s land uses and likely travel destinations within the greater Contra Costa County region, distributing the trips accordingly. The travel demand model also takes into account baseline and expected future changes in the roadway network and the County’s roadway operational conditions. The select zone model runs can be seen in Appendix I. The Project’s trip distribution was reviewed and approved by Contra Costa County, the Town of Danville, and the City of San Ramon prior to use in this traffic study. Exhibit 3.12‐4 presents the traffic distribution assumed for this analysis. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐27 Transportation and Traffic Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Based on the assumed trip distribution, new vehicle trips generated by the Project were assigned to the street network as shown in Exhibit 3.12‐5. 3.12.5 ‐ Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, transportation and traffic impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed Project would be considered significant if the Project would: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non‐motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards 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? (Refer to Section 7.0, Effects Found not to be Significant) 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) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Project‐Specific Thresholds The following discusses specific thresholds used to determine impacts as identified by jurisdiction or facility type. Project impacts are determined by comparing conditions with the Project to those without the Project. Significant impacts for intersections are created when traffic from the Project causes the LOS to fall below a specific threshold. Mitigation for intersections, freeway segments, and queues with a significant impact must improve the LOS or queue length back to no Project or baseline conditions. For all jurisdictions, this analysis assumes that if a facility operates below the applicable LOS threshold in baseline conditions and continues to do so after inclusion of the Project, then it is a significant impact. It also assumes that an adequate subsequent mitigation for such a case would be one that brings, to the extent feasible, the facility operations back to or better than baseline operations. 3.12‐28 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Source: Kimley Horn, 2016
Exhibit 3.12-4
Project Trip Distribution
26480008 • 05/2016 | 3.12-4_trip_distribution.cdr
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • TASSAJARA PARKS PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Source: Kimley Horn, 2016
Exhibit 3.12-5
Project Trip Assignment
26480008 • 05/2016 | 3.12-5_trip_assignment.cdr
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • TASSAJARA PARKS PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Intersections County Facilities The CCTA Technical Procedures (2013), cites the usage of the corresponding action plan as an adequate reference for the determination of significant impacts. The Contra Costa County 2009 Tri‐Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance states the target MTSO is to maintain an intersection LOS E or better. Intersections in downtown areas and other local intersections specifically exempted by local jurisdictions have no defined MTSO (Tri‐Valley Transportation Council 2014). For this analysis, within the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County, intersections are considered to be impacted significantly if the Project would cause a facility to degrade from acceptable LOS E or better to unacceptable LOS F. This standard is for all County facilities and not just routes of regional significance. Town of Danville Facilities The Town of Danville’s 2030 General Plan states that LOS E will remain Danville’s operational standard for reviewing impacts and determining necessary roadway improvements on routes of regional significance (Town of Danville 2013). For this analysis, intersections within the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville are considered to be significantly impacted if the base case operations are LOS E or better and the Project would degrade operations to LOS F. City of San Ramon Facilities The City of San Ramon’s 2030 General Plan Implementing Policy 5.1‐I‐1 states to strive to maintain a maximum LOS D standard at all intersections during the AM and PM peak periods (City of San Ramon 2011). This analysis recognizes that the 2009 CCTA Tri‐Valley Action Plan criteria for routes of regional significance be applied to classified intersections. For this analysis, intersections within the jurisdiction of the City of San Ramon are considered to be significantly impacted if the base case operations are LOS D or better and the Project would degrade operations to LOS E or F, unless it is a route of regional significance, in which case, a significant impact occurs if the base case operations are LOS E or better and the Project would degrade operations to LOS F. Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon Road are defined as a route of regional significance. Queuing If queuing extends beyond the storage length, vehicles block the adjacent through lane, which reduces intersection capacity and would be considered an operational deficiency. For this analysis, a significant impact is assumed to occur if the 95th percentile queue increases by 25 feet or more (conservatively, the length of one vehicle) and the vehicle queue exceeds the turn pocket length due to the Project. Freeway Segments While Caltrans seeks to maintain a LOS on freeway facilities at the transition between LOS C and D, CCTA and ACTC have established freeway facility standards given local congestion management monitoring programs. Caltrans has adopted the 2013 ACTC CMP and 2013 CCTA CMP standards—
the criteria used to identify impacts in this study. For the purposes of this analysis, the County has determined, in its discretion, to utilize the criteria summarized below for the congestion management agencies to be the significance criteria utilized. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐33 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic The LOS standards for freeway segments are established in the 2013 CCTA CMP for facilities within Contra Costa County, and within the 2013 ACTC CMP for facilities located within Alameda County. Freeway facilities within Contra Costa County have specific thresholds for segments along I‐680. Freeway facilities within Alameda County have a LOS threshold of LOS E with specific exceptions of standard of LOS F listed in the CMP for certain freeway segment connectors. The specific LOS standards for the study area freeway segments are listed in the freeway segment tables within the analysis section. 3.12.6 ‐ Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential environmental impacts associated with the development and operation of the Project and provides feasible mitigation measures where appropriate. Existing Plus Project Conditions Impact TRANS‐1: The Project would generate new trips that would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations under Existing Plus Project conditions. Impact Analysis This impact identifies potential impacts to intersection operations, critical queues, and freeway segments under the Existing Plus Project scenario. Each is discussed separately below. Analysis sheets are provided in Appendix I. Intersection Operations Traffic operations were evaluated at the study intersections inclusive of the Project’s access points, under Existing Conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the Project, as shown in Exhibit 3.12‐6. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 3.12‐7. 3.12‐34 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐7: Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Delay and LOS Existing Int# Intersection Existing + Project AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak LOS Criteria Jurisdiction Control LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay ∆Delay LOS Delay ∆Delay 1 Camino Tassajara/Ballfields–Project Driveway (Full Access)
E
County
Signal
A
1.4 A
2.1
A
6.4
+5.0
A
6.5
+4.4
2 Camino Tassajara/Lusitano St–Tassajara Hills ES Driveway
E
County
Signal
D
43.7 A
7.2
D
43.7
0
B
12.3
+5.1
3 Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk Dr–Charbray St
E
County
Signal
B
17.6 B
11.3
B
18.4
+.8
B
11.4
+.1
4 Camino Tassajara/Hansen Ln–Diablo Vista MS Driveway
E
Danville
Signal
D
44.1 A
7.2
E
57.2
+13.1
A
7.5
+.3
5 Camino Tassajara/Oak Gate Dr–Lawrence Rd
E
Danville
Signal
D
47.5 A
9.1
E
64.5
+17.0
A
9.5
+.4
6 Camino Tassajara/Mansfield Dr–Jasmine Wy
E
Danville
Signal
B
18.4 A
6.9
C
23.7
+5.3
A
7.1
+.2
7 Camino Tassajara/Parkhaven Dr E
Danville
Signal
A
7.4 A
4.8
A
8.3
+.9
A
5.0
+.2
8 Camino Tassajara/Buckingham Dr–Rassani Dr
E
Danville
Signal
C
25.7 B
10.1
C
32.9
+7.2
B
10.4
+.3
9 Camino Tassajara/Conejo Dr E
Danville
Signal
B
10.5 A
6.0
B
12.8
+2.3
A
6.2
+.2
10 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Ranch Dr E
Danville
Signal
C
32.6 B
19.8
D
40.3
+7.7
C
20.4
+.6
11 怀tꀀሄ僖
Tassajara/Tassajara Village Dr E
Danville
Signal
A
5.4 B
10.4
A
5.4
0
B
10.5
+.1
12 Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk Rd–Crow Canyon Rd
E
Danville
Signal
D
47.7 D
40.0
D
50.6
+2.9
D
41.3
+1.3
13 Camino Tassajara/Old Blackhawk Rd–Liverpool St
E
Danville
Signal
B
15.5 A
9.3
B
16.0
+.5
A
9.4
+.1
14 Camino Tassajara/Holbrook Dr E
Danville
Signal
D
35.9 A
9.7
D
39.2
+3.3
B
13.2
+3.5
15 Camino Tassajara/Sycamore Valley Rd E
Danville
Signal
C
34.4 C
22.4
D
41.7
+7.3
C
23.4
+1.0
16 Dougherty Rd/Crow Canyon Rd E
San Ramon Signal
B
15.7 D
40.7
B
16.5
+.8
D
43.9
+3.2
17 Camino Tassajara/Finley Rd E
County
SSSC*
C
21.4 D
26.7
C
22.4
+1.0
D
28.8
+2.1
18 Finley Rd/Project Driveway (Equestrian Staging Area)
E
County
SSSC*
—
— —
—
A
8.5
—
A
8.5
—
Notes: * For side‐street stop‐controlled (SSSC) intersections the worst approach delay and LOS is reported. – Intersection delay, LOS, and v/c ratios calculated with Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology using Synchro® software. – Intersections #4 and #5 above are coordinated intersections with leading exclusive pedestrian phases. HCM 2010 methodology does not support the inclusion of exclusive pedestrian phases. To be consistent with the methodology, the leading pedestrian phases only were not implemented in Synchro®. – If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay is decreased. Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc., 2016. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐35 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic As shown in Table 3.12‐7, the Project would result in increased delay, but all intersections would still operate within acceptable LOS standards. As such, impacts to intersection operations under the Existing Plus Project Conditions would be less than significant. Critical Queues Queuing operations were evaluated at the locations identified as critical queue spillback locations under Existing Plus Project Conditions. (Queuing at the project driveways is discussed under Impact TRANS‐5.) Results of the analysis are presented in Table 3.12‐8. Table 3.12‐8: Existing Plus Project Conditions Queuing Results # Intersection Storage Movement Length (ft)
PM
AM PM
—
146
28
190 28
—
77
17
95 18
12
13
7 0
660
353
32
356 34
350
67
43
84 45
—
394
167
37 179
NBL 500
241
243
241 244
SBL 310
133
160
134 162
EBL 245
119
135
119 137
WBL —
284
159
302 168
SBT/L Camino SBR Tassajara/Lusitano Street‐Tassajara Hills ES EBLa Driveway WBL WBT/R
Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk 12 Road–Crow Canyon Road Existing Plus Project
95th Percentile Queue (ft)
AM
NBL/T/R 2 Existing
95th Percentile Queue (ft)
70
b B
Notes: – 95th Percentile queue lengths were obtained from Synchro® v8 software. – Storage lengths are not given for through lanes or segment lengths, but rather, only shown for turn pockets. a The Synchro® analysis did not indicate that queues would spill back, but this was observed for a short period during the Existing AM peak hour due to school traffic. b The Tassajara Hills Elementary School driveway is proposed to provide 2 full lanes in each direction in addition to a 100‐foot WBR turn pocket at the intersection in Plus Project conditions. For the Plus Project conditions, the WBR turn 95th percentile queue is shown. Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc., 2016.
As shown in Table 3.12‐8, none of the turn pocket storage lengths are over‐capacity when compared with the 95th percentile queue. It should be noted, however, that while the Synchro® analysis did not indicate that queues would spill back, this physically was observed for a short period (10 minutes) at the Camino Tassajara/Lusitano Street‐Tassajara Hills ES Driveway during the Existing AM peak hour due to school traffic. Nonetheless, because the 95th percentile queue did not increase by 25 feet or more, impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the Project would provide two full lanes (i.e., no pocket) in Plus Project conditions at the southbound approach of the school driveway to alleviate intersection congestion. Freeway Segments Traffic operations were evaluated at the study freeway segments under Existing Plus Project Conditions. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 3.12‐9. 3.12‐36 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐9: Existing Plus Project Conditions Freeway Analysis Existing Conditions Interstate 580 Facility AM Peak No. Study Segment Existing Plus Project Conditions PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak HOV SOV HOV SOV SOV SOV LOS SOV Volume Volume Density Volume Volume
Density Volume Density Volume
Density Criteria Direction Lanes (vph) (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph) (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS
I‐580–Eden Canyon 1 Road/Foothill Road E EB 4 —
6,211
28.7
D
—
8,004
45.2 F
6,215
28.7
D
8,011
45.2
F
E WB 4 — 7,023 34.9 D —
6,528 31.0 D 7,030 34.9 D 6,535 31.0 D I‐580–Foothill 2 Road/I‐680 Junction E EB 4 —
6,370
29.8
D
—
8,210
47.9 F
6,374
29.8
D
8,217
47.9
F
E WB 4 — 7,203 39.9 E —
6,695 35.3 E 7,210 39.9 E 6,697 35.3 E I‐580–I‐680 3 Junction/ Dougherty Road E EB 5 —
1,704
5.5
A
—
11,320
53.4 F
1,708
5.5
A
11,327
53.5
F
E WB 4 — 8,768 54.6 F —
4,827 22.9 C 8,775 54.7 F 4,829 22.9 C I‐580–
Dougherty 4 Road/Hacienda Drive E EB 7 —
1,665
4.5
A
—
11,059
30.3 D
1,669
4.5
A
11,066
30.3
D
E WB 5 — 8,566 33.7 D —
4,715 17.9 B 8,573 33.7 D 4,717 17.9 B I‐580–Hacienda Drive/Tassajara 5* Road‐Santa Rita Road E EB 5 123
1,625
6.2
A
1,992
9,620
40.6 E
1,629
6.2
A
9,627
40.7
E
E WB 4 — 8,993 58.8 F — 4,950 23.4 C 9,000 58.8 F 4,952 23.4 C E EB 4 117
1,544
7.3
A
1,892
9,139
61.8 F
1,547
7.3
A
9,140
61.8
F
E WB 4 — 8,543 51.0 F — 4,703 22.3 C 8,544 51.0 F 4,705 22.3 C I‐580–Tassajara Road/Fallon 6* Road‐El Charro Road H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐37 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐9 (cont.): Existing Plus Project Conditions Freeway Analysis Existing Conditions Interstate 680 Facility AM Peak No. Study Segment Existing Plus Project Conditions PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak HOV SOV HOV SOV SOV SOV LOS SOV Volume Volume Density Volume Volume
Density Volume Density Volume
Density Criteria Direction Lanes (vph) (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph) (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS
I‐680–W Las Positas 7 Boulevard/ Stoneridge Drive E NB 3 —
3,634
19.6
C
—
5,595
34.6 D
3,637
19.6
C
5,604
34.6
D
E SB 3 — 6,901 54.3 F — 3,804 20.5 C 6,910 54.3 F 3,806 20.5 C I‐680–
Stoneridge 8 Drive/I‐580 Junction E NB 3 —
3,909
21.2
C
—
6,019
39.6 E
3,912
21.2
C
6,028
39.6
E
E SB 3 — 7,424 68.1 F 4,092 22.3 C
7,433 68.1 F 4,094 22.3 C I‐680–I‐580 9 Junction/Dublin Boulevard E NB 3 —
4,597
26.0
C
—
7,079
59.2 F
4,600
26.0
C
7,088
59.2
F
F SB 3 — 8,731 170.2 F —
4,813 27.6 D
8,740 170.2 F 4,815 27.6 D I‐680–Dublin Boulevard/ 10 Alcosta Boulevard E NB 4 —
4,597
18.6
C
—
7,079
32.0 D
4,600
18.6
C
7,088
32.0
D
E SB 4 — 8,731 48.0 F 4,813 19.5 C
8,740 48.0 F 4,815 19.5 C I‐680–Alcosta Boulevard/ 11* Bollinger Canyon Road E NB 3 659
3,883
21.1
C
1,331
5,664
35.6 E
3,886
21.2
C
5,673
35.8
E
E SB 3 1,550 7,077 59.2 F 783 3,973 21.7 C
7,086 59.4 F 3,975 21.7 C E NB 4 3,671
14.8
B
1,258
5,355
22.0 C
3,674
14.8
B
5,364
22.0
C
F SB 4 1,466 6,691 29.3 D 740 3,756 15.2 B
6,700 29.4 D 3,758 15.2 B I‐680–Bollinger Canyon 12* Road/Crow Canyon Road 623
—
—
H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐38 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐9 (cont.): Existing Plus Project Conditions Freeway Analysis Existing Conditions Facility AM Peak No. Study Segment Existing Plus Project Conditions PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak HOV SOV HOV SOV SOV SOV LOS SOV Volume Volume Density Volume Volume
Density Volume Density Volume
Density Criteria Direction Lanes (vph) (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph) (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS
I‐680–Crow Canyon 13* Road/Sycamore Valley Road E NB 4 F SB 4 I‐680–Sycamore Valley 14* Road/Diablo Road E NB 3 F SB 3 I‐680–Diablo 15* Road/El Charro Boulevard E NB 3 F SB 3 3,836
15.5
B
1,315
5,595
23.1 C
3,836
15.5
B
5,595
23.1
C
1,531 6,991 31.4 D 773 3,925 15.8 B
6,991 31.4 D 3,925 15.8 B 4,189
23.1
C
1,436
6,110
41.2 E
4,206
23.2
C
6,115
41.2
E
1,672 7,634 77.0 F 844 4,286 23.7 C
7,639 77.1 F 4,300 23.8 C 4,142
22.8
C
1,420
6,041
40.2 E
4,159
22.9
C
6,046
40.3
E
1,653 7,548 73.6 F 835 4,237 23.4 C 7,553 73.8 F 4,251 23.5 C 651
711
703
Notes: – Freeway segment thresholds for this analysis were derived from the 2013 CCTA CMP and the 2013 ACTC CMP were referenced. – Freeway segments operating below the standardized segment threshold as shown in the LOS Criteria column are shown in bold. Significant impacts are highlighted. – The analysis was performed using HCS 2010 software. – For freeway segments where an auxiliary lane is > 2,500 feet in length, weaving does not apply; therefore, the auxiliary lane is considered to be a basic freeway lane for the purposes of this analysis. – AADT obtained from Caltrans Traffic Data Branch (2013). * An asterisk indicates the freeway segment contains a high‐occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. For these segments, the HOV lanes and traffic volumes were excluded from the analysis. HOV traffic volumes were removed from the Caltrans’s indicated peak‐hour traffic volumes using information obtained from the Caltrans 2013 Managed Lanes Report. (a) Directional volumes in vehicles per hour (vph) calculated as: AADT x K‐Factor x D‐Factor percentage. The K‐Factor is the percentage of AADT during the peak hour for both directions of travel. The D‐Factor is the percentage of the peak‐hour travel in the peak direction. “K” and “D” factors multiplied with the AADT gives the one way peak period directional flow rate or the design hourly volume (DHV). (b) pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc., 2016. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐39 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic As shown in Table 3.12‐9, the following freeway segments do not function within acceptable standards (see LOS Criteria column) according to criteria set forth by CCTA and ACTC under the Existing Conditions analysis scenario: I‐580 Eastbound PM Peak Hour 1. 2. 3. 6. I‐580–Eden Canyon Road/Foothill Road I‐580–Foothill Road/I‐680 Junction I‐580–I‐680 Junction/Dougherty Road I‐580 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road‐El Charro Road I‐580 Westbound AM Peak Hour 3. I‐580–I‐680 Junction/Dougherty Road 5. I‐580–Hacienda Drive/Tassajara Road‐Santa Rita Road 6. I‐580–Tassajara Road/Fallon Road‐El Charro Road I‐680 Northbound PM Peak Hour 9. I‐680–I‐580 Junction/Dublin Boulevard I‐680 Southbound AM Peak Hour 7. 8. 10. 11. I‐680–W Las Positas Boulevard/Stoneridge Drive I‐680–Stoneridge Drive/I‐580 Junction I‐680–Dublin Boulevard/Alcosta Boulevard I‐680–Alcosta Boulevard/Bollinger Canyon Road These segments operate below acceptable LOS standards (see LOS Criteria column) under Existing Conditions. The addition of the Project would increase traffic volumes along these freeway segments, and they would continue to operate deficiently. Impacts are discussed separately below. I‐580 Eastbound Freeway The eastbound freeway segments of I‐580 between Eden Canyon Road and Dougherty Road and between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road currently operate at LOS F under Existing Conditions during the PM peak hour (segments 1, 2, 4, and 6). With the addition of the Project, these segments would continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The Project trips would add approximately 0.06 percent volume to the freeway traffic. Because the freeway segments operate at LOS F, which is below the standard for freeway facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. I‐580 Westbound Freeway The westbound freeway segments of I‐580 between Dougherty Road and the I‐680 Junction (segment 3) and between Fallon Road and Hacienda Drive (segments 5 and 6) currently operate at LOS F for Existing Conditions during the AM peak hour. With the addition of the Project, these segments would continue to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. The Project trips would add approximately 0.06 percent volume to freeway traffic. Because the freeway segments operate at LOS F, which is below the standard for freeway facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. 3.12‐40 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Source: Kimley Horn, 2016
26480008 • 05/2016 | 3.12-6_plus_peak_turning.cdr
Exhibit 3.12-6
Existing Plus Project Conditions
Peak Hour Turning Movements
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • TASSAJARA PARKS PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic I‐680 Northbound Freeway The northbound freeway segments of I‐680 between the I‐580 Junction and Dublin Boulevard (segment 9) currently operate at LOS F under Existing Conditions during the PM peak hour. With the addition of the Project, these segments would continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The Project trips would add approximately 0.13 percent volume to freeway traffic. Because the freeway segment operates at LOS F, which is below the standard for freeway facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. I‐680 Southbound Freeway The southbound freeway segments of I‐680 between Bollinger Canyon Road and Dublin Boulevard (segments 10 and 11), and between the I‐580 Junction and West Las Positas Boulevard (segments 7, 8, and 9) currently operate at LOS F under Existing Conditions during the AM peak hour. With the addition of the Project, these segments would continue to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. The Project trips would add approximately 0.12 percent volume to freeway traffic. Because the freeway segment operates at LOS F, which is below the standard for freeway facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. Summary Under MM TRANS‐1, the Project applicant would be required to pay applicable Tri‐Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) fees. The fees contribute to the construction of planned freeway improvements, including HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, interchange improvements as well as other regional transportation improvements. Significant portions of I‐580 and I‐680 within the study area will be part of a Bay Area Express Lanes Network as part of Plan Bay Area, the Regional Transportation Plan adopted by MTC’s Commissioners in July 2013. It designates a network of existing or planned HOV lanes that will be converted to Express Lanes and has been coordinated by MTC, but has included the direct planning and design work of the Congestion Management Agencies and Transportation Authorities of the counties in which the lanes will operate. In the Project vicinity, the following segments are planned for construction as part of the Bay Area Express Lanes Network: Under Construction  I‐680—Conversion of existing HOV lanes between Walnut Creek and San Ramon (22.5 miles).  I‐580—New express (HOT) lanes and conversion of existing lanes between Livermore and Dublin (13.2 miles). Planned Future Improvements  I‐680—New express (HOT) lanes (gap closure) between San Ramon and Sunol (20.1 miles).  I‐580—New express (HOT) lanes between Tracy and Livermore (16.8 miles). Payment of these fees would help to reduce the Project’s impacts on the I‐580 and I‐680 segments. However, because the implementation and timing of these improvements are beyond the control of Contra Costa County, and because it has not been quantified if these improvements would fully mitigate the Project’s contribution to the existing deficiency, impacts to freeway segments would remain significant and unavoidable. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐43 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM TRANS‐1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project applicant shall pay the applicable Tri‐Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fees, which shall serve as partial mitigation for the impact to freeway segments. The fees contribute to the construction of planned freeway improvements, including HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, interchange improvements as well as other regional transportation improvements, including a contribution toward the new West Dublin BART Station. Impact fees are due at time of receipt of building permits. Payment of these fees will partially mitigate the incremental impact. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Near‐Term Plus Project Conditions Impact TRANS‐2: The Project would generate new trips that would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations under Near‐Term Plus Project conditions. Impact Analysis This impact identifies potential impacts to intersection operations, critical queues, and freeway segments under the Near‐Term Plus Project scenario. Each is discussed separately below. Analysis sheets are provided in Appendix I. The Near‐Term Plus Project scenario was derived by adding the trips generated by two development projects in vicinity of the Project Site to the existing traffic volumes, and facility operations were assessed using the existing roadway network and geometry. The two development projects include the Creekside Memorial Park Cemetery and the Alamo Creek residential subdivision. The purpose of the Near‐Term Plus Project scenario is to analyze likely conditions at the time the Project is completed, taking into consideration two nearby, approved projects that may likely be completed in a similar time frame. The Near‐Term traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 3.12‐7. The Near‐Term Plus Project scenario traffic volumes were derived by adding the peak‐hour trip assignment for the Project to the Near‐Term traffic volumes. The Near‐Term Plus Project peak‐hour intersection volumes are shown in Exhibit 3.12‐8. Intersection Operations Traffic operations were evaluated at the study intersections under near‐term conditions plus traffic generated by the Project, as seen in Exhibit 3.12‐8. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 3.12‐10. Locations operating unacceptably are bolded and significant Project impacts are highlighted. 3.12‐44 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐10: Near‐Term Plus Project Conditions Intersection Delay and LOS Near Term AM Peak Int# Intersection LOS Criteria
1 Camino Tassajara/Ballfields–Project Driveway (Full Access)
E
County
2 Camino Tassajara/Lusitano St–Tassajara Hills ES Driveway
E
3 Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk Dr–Charbray St
4 Jurisdiction Control
Near Term + Project PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
∆Delay
LOS Delay ∆Delay
Signal
A
1.4 A
2.0
A
6.4
+5.0
A
6.4
+4.4
County
Signal
D
48.0 A
9.9
D
50.5
+2.5
B
10.2
+.3
E
County
Signal
C
20.9 B
13.9
C
22.2
+1.3
B
14.4
+.5
Camino Tassajara/Hansen Ln–Diablo Vista MS Driveway
E
Danville
Signal
E
57.9 A
8.1
E
74.4
+16.5
A
8.5
+.4
5 Camino Tassajara/Oak Gate Dr–Lawrence Rd
E
Danville
Signal
E
65.1 B
10.1
F
83.6
+18.5
B
10.7
+.6
6 Camino Tassajara/Mansfield Dr–Jasmine Wy E
Danville
Signal
C
24.4 A
7.5
C
32.6
+8.2
A
7.8
+.3
7 Camino Tassajara/Parkhaven Dr E
Danville
Signal
A
8.4 A
5.4
A
9.7
+1.3
A
5.7
+.3
8 Camino Tassajara/Buckingham Dr–Rassani Dr
E
Danville
Signal
C
34.0 B
11.0
D
43.6
+9.6
B
11.5
+.5
9 Camino Tassajara/Conejo Dr E
Danville
Signal
B
13.2 A
6.5
B
17.1
+3.9
A
6.9
+.4
10 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Ranch Dr E
Danville
Signal
D
41.6 C
22.9
D
51.5
+9.9
C
23.8
+.9
11 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Village Dr E
Danville
Signal
A
5.4 B
10.6
A
5.4
0
B
10.6
0
12 Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk Rd–Crow Canyon Rd
E
Danville
Signal
D
49.9 D
43.4
D
52.0
+2.1
D
45.1
+1.7
13 Camino Tassajara/Old Blackhawk Rd–Liverpool St
E
Danville
Signal
B
15.9 A
9.4
B
16.4
+.5
A
9.5
+.1
14 Camino Tassajara/Holbrook Dr E
Danville
Signal
D
37.7 A
9.8
D
41.4
+3.7
B
13.4
+3.6
15 Camino Tassajara/Sycamore Valley Rd E
Danville
Signal
D
37.6 C
23.4
D
45.4
+7.8
C
24.5
+1.1
16 Dougherty Rd/Crow Canyon Rd E
San Ramon
Signal
B
16.2 D
46.7
B
17.0
+.8
D
50.6
+3.9
17 Camino Tassajara/Finley Rd E
County
SSSC*
C
22.8 D
33.3
C
24.0
+1.2
E
36.6
+3.3
18 Finley Rd/Project Driveway (Equestrian Staging Area)
E
County
SSSC*
—
— —
—
A
8.7
—
A
8.6
—
Notes: * For side‐street stop‐controlled (SSSC) intersections the worst approach delay and LOS is reported. – Intersections that are operating below LOS thresholds are shown in bold. Significant impacts are highlighted in blue. – Intersection delay, LOS, and v/c ratios calculated with Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology using Synchro® software. – Intersections #4 and #5 above are coordinated intersection with leading exclusive pedestrian phases. HCM 2010 methodology does not support the inclusion of exclusive pedestrian phases. To be consistent with the methodology, the leading pedestrian phases only were not implemented in Synchro®. – If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay is decreased. – It should be noted that calculations of delay at saturated conditions (i.e., LOS F) are less reliable than at LOS E or better. Therefore, delay in excess of 80 seconds is reported in the table to allow a relative comparison of without and with Project conditions and should not be interpreted as an exact representation of actual delay. Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc., 2016. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐45 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic As shown in Table 3.12‐10, the Project results in increased delay and causes a significant impact at the following intersection:  Intersection #5: Camino Tassajara/Oak Gate Drive–Lawrence Road (AM peak hour) The intersection of Camino Tassajara and Oak Gate Drive‐Lawrence Road (Intersection #5) currently operates at LOS E (65.1 seconds per vehicle [s/veh]) under Near‐Term Conditions during the AM peak hour. With the addition of the Project, the intersection would worsen to operate at LOS F (83.6 s/veh) during the AM peak hour. The impact is triggered when the Project generates 85 percent of its trips, which equates to approximately 123 of the proposed 125 single‐family dwelling units. Because the intersection operates at LOS F, which is below the standard for intersection facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. With the implementation of MM TRANS‐2, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS C (31.4 s/veh) for the AM peak hour. However, because the implementation and timing of this improvement are beyond the control of Contra Costa County (the intersection is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville), impacts to this intersection would remain significant and unavoidable. Critical Queues Queuing operations were evaluated at the locations identified as critical queue spillback locations under Near‐Term Plus Project traffic conditions. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 3.12‐11. Table 3.12‐11: Near‐Term Plus Project Conditions Queuing Results # Intersection Movement Near‐Term
Near‐Term Plus Project
95 Percentile Queue (ft)
95th Percentile Queue (ft)
th
AM
PM
AM PM
—
243
92
254 97
—
78
23
79 23
62
16
81 12
660
415
43
441 44
350
81
82
83 85
—
435
232
38 0
NBL 500
241
247
241 249
SBL 310
135
169
136 170
EBL 245
119
138
119 139
WBL —
308
177
325 185
NBL/T/R SBT/L Camino SBR Tassajara/Lusitano 2 Street‐Tassajara Hills ES EBLA Driveway WBL WBT/R
Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk 12 Road‐Crow Canyon Road Storage Length (ft)
70
B B
Notes: – 95th Percentile queue lengths were obtained from Synchro® v8 software. – Storage lengths are not given for through lanes or segment lengths, but rather, only shown for turn pockets. A.
The Synchro® analysis did not indicate that queues would spill back, but this was observed for a short period during the Existing AM peak hour due to school traffic. B.
The Tassajara Hills Elementary School driveway is proposed to provide 2 full lanes in each direction in addition to a 100‐foot WBR turn pocket at the intersection in Plus Project conditions. For Plus Project conditions, the WBR turn 95th percentile queue is shown. Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc., 2016.
3.12‐46 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic As shown in Table 3.12‐11, none of the turn pocket storage lengths are over‐capacity when compared with the 95th percentile queue. It should be noted, however, that while the Synchro® analysis did not indicate that queues would spill back, spillback was physically observed at the intersection under existing conditions without the Project for a short period (10 minutes) at the Camino Tassajara/Lusitano Street‐Tassajara Hills ES Driveway during the Existing AM peak hour due to school traffic. Implementation of the Project would not worsen the observed spillback. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the Project, as a design feature, would provide two full lanes (i.e., no pocket) to the southbound approach of the school driveway to alleviate intersection congestion. Freeway Segments Traffic operations were evaluated at the study freeway segments under Near‐Term Plus Project traffic conditions. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 3.12‐12. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐47 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐12: Near‐Term Plus Project Conditions Freeway Analysis Near Term Conditions Facility AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak HOV SOV HOV SOV SOV SOV LOS SOV Volume Volume Density Volume Volume
Density Volume Density Volume
Density No. Study Segment Criteria Direction Lanes (vph) (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph) (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS
E EB 4 —
6,219
28.8
D
—
8,026
45.5 F
6,223
28.8
D
8,033
45.5
F
E WB 4 — 7,034 35.0 D — 6,548 31.1 D 7,041 35.1 E 6,555 31.2 C I‐580–Foothill 2 Road/I‐680 Junction E EB 4 —
6,378
29.9
D
—
8,232
48.3 F
6,382
29.9
D
8,239
48.3
F
E WB 4 — 7,214 40.0 E — 6,715 35.5 E 7,221 40.0 E 6,717 35.5 E I‐580–I‐680 Junction/ 3 Dougherty Road E EB 5 —
1,712
5.6
A
—
11,342
53.7 F
1,716
5.6
A
11,349
53.7
F
E WB 4 — 8,779 54.8 F — 4,847 22.9 C 8,786 54.9 F 4,849 23.0 C E EB 7 —
1,673
4.5
A
—
11,081
30.3 D
1,677
4.5
A
11,088
30.3
D
E WB 5 — 8,577 33.7 D — 4,735 17.9 B 8,584 33.8 D 4,737 17.9 B E EB 5 123
1,633
6.2
A
1,992
9,642
40.8 E
1,637
6.2
A
9,649
40.9
E
E WB 4 — 9,004 59.0 F — 4,970 23.5 C 9,011 59.1 F 4,972 23.5 C E EB 4 117
1,548
7.3
A
1,892
9,153
62.1 F
1,551
7.3
A
9,154
62.1
F
E WB 4 — 8,555 51.1 F — 4,719 22.3 C 8,556 51.2 F 4,721 22.4 C I‐580–Eden Canyon 1 Road/Foothill Road Interstate 580 Near Term Plus Project Conditions I‐580–
Dougherty 4 Road/Hacienda Drive I‐580–Hacienda Drive/Tassajara 5* Road‐Santa Rita Road I‐580–Tassajara Road/Fallon 6* Road‐El Charro Road H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐48 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐12 (cont.): Near‐Term Plus Project Conditions Freeway Analysis Near Term Conditions Facility AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak HOV SOV HOV SOV SOV SOV LOS SOV Volume Volume Density Volume Volume
Density Volume Density Volume
Density No. Study Segment Criteria Direction Lanes (vph) (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph) (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS
I‐680–W Las Positas 7 Boulevard/Ston
eridge Drive Interstate 680 Near Term Plus Project Conditions E NB 3 —
3,640
19.6
C
—
5,621
34.9 D
3,643
19.6
C
5,630
35.0
D
E SB 3 — 6,921 54.7 F — 3,820 20.6 C 6,930 55.0 F 3,822 20.7 C I‐680–
Stoneridge 8 Drive/I‐580 Junction E NB 3 —
3,915
21.2
C
—
6,045
39.9 E
3,918
21.2
C
6,054
40.0
E
E SB 3 — 7,444 68.7 F — 4,108 22.4 C 7,453 69.0 F 4,110 22.4 C I‐680–I‐580 9 Junction/Dublin Boulevard E NB 3 —
4,603
26.0
D
—
7,105
59.9 F
4,606
26.0
D
7,114
60.2
F
F SB 3 — 8,751 173.6 F — 4,829 27.8 D 8,760 175.6 F 4,831 27.8 D I‐680–Dublin 10 Boulevard/Alco
sta Boulevard E NB 4 —
4,603
18.6
C
—
7,105
32.2 D
4,606
18.6
C
7,114
32.2
D
E SB 4 — 8,751 48.3 F — 4,829 19.6 C 8,760 48.4 F 4,831 19.6 C E NB 3 659
3,889
21.2
C
1,331
5,690
35.9 E
3,892
21.2
C
5,699
36.0
E
E SB 3 1,550 7,097 59.7 F 783 3,989 21.8 C 7,106 60.0 F 3,991 21.8 C E NB 4 3,676
14.8
B
1,258
5,377
22.1 C
3,679
14.9
B
5,386
22.1
C
F SB 4 1,466 6,708 29.4 D 740 3,769 15.2 B 6,717 29.5 D 3,771 15.2 B I‐680–Alcosta Boulevard/ 11* Bollinger Canyon Road I‐680–Bollinger Canyon 12* Road/Crow Canyon Road 623
H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐49 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐12 (cont.): Near‐Term Plus Project Conditions Freeway Analysis Near Term Conditions Facility AM Peak Near Term Plus Project Conditions PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak HOV SOV HOV SOV SOV SOV LOS SOV Volume Volume Density Volume Volume
Density Volume Density Volume
Density No. Study Segment Criteria Direction Lanes (vph) (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph) (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS
I‐680–Crow Canyon 13* Road/Sycamore Valley Road E NB 4 F SB 4 I‐680–
Sycamore 14* Valley Road/Diablo Road E NB 3 F SB 3 I‐680–Diablo 15* Road/El Charro Boulevard E NB 3 F SB 3 651
3,838
15.5
B
1,315
5,603
23.2 C
3,838
15.5
B
5,603
23.2
C
1,531 6,998 31.4 D 773 3,930 15.9 B 6,998 31.4 D 3,930 15.9 B 4,193
23.1
C
1,436
6,124
41.4 E
4,210
23.2
C
6,129
41.4
E
1,672 7,645 77.4 F 844 4,295 23.8 C 7,650 77.6 F 4,309 23.9 C 4,147
22.8
C
1,420
6,061
40.5 E
4,164
22.9
C
6,066
40.6
E
1,653 7,564 74.2 F 835 4,249 23.5 C 7,569 74.4 F 4,263 23.6 C 711
703
Notes: – Freeway segment thresholds for this analysis were derived from the 2013 CCTA CMP and 2013 ACTC CMP were referenced. – Freeway segments operating below the standardized segment threshold as shown in the LOS Criteria column are shown in bold. Significant impacts are highlighted. – The analysis was performed using HCS 2010 software. – For freeway segments where an auxiliary lane is > 2,500 feet in length, weaving does not apply; therefore, the auxiliary lane is considered to be a basic freeway lane for the purposes of this analysis. – AADT obtained from Caltrans Traffic Data Branch (2013) and the pending and approved near‐term projects. * An asterisk indicates the freeway segment contains a high‐occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. For these segments, the HOV lanes and traffic volumes were excluded from the analysis. HOV traffic volumes were removed from the Caltrans’s indicated peak‐hour traffic volumes using information obtained from the Caltrans 2013 Managed Lanes Report. (a)
Directional volumes in vehicles per hour (vph) calculated as: AADT x K‐Factor x D‐Factor percentage. The K‐Factor is the percentage of AADT during the peak hour for both directions of travel. The D‐Factor is the percentage of the peak‐hour travel in the peak direction. “K” and “D” factors multiplied with the AADT gives the one way peak period directional flow rate or the design hourly volume (DHV). (b) pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc., 2016. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐50 Source: Kimley Horn, 2016
26480008 • 05/2016 | 3.12-7_near_intersection_peak_turning.cdr
Exhibit 3.12-7
Near-Term Intersection
Peak Hour Turning Movements
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • TASSAJARA PARKS PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Source: Kimley Horn, 2016
26480008 • 05/2016 | 3.12-8_near_plus_peak_turning.cdr
Exhibit 3.12-8
Near-Term Plus Project
Peak Hour Turning Movements
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • TASSAJARA PARKS PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic As shown in Table 3.12‐12, the following freeway segments do not function within acceptable standards according to criteria set forth by CCTA and ACTC under the Near Term analysis scenario: I‐580 Eastbound PM Peak Hour 1. 2. 3. 6. I‐580–Eden Canyon Road/Foothill Road I‐580–Foothill Road/I‐680 Junction I‐580–I‐680 Junction/Dougherty Road I‐580 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road‐El Charro Road I‐580 Westbound AM Peak Hour 3. I‐580–I‐680 Junction/Dougherty Road 5. I‐580–Hacienda Drive/Tassajara Road‐Santa Rita Road 6. I‐580–Tassajara Road/Fallon Road‐El Charro Road I‐680 Northbound PM Peak Hour 9. I‐680–I‐580 Junction/Dublin Boulevard I‐680 Southbound AM Peak Hour 7. 8. 10. 11. I‐680–W Las Positas Boulevard/Stoneridge Drive I‐680–Stoneridge Drive/I‐580 Junction I‐680–Dublin Boulevard/Alcosta Boulevard I‐680–Alcosta Boulevard/Bollinger Canyon Road These segments operate below acceptable LOS standards (see LOS Criteria column) under Near‐Term conditions. The addition of the Project would increase the vehicular volume, and the operation would remain below the acceptable standard. These Near‐Term Plus Project freeway segment impacts are discussed separately below. I‐580 Eastbound Freeway The eastbound freeway segments of I‐580 between Eden Canyon Road and Dougherty Road (segments 1, 2, and 3) and between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road (segment 6) operate at LOS F under Near‐Term Conditions during the PM peak hour. With the addition of the Project, these segments would continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The Project trips would add approximately 0.06 percent volume to freeway traffic. Because the freeway segment operates at LOS F, which is below the standard for freeway facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. I‐580 Westbound Freeway The westbound freeway segments of I‐580 between Dougherty Road and the I‐680 Junction (segment 3) and between Fallon Road‐El Charro Road and Hacienda Drive (segment 5 and g) operate at LOS F under Near‐Term Conditions during the AM peak hour. With the addition of the Project, these segments would continue to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. The Project trips would add approximately 0.06 percent volume to freeway traffic. Because the freeway segment operates at LOS F, which is below the standard for freeway facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐55 Transportation and Traffic Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR I‐680 Northbound Freeway The northbound freeway segment of I‐680 between the I‐580 Junction and Dublin Boulevard (segment 9) operates at LOS F under Near‐Term Conditions during the PM peak hour. With the addition of the Project, these segments would continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The Project trips would add approximately 0.13 percent trips to freeway traffic. Because the freeway segment operates at LOS F, which is below the standard for freeway facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. I‐680 Southbound Freeway The southbound freeway segments of I‐680 between Bollinger Canyon Road and Dublin Boulevard (segment 10 and 11), and between the I‐580 Junction and West Las Positas Boulevard (segment 7 and 8) operate at LOS F under Near‐Term Conditions during the AM peak hour. With the addition of the Project, these segments would continue to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. Project trips would add approximately 0.12 percent volume to freeway traffic. Because the freeway segment operates at LOS F, which is below the standard for freeway facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. Summary With the implementation of MM TRANS‐1, the Project applicant would be required to pay the applicable TVTD fees. The fees contribute to the construction of planned freeway improvements, including HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, interchange improvements as well as other regional transportation improvements. Payment of these fees would help to reduce the Project’s impacts on the I‐580 and I‐680 segments. However, because the implementation and timing of these improvements are beyond the control of Contra Costa County, and because it has not been quantified if these improvements would fully mitigate the Project’s contribution to the existing deficiency, impacts to freeway segments would remain significant and unavoidable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS‐1 and the following: MM TRANS‐2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Project applicant shall fund the optimization of the signal timing at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Oak Gate Drive‐Lawrence Road (Intersection #5). This will require signal coordination with Intersection #4: Camino Tassajara and Hansen Lane‐Diablo Vista Middle School Driveway. Both intersections are under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville. Modifications to signal timing shall be reviewed by and meet the approval of the Town of Danville and Contra Costa Public Works Department prior to implementation. Updated timing and signal coordination shall be physically implemented prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 123rd on‐site residential unit. 3.12‐56 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Impact TRANS‐3: The Project would generate new trips that would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Impact Analysis This impact identifies potential impacts to intersection operations, critical queues, and freeway segments under the Cumulative Plus Project scenario. Each is discussed separately below. Analysis sheets are provided in Appendix I. Cumulative (2035) and Cumulative (2035) Plus Project traffic volumes can be seen in Exhibit 3.12‐9 and Exhibit 3.12‐10 respectively. The Cumulative Plus Project scenario was derived by adding Project trips to the Cumulative No Project volumes and assumed network. The assumed network considers the following updates to the roadway network:  Widening of Crow Canyon Road to six lanes, which modifies the intersection geometry at Study Intersection #16: Dougherty Road/Crow Canyon Road.  Express (toll) lanes on I‐580 spanning from Hacienda Drive to Greenville Road in the eastbound direction, and from Greenville Road to San Ramon Road/Foothill Road in the westbound direction (ACTC 2013). The Express (toll) lane network will also include the portion of I‐680 between the Contra Costa/Alameda County line and SR‐84. Year 2035 roadway link volumes from the most recent CCTA Travel Demand Forecast model were obtained from the County. The model was used to plot bi‐directional AM and PM peak‐hour traffic volumes on each segment along roadways within the study area. Model base year (2010) and horizon year (2035) forecast volumes were compared to determine the annual incremental growth in traffic volumes at study intersection approach and departure links. Year 2035 turning movement volumes were calculated by adding the growth increment to the 2015 traffic count volumes to calculate the final adjusted roadway link forecast volume. Final adjusted forecast volumes were then converted to Cumulative (2035) intersection turning movement volumes using a process commonly referred to as the Furness method. The Furness method uses an iterative process to derive future turning movement volumes based on future year roadway link volumes and an initial estimate of turning percentages (obtained from the 2015 intersection turning movement counts). Intersection Operations Traffic operations were evaluated at the study intersections under Cumulative (2035) conditions plus traffic generated by the Project, as seen in Exhibit 3.12‐10. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 3.12‐13. Locations operating unacceptably are shown in bold, and significant Project impacts are highlighted. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐57 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐13: Cumulative (2035) Plus Project Conditions Intersection Delay and LOS Cumulative Int# Intersection AM Peak Cumulative + Project PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak LOS Criteria Jurisdiction Control LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay ∆Delay LOS Delay ∆Delay 1 Camino Tassajara/Ballfields–Project Driveway (Full Access) E County Signal A 1.3 A 1.8 A 6.6 +5.3 A 6.3 +4.5 2 Camino Tassajara/Lusitano St–Tassajara Hills ES Driveway E County Signal D 53.1 B 10.0 E 55.2 +2.1 B 10.2 +.2 3 Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk Dr–Charbray St E
County
Signal
D
35.1 B
19.8
D
38.9
+3.8
C
20.6
+.8
4 Camino Tassajara/Hansen Ln–Diablo Vista MS Driveway
E
Danville
Signal
F
100.0 B
10.8
F
120.7
+20.7
B
12.7
+1.9
5 Camino Tassajara/Oak Gate Dr–Lawrence Rd E
Danville
Signal
F
109.3 B
13.8
F
137.8
+28.5
B
16.3
+2.5
6 Camino Tassajara/Mansfield Dr–Jasmine Wy E
Danville
Signal
D
54.5 B
10.4
E
68.0
+13.5
B
11.4
+1.0
7 Camino Tassajara/Parkhaven Dr E
Danville
Signal
B
15.5 A
8.1
C
22.5
+7.0
A
9.2
+1.1
8 Camino Tassajara/Buckingham Dr–Rassani Dr E
Danville
Signal
F
82.2 B
17.9
F
96.5
+14.3
B
19.8
+1.9
9 Camino Tassajara/Conejo Dr E
Danville
Signal
C
32.5 A
9.3
D 42.2 +9.7 B
10.4
+1.1
10 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Ranch Dr E
Danville
Signal
E
71.3 E
56.3
F
82.7
+11.4
E
62.5
+6.2
11 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Village Dr E
Danville
Signal
A
5.5 B
11.1
A
5.6
+.1
B
11.2
+.1
12 Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk Rd–Crow Canyon Rd
E
Danville
Signal
E
62.2 D
50.2
E
65.0
+2.8
D
52.9
+2.7
13 Camino Tassajara/Old Blackhawk Rd–Liverpool St
E
Danville
Signal
B
17.6 B
10.3
B
18.5
+.9
B
10.4
+.1
14 Camino Tassajara/Holbrook Dr E
Danville
Signal
D
45.8 B
10.3
D
50.3
+4.5
B
10.4
+.1
15 Camino Tassajara/Sycamore Valley Rd E
Danville
Signal
D
50.7 C
34.5
E
60.3
+9.6
D
37.2
+2.7
16 Dougherty Rd/Crow Canyon Rd E
San Ramon
Signal
C
25.1 D
52.9
C
26.7
+1.6
E
55.5
+2.6
17 Camino Tassajara/Finley Rd E
County
SSSC*
D
33.6 E
48.1
E
36.4
+2.8
F
55.0
+6.9
18 Finley Rd/Project Driveway (Equestrian Staging Area)
E
County
SSSC*
—
— —
—
A
8.7
—
A
8.6
—
H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐58 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐13 (cont.): Cumulative (2035) Plus Project Conditions Intersection Delay and LOS Cumulative Int# Intersection LOS Criteria AM Peak Jurisdiction Control LOS Delay Cumulative + Project PM Peak LOS Delay AM Peak LOS Delay ∆Delay PM Peak LOS Delay ∆Delay Notes: * For side‐street stop‐controlled (SSSC) intersections the worst approach delay and LOS is reported. – Intersections that are operating below LOS D are shown in bold. Significant impacts are highlighted in blue. – Intersection delay, LOS, and v/c ratios calculated with Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology using Synchro® software. – Intersections #4 and #5 above are coordinated intersection with leading exclusive pedestrian phases. HCM 2010 methodology does not support the inclusion of exclusive pedestrian phases. To be consistent with the methodology, the leading pedestrian phases only were not implemented in Synchro®. – If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay is decreased. – It should be noted that calculations of delay at saturated conditions (i.e., LOS F) are less reliable than at LOS E or better. Therefore, delay in excess of 80 seconds is reported in the table to allow a relative comparison of without and with Project conditions and should not be interpreted as an exact representation of actual delay. Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc., 2016. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐59 Transportation and Traffic Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR As shown in Table 3.12‐13, the Project would result in increased delay and cause a significant impact at the following intersections:  Intersection #4: Camino Tassajara/Hansen Lane–Diablo Vista Middle School Driveway (AM peak hour)  Intersection #5: Camino Tassajara/Oak Gate Drive–Lawrence Road (AM peak hour)  Intersection #8: Camino Tassajara/Buckingham Drive–Rassani Drive (AM peak hour)  Intersection #10: Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Ranch Drive (AM peak hour)  Intersection #17: Camino Tassajara/Finley Road (PM peak hour) All locations except for Intersection #10 and Intersection #17 were deficient under Cumulative No‐
Project conditions during the AM peak hour. The addition of the Project increased traffic at these intersections and the intersections remained deficient. Intersections #10 and #17 became deficient with the inclusion of the Project. Intersection #17 is a side‐street stop controlled intersection and does not meet the MUTCD peak‐hour signal warrant in this analysis scenario. Each impacted intersection is discussed separately below. Camino Tassajara/Hansen Lane‐Diablo Vista Middle School Driveway (Intersection #4) The intersection of Camino Tassajara and Hansen Lane‐Diablo Vista Middle School Driveway (Intersection #4) operates at LOS F (100.0 s/veh) under Cumulative Conditions during the AM peak hour. With the addition of the Project, the intersection would continue to operate at LOS F (120.7 s/veh) during the AM peak hour. Because the intersection operates at LOS F, which is below the standard for intersection facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. With the implementation of MM TRANS‐3a, this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS E (56.6 s/veh) for the AM peak hour. However, because the implementation and timing of this improvement are beyond the control of Contra Costa County (the intersection is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville), impacts to this intersection would remain significant and unavoidable. Camino Tassajara/Oak Gate Drive–Lawrence Road (Intersection #5) The intersection of Camino Tassajara and Oak Gate Drive‐Lawrence Road (Intersection #5) operates at LOS F (109.3 s/veh) under Cumulative Conditions during the AM peak hour. With the addition of the Project, the intersection would continue to operate at LOS F (137.8 s/veh) during the AM peak hour. Because the intersection operates at LOS F, which is below the standard for intersection facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. With the implementation of MM TRANS‐3b, this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D (49.6 s/veh) for the AM peak hour. However, because the implementation and timing of this improvement are beyond the control of Contra Costa County (the intersection is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville), impacts to this intersection would remain significant and unavoidable. 3.12‐60 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Camino Tassajara/Buckingham Drive–Rassani Drive (Intersection #8) The intersection of Camino Tassajara and Buckingham Drive‐Rassani Drive (Intersection #8) operates at LOS F (82.2 s/veh) under Cumulative Conditions during the AM peak hour. With the addition of the Project, the intersection would continue to operate at LOS F (96.5 s/veh) during the AM peak hour. Because the intersection operates at LOS F, which is below the standard for intersection facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. With the implementation of MM TRANS‐3c, this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D (50.7 s/veh) for the AM peak hour. However, because the implementation and timing of this improvement are beyond the control of Contra Costa County (the intersection is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville), impacts to this intersection would remain significant and unavoidable. Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Ranch Drive (Intersection #10) The intersection of Camino Tassajara and Tassajara Ranch Drive (Intersection #10) operates at LOS E (71.3 s/veh) under Cumulative Conditions during the AM peak hour. With the addition of the Project, conditions would worsen to operate at LOS F (82.7 s/veh) during the AM peak hour. Because the intersection operates at LOS F, which is below the standard for intersection facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. With the implementation of MM TRANS‐3d, this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS E (55.8 s/veh) for the AM peak hour. However, because the implementation and timing of this improvement are beyond the control of Contra Costa County (the intersection is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville), impacts to this intersection would remain significant and unavoidable. Camino Tassajara/Finley Road (Intersection #17) The intersection of Camino Tassajara and Finley Road (Intersection #17) operates at LOS E (48.1 s/veh) under Cumulative Conditions during the PM peak hour. With the addition of the Project, conditions would worsen to operate at LOS F (55.0 s/veh) during the PM peak hour. Because the intersection operates at LOS F, which is below the standard for intersection facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. With the implementation of MM TRANS‐3e, this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS E (43.1 s/veh) for the PM peak hour. Furthermore, the intersection does not meet the AM or PM peak‐hour CA MUTCD signal warrant. This intersection is under the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County. As such, impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation. Critical Queues Queuing operations were evaluated at the locations identified as critical queue spillback locations under Cumulative Plus Project traffic conditions. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 3.12‐14. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐61 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐14: Cumulative (2035) Plus Project Conditions Queuing Results # Intersection Camino Tassajara/ Lusitano Street‐
2 Tassajara Hills ES Driveway Movement Cumulative Plus Project 95 Percentile Queue (ft) 95th Percentile Queue (ft) AM PM AM PM NBL/T/R —
253
93
262 100
SBT/L —
79
23
80 24
SBR 70B
71
16
110 17
A
EBL 660
437
43
463 45
WBL 350
83
82
85 88
—
468
274
38 0
NBL 500
321
273
321 276
SBL 310
150
229
151 231
EBL 245
150
160
150 161
WBL —
325
187
344 196
WBT/RB Camino Tassajara/ 12 Blackhawk Road‐
Crow Canyon Road Storage Length (ft) Cumulative th
Notes: th
– 95 Percentile queue lengths were obtained from Synchro® v8 software. – Storage lengths are not given for through lanes or segment lengths, but rather, only shown for turn pockets. A. The Synchro® analysis did not indicate that queues would spill back, but this was observed for a short period during the Existing AM peak hour due to school traffic. B.
The Tassajara Hills Elementary School driveway is proposed to provide 2 full lanes in each direction in addition to a 100‐foot WBR turn pocket at the intersection in Plus Project conditions. For Plus Project conditions, the WBR turn 95th percentile queue is shown. Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc., 2016.
As shown in Table 3.12‐14, none of the turn pocket storage lengths are over‐capacity when compared with the 95th percentile queue. It should be noted, however, that while the Synchro® analysis did not indicate that queues would spill back, spillback was physically observed at the intersection under existing conditions without the Project for a short period (10 minutes) at the Camino Tassajara/Lusitano Street‐Tassajara Hills ES Driveway during the Existing AM peak hour due to school traffic. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the Project would provide two full lanes (i.e., no pocket) at the southbound approach of the school driveway to alleviate intersection congestion. Freeway Segments Traffic operations were evaluated at the study freeway segments under Cumulative Plus Project traffic conditions. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 3.12‐15. 3.12‐62 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐15: Cumulative (2035) Plus Project Conditions Freeway Analysis Cumulative Conditions Facility AM Peak HOV LOS SOV Volume No. Study Segment Criteria Direction Lanes (vph) PM Peak SOV Volume Density (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS
AM Peak PM Peak HOV SOV SOV Volume Volume Density Volume Density (vph) (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS
SOV Volume
Density (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS
E EB 4 1,106
7,105
35.6
E
1,473
9,144
65.0
F
7,109
35.7
E
9,151
65.1
F
E WB 4 1,292 9,154 65.2 F 1,205 7,113 35.7 E 9,161 65.4 F 7,120 35.7 E I‐580–Foothill 2 Road/I‐680 Junction E EB 4 1,017
7,229
36.8
E
1,521
9,022
62.2
F
7,233
36.8
E
9,029
62.3
F
E WB 4 1,366 8,469 58.0 F 676 7,520 43.3 E 8,476 58.1 F 7,522 43.3 E I‐580–I‐680 3 Junction/ Dougherty Road E EB 5 424
4,319
14.0
B
1,532
13,286 95.3
F
4,323
14.0
B
13,293
95.6
F
E WB 4 2,016 10,134 94.9 F 816 5,676 26.9 D 10,141
95.2 F 5,678 26.9 D I‐580–
Dougherty 4 Road/Hacienda Drive E EB 7 215
3,632
9.8
A
1,799
13,316 39.8
E
3,636
9.8
A
13,323
39.8
E
E WB 5 1,905 9,543 40.0 E 852 5,945 22.5 C 9,550 40.1 E 5,947 21.6 C I‐580–Hacienda Drive/Tassajara 5* Road‐Santa Rita Road E EB 5 212
3,137
11.9
B
1,824
11,065 56.1
F
3,141
11.9
B
11,072
56.1
F
E WB 4 1,859 9,381 67.5 F 746 6,378 30.6 D 9,388 67.7 F 6,380 30.6 D E EB 4 220
1,974
9.4
A
994
9,694
76.8
F
1,977
9.4
A
9,695
76.8
F
E WB 4 1,951 8,543 51.0 F 1,467 5,716 27.1 D 8,544 51.0 F 5,718 27.1 D I‐580–Eden Canyon 1 Road/Foothill Road Interstate 580 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions I‐580–Tassajara Road/Fallon 6* Road‐El Charro Road H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐63 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐15 (cont.): Cumulative (2035) Plus Project Conditions Freeway Analysis Cumulative Conditions Facility AM Peak HOV LOS SOV Volume No. Study Segment Criteria Direction Lanes (vph) Interstate 680 I‐680–W Las Positas 7 Boulevard/ Stoneridge Drive Cumulative Plus Project Conditions PM Peak SOV Volume Density (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS
AM Peak PM Peak HOV SOV SOV Volume Volume Density Volume Density (vph) (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS
SOV Volume
Density (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS
E NB 3 447
3,634
19.6
C
1,761
5,595
34.6
D
3,637
19.6
C
5,604
34.7
D
E SB 3 2,311 6,901 54.3 F 735 3,804 20.5 C 6,910 54.5 F 3,806 20.6 C I‐680–
Stoneridge 8 Drive/I‐580 Junction E NB 3 412
3,909
19.0
C
1,619
6,019
39.6
E
3,912
21.2
C
6,028
39.7
E
E SB 3 2,122 7,424 68.1 F 473 4,092 22.3 C 7,433 68.3 F 4,094 22.3 C I‐680–I‐580 Junction/ 9 Dublin Boulevard E NB 3 329
4,597
26.0
C
804
7,079
59.2
F
4,600
26.0
C
7,088
59.5
F
F SB 3 1,510 9,561 1194.3 F 962 5,961 39.2 E 9,570 1265.5 F 5,963 39.2 E I‐680–Dublin Boulevard/ 10 Alcosta Boulevard E NB 4 1,208
4,597
18.6
C
1,574
7,079
32.0
D
4,600
18.6
C
7,088
32.0
D
E SB 4 1,510 9,561 61.6 F 962 5,961 25.0 C 9,570 61.9 F 5,963 25.0 C E NB 3 1,120
4,139
22.8
C
1,377
5,869
38.1
E
4,142
22.8
C
5,878
38.2
E
E SB 3 1,426 7,363 67.2 F 829 4,447 24.9 C 7,372 67.6 F 4,449 24.9 C E NB 4 950
4,541
18.3
C
1,116
5,696
23.7
C
4,544
18.4
C
5,705
23.7
C
F SB 4 1,668 7,227 33.1 D 1,162 4,618 18.7 C 7,236 33.1 D 4,620 18.7 C I‐680–Alcosta Boulevard/ 11* Bollinger Canyon Road I‐680–Bollinger Canyon 12* Road/Crow Canyon Road H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐64 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 3.12‐15 (cont.): Cumulative (2035) Plus Project Conditions Freeway Analysis Cumulative Conditions Facility AM Peak HOV LOS SOV Volume No. Study Segment Criteria Direction Lanes (vph) Cumulative Plus Project Conditions PM Peak SOV Volume Density (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS
AM Peak PM Peak HOV SOV SOV Volume Volume Density Volume Density (vph) (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS
SOV Volume
Density (vph)(a) (pc/mi/ln)(b) LOS
I‐680–Crow Canyon 13* Road/Sycamore Valley Road E NB 4 1,124
5,228
21.4
C
1,348
6,350
27.2
D
5,228
21.4
C
6,350
27.2
D
F SB 4 1,709 7,747 37.3 E 1,221 5,353 22.0 C 7,747 37.3 E 5,353 22.0 C I‐680–Sycamore Valley 14* Road/Diablo Road E NB 3 1,140
5,269
31.6
D
1,456
6,213
42.6
E
5,286
31.8
D
6,218
42.7
E
F SB 3 1,766 7,874 87.8 F 1,097 5,204 31.0 D 7,879 88.1 F 5,218 31.1 D I‐680–Diablo 15* Road/El Charro Boulevard E NB 3 1,054
5,396
32.8
D
1,263
6,211
42.6
E
5,413
33.0
D
6,216
42.7
E
F SB 3 1,728 7,774 82.9 F 1,339 5,400 32.9 D 7,779 83.2 F 5,414 33.0 D Notes: – Freeway segment thresholds for this analysis were derived from the 2013 CCTA CMP and 2013 ACTC CMP were referenced. – Freeway segments operating below the standardized segment threshold (as shown in LOS Criteria column) are shown in bold. Significant impacts are highlighted in blue. – The analysis was performed using HCS 2010 software. – For freeway segments where an auxiliary lane is > 2,500 feet in length, weaving does not apply; therefore, the auxiliary lane is considered to be a basic freeway lane for the purposes of this analysis. * An asterisk indicates the freeway segment contains a high‐occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. For these segments, the HOV lanes and traffic volumes were excluded from the analysis. The CCTA 2014 Travel Demand Model was used to determine non‐HOV traffic volumes. (a)
Directional volumes in vehicles per hour (vph) calculated by taking the Existing volumes and applying the growth rates obtained from the Contra Costa County Travel Demand Model, 2014.
(b)
pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc., 2016. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐65 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic As shown in Table 3.12‐15, the following freeway segments do not function within acceptable standards according to criteria set forth by CCTA and ACTC under the Cumulative Plus Project scenario: I‐580 Eastbound PM Peak Hour 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. I‐580–Eden Canyon Road/Foothill Road I‐580–Foothill Road/I‐680 Junction I‐580–I‐680 Junction/Dougherty Road I‐580–Hacienda Drive/Tassajara Road‐Santa Rita Road I‐580 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road‐El Charro Road I‐580 Westbound AM Peak Hour 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. I‐580–Eden Canyon Road/Foothill Road I‐580–Foothill Road/I‐680 Junction I‐580–I‐680 Junction/Dougherty Road I‐580–Hacienda Drive/Tassajara Road‐Santa Rita Road I‐580–Tassajara Road/Fallon Road‐El Charro Road I‐680 Northbound PM Peak Hour 9. I‐680–I‐580 Junction/Dublin Boulevard I‐680 Southbound AM Peak Hour 7. 8. 10. 11. I‐680–W Las Positas Boulevard/Stoneridge Drive I‐680–Stoneridge Drive/I‐580 Junction I‐680–Dublin Boulevard/Alcosta Boulevard I‐680–Alcosta Boulevard/Bollinger Canyon Road These segments currently operate below the applicable LOS standards (see LOS Criteria column) under Cumulative Conditions, and the addition of Project traffic would exacerbate these deficiencies. Each impacted segment is discussed separately below. I‐580 Eastbound Freeway The eastbound freeway segments of I‐580 between Eden Canyon Road and Dougherty Road (segments 1, 2, and 3) and between Hacienda Road and Fallon Road‐El Charro Road (segments 5 and 6) operate at LOS F under Cumulative Conditions during the PM peak hour. With the addition of the Project, these segments would continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The Project trips would add approximately 0.06 percent volume to freeway traffic because the freeway segment operates at LOS F, which is below the standard for freeway facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. I‐580 Westbound Freeway The westbound freeway segments of I‐580 between Dougherty Road and Eden Canyon Road (segments 1, 2, and 3) and between Fallon Road‐El Charro Road and Hacienda Drive (segment 5 and 6) operate at LOS F under Cumulative Conditions during the AM peak hour. With the addition of the Project, these segments would continue to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. The Project trips would add approximately 0.06 percent volume to freeway traffic. Because the freeway segment operates at LOS F, which is below the standard for freeway facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. 3.12‐66 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic I‐680 Northbound Freeway The northbound freeway segments of I‐680 between the I‐580 Junction and Dublin Boulevard (segment 9) operate at LOS F under Cumulative Conditions during the PM peak hour. With the addition of the Project, these segments would continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The Project trips would add approximately 0.13 percent volume to freeway traffic because the freeway segment operates at LOS F, which is below the standard for freeway facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. I‐680 Southbound Freeway The southbound freeway segments of I‐680 between Bollinger Canyon Road and Dublin Boulevard (segment 10 and 11), and between the I‐580 Junction and West Las Positas Boulevard (segment 7 and 8) operate at LOS F under Cumulative Conditions during the AM peak hour. With the addition of the Project, these segments would continue to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. The Project trips would add approximately 0.12 percent volume to freeway traffic. Because the freeway segment operates at LOS F, which is below the standard for freeway facilities of LOS E, this is a significant impact. Freeway Segment Summary With the implementation of MM TRANS‐1, the Project applicant would be required to pay the applicable TVTD fees. The fees contribute to the construction of planned freeway improvements, including HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, interchange improvements as well as other regional transportation improvement. Payment of these fees would help to reduce the Project’s impacts on the I‐580 and I‐680 segments. However, because the implementation and timing of these improvements are beyond the control of Contra Costa County, and because it has not been quantified if these improvements would fully mitigate the Project’s contribution to the existing deficiency, impacts to freeway segments would remain significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Analysis Summary Under the Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, the project would cause a significant impact at five intersections. Implementation of mitigation would result in acceptable LOS at all five intersections; however, because four of the impacted intersections are under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville, the implementation and timing of mitigation are beyond the control of Contra Costa County. Therefore, impacts to intersections #4, #5, #8, and #10 would remain significant and unavoidable. No significant impacts would occur at critical queue locations under this scenario; therefore, no related mitigation is required and impacts would be less than significant. Project traffic would exacerbate deficiencies on several freeway segments under this scenario and would therefore result in significant related impacts. Implementation of mitigation (payment of TVTD fees) would help reduce the Project’s freeway segment impacts but, for the reasons indicated above, would not fully mitigate the impacts. Therefore, under the Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, the project would result in significant unavoidable impacts to freeway segments even after the implementation of mitigation. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐67 Transportation and Traffic Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS‐1 and: MM TRANS‐3a Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Project applicant shall fund optimization of the signal timing at the intersection of Camino Tassajara/Hansen Lane‐
Diablo Vista Middle School Driveway (Intersection #4). This will require signal coordination with Intersection #5: Camino Tassajara and Oak Gate Drive‐Lawrence Road. Both intersections are under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville. Modifications to signal timing shall be reviewed by and meet the approval of the Town of Danville and Contra Costa Public Works Department prior to implementation. MM TRANS‐3b Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Project applicant shall fund optimization of the signal timing at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Oak Gate Drive‐Lawrence Road (Intersection #5). This will require signal coordination with Intersection #4: Camino Tassajara and Hansen Lane‐Diablo Vista Middle School Driveway. Both intersections are under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville. Modifications to signal timing shall be reviewed by and meet the approval of the Town of Danville and Contra Costa Public Works Department prior to implementation. MM TRANS‐3c Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Project applicant shall fund optimization of the intersection signal timing at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Buckingham Drive‐Rassani Drive (Intersection #8). This intersection is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville. Modifications to signal timing shall be reviewed by and meet the approval of the Town of Danville and Contra Costa Public Works Department prior to implementation. MM TRANS‐3d Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Project applicant shall fund optimization of the intersection signal timing at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Tassajara Ranch Drive (Intersection #10). This intersection is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville. Modifications to signal timing shall be reviewed by and meet the approval of the Town of Danville and Contra Costa Public Works Department prior to implementation. MM TRANS‐3e Prior to the opening of the Future Equestrian Staging Area, the Project applicant shall add a 50‐foot southbound right‐turn pocket to the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Finley Road (Intersection #17). Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. 3.12‐68 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Source: Kimley Horn, 2016
26480008 • 05/2016 | 3.12-9_2035_peak_turning.cdr
Exhibit 3.12-9
Cumulative (2035)
Peak Hour Turning Movements
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • TASSAJARA PARKS PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Source: Kimley Horn, 2016
26480008 • 05/2016 | 3.12-10_2035_plus_peak_turning.cdr
Exhibit 3.12-10
Cumulative (2035) Plus Project
Peak Hour Turning Movements
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • TASSAJARA PARKS PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Elementary School Driveway and Circulation Impact TRANS‐4: The Project would not substantially increase traffic volumes and cause transportation facilities to degrade below acceptable standard levels at the Tassajara Hills Elementary School driveway. Impact Analysis The Northern Site is located directly adjacent to Tassajara Hills Elementary School. The School has only one ingress and egress point, located on Camino Tassajara (Intersection #2 Camino Tassajara/Lusitano St–Tassajara Elementary School Driveway). As part of the Project, the school parking lot and driveway would be reconfigured to allow for a larger parking lot capacity and more efficient drop‐off and pick‐up operations (Exhibit 2‐7a). This reconfiguration is designed to improve existing conditions related to congestion at and adjacent to the school site at pick‐up and drop‐off times. This existing deficiency is not caused by the Project. The Project’s proposed improvements (that are being proposed as a Project design feature) to the existing school driveway and parking area include two ingress lanes and two egress lanes, as well as a westbound right‐turn pocket at the Camino Tassajara intersection to improve driveway circulation. The proposed site plan also identifies three continuous circulating aisles on the site with 60 degree angled parking spaces on the easterly side of the lot and in the center of the lot (i.e., inside of the general circulating lanes). The school driveway operations were analyzed due to known existing issues at the driveway during AM and PM drop‐off and pick‐up, respectively. School Drop‐Off/Arrival Period (AM Peak Hour) The Tassajara Hills Elementary School Driveway and drop‐off operations were observed during a typical weekday in March 2015. The drop‐off arrival period lasted for approximately 30 minutes in the morning. During this 30‐minute period, there was a distinct 10‐minute peak within that period where arrivals were concentrated and congestion was highest. The intersection’s eastbound left‐
turn queue operated over capacity during this 10‐minute period (8:05 to 8:15 a.m.).4 At 8:12 a.m., it was observed to overflow and block the eastbound through lane. All other turn pockets were observed to be within their capacity. Approximately eight eastbound vehicles were observed bypassing the over‐capacity eastbound left‐turn lane and making an eastbound to westbound U‐turn at the adjacent Ballfields intersection, and making a westbound right turn into the school driveway. The school’s on‐site circulation was observed to be congested. The maximum queue extended approximately 120 feet north of the school driveway and Camino Tassajara intersection on the school site. A few parked vehicles were observed to obstruct the school’s circulating lanes as they backed up from an on‐site parking space into the parking lot drive isle. Due to the constrained capacity on the school site, many parents would drop their children off along Lusitano Street south of the school decreasing the roadway capacity and operations along this leg of the intersection. This also increased the number of northbound pedestrians crossing the westerly leg of the intersection at 4
The analysis of critical queue spillback locations includes this intersection within the analysis. It should be noted that although the th
th
95 percentile queues does not recognize the short, 10‐minute period observed at over‐capacity for the EBL, the 50 percentile queues are cited in the tabular notes for the critical queue analysis tables to compensate. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐73 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Camino Tassajara. It was concluded that the signalized intersection at Camino Tassajara, specifically the over‐capacity eastbound left, and the utilization of Lusitano Street served as a meter to limit the demand placed on the school site during this 10‐minute peak period, as the capacity on the school site is limited and would likely not accommodate the current demand. The school drop‐off period overlaps with the Existing AM peak hour of the Project’s traffic analysis. The preceding are in‐person observations to supplement that analysis. The full analysis of the existing intersection operations and queuing are provided in the TIS under Existing Conditions (Appendix I). School Pick‐Up/Dismissal Period (School Dismissal Peak Hour) The Tassajara Hills Elementary School Driveway (Intersection #2) was analyzed for operational conditions specifically during the school’s afternoon dismissal period (2:30–3:30 p.m.) during a typical weekday in March 2015. Existing school peak‐hour intersection turning movement counts were conducted for the school dismissal baseline assessment. The volumes were projected to the Cumulative year 2035 using the same methodology as the PM peak‐hour volumes. Growth was only indicated to occur along the mainline for this period, and no projected increase in school vehicular volumes were assumed. The Existing and Cumulative baseline volumes for the afternoon school dismissal period are shown in Exhibit 3.12‐11. The Existing and Cumulative Plus Project volumes are also shown in Exhibit 3.12‐11. The resulting intersection delay and LOS results are shown in Table 3.12‐16. No Near‐Term scenario was considered for the school dismissal period, as the other near‐term development projects included in the scenario did not indicate any project trips to be generated during this peak hour, and, thus, information on this scenario was not necessary to provide full disclosure of significant impacts. Table 3.12‐16: School Dismissal Intersection Delay and LOS Intersection #2: Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Hills ES Driveway School PM Dismissal (2:20–3:20 p.m.) Base (No Project) LOS Criteria Jurisdiction Control E County Signal Scenario Base Plus Project LOS Delay LOS Delay ∆Delay Existing
B
17.7
B
18.5 +0.8
Cumulative
B
20.0
C
20.6 +0.6
Notes: – Intersection delay, LOS, and v/c ratios calculated with Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology using Synchro® software. – No Near‐Term scenario was analyzed for the elementary school PM peak hour because neither of the near‐term approved projects (i.e., Creekside Cemetery and Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties) identified project trips to be generated during this hour. Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc., 2016. As shown in Table 3.12‐16, there are no significant intersection‐specific impacts during this analysis period. Based on a site visit conducted during a typical weekday afternoon dismissal, the intersection queues operated within the capacity of the storage pockets due to the staggered 3.12‐74 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic arrivals. The eastbound left‐turn maximum queue was observed to be eight vehicles (approximately 200 feet) and the westbound right‐turn maximum queue was observed to be three vehicles (approximately 75 feet). The eastbound left and westbound left turn pockets have a capacity of 660 feet and 350 feet, respectively. However, the school driveway was observed to be congested. The inbound queue into the school driveway was observed to extend almost to the Camino Tassajara intersection prior to school dismissal. Entering vehicles would enter and bypass this queue by driving in the opposing lane and then circulate to the parking lot on‐site and wait. There were also some vehicles observed making a U‐turn within the school parking lot, exiting the school to the south on Lusitano Street and parking. There was noticeable congestion along Lusitano Street during this period due to the school’s circulation issues. Parents would bypass the on‐school circulation by parking and waiting for children in the neighborhood along Lusitano Street. These actions made access to the side‐streets on Lusitano Street difficult due to the influx of parent vehicles utilizing the roadway and neighborhood. Proposed School Circulation Improvements As previously indicated, the Project proposes the reconstruction of the existing Tassajara Hills Elementary School driveway and parking lot, including two ingress lanes and two egress lanes at the intersection to improve existing driveway and parking lot circulation. The Project also proposes three circulating aisles on the site with 60 degree angled parking spaces on the easterly side of the lot and in the center of the lot (i.e., inside of the general circulating lanes). These improvements are not required of the Project applicant and are being provided voluntarily as a community benefit. After review of these improvements, this analysis recommends the following to the proposed site‐plan:  A two‐lane circulation for pick‐up/drop‐off. The outside lane would be a dedicated pick‐
up/drop‐off lane and the inside lane will serve as a passing lane. ‐ Elementary schools are typically recommended to not contain more than two circulating lanes in order to prevent vehicular conflicts with school‐aged children accessing the school.  All parking to be contained within the dual circulating lanes. ‐ Containing the parking spaces within the center of the lot reduces the number of potential blockages to the circulating lanes that egressing parked vehicles will create. It also removes the need for a third circulating lane and promotes better parking lot flow throughout the drive aisles. With this particular site, it also may provide increased parking capacity if the spaces were converted to 90 degree spaces. The conceptual parking lot circulation recommendations can be seen in Exhibit 3.12‐12. All proposed school circulation improvements, including the recommendations made herein, would be reviewed and accepted by the applicant, County, and SRVUSD prior to implementation. Because implementation of the Project would not cause the Camino Tassajara/Lusitano St–Tassajara Elementary School Driveway to operate below standards, impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐75 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Congestion Management Program Impact TRANS‐5: The Project would conflict with an applicable congestion management program’s level of service standards established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Impact Analysis The LOS standards for freeway segments are established in the 2013 CCTA Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for facilities within Contra Costa County, and within the 2013 ACTC CMP for facilities located within Alameda County. These LOS standards were used to evaluate traffic impacts as indicated in Impact TRANS‐1 through TRANS‐3. As indicated in Impact TRANS‐1 through TRANS‐3, the Project would contribute trips to freeway segments already operating below acceptable LOS standards. Implementation of MM TRANS‐1, requiring the payment of applicable TVTD fees, would not fully mitigate the Project’s contribution to unacceptable LOS on impacted freeway segments for the reasons explained in Impacts TRANS‐1 through TRANS‐3. In addition, the Project would result in impacts to Camino Tassajara, a Route of Regional Significance as designated by the CMP. With the implementation of MM TRANS‐2 through MM TRANS‐3e, LOS at impacted Camino Tassajara intersections would be acceptable. However, because several of the impacted intersections are under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville, the implementation and timing of mitigation are beyond the control of Contra Costa County. Therefore, impacts to Camino Tassajara intersections within the Town of Danville would remain significant and unavoidable. Capacity improvements to regional facilities such as freeways are beyond the scope of any single land development project, as the cost of such improvements would be disproportionate to the project’s actual impact. Instead, it is widely recognized and accepted that individual development projects can indirectly mitigate impacts through the payment of traffic impact fees (such as those required under MM TRANS‐1) that fund capital improvements to transportation facilities, including freeways. Payment of these fees would help to reduce the Project’s impacts on the I‐580 and I‐680 segments. However, because the implementation and timing of these improvements are beyond the control of Contra Costa County, and because it has not been quantified, if these improvements would fully mitigate the Project’s contribution to the existing deficiency, impacts to freeway segments would remain significant and unavoidable. No other feasible mitigations exist; therefore, the residual significance of this impact is significant and unavoidable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. 3.12‐76 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Source: Kimley Horn, 2016
26480008 • 05/2016 | 3.12-11_school_turning.cdr
Exhibit 3.12-11
School Dismissal Intersection
Turning Movements
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • TASSAJARA PARKS PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Source: Kimley Horn, 2016
I
26480008 • 05/2016 | 3.12-12_school_parking.cdr
Exhibit 3.12-12
School Parking Lot Conceptual Recommendations
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • TASSAJARA PARKS PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS‐1 through Mitigation Measure TRANS‐3e. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Roadway Safety Impact TRANS‐6: The Project may substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Impact Analysis The existing signalized intersection at Camino Tassajara and the entrance to the Mustang Soccer Complex would be modified to have a fourth leg and provide a full movement intersection to serve as the entrance to the residential development on the Northern Site. A new right in/right out access point would be constructed between the entrance to Tassajara Hills Elementary School and the entrance to the Mustang Soccer Complex. However, this access point would be limited to emergency vehicle access (EVA) only, and, therefore, this access point is not included in this analysis. Vehicular access would also be provided to the Future Equestrian Staging Area from Finley Road via the existing side‐street stop‐controlled intersection. A network of internal residential streets consisting of two lanes, parking on both sides, and separated sidewalks would provide on‐site access to the residential lots. On‐site circulation was evaluated at the Project’s driveway and qualitatively assessed within the Project Site. The 95th percentile project driveway queues (i.e., the intersection’s southbound approach) were analyzed to be 33 feet in the AM peak hour and 24 feet in the PM peak hour. These queues are minimal and will not have any impact on site access or circulation of the currently designed internal roadway network. At this time, there are no confirmed intersection controls listed for the Project’s internal intersections. For safety concerns, this is considered a potentially significant impact. However, MM TRANS‐6a would require that all intersections on‐site be side‐street stop‐controlled or yield controlled intersections on the minor approaches in accordance with the 2014 revised California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) guidance as stated in Section 2B.04 as part of the final design review process. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. The recommendations concerning the Project Site and driveway along Camino Tassajara are shown in Exhibit 3.12‐13. The Future Equestrian Staging Area driveway intersects with Finley Road at an oblique angle. The existing intersection sight distances measured in the field along Finley Road for exiting vehicles are >1,500 feet to the south and 170 feet to the north. The required intersection sight distance according to AASHTO’s geometric design guidelines given the existing roadway speed and approximate grade along Finley Road is 187 feet. The northerly intersection sight distance is currently limited due to the horizontal curvature of Finley Road north of the driveway and the brush within the curb radius. The Project proposes to realign the driveway onto Finley Road, which is anticipated to improve sight distance at this location. Nonetheless, due to the limited site distance H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐81 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic to the north, this is considered a potentially significant impact. MM TRANS‐6b requires the clearing of brush and any obstructions that limit the sight distance within the horizontal radius of Finley Road to ensure that adequate sight distance is provided in the northerly direction. The recommendations concerning the driveway along Finley Road are shown in Exhibit 3.12‐14. With the implementation of this mitigation, impacts would be less than significant. KHA prepared a memorandum titled Site Distance Evaluation at Camino Tassajara/Finley Road Intersection, dated April 6, 2016 (Appendix I) to evaluate the need for an acceleration lane on Camino Tassajara at the intersection to accommodate site distances. As concluded therein, with the incorporation of MM TRANS‐3e, which requires the applicant to add a 50‐foot southbound right‐turn pocket to Finley Road, sufficient site distances would still be present for all turning movements. Therefore, an acceleration lane is not needed and no significant roadway safety impacts would occur at this location. With mitigation, sight distances, emergency vehicle access, and on‐site circulation planned for the Project appear to be adequate. The Project does not include any incompatible uses. No changes to existing site access would occur on the Southern Site. As such, impacts related to roadway hazards would be less than significant with the implementation of recommendations as mitigation. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM TRANS‐6a The Project applicant shall construct all on‐site internal intersections to be side‐
street stop‐controlled or yield controlled intersections at the minor approaches. MM TRANS‐6b Prior implementation of any improvements at the Future Equestrian Staging Area, the Project applicant shall clear brush and any obstructions that limit the sight distance within the horizontal radius of Finley Road to ensure that adequate sight distance (i.e., ≥ 187 feet) is provided in the northerly direction from the Future Equestrian Staging Area’s access driveway. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Emergency Access Impact TRANS‐7: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Impact Analysis The Project driveway and EVA access point would be engineered and constructed in accordance with design standards set forth by Contra Costa County, in consultation with the SRVFPD. The County has established design specifications in part to facilitate the ingress/egress of emergency vehicles. Further, all internal streets would also be designed to comply with all County standards related to emergency vehicle turning radii and vertical/horizontal clearance. As noted in Impact TRANS‐6, emergency vehicle access and on‐site circulation planned for the Project are adequate. Therefore, impacts associated with emergency access would be less than significant. 3.12‐82 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx
Source: Kimley Horn, 2016
I
26480008 • 05/2016 | 3.12-13_driveway_geom.cdr
Exhibit 3.12-13
Primary Access Driveway
Recommended Geometry and Considerations
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • TASSAJARA PARKS PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Source: Kimley Horn, 2016
I
26480008 • 05/2016 | 3.12-14_northern_driveway_geom.cdr
Exhibit 3.12-14
Future Equestrian Staging Area Driveway
Recommended Geometry and Considerations
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • TASSAJARA PARKS PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Conflict with Alternative Transportation Impact TRANS‐8: The Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). Impact Analysis The proposed Project was evaluated to determine if it would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) or generate pedestrian, bicycle, or transit travel demand that would not be accommodated by transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities and plans. The most prevalent option for residents to access their homes and users to access the staging areas on the Project Site is by driving given the current and proposed infrastructure. Walking and biking are also viable options. While no transit currently serves the Project Site, County Connection operates flex service in the vicinity of the Project and TRAFFIX school bus service operates in the vicinity of the Project Site. Annexation into the CSA‐T‐1 district is expected for the Project Site, thus, flex and TRAFFIX service would be extended. Five‐foot sidewalks would be installed on the Project frontage along Camino Tassajara connecting the Project driveway to the adjacent intersection at Lusitano Street–Tassajara Hills Elementary School Driveway. In addition, crosswalks would be striped at the full access Project entrance at Intersection #1 along the northern leg. The existing Class II bicycle lanes along Camino Tassajara from the Ballfields westwards would be preserved with implementation of the Project. A bike lane would also extend along the Northern Site’s entire frontage. The Project would construct necessary on‐site sidewalks, walkways, vehicular parking, and other amenities in compliance with adopted policies, plans and programs; thus, the Project’s impact on transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities is determined to be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2648\26480008\EIR\2 ‐ DEIR\26480008 Sec03‐12 Transportation.docx 3.12‐87 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK