Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.6 Bikeways Master Plan SUBJECT: A TT ACHMENTS: CITY CLERK File # D~~[Q]-[2][(l] If 10-55 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 17,2007 Public Hearing - Bikeways Master Plan: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Amendments to the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the Village Parkway Specific Plan to Incorporate Changes Related to Bicycle Circulation, and Adoption of the Bikeways Master Plan Report Prepared by: Ferd Del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer Jeff Baker, Senior Planner 1) Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bikeways Master Plan, together with Exhibit "A," Mitigated Negative Declaration 2) Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment, and Village Parkway Specific Plan Amendment to incorporate changes related to bicycle circulation 3) Resolution adopting the Bikeways Master Plan, together with Exhibit "A," Bikeways Master Plan 4) Planning Commission Resolution recommending City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bikeways Master Plan (without exhibits) 5) Planning Commission Resolution recommending City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment, and Village Parkway Specific Plan Amendment to incorporate changes related to bicycle circulation and making a Determination of General Plan Conformity for the Proposed Bikeways Master Plan 6) Parks and Community Services Commission Meeting Minutes - June 19,2007 7) Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes - June 26, 2007 8) Bikeways Master Plan revisions since the 3rd Public Meeting COpy TO: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 of9 6.10 ITEM NO. G:ICIPICity Bicycle Master Planlagst Bikeways Master Plan 07 I 707.DOC C/ RECOMMENDATlO~ ~ 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Backllround Open Public Hearing; Receive Staff Presentation; Receive Public Testimony; Close Public Hearing; Deliberate; and Take the following actions: a. Adopt the Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bikeways Master Plan; b. Adopt the Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment, and Village Parkway Specific Plan Amendment to incorporate changes related to bicycle circulation; and c. Adopt the Resolution adopting the Bikeways Master Plan. For Fiscal Year 2006-2007, the City Council approved a City Council High Priority Goal to develop a City- Wide Bikeways Master Plan (Plan). In response to this goal, the Public Works Department initiated a Capital Improvement Program project to develop the Plan and evaluate existing bicycle conditions and access to parks and open space areas. It is anticipated that the Master Plan will be used to prioritize future bicycle projects. The firm ofFehr and Peers was hired in December 2005 to develop the Bikeways Master Plan. In order to maximize public input in developing the Plan, the City held three public meetings and invited City residents, public agencies, businesses and other interested stakeholders. A member of the Planning Commission (Commissioner Doreen Wehrenberg) and a member of the Parks and Community Services Commission (Commissioner Richard Guarienti) attended all three public meetings. The first meeting focused on the scope of the project and at the meeting and comments from the participants were gathered by the consultant. At the second meeting, a draft of the Plan was presented to the participants. Some of the participants' comments on the Plan regarded the inclusion of a Vision Statement created by the public meeting participants; addition of language about the health and economic benefits of bicycling; and support for the implementation of the following capital projects: 1) Alamo Canal Trail under 1-580,2) bicycle facilities on San Ramon Road and Tassajara Road across 1-580; and 3) Dublin Boulevard bicycle lanes. Staff also worked in partnership with staff of the Dublin Unified School District in identifying "Safe Routes to School" and other facilities and programs that would benefit school children. As a result, several trails leading to schools were identified and included in the Bikeways Master Plan, including a proposed bikeway from the Iron Horse Trail to the Dublin High School and Dublin Swim Center facilities. In addition, expansion of the bicycle rodeo program to serve all of Dublin's elementary schools, as well as middle schools to reach older children was recommended in the Plan. Based on the comments received, a draft ofthe Plan was presented at the third public meeting. Page 2 of9 Following the three public meetings, Staff further reviewed the draft Bikeways Master Plan to confirm that the proposed policy recommendations and proposed capital projects contained in the Plan were feasible. Based on this review, further revisions were made to the Plan to clarify the policies and capital projects included in the Plan. Please refer to Attachment 8 of this Staff Report for a list of the modifications to the Plan since the public meetings. These revisions are included in the draft Plan, which is included as Exhibit "A" to Attachment 3 ofthis Staff Report. During the third public meeting, a participant suggested that the City establish a Bikeways Advisory Committee to advise City Staff on the prioritization and scope of bikeways capital projects. Staff evaluated the suggestion to create a Bikeways Advisory Committee. Bikeway capital projects are included in the City's 5- Year Capital Improvement Program. Therefore, Staff recommends presenting proposed bikeway capital projects to the Parks and Community Services Commission once a year for review and comment prior to the projects' inclusion in the City's 5-Year Capital Improvement Program. This presentation would be made to the Parks and Community Services Commission each spring and would be open to the public. Any interested party could provide input through this public process. The Bikeways Master Plan also includes a recommendation to update the Plan every five years. The status of these Plan updates would be presented to the Parks and Community Services Commission for input as well. Additionally, as a part of the budget adoption process every year, the Planning Commission reviews the Capital Improvement Program to ensure that the Program is in conformance with the General Plan. Parks and Communitv Services Commission Action The Parks and Community Services Commission reviewed the proposed Bikeways Master Plan at its meeting on June 18, 2007. The Parks and Community Services Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the Bikeways Master Plan to the City Council (Attachment 6). Planninll Commission Action The Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed General Plan Amendment, and Specific Plan Amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and Village Parkway Specific Plan to incorporate changes related to bicycle circulation. The Planning Commission also made a determination that the proposed Bikeways Master Plan is in conformance with the General Plan. During the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed bicycle connectivity to the future BART Station in downtown Dublin and the need to study bicycle circulation as part of the planning effort for the future Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Attachment 7). Staff noted an error in the legend of the proposed Bikeways Master Plan Figure 4, the proposed General Plan Figure 5-3, and the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Figure 5-3b. These errors have been corrected in the maps that are included as attachments to this Staff Report. The Planning Commission voted 3-0-1 (with one abstention) to recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments (with the changes to the legend of the Bikeways Master Plan Figure 4, General Plan Figure 5-3, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Figure 5-3b), and find the Bikeways Master Plan in conformance with the General Plan. Summarv of the Bikewavs Master Plan Page 3 of9 The Bikeways Master Plan contains goals and policies for developing and implementing a bikeway system that can be broken down into three general categories: . Provide a viable transportation alternative to the automobile and thus improve transportation choices for Dublin residents; . Improve safety for bicyclists; and . Provide residents with access to open space, trails, and other recreational amenities Also embraced in the Plan is a Vision Statement created by the Bikeway Master Plan Public Meeting Participants envisioning the City as a place with many safe and pleasant bikeway facilities, and a City that encourages bicycling as a healthful and enjoyable activity. The City of Dublin's General Plan sets forth a blueprint for a system of bikeways in Dublin. The Bikeways Master Plan builds on that blueprint by creating a comprehensive plan that includes an evaluation of existing conditions, a prioritized list of recommended improvements for both on- and off- street facilities, and recommendations pertaining to bicycle parking, safety, education, and enforcement. In addition, the Plan incorporates policies from a number of documents pertaining to bicycling in Dublin, including the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Downtown Core Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the Municipal Code. The Plan is consistent with Alameda County's Regional Bicycle Plan, Bike Plans and maps from the cities of San Ramon, Pleasanton, and Livermore, and the East Bay Regional Park District's Trails Master Plan. The Plan is anticipated to be updated every five years to reflect its status and maintain City eligibility for certain state funding sources. Goals for the Plan include developing a comprehensive bikeway system for both commuting and recreation, creating links to existing trails, parks, and open space, improving bicycle connections to transit, improving safety, developing programs to encourage bicycling, and maximizing the amount of state and federal funding for which Dublin is eligible. The Plan complies with the California Streets and Highways Code, which is a requirement to compete for funds in the State Bicycle Transportation Account. Dublin residents currently enjoy a system of pedestrian-bicycle trails along creeks, channels, and some major roadways. Many of the new roads under development include either bicycle lanes or adjacent paths. The City has installed bicycle parking at key locations, including the Civic Center and the Dublin Library. Additionally, the Police Department organizes bicycle safety rodeos at several elementary schools each year, and plans to expand this program in the future. The document is intended as a conceptual guide for City Staff and members of the public. Individual projects may differ from the Plan's recommendations, but the main project alignments and policy recommendations should be implemented to the greatest degree possible. Highlights ofthe recommendations include: . Continued development of successful trail corridors such as the Tassajara Creek Trail and improved access to the Iron Horse Trail and other trails; Page 4 of9 . Improved bicycle access to parks and open space including Martin Canyon Creek trailhead, Stagecoach Park, Alamo Creek Park, and Emerald Glen Park; . Bicycle lanes and/or routes on several key cross-City corridors, including Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon Road, Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road; . Bikeways on key freeway crossings, including 1-580 at San Ramon Road and Tassajara Road, and the Alamo Canal Trail Undercrossing; and . Development of education and enforcement programs The City of Dublin can implement portions of the Bikeways Master Plan in public and private development, implementation of City programs, development of new roadway and transit facilities, and scheduled roadway maintenance. For instance, providing bicycle parking as part of the permit process for development projects will accomplish the goal of increasing support facilities for bicyclists within the community. The key policy recommendations contained in the Plan include the following: Supoort Facilities . Evaluate the needs of the community for bicycle parking on a project-by-project basis considering the type of non-residential development, proximity to transit, etc. . Create a list of locations of bike racks and bike lockers available to the public. . Encourage the School District to provide safe and secure bike parking at all schools. Safety and Education . Expand the bicycle rodeo program to serve all of Dublin's elementary schools, as well as middle schools and community centers to reach older children. . Work with the Parks and Community Services Department to identify ways to promote the health benefits of recreational cycling. Consider displaying promotional materials and advertising recreational rides. . Combine the successful Flat Repair Clinics with bicycle rodeos and bicycle safety education for adults, or establish an adult bicycle education program. . Establish a bicycle helmet program through various statewide helmet programs that provides low- cost helmets to youth. . Consider working with Safe Moves, a statewide non-profit organization that has a bicycle and pedestrian safety education program for school children and senior adults. . Educate drivers about the rights of bicyclists by making bicycle safety a part of traffic school curriculum, producing a brochure on bicycle safety and rights for public distribution, providing signs at strategic locations, and other measures. . Collect and analyze bicycle collisions on an annual basis to determine high-collision locations, primary collision factors, helmet use, and other trends, and use this data to develop safety and education programs. Funding and Imolementation . Prepare joint applications with other local and regional agencies. . Use existing funding sources (i.e. Measure B Bike and TDA Article 3 funds) as matching funds for State and Federal funding. . Require construction of bicycle facilities as part of new development review. . Continue to include proposed bikeways as part of roadway projects involving widening, overlays, or other improvements. Page50f9 Monitorinf! . Review roadway improvement plans to ensure that bikeway segments and related improvements are implemented, developer impact fees are identified (if applicable), and design standards are met. . Provide interested residents with materials, information, and other support as the system is being implemented. Plan and manage bicycle promotional and educational events, such as Bike to Work Day and Bike to School Day. . Keep track of long term path maintenance, schedule repairs, and respond to calls from the public or Staff regarding maintenance needs. . Work closely with various funding agencies, such as the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Caltrans to keep abreast of funding opportunities and to follow up on applications to ensure maximum success. . Provide enforcement along bike paths. (Note: Dublin Police Services provides enforcement of City-operated bikeways) . Maintain surface conditions through periodic street sweeping. . Include the maintenance of bikeways in the City's Volunteer Program the maintenance of bikeways. The policy recommendations contained in the Bikeways Master Plan were created in conjunction with the existing bikeway system policies. The City of Dublin General Plan, Specific Plans, and bikeways policies of Alameda County and surrounding jurisdictions helped provide a framework for the detailed policies and recommendations that are contained in the proposed Bikeways Master Plan. General Plan and Specific Plans The City of Dublin General Plan and Specific Plans contain policies regarding bikeways within the City. The Bikeways Section of the General Plan (Section 5.4) contains Guiding Policies and Implementing Policies regarding bikeways. The General Plan also includes Bicycle Circulation System maps (Figures 5-3a & 5-3b) which identify the location of proposed bicycle routes within the City of Dublin. Various Specific Plans also provide policies and maps showing the location of bikeways and facilities within those Specific Plan areas. The proposed Bikeways Master Plan provides more detailed policies as well as revised bicycle circulation routes and bicycle support facilities than currently exist in the General Plan and Specific Plans. The policies contained in the General Plan and Specific Plans must be consistent with the proposed Bikeways Master Plan. Therefore, a General Plan Amendment (GP A) and Specific Plan Amendments (SPA) to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and Village Parkway Specific Plan are proposed, as discussed below, to ensure consistency between the General Plan, the Specific Plans, and the proposed Bikeways Master Plan. ANALYSIS: General Plan Amendment (GP A) Text Amendments The proposed GPA would modify the text contained in the Bikeways Section (Section 5.4) of the General Plan. Specifically, the Guiding Policies and Implementing Policies would be amended to ensure Page 6 of9 consistency with the proposed Bikeways Master Plan. The proposed text amendments are as follows (strike thru is text proposed to be removed, underlined text is text proposed to be added): 5.4 BIKEWAYS The Citv has adooted a Bikewavs Master Plan that encomoasses the PrimarY PlanninQ: Area. Western Extended PlanninQ: Area. and the Eastern Extended PlanninQ: Area. The Bikewavs Master Plan contains Q:oals and oolicies for develooinQ: and imolementinQ: a bikewav svstem that will orovide a viable transoortation alternative to the automobile. imorove safetv for bicvclists. and orovide residents with access to oarks. ooen soace. trails. and other recreational oooortunities. This Plan identifies existinQ: and orooosed bicvcle routes and bicvcle suooort facilities throuQ:hout the olanninQ: areas. Readers should refer to this Plan for additional information reQ:ardinQ: existinQ: and orooosed bicvcle routes and suooort facilities. Guiding Policy A. Provide safe bikeways along arterials (See Figure 5-3a and 5 3b). (Figure 5-3 is included as Exhibit A of Attachment 2) B. Imorove and maintain bicvcle routes and suooort facilities in conformance with the recommendations ofthe Citv's Bikewavs Master Plan. Implementing Policies C. Complete the bikeway systems illustrated on Figure 5-3a and 5 3b. D. Imorove bicvcle routes and suooort facilities in accordance with the Bikewavs Master Plan in coni unction with develooment orooosals. E. Ensure on-Q:oinQ: maintenance of bicvcle routes and suooort facilities that are intended for oublic use and located on orivate orooertv in coni unction with develooment orooosals. Bicvcle Circulation Mao Amendment The proposed GP A would also modify the existing Bicycle Circulation System maps (Figures 5-3a & 5- 3b) to be consistent with the proposed bikeways shown in the proposed Bikeways Master Plan (Bikeways Master Plan Figure 4). The revised circulation map identifies bicycle routes throughout the City of Dublin. The proposed bicycle routes have been consolidated onto one map of the entire City rather than separate maps for the western Dublin and the eastern Dublin areas as currently shown in the General Plan. The proposed circulation map is included as Exhibit A of Attachment 2 of this Staff Report. These modifications to the General Plan are consistent with the Bikeways Master Plan. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) Amendment Text Amendments The proposed EDSP Amendment would modify the text contained in the Bicycle Circulation Section (Section 5.5) of the Specific Plan in order to ensure consistency with the proposed Bikeways Master Plan. The proposed text amendments are as follows: 5.5 BICYCLE CIRCULATION (Please note this paragraph is intended to be inserted after the 1 st paragraph) The Citv has adooted a Bikewavs Master Plan that encomoasses the Eastern Dublin Soecific Plan area. The Bikewavs Master Plan contains Q:oals and oolicies for develooinQ: and imolementinQ: a bikewav svstem that will orovide a viable transoortation alternative to the automobile. imorove safetv for bicvclists. and orovide residents with access to oarks. ooen soace. trails. and other recreational Page 7 of9 oooortumtles. This Plan identifies existinQ: and orooosed bicvcle routes and bicvcle suooort facilities throuQ:hout the Soecific Plan area. Readers should refer to the Bikewavs Master Plan for additional information reQ:ardinQ: existinQ: and orooosed bicvcle routes and suooort facilities. Policy 5-17: Establish a bicycle circulation system which helps to serve the need for non-motorized transportation and recreation in eastern Dublin that is consistent with the Bikewavs Master Plan. Program 5D: The City shall require development projects in eastern Dublin to include provisions for bicycle circulation that are consistent with the Bikewavs Master Plan. and as follows: Bicycle Circulation Map Amendments Figure 5-3 Pedestrian and Bicycle System The bicycle circulation system in eastern Dublin has been revised several times since the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted. A note was subsequently added to the bottom of Figure 5-3 which directs the reader to figure 5-3b for the current bicycle circulation system. Therefore, the note at the bottom of Figure 5-3 has been revised as follows to identify the current amendments. The proposed map is included as Exhibit B of Attachment 2 of this Staff Report. NOTE: Bicvcle Circulation Svstem has been amended. Please refer to FiQ:ure 5-3b for the current bicvcle circulation svstem. Please refer to the Bikewavs Master Plan for additional information. Figure 5-3b East Dublin Bicycle Circulation System The proposed SPA to the EDSP would also modify the existing East Dublin Bicycle Circulation System map (Figures 5-3b) to be consistent with the bikeways shown in the proposed Bikeways Master Plan (Bikeways Master Plan Figure 4). The proposed circulation map is included as Exhibit C of Attachment 2 of this Staff Report. These modifications to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are consistent with the Bikeways Master Plan and the General Plan. Village Parkway Specific Plan Amendment Text Amendment The text of the Village Parkway Specific Plan (VPSP) incorrectly refers to Village Parkway as a designated Class II bike path, when in fact it is classified as a Class III bike path in the existing VPSP and the proposed Bikeways Master Plan. The following text amendment would ensure consistency between the VPSP and the proposed Bikeways Master Plan. Modify Page 20, Paragraph 5, Sentence 2 as follows: Village Parkway is designated as a Class III Bikeway Route, which provides for shared use of a bikeway with either pedestrians on a sidewalk or motor vehicles on a street. This modification to the VPSP is consistent with the Bikeways Master Plan and the General Plan. West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment Circulation System Map Amendment Exhibit 7 West Dublin BART Specific Plan Circulation System Page 80f9 The proposed SPA would modify the existing West Dublin Bart Specific Plan (WDBSP) Circulation System map (Exhibit 7) to be consistent with the proposed Bikeways Master Plan (Bikeways Master Plan Figure 4). The revised circulation map identifies the existing and proposed bicycle routes with the WDBSP area. The proposed Circulation System map is included as Exhibit D of Attachment 2 of this Staff Report. This modification to the WDBSP is consistent with the Bikeways Master Plan. CONCLUSION: The City of Dublin General Plan and Specific Plans set forth a blueprint for a system of bikeways within the City of Dublin. The proposed Bikeways Master Plan is intended for use as a planning tool to guide the creation of a comprehensive bikeway system for both commuting and recreation within the City Limits and Sphere of Influence. The Bikeways Master Plan establishes goals and policies for developing and implementing this bikeway system. The Master Plan also evaluates existing on-street and off-street facilities, includes a prioritized list of improvements for both on-street and off-street facilities, and recommends bicycle support facilities, safety, education programs, and enforcement throughout the City. The policies contained in the General Plan and Specific Plans must be consistent with the proposed Bikeways Master Plan. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, WDBSP, and VPSP ensure consistency between the General Plan, Specific Plans and the proposed Bikeways Master Plan. If the City Council adopts the Bikeways Master Plan, it would not become effective until such time as the Council adopts the proposed conforming changes to the General Plan and several Specific Plans, as discussed above. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines. An Initial Study has been completed and it has been determined that the project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. The public review period began on August 29, 2006, and ended on September 29, 2006. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) received comments requesting the City to obtain an Encroachment Permit for the possible Alamo Creek Trail extension and to provide Caltrans with a copy of the adopted Bikeways master Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Open the public hearing; 2) Receive Staff Presentation; 3) Receive Public Testimony; 4) Close Public Hearing; 5) Deliberate; and 6) Take the following actions: a) Adopt the Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bikeways Master Plan, b) Adopt the Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment, and Village Parkway Specific Plan Amendment to incorporate changes related to bicycle circulation; and c) Adopt the Resolution adopting the Bikeways Master Plan. Page 9 of9 f ':} Jg7 RESOLUTION NO. - 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ********************* ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, in 2005, as part of the Dublin City Council's Goals and Objectives the City Council adopted as a high priority the development of a City-wide Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, in response to this high priority goal, the Public Works Department initiated a Capital Improvement Program project to develop a Bikeways Master Plan and to evaluate existing bicycle conditions and access to parks and open space areas throughout the City; and WHEREAS, in order to maximize public input in developing the Bikeways Master Plan, the City held three public meetings on February 22,2006, March 31, 2006, and July 19, 2006, and invited City residents, public agencies, businesses and other stakeholders to.attend; and WHEREAS, the Bikeways Master Plan contains goals and policies for developing and implementing a bikeway system that: 1) provides a viable transportation alternative to the automobile and thus improves transportation choices for Dublin residents; 2) improves safety for bicyclists; and 3) provides residents with access to open space, trails, and other recreational amenities; and WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan sets forth a blueprint for a system of bikeways in Dublin and the Bikeways Master Plan builds upon that blueprint by creating a comprehensive plan that includes an evaluation of existing conditions, a prioritized list of recommended improvements for both on- and off- street facilities and recommendations pertaining to bicycle parking, safety, education and enforcement; and WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, and has since been amended numerous times; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the original General Plan was prepared and adopted in 1984 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the various General Plan Amendments which have been approved over the years; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects of implementing the proposed Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and General Plan Conformity for the Bikeways Master Plan on June 26,2007; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and Anl_fn9. c2~)g7 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider the foregoing reports, recommendations and testimony and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 07-33 recommending that the Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bikeways Master Plan which is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the project, including the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The City Council considered a Staff Report dated July 17, 2007 and incorporated herein by reference, and all written and oral testimony; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution _-07 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby find that: A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the Bikeways Master Plan as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bikeways Master Plan. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:\CIP\City Bicycle Master Plan\CC Reso MND Bikeways.doc u~ le7 The City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Application File No. PA 06-032 ,r'rub. .- t'oS'n.~\..l' . O\e\1t _ ,\c~1'B O~'J 0\ \\\\"5 o~cu C!\., _. v'S CJ~,R11~ tn"'~) ,:~:~l._. . O'3.y,\~\\').d, C\..Jc;RJ' ':.,...' ,','rUt') .,,' r.' ( n', \\('..:... '1' 'l""j .~.. ~ .,,-~ ("')1'<:;";.-, .-' . Res.....1 . . . -he Rc-~ -. ".,'t, . iel' n. \..' .. ~(. 0'-: .. ~f,,, waS 1)0". .:,.. ,I nre~.CI\"O" , ... .. ~'<.) Ct,':.1 ... , \,<.:>\,nlJ t' _....~I I\'\:. 1 tal tI\e ,v - I..' " E1.ec\\\.C(l ~ F'- J~ ~ Oak\al'~d,' .r () ~ B)' _~ \.J'-J:'q 'l'. Date Lead Agency City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 August 25, 2006 Public review period: August 29, 2006 - September 29, 2006 EXIIIBIT A To the Resolution 4, )2l TABLE OF CONTENTS Environmental Checklist... ........... .......... ......... .................. ........ ....... ........ ................ .................. ........... .........3 Project Description/Environmental Setting.. ...... ................ ....... ... .............. ................. ........ ..... .......................4 Exhibit 1: Regional Context.... ... ........ ........ .............. ....... ...... ................ ........ ................. ............ .............. ......7 Exhibit 2: Existing and Proposed Bikeways .............. ........ ........................ .......... ....... ........... ...... ............ ......8 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ......... ....... ....................... ........... ......... ........ ................................9 Determination. ...... ..... .................... .................. ............... ................ ........... ........... ... ... ........ ....... ........... .......... 9 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts with Discussion .................................................................................10 Aesthetics. ..... . .... .. ... . . .......... . . .... ...... . ... . .. . . .... . . . . . . ... ............. . . .... . . . ...... ... . . ... . . ..... . . . .. . .. . . . .. ..... . ....... . . . . . . .. ... 11 Agricultural Resources ........... ............ ....... .......... ..... ........... .......................... .... ............ ...... ............ ... ...13 Air Quality......... ......... .......................... ....... ...... .... ........... ........ .................. ...... ................. ...... ....... ..... ...14 Biological Resources .... .... .............. ..... ....... ..... ............. ........................ ..... .......... .... ..... ............. .... ........ 16 Cultural Resources........... .............. .................. .......................................... ....... .............. ........... ...........18 Geology and Soils...... ... ...... ........... ................ ................................... ................ .......... ........ ................. .19 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. ................... ....... ...................... ....... ........ ....... ................... ........... .., 21 Hydrology and Water Quality........ ......... ... ........... ........ ....... ..... ....... ........ .,. ..... ........... .... ......... ........ .......23 Land Use and Planning ....... ......... .............. .......... .......... ..... ..... ................. ............... ....... ........ .............. 25 Mineral Resources.... ..... ........ ............... ............. ...................................... ........... ... ................................26 Noise......................................................................................................................... ............................26 Population and Housing. ........ ............ ........... ....... ............ ....... ..... ........ ...... ....... ......... ......... ...... ........ .... 28 Public Services... ............................. ............... ............. .......................... ........ ..... .... ..... .................. ........28 Recreation.... ........... ......... ............... ....... .......... .......... ............................ ....... ................................. .......29 Transportation and Traffic ............ .............. .............. ...................... ... ..... ....... .................. .............. ........29 Utility and Services Systems ............. ......... .............. ............ ........ ..... .... ........ .......... ........... ...... ........ ...... 30 Mandatory Findings of Significance .......... ...... ........... ........ ............. .... ................... ...... .... .......... ........ ... ....... 31 Background Information..... ..... ..... ....... ......... .... .............. ................. ......... ........ ....... ......... ....... ..... ............. ... 33 CLERK'S C'ERTIFlCATE OF POSTtNG. Pub. Res. 21 i:i 2 ;.:: n;,t': ~li:;\ '.\ I.:OVV of lhi:; document was POSI.(:/.! ;.~\ l~k R;'~\l';k;.';. (JUice. UJkL1:Id. CA, for the period rm~l-;crj:")el1 l)\' .;nl, Executed :It Oakland. CA Date 9-vl<j-c>& By (',-,UNTY CLERK Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August25,2006 /,/Jr- , Deputy Page 2 of 33 5 e::f)&7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM -INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to assess the potential environmental impact of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Contact Persons and Phone Number: 4. Project Location: 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General/Specific Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: 8. Surrounding land uses and setting: 9. Public Agency Required Approvals: City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Jeff Baker, Senior Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department (925) 833-6610 Citywide City of Dublin Public Works Department AUn: Ferd Del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Various, Citywide Various, Citywide Various, Citywide None 10. Actions to which this Initial Study may be applied (including but not limited to): ~LERK'S C"ERT!nCf\TE OF POSTING. Pub. ies. 21 ! 52;.,',;111" iil;!, J ,': :~J\' of thi.~ d,lcument .vas po:-;rrd.:\ :\L: ~;\.>:'.'l',."j:'.:; Ot'iiCC. OnKla:ld. CA. r~or th!:" PI.:'\:;l.1. prescnn~.u.l":~:.. ~.~--- F.xecmec: 1: Oaki,wd. C A c: ); : NT',' CLER K Adoption of the Bikeways Master Plan (City of Dublin) General Plan Amendment (City of Dublin) Specific Plan Amendments (City of Dublin) Parks & Recreation Master Plan Amendment (City of Dublin) Date /l-~"i~ ,(. Bv !U-;r' ~ - J v Deputy Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Augusl25.2006 Page 3 of 33 (; l' JS 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Dublin has prepared a Bikeways Master Plan for use as a planning tool to guide the creation of a comprehensive bikeway system for both commuting and recreation within the City limits and sphere of influence. The Bikeways Master Plan establishes goals and policies for developing and implementing this bikeway system. The Master Plan also evaluates existing on-street and off-street facilities, includes a prioritized list of improvements for both on-street and off-street facilities, and recommends bicycle support facilities, safety, education programs, and enforcement throughout the City. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional location of the project and surrounding communities in the Tri-Valley Region. The Bikeways Master Plan relies on guidelines and design standards established by Caltrans and included in the Highway Design Manual to identify the types of proposed bikeway facilities. Caltrans standards provide for three distinct types of bikeway facilities which include Class I (Bike Path), Class II (Bike Lane), and Class III (Bike Route) facilities. Class I bike paths have completely separate right-of-way and are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with minimal vehicle and pedestrian cross-flow minimized. Class II bike lanes are restricted right-of-way and are designated for the use of bicycles with a stripped lane on a street. Class III bike routes have right-of-way designate with signs or pavement markings for shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicles. Existing Facilities The City of Dublin currently has approximately 21 miles of bikeway facilities and a partial network of paved and unpaved trails. This includes 13 miles of Class I bike paths, 8 miles of Class II bike lanes, and 1/3 mile of Class III bike routes. Exhibit 2 illustrates existing facilities and proposed facilities within the City. Recommended Facilities The Bikeways Master Plan identifies a bikeways system that provides links to existing and future employment centers, transit facilities, and recreation areas. The creation of this bikeway system would require improvements to existing city streets; existing parks, open space, and public land owned by Zone 7 and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD); incorporation of design concepts in-to future development plans for currently undeveloped areas of the City where development has already been anticipated to occur; and potential freeway crossing locations within the Caltrans right-of-way. Exhibit 2 identifies existing and proposed bikeway facilities. The Bikeways Master Plan includes recommendations regarding the general location of proposed bikeways and trail facilities throughout the City of Dublin. The proposed facilities may be constructed through the CIP program or when private development projects occur. Therefore, the timing and exact location of such facilities is not known at this time. Bikeway Facilities within Existing Right-of-Way The proposed Bikeways Master Plan includes Class I, Class II, and Class III facilities within existing right-of-way. New Class I facilities will require construction of bike paths that are separated from vehicle traffic. Proposed Class II and Class III facilities will require striping and signage within the roadway to identify the path for bicyclists and motor vehicles. The construction of such bikeway facilities within existing right-of-way would need to be Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August 25, 2006 Page 4 of 33 '11 )~7 incorporated into the City of Dublin Capital Improvement Program adopted by the City Council. Therefore, the timing of such improvements is not known at this time. Bikeways and Trails within Existing Parks, Open Space, and Public Land Future bikeway paths, open space trails, and related facilities such as trailheads and rest areas are proposed with in existing parks, open space, and on public land owned by Zone 7 and DSRSD. The exact location of such facilities has not been determined. Bikeways, Trails, and Related Facilities within Undeveloped Areas of Dublin The Bikeways Master Plan includes recommendations for Class I, Class II, and Class III bikeways, and trails and related facilities within currently undeveloped areas of the City of Dublin where development has already been planned to occur. New Class I facilities will require construction of bike paths that are separated from vehicle traffic. Class II and Class III facilities will require striping and signage within future right-of-way to identify the path for bicyclists and motor vehicles. Trails would be constructed within proposed parks and open space area. These facilities would be incorporated into the overall development application for the property where they area located and constructed as part of the development project. Bikeways that Cross 1-580 within Caltrans Right-of-Way The Bikeways Master Plan recommends bicycle connections across 1-580 to bicycle facilities within the City of Pleasanton. These potential crossings have been identified as future study areas and will require further review and coordination with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton. These links could include freeway under crossings, over crossings, or bicycle paths on existing vehicle over crossings. Relationship of the Bikeways Master Plan to Other Planning Documents The Bikeways Master Plan is but one of the City of Dublin's land use planning documents. The Bikeways Master Plan will be used in conjunction with the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Village Parkway Specific Plan. the Downtown Core Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, the San Ramon Road Specific Plan, and other applicable documents. The Bikeways Master Plan will be used as the primary document to implement the General Plan goals and policies related to bicycle circulation. Environmental Analysis The City of Dublin, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Initial Study to assess the potential environmental effects of the adoption of the Bikeways Master Plan. This analysis is intended to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and to provide the City with accurate information for project review. The Bikeways Master Plan covers the entire City of Dublin, and includes recommendations for facilities in a variety of different environmental settings. Throughout this Initial Study for the Bikeways Master Plan, we will examine potential environmental impacts as they occur in the following settings: 1. Existing right-oJ-way: Right-of-way that has already been dedicated and improvements constructed. 2. Existing parks, open space, and public land: Existing park and open space area, and land owned by Zone 7 and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August 25, 2006 Page 5 of 33 g .~ /S; 3. Undeveloped land: Undeveloped land where development has already been planned to occur within the hills of western Dublin and within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. 4. Freeway crossings: Areas identified as future study areas tor bikeways that cross 1-580 on Caltrans right-at-way and provide connections to bikeways to the south of 1-580 outside the City of Dublin. Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August 25. 2006 Page 6 of 33 q 1/07 EXHIBIT 1: REGIONAL CONTEXT Castro Valley Project · DUBLIN Site",\ . · . II Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Negative Declaration August22,2006 Page 7 of 33 tU ~ '87 EXHIBIT 2: EXISTING AND PROPOSED BIKEWAYS 1'i Ii ". ""1' . I}: .:!ti.'#;"I~;W'" .~~ .: ..);::;~":,,",..r'LI .....~. ",.' ~:,::;.... ......!.... . , :i'~ t: ~ \ 11 . ~:::........ :.......A. '.. "...~. . ~ ~...~ '~ . i "-' :;1 a .r ~: : :... iI .# ...-.... '-'9 . r-:r::'" '~. : j...... .1 , ...~.~ I ...~ : .p... ":f:':"::~:.'l'::...~:.:::ii""~-;"'" ~'J ..... ';"-'" . -,~' .-c~ ! t f I HI~~~! I 111 hI III 1".86 \j d tt "f co ! u i i i H ~!j luUh J 11 iJ1!-s ~Jj H~ . i~ ~H H H H: H -AU!"- L!HJJA~ Hl.II !H lI~iil!i ~\ ~ ~. . , .. ..\11 I .' .. \ : .. .. :" .....\ . . ;_. -.. .....7..;..... : : .':_.J 'Ow ... 1(..... ,~.':J . i :' ;1\ ;c ',: . .-."'. i.~'\ " . //'-C;{ /..:X?1:::.~J;1 ,......... . <" ...... ...i::..;:' ,: , : ~" I ./ '.~;' .~. ~ ~~. ';-r !:., ~, ':,. '.'7 '''~~,..' en ~ ca ~ Q) ~ -- m " Q) f/) o Q. e 0- " C C\1 0) C .- .. en -;< w '. Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Negative Declaration August22,2006 Page 8 of 33 )f;f 181 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Aesthetics - Agricultural Resources - I Air Quality - Biological Resources - Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils - Hazards and Hazardous - Hydrology/Water Quality - Land Use/ Planning Materials - Mineral Resources - Noise - Population/Housing - Public Services - Recreation - Transportation/ Circulation - Utilities/Service Systems - Mandatory Findings of - Sianificance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a X significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. . I find that the proposed project MAY have a .potentially significant impactft or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. SignarureY ~A.------ Date: Augusl25, 2006 Printed Name: Jeff Ba er, SenIor Planner For: City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August25,2006 Page 9 of 33 (;2 ~ /:17 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Scope of the Environmental Assessment This environmental assessment addresses the potential impacts of the Bikeways Master Plan in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The scope of review includes only potential impacts resulting from development of the facilities described in the Bikeways Master Plan. Any potential site- specific environmental impacts not anticipated during this environmental review will need to be addressed as part of that application submittal consistent with CEQA requirements. The method of environmental analysis includes a review to determine whether the impact related to the City's evaluation criteria would be: potentially significant; less than significant if mitigation is incorporated; less than significant; or no impact. The analysis includes a summary of the affected environment and a review of the threshold for determining significance. The evaluation of potential impacts applies the threshold, determines significance and, if necessary, includes recommended mitigation measures. Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts: All of the following sources were used for each determination and are not noted individually: 1. Determination based on the Draft Bikeways Master Plan 2. Determination based on the City of Dublin General Plan (1985, updated to 2005) 3. Determination based on the Final Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report (SCH 95033070) ( 1996) 4. Determination based on the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report. (SCH 91103064) (1994) 5. Determination based on the East Dublin Properties, Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation DSEIR (2002) 6. Determination based on the Fallon Village Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2005062010)(2005) Copies of all the documents referenced above are available for public review at the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568. Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August 25. 2006 Page 10 of 33 Aesthetics Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? I~;f 181 Potenfiafly Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitiqation X X X X a-c) Have a significant impact on scenic vista, damage to scenic resource, degrade visual character of the site? ExistinCl RiQht-of-Wav: Less than SiQnificant Impact. Proposed facilities .involve existing right-of-way in previously developed area. Improvements for Class I facilities include sidewalks or pathways along existing right-of-way. The exact design and location of such facilities has not yet been determined. However, such improvements could result in the need for additional right-of-way or impact existing landscaping, including street trees. Therefore, additional environmental review will be necessary to evaluate potential impacts once a design and location for these facilities has been determined. Improvements for Class II and Class III facilities typically include striping and signs within the right-of-way. These improvements are not anticipated to impact the aesthetic quality of the project area. Existinq Parks, Open Space. and Public Land: Less than siQnificant. Future bikeways, trails, and related facilities are proposed within existing parks, open space, and public land. The exact location of such facilities has not been determined but some facilities may not have been previously considered at these locations. The proposed facilities are consistent with the type of uses typically found in parks, open space, and public land. Therefore, these facilities are anticipated to have a less than significant impact. However, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact location of bikeways, trails, and ancillary facilities are known. For facilities within the Schaefer Ranch development. adherence to Mitigation Measures 5.A.1 (Grading Plan), 5.C.3 (Tree Replacement), and 5.F.1 (Regional Trail) of the Schaefer Ranch EIR, in particular, will ensure that impacts to views are addressed as the open space trails are finalized and fully developed. Undeveloped Land: Less than siQnificant. The undeveloped land within the City of Dublin is primarily vacant except for some residences and scatter agricultural buildings. Any development would have an impact on the visual character of the area and the area's scenic resources. The Schaefer Ranch EIR and the EDSP EIR concluded that alteration of visual character of the hillsides and flatland areas are significant and unmitigatable impacts, and were included in the Statement of Overriding Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August 25. 2006 Page 11 of 33 )'7 ~ )g7 Considerations adopted by the City Council for the Schaefer Ranch EIR and the EDSP EIR. However, Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/3.0, 3.8/4.0-4.5, 3.8/5.0-5.2, 3.8/6.0, 3.8/7.0, and 3.8/7.1 of the EDSP EIR will encourage preservation of important visual resources, minimize grading for development, preserving natural contours in grading and building, prohibit development along identified ridgelines, and preserving views of designated open spaces. No impacts not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and the EDSP EIR and Supplemental EIRs are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Bikeways master Plan, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. Freeway Crossinqs: Less than siqnificant. 1-580 is designated as a scenic highway. Development along this scenic highway is subject to Caltrans standards and the "Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards". These policies would be applied to freeway crossings so impact to aesthetics should be less than significant. However, the design and location of such crossings have not been determined. Therefore, not enough information is available at this time regarding to reach conclusions on potential environmental issues. Additional environmental analysis will be necessary once the crossings have been studied and a project recommendation has been prepared. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Citywide: Less than siqnificant: Proposed facilities include on and off-street bicycle paths, trails, rest area and two trail heads. On street facilities would rely on existing street lights. Off-street facilities do not typically require lighting. However, two trailheads for East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) facilities are planned. One trailhead is proposed as part of the Schaefer Ranch development and the other is for the Tassajara Creek Trail within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Parking lot lighting may be required for these trailheads. This lighting would introduce a new source of light that would be visible from adjacent properties. This additional source of lighting could be pe~ceived as a negative aesthetic impact from the "spill-over" of additional lighting onto adjacent residential area. Mitigation Measure 5.1.1 of the Schaefer Ranch EIR is designed to ensure that night lighting of public facilities does not affect future area residents: "Lighting for proposed public facilities shall be reviewed by the City, with adjustments as needed to minimize any impacts on nearby residential areas, using shields, orientation, and appropriate fixtures." Careful siting along with compliance with the City's lighting regulations will be required for any lighting of the parking area for the Tassajara Creek trailhead. This will ensure that the light impacts from lighting are less than significant. . Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August25,2006 Page 12 of 33 t5'1'27 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as showing on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non:agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use? . Potentially Less than I Less than No Impact Significant Significant I Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation X X X Agricultural Resources Would the project: a - c) Convert prime farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or convert prime farmland to a non- agricultural use? ExistinQ RiQht-of-Wav: No Impact. The existing right-of-way is not located in an agricultural zone or on farmland. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated with regard to the loss of prime farmland or loss of agricultural production. Existino Parks, Open Space, and Public Land: No Impact. The existing parks, open space and public lands do not,have agricultural zoning and are not used as farmland. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated with regard to the loss of prime farmland or loss of agricultural production. Undeveloped Land: Less than Sionificant Impact. The undeveloped areas in the hills of west Dublin have primarily been used for hay production, cattle grazing, and other ranching operations are the main uses in the area. Minor cattle production land would be lost when the greater Schaefer Ranch project is developed, but no prime farmland will be lost. Historically, the property in the east Dublin area has been used for grazing, dry land farming and other agricultural endeavors. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR found that discontinuance of agricultural operations is an insignificant impact based on the large number of non-renewal notices being filed on Williamson Act Agreements within the Eastern Dublin area. Similarly, loss of farmland of local importance in the area would be considered a less-than-significant impact due to the fact that on-site soils are not prime agricultural soils. In 2001, the firm of Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants conducted a prime agricultural land evaluation study in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area for the Eastern Dublin Property Owner's (EDPO) Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation EIR and concluded that no properties within the area are classified as prime agricultural land. Therefore, no bikeway facilities or trails would result in the conversion of any prime fannlands, unique farmlands or farmlands of local or statewide importance to non-agricultural uses. For future trails that are proposed in the western hills outside of the Schaefer Ranch Development, additional environmental analysis may be necessary once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August 25, 2006 Page 13 of 33 .1~~/g( No impacts to agricultural resources not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and EDSP EIR and SEIRs are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. Freewav Crossinqs: No Impact. 1-580 is an existing freeway within the City of Dublin and the surrounding land does not have agricultural zoning and is not used as farmland. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed freeway crossings. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? Existing Riqht-of-Wav: No Impact. Lands with existing right-of-way where bikeway facilities are proposed do not have agricultural zoning and are not subject to Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, no conflicts existing. Existinq Parks, Open Space, and Public Land: No Impact. The existing parks, open space and public land does not have agricultural zoning and is not subject to Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, no conflict exists. Undeveloped Land: No Impact. Under the Williamson Act, the landowner agrees to limit the use of land to agricultural and compatible uses for a minimum period of ten years. In turn, the county in which the land is located taxes the property at a lower rate based upon the agricultural use rather than its real estate market value. Four properties in the undeveloped Fallon Village area of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are under Williamson Act contract and these sites include proposed bikeways, trails, and related facilities. The 2002 Eastern Dublin Properties SEIR noted that notices of non-renewal have been filed on all four parcels in the area, with contracts expiring in 2006, 2009, and 2010. The property owners of the four parcels could request cancellation of these contracts prior to their expiration, but the likelihood of this is unknown at this time. Proposed bikeway facilities and trails on sites with Williamson Act contracts would not be developed until the contracts have expired. No impacts to Williamson Act contracts not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIR and SEIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. Freewav Crossinqs: No Impact. Caltrans right-of-way, does not have agricultural zoning and is not subject to Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, no conflicts existing and no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary . a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation X Air Quality (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August25,2006 Page 14 of 33 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 111 /8'7 x X X X a-b & d-e) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan, violate any air quality standards, expose sensitive receptor to substantial pollutants, or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Air quality impacts result from two main sources: temporary impacts due to project construction and long-term impacts due to project operation. Generally, air quality impacts from project operation are based on vehicular emission from traffic, and bikeway facilities and open space trails are typically not large traffic generators. Exist;nQ Riqht-of-Wav: Less than SiQnificant Impact. Construction related impacts from implement ting the Bikeways Master Plan within the existing right-of-way is anticipated to be less than significant. The operation of these bikeways could improve air quality by reducing the number of motor vehicles on the road. Impacts to air quality would be less than significant. ExistinQ Parks. Open Space, and Public Land: Less than Si<mificant Impact. Potential impacts include construction related dust and emissions impacts to surrounding residences. However, at this time, not enough information is available regarding the future facilities to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. For future bikeway facilities and trails that are proposed in existing parks, open space, and public land, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact location of these facilities are known. Undeveloped Land: Less than Siqnificant Impact. Air quality impacts from construction of bikeway facilities and trails could have a potential impact. Adherence to the Schaefer Ranch EIR mitigation measures 12.A.1, 12.B.1. and 12.G.1, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures 3.11/1.0, 3.11/3.0, and 3.11/4.0 which address potential impacts to air quality such as construction emissions and dust control will ensure that potential air. quality impacts are alleviated. For future off-street trails that are proposed in the western hills outside of the Schaefer Ranch development, additional environmental analysis will be necessary once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. Freewav CrossinQs: No Impact. Construction emissions and dust could impact air quality. However, adherence to the Public Works Department standards for dust control should result in a less than significant impact. Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August 25. 2006 Page 15 of 33 J~ ~ /8'7 c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? Citywide: No Impact. Implementing the Bikeways Master Plan will not generate significant amounts of traffic because bikeways, trails and related facilities are typically low traffic generators. Vehicular emissions are estimated to be minimal and no cumulatively considerable air pollutants are expected to be generated. Therefore, implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan would have no impact. Biological Resources Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive. or special status species in local or regional plans. policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool. coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? n Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation X X X X X X a.~ Have a substantial adverse impact on special-status species, riparian features, movement of fish or wildlife species, or conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan? Existina Riaht-of-Wav: Less than Sianificant Impact: The right-of-way has previously been developed and is located in urbanized areas of Dublin. Improvements typically include re-stripping travel lanes which would have minimal impact on biological resources because they involve existing developed conditions. Existina Parks, Open Space, and Public Land: Less than SiQnificant Impact. The Bikeways Master Plan includes future bikeways, trails, and related facilities within existing parks, open space, and public land. The exact location Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August25,2006 Page 16 of 33 )1 ~ /g'1 of such facilities has not yet been determined and there is not enough information available to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. However, potential impacts include construction related dust and emissions impacts to surrounding residences. Additional environmental analysis will need to be completed once the exact location of these facilities are known. Undeveloped Land: Less than Siqnificant Impacts. The Western Extended Planning Area is home to a variety of habitat, including annual grassland, northern coastal scrub, coast live oak woodland, riparian woodland, fresh water emergent wetland, and aquatic biomes in the stock ponds in the area. A number of special status plant and animal species also have geographic ranges which include the Western Extended Planning Area, as explained in detail on pages 6~ 1 through 6-11 of the Schaefer Ranch EIR. The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified several potential impacts to biological resources that will result from the development of the greater Schaefer Ranch project, including loss of a willow riparian/emergent wetland complex, aquatic habitat and jurisdictional wetlands, grassland, and loss of oak woodland and heritage class trees. A number of special status plant and animal species also have geographic ranges which include the Schaefer Ranch project area. A majority of these impacts will result from the residential and commercial development, but it is possible that minor impacts resulting from the development of the off~street facilities could occur. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 6.A.1 (Emergent Wetland Complex), 6.B.1 (Aquatic Habitat), 6.C.1 (Grassland Revegitation and Habitat Survey), 6.0.1 (Tree Survey and Project Redesign), 6.0.2 (Tree Protection), 6.0.3 (Tree Replacement), 6.E.1 (Plant Material), and 6.F.1 (Herbicide Restrictions) will ensure that impacts to biological resources resulting from the implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan are less than significant. For future trails that are proposed in the western hills of Dublin outside of the Schaefer Ranch development, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR identified twelve special status plants species, seventeen special status amphibians, reptile, bird and mammal species and ten special status invertebrate species which could potentially occur within the entire planning area. Potential impacts to rare, threatened or endangered species have been addressed in the EDSP EIR (1993), the Eastern Dublin Properties SEIR (2002), and the Fallon Village SEIR (2005). Several additional studies have been conducted since the EIRs were certified, including rare plant surveys, wetlands jurisdictional studies, and studies regarding sensitive-species and endangered species. including the San Joaquin kitfox, fairy shrimp, golden eagle and a variety of amphibians and reptiles, which provide a better understanding of the biological resources present in the area. However, no impacts are anticipated with regard to wetlands, wildlife corridors, or riparian features from implementing the Bikeways Master Plan. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains twenty~three policies which address the protection of biological resources, and development of any future park sites, trails, or recreational facilities in the Specific Plan area and the facilities proposed within the Bikeways Mater Plan will need to comply with the policies and programs of the Specific Plan. This will ensure that impacts to these valuable resources are minimized. Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August25,2006 Page 17 of 33 do 1 (~1 No impacts to biological resources not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch E1R and the EDSP EIR and SEIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. Freewav Crossinqs: Less than Siqnificant Impacts. Construction of future bikeway facilities at freeway crossings will require additional environmental analysis once the exact location of these facilities are known. However, at this time, not enough information is available regarding the future facilities to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. Cultural Resources Potentially Less than Less than No (mpact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitiqation X X X X Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature? d} Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? a-d) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic, archeological or paleontological resources or human remains? ExistinQ RiQht-of-Wav: No Impact. The existing right-of-way has previously been disturbed by development of roadways and surrounding development. Improvements for bikeway facilities are not anticipated to generate additional impacts to cultural resources. ExistinQ Parks, Open Space, and Public Land: Less than SiQnificant Impact. The location of bikeways, trails, and related facilities within the existing parks, open space, and public land have not been identified in the Bikeways Master Plan. Therefore, there is not enough information available regarding these proposed facilities to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. Additional environmental analysis will need to be done once the exact location of these facilities are known. No known cultural resources are known to exist that would be impacted by such facilities. Undeveloped Land: Less than sionificant. The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified potential impacts to these resources, including possible impacts to prehistoric resources, rock walls, historic settlement areas, and historic structures. A majority of these impacts will result from the residential and commercial development of Schaefer Ranch, but it is possible that minor impacts resulting from the development of the off-street trails could occur. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 14.A.1 (Notification Procedures), 14.8.1 (Rock Walls), and 14.C.1 (Historic Resources) will ensure that development of off-street facilities will be mitigated to have a less than significant impact on any significant historic, archeological or paleontological resources or human remains in the area. Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August25,2006 Page 18 of 33 ,-, 0/ J :.f /g1 EDSP was written to ensure that the necessary mitigation programs are formulated prior to development. In addition to these policies, Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0 will ensure that all construction activity will cease if any new historic or cultural sites are found, and Mitigation Measures 3.917.0 through 3.9/12.0 will ensure that adequate research is done to assess the historical significance of any resources, encourage adaptive re-use of any historic facilities, and encourage the City to develop a preservation program for historic sites. Adherence to the above mitigation measures adopted with the Schaefer Ranch EIR and the EDSP EIR and SEIRs will ensure that any potential impacts to cultural and historical resources are mitigated to a less than significant level. No impacts to cultural and historical resources not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and the EDSP EIR and SEIRs are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. Freewav Crossinqs: No Impact. Freeway crossing would involve improvements to existing Caltrans right of way that was disturbed during construction of the freeway. No cultural resources are known to existing in the Caltrans right-of-way. No impacts to cultural resources are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan. and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. Geology and Soils Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other known evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Hi) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste? Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitiaation X X X X X X X X a-e) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, landslide, substantial erosion, unstable soils, or liquefaction? Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August 25, 2006 Page 19 of 33 .20<' t;f J37 The project area is located in the central portion of the Coast Ranges geomorphic province. The Coast Ranges are characterized by a series of parallel, northwesterly trending, folded and faulted mountain chains. Mt. Diablo is located approximately nine miles north of the City of Dublin. Active earthquake faults within the region that influence earthquake susceptibility include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras and the Greenville Faults. No future trails, parks sites, or recreational facilities identified in the Master Plan are within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. Similar to many areas of California, the project area is subject to ground shaking caused by the regional faults identified above. Under moderate to severe seismic events, which are probable in the Bay Area over the next 20 years, bikeways facilities would be subject to damage caused by ground shaking. Therefore, implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan will not increase the potential for ground rupture in the project area. ExistinQ Riqht-of-Wav: Less than Siqnificant Impact. The proposed bikeway facilities within the existing right-of- way will require little or no disturbance of soil or existing geotechnical hazards. Therefore,. these facilities will have less than significant impacts. ExistinQ Parks. Open Space, and Public Land: Less than Sionificant Impact. The Bikeways Master Plan contains recommendations for bikeways, trails and related facilities within existing parks, open space, and public land. However, the exact location of such facilities has not been determined. Therefore, additional environmental analysis will need to be done once the exact location of these facilities are known. However, construction of these facilities within existing parks, open space, and public land is anticipated to have minimal impacts on soils and geotechnical hazards that may exist. Undevelooed Land: Less than Siqnificant Impact. The main impacts from implementing the Bikeways Master Plan within undeveloped areas of the City will be the disturbance of the soil resulting from mass grading of the area. A majority of these impacts will result from the residential and commercial development, but it is possible that minor impacts resulting from the development of the facilities proposed in the Bikeways Master Plan may occur. Potential impacts may include mass grading, slope stability, erosion, fill settlement, expansive and corrosive soil, seismic hazard, groundwater, and excavation impacts. However, adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.A to 9.H.1 of the Schaefer Ranch EIR and 3.6/17.0 to 3.6/26.0, and 3.6/27.0 and 3.6/28.0 of the EDSP will reduce the effects of development in the area to less than significant. For future trails that are proposed in the western hills outside of the Schaefer Ranch development, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact location ot-the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. Freewav CrossinQs: Less than Siqnificant Impact. Construction of future freeway crossings for bikeways will require additional environmental analysis once the exact location of these facilities is known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future facilities to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts to soils and geology. Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August25,2006 Page 20 of 33 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a} Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b} Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g} Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h} Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ;;3 ~ /81 Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitiaation X X X X X X X X a-d) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release or emission of hazardous materials, and/or listed as a hazardous materials site? CityWide: Less than Sionificant Impact. Adoption of the plan would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport. use or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Development of bikeways, trails, and related facilities would not involve production of hazardous emissions or require the handling of acute hazardous materials, substances or waste. The location of future bikeways, trails, and related facilities have primarily been used for grazing and ranching activities over the years. There could be some hazardous materials present on future sites that are typical for rural properties engaged in agricultural businesses. Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August25,2006 Page 21 of 33 rY4 ~ /87 Adherence to Mitigation Measures 15.A.1 through 15.A.4 of the Schaefer Ranch EIR for future facilities in Schaefer Ranch project area ensure that any potential impacts from hazardous materials, transformers, wells, and septic systems are mitigated to a less than significant level. For future trails that are proposed in the western hills outside of the Schaefer Ranch development, additional environmental analysis will need to be done once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been completed for the undeveloped portions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area. Any organicides, pesticides, and petroleum-based products typical of agricultural uses that have been discovered in the area are at levels that are considered less than significant Adherence to the above Mitigation Measure will ensure that any potential impacts resulting from hazards and hazardous materials are mitigated to a less than significant level. No impacts resulting from hazards and hazardous materials not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIR and SEIRs, or Schaefer Ranch EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan. e,~ Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? Citywide: No Impact. Potential bikeways, trails and related facilities are not located within an airport land use plan or within the immediate vicinity of a public airport; therefore no impacts are anticipated regarding airport noise or crash hazards zones. No impacts to an airport land use plan or airport not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIR and SEIRs, or the Schaefer Ranch EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. g,h) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan, expose people and structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires, including risks nearby residences intermixed with wildlands? Existinq Riqht-of-Wav: No Impact. Improvements to the existing right-of-way would be fairly limited, and therefore there will be less than significant impacts to emergency services as a result of implementing the Bikeways Master Plan. No additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. ExistinQ Parks, Open Space, and Public Land: No Impact. There are limited new facilities proposed within existing parks, open space and public land, and therefore there will be less than significant impacts to emergency services as a result of implementing the Bikeways Master Plan. Undeveloped Land: Less than Siqnificant Impact. The Schaefer Ranch EIR contains Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 (Fire Response Time Mitigation), 7.3.2 (Fire Protection Measures), 7.3.3 (Water Supply and Fire Hydrants), and 7.3.4 (Construction Materials) to ensure that any potential impacts involving wild land fires will be mitigated to a less than significant level. Additionally, adherence to EDSP EIR Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0 through 3.4/13.0 ensure that new safety and service facilities are constructed to coincide with new service demands, and will also require that fire trails and fire breaks are incorporated into the open space and trail system. Adherence to the Mitigation Measure will ensure that any potential impacts to emergency service and safety are mitigated to a less than significant level. Page 22 of 33 Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration .August 25,2006 d8;f )g7 J For future trails that are proposed in the western hills outside of the Schaefer Ranch development area, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. Freeway CrossinQs: No ImDact. Improvements to the existing Caltrans right-of-way would be fairly limited, and therefore there will be less than significant impacts to emergency services as a result of implementing the Bikeways Master Plan. The proposed crossing locations are not located within wildlands and therefore pose a less than significant risk. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interiere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the aeration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of a course or stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of suriace runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100.year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitiqation X X X X X X X X X X Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August25,2006 Page 23 of 33 c':U~ o;f rg 1 a-j) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, deplete groundwater resources, alter drainage patterns, effect surface or subsurface water quality, result in placing housing in a floodplain? The facilities proposed in the Bikeways Master Plan would conform to Alameda county Flood Control and Water Quality District, Zone 7 Requirements, and will meet the water quality standards of the City of Dublin's NPDES permit and the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program. Additionally, the development of properties in any areas of Dublin will be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), listing Best Management Practices which reduce the potential for water quality degradation during construction and post construction activities. Existinq RiQht-of-Wav: Less than Sionificant Impact. The existing right-of-way is located within urbanized areas of Dublin that have previously been developed. Development of facilities within the existing right-of-way as identified in the Bikeways Master Plan would require limited construction activities and therefore there will be less than significant impacts to hydrology as a result of implementing the Bikeways Master Plan. ExistinQ Parks, Open Space, and Public Land: Less than Sionificant Impact. Bikeways, trials and related facilities would not have a significant impact on the hydrology of existing parks, opens space, and public land. However, the exact location of facilities within these areas has not been identified. Therefore, additional environmental review of new facilities within existing parks, open space, and public land will be required with each project Undeveloped Land: Less than SiQnificant Impact. Although bikeways, trails, and related facilities themselves would not have a significant impact on the hydrology of undeveloped areas of Dublin, the project area as a whole will change drastically as a result of overall development in the area. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 8.1.1 through 8.2.4 of the Schaefer Ranch EIR and 3.5/1.0. 3.5/4.0, 3.5/5.0,3.5/12.0, 3.5/26.0, 3.5/47.0, 3.5/53.0, 3.5/54.0, and 3.5/55.0 of the EDSP EIR will ensure that any impacts relating to grading and drainage, surface water quality, runoff, and ground water quality resulting from the implementation of the Bikeways master Plan will be mitigated to a less than significant level. No impacts to hydrology not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and EDSP EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan, The exact location of trails and related facilities in the western hills outside of the Schaefer Ranch development are not known. Therefore, there is not enough information is available at this time regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. Additional environmental analysis will need to be done once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. Freewav CrossinQs: Less than SiQnificant Impact. . The exact location and type of freeway crossing has not yet been determined. However, potential crossings include and an underpass where the Alamo Creek passes under 1-580. Crossings such as this may have the potential to impact hydrology. Therefore, construction of future bikeway facilities at freeway crossings will require additional environmental analysis once the exact location of these facilities is known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future facilities to reach conclusions on hydrology and water quality impacts. Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August 25, 2006 Page 24 of 33 ex: 'J 0]/ )g.-.) r: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation X X X Land Use and Planning a) Physically divide an established community? Citywide: No Impact. The Bikeways Master Plan is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The General Plan's guiding policies require the City to provide safe bikeways consistent with the maps depicting the anticipated Bicycle Circulation System. No disruption of any established community would result as the proposed facilities are designed to serve existing and new residential and commercial development through out the City of Dublin. Therefore, there will be no impacts associated with the development of any new bicycle facilities. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? Citywide: No impact. Guiding policies of the General Plan encourage the development of bicycle facilities throughout all planning areas of the City. The Bikeways Master Plan is the principal policy document addressing future bikeways facilities within the City of Dublin. The Bikeways Master Plan is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan. Therefore, there are no impacts or conflicts with the applicable land use plans and policies. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? CityWide: No impact. No such plan has been adopted within the project area. There would, therefore, be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Mineral Resources Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation X X Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan. specific plan or other land use plan? Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August25,2006 Page 25 of 33 ,./2 ~ IS1 a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? CityWide: No impact. The Conservation Element of the General Plan does not reference any significant mineral resources in the City. The Bikeways Master Plan does not identify any of the proposed bicycle facilities as being in areas designated by the California State Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, as having deposits of minerals. Additionally, no mineral resources are shown on the State of California's maps of such resources within the sites identified by the Bikeways Master Plan. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mffioation X X X X X X Noise a-f) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard, expose people to groundborne vibration, result in permanent increases in ambient noise levels? There are two possible noise impacts resulting from the implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan: construction noise and operational noise. Construction noise is anticipated when a new bikeway, trail, or related facility is being built. Operational noise occurs when the bikeway, trail, or related facility is completed and is being used by the public. ExistinQ RiQht-of-Wav: Less than Sianificant Impact. Noise generated from proposed bikeways can impact neighboring residences in close proximity. However, operational noise is not generally considered compatible with a residential neighborhood environment. In addition, bicycling is permitted on City streets even in the absence of the Bikeways Master Plan and designated bikeway facilities. Therefore, implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan is anticipated to have less than significant environmental impact. Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August 25. 2006 Page 26 of 33 d q or: /g1 . ", Existinq Parks, Open Space, and Public Land: Less than Siqnificant Impact. Noise generated from proposed bikeways, trails, and related facilities can impact neighboring residences in close proximity. Noise disturbances could include construction related noise and operational noise. Construction related noise would be temporary basis' and can be controlled with existing Public Works Department policies. Operational noise could be on going, however, such noise is generally considered less than significant because it is compatible with a residential neighborhood environment. The exact location of facilities within existing parks, open space, and public land is not known at this time. Additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the location of proposed bikeways, trails and related facilities are known. Therefore, possible noise impacts cannot be adequately evaluated at this time. Undeveloped Land: Less than Siqnificant Impact. The Schaefer Ranch EIR and the EDSP EIR and SEIR contemplated noise impacts from urbanization of undeveloped area. As identified in these EIRs, overall development that is going to take place in the undeveloped areas of Dublin will result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels due to the change of land uses from agricultural uses to urban type uses. However, implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan will not be a significant contributor to the ambient noise level. Operational noise from new bikeways, trails, or related facilities is not expected to be a significant impact because such noises are compatible with a residential and commercial neighborhood environment. The location of the bikeways, trails and related facilities will be known well in advance of the time that future residents move into the area so that future residents who might be concerned about living adjacent to such facilities because of potential noise concerns can avoid doing so. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 11.A.1 of the Schaefer Ranch EIR and Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 3.10/5.0 of the EDSP EIR will ensure that construction impacts to surrounding residents are mitigated to a less than significant level. For future trails that are proposed in the western hills outside of the Schaefer Ranch development, additional environmental analysis will need to be completed once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential noise impacts. No additional noise impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and the EDSP EIR and Supplemental EIRs are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan, therefore no additional environmental review or analysis i.s necessary. Freewav Crossinos: Less than Sionificant Impact. .Construction noise and operational noise as a result of implementing the Bikeways Master Plan is not anticipated to exceed the ambient noise level adjacent to 1-580. Therefore, noise impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. . Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August 25, 2006 Page 27 of 33 3 j ':1.. Jgrj a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housing elsewhere? Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation X X X Population and Housing Would the project: Significant population growth is anticipated for the community based on planned residential growth in Dublin. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projections for the current population numbers for the City of Dublin and (projections conducted by Staff) the total population of Dublin at buildout is expected to be approximately 60,000 by the year 2025. a.c) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, or would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? Citywide: No impact. Implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan will not induce additional growth in Dublin. The Bikeways Master Plan recommends the improvement of bicycle facilities on existing roads and within existing parks and open space areas or within such roads, parks and open space that have been planned well in advance to serve residential units. Therefore, no population growth impacts are anticipated that have not already been assessed in the Master Plan. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitiaation X X X X X Public Services Citywide: No Impact. Implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan will not create a need for new public services or facilities. All proposed bicycle and open space facilities will be required to meet the requirements of the Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August 25, 2006 Page 28 of 33 <31 ~ )Q7 Alameda County Fire Department, Dublin Police Department, Dublin Unified School District, and other applicable governmental agencies during the construction review phase. Bicycle paths and recreational facilities do not typically generate many calls for police or fire service, and since they do not generate an increase in population, no impacts to schools are anticipated as a result of the implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? .. Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mftiqation X X Recreation Citywide: No Impact. A key goal of both the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is to preserve and enhance existing and future recreational facilities. The Bikeways Master Plan includes goals to create a bicycle system that meets the needs of commuters and recreational uses. The Bikeways Master Plan also includes goals to enhance access to open space and sets forth policies intended to accomplish these goals and thereby providing better access to recreational opportunities for Dublin residents. No impacts would result from the implementation of this plan. Would the project: a) Cause an. increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact wfth Impact Miti{1ation X X X X X X Transportation and Traffic Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August25,2006 Page 29 of 33 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting I alternative transportation (such as bus tumouts and bicycle facilities)? ~~121 ) x Citywide: No impact. Implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan would not cause a significant increase in traffic or provide for inadequate emergency vehicle access, inadequate parking, or provide hazards to alternative transportation modes. Bicycle facilities are typically not large traffic generators. In fact, bicyclist are permitted on any public roadway regardless of the Bikeways Master Plan. Any new on-street bicycle facilities will be designed to meet Public Works standards for roadway improvements. Utilities and Service Systems Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? ~ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X a.g) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, require new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities, require new storm drain facilities, require additional water supplies, require new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, or require new solid waste facilities? CityWide: No Impact. The following service providers serve the project: . Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electrical Company . Water supply and sewage treatment: Dublin San Ramon Services District . Storm Drainage: City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August 25, 2006 Page 30 of 33 --; ~J'~ )~7 . Solid waste disposal: Dublin-Livermore Disposal Company The bicycle facilities will have limited demand for water and wastewater services for potable water. Service has already been provided to adjacent properties, so the extension of such services will not be significant. If the proposed rest area is constructed, then construction drawings will be submitted for review by City Departments and other governmental agencies in accordance with adopted regulations to determine feasibility and suitability. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitiaation X X X a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environmen~ substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The implementation of all previously-adopted Mitigation Measures will ensure that any potential impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August25,2006 Page 31 of 33 ~L; ~ )81 No. Although incremental increases in certain areas can be expected as a result of the implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan, the implementation of all previously-adopted Mitigation Measures will ensure that any potential impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study and adherence to the following mitigation measure will ensure that the project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. MitiQation Measure 1: To ensure that all future projects to construct bikeways, trails, and related facilities included in the City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan do not have environmental effects, all projects shall be subject to environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August25,2006 Page 32 of 33 ~?:( J2r; BACKGROUND INFORMA liON INITIAL STUDY PREPARER Jeff Baker, Senior Planner, City of Dublin Community Development Department AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin, Community Development Department City of Dublin, Parks and Community Services Department City of Dublin, Public Works Department Dublin San Ramon Services District REFERENCES City of Dublin General Plan (1985, updated to 2002) Eastem Dublin Specific Plan Downtown Core Specific Plan West Dublin BART Specific Plan Village Parkway Specific Plan San Ramon Road Specific Plan Eastem Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004) City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report. (SCH 91103064) (1994) East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation DSEIR (2002) Fallon Village Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2005062010)(2005) Final Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report (SCH 95033070) (1996) Bikeways Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August 25. 2006 Page 33 of 33 3'2 0/ 10', 1/61 CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin, California 94568 Website: http://www.cLdublin.ca.us MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: PA # 06-032 City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan Project Description: The City of Dublin has prepared a Bikeways Master Plan for use as a planning tool to guide the creation of a comprehensive bikeway system for both commuting and recreation within the City Limits and Sphere of Influence. The Bikeways Master Plan establishes goals and policies for developing and implementing this bikeway system. The Master Plan also evaluates existing facilities, recommends a prioritized list of improvements for both on-street and off-street facilities, and includes recommendations for bicycle support facilities, safety, education programs, and enforcement. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional location of the project and surrounding communities in the Tri-Valley Region. Project Location: Citywide Applicant: Ferd Del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer, City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 Mitigation Measures: To ensure that all future projects to construct bikeways, trails, and related facilities included in the City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan do not have environmental effects, all projects shall be subject to environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEO\). Determination: I hereby find that the above project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the environment with adherence to the proposed mitigation measures. !ps/oGo Oat I A copy of the Initial Study documenting the reasons to support the above finding is available at the City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, or by calling (925) 833-6610. Date NOI Mailed: Date Posted: Date Published: Comment Period: Considered by: On: N.O.D. filed: City Council Resolution No. August 25, 2006 August 29,2006 August 29, 2006 August 29-September 29, 2006 Dublin City Council November 7, 2006 (Tentatively Scheduled) XX-D6 31 ~ J87 RESOLUTION NO. -07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ***************************************** APPROVING OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND VILLAGE P ARKW A Y SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE CHANGES RELATED TO BICYCLE CIRCULATION WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, and has since been amended numerous times; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the original General Plan was prepared and adopted in 1984 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the various General Plan Amendments which have been approved over the years; and WHEREAS, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive planning framework for future development of the eastern Dublin area. In connection with this approval, the City certified a Program Environmental Impact Report ("Program EIR") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH No. 91103064). The Program EIR was integral to the planning process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives and area-wide mitigation measures for development within eastern Dublin; and WHEREAS, the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan currently includes text related to bicycle circulation, and the "West and Central Dublin Bicycle Circulation System" map (Figure 5-3a) and the "East Dublin Bicycle Circulation System" map (Figure 5-3b), which together show the location of existing and proposed bike routes within the City of Dublin and the Sphere of Influence; and WHEREAS, the Resource Management section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan currently includes text related to bicycle circulation, and the "Pedestrian and Bicycle System" map (Figure 5.3) which was amended on June 17, 1997, (Resolution 77-97) and the "East Dublin Bicycle Circulation System" map (Figure 5-3b) which together show the location of pedestrian paths and bike routes within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan was adopted on December 19,2000, (Resolution 227-00) and has since been amended numerous times; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for the original West Dublin BART Specific Plan was prepared and adopted in 2000 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordance with CEQA for the various West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendments which have been approved over the years; and WHEREAS, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan currently includes text related to bicycle circulation, and the "West Dublin BART Specific Plan Circulation System" map (Exhibit 7 of the Specific Plan) that shows the location of roadways and bicycle trails within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area; and 1 AnACIDIDT 2,. 22 ~ JS7 WHEREAS, the Village Parkway Specific Plan was also adopted on December 19, 2000, (Resolution 231-00) and has since been amended numerous times; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for the original Village Parkway Specific Plan was prepared and adopted in 2000 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the various Village Parkway Specific Plan Amendments which have been approved over the years; and WHEREAS, the Village Parkway Specific Plan currently includes text regarding bicycle circulation as well as the "Village Parkway Specific Plan Circulation System" map (Exhibit 7 of the Specific Plan) that shows the location of roadways and bicycle trails within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, in 2005, as part of the Dublin City Council's Goals and Objectives, the City Council adopted as a high priority the development of a City-wide Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, in response to this high priority goal, the Public Works Department initiated a Capital Improvement Program project to develop a Bikeways Master Plan and to evaluate existing bicycle conditions and access to parks and open space areas throughout the City; and WHEREAS, amendments are proposed to the Bicycle Circulation System maps of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and West Dublin BART Specific Plan for consistency with the proposed Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, in addition to amendments to the Bicycle Circulation System maps, text amendments to the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Village Parkway Specific Plan are also proposed for consistency with the proposed Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on said application on June 26,2007; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider said the foregoing reports, recommendations and testimony and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment, and Village Parkway Specific Plan Amendment for the Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, Section 65401 of the Government Code requires planning agencies to make a determination of General Plan conformity for public works Capital Improvement Program projects, such as the Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 07-32 recommending that the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment and Village Parkway Specific Plan Amendment to incorporate changes related to bicycle circulation. The Planning Commission further made a determination that with the proposed General Plan Amendments, the proposed Bikeways Master Plan is in conformance with the General Plan; and 2 2q 1 }87 WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the project, at which time all interested partit;:s had the opportunity to be heard. The City Council considered a Staff Report dated July 17, 2007 and incorporated herein by reference, and all written and oral testimony; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution XX-07 approving a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment and Village Parkway Specific Plan Amendment to incorporate changes related to bicycle circulation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby approve the following amendments to the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan and Village Parkway Specific Plan based on the following findings: the amendments are in the public interest; the amendments will not have an adverse affect on health or safety, be detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public improvements; and the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan and Village Parkway Specific Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. Section I. General Plan Amendments. Subsection i. Replace Figure 5-3a, West and Central Dublin Bicycle Circulation System map and Figure 5-3b, East Dublin Bicycle Circulation System map with Figure 4, Existing and Proposed Bikeways of the Bicycle Master Plan and shall be renamed "Figure 5-3 City of Dublin Bicycle Circulation System" as included as Exhibit A. Subsection ii. Revise Section 5.4 of the General Plan to read as follows: "The City has adopted a Bikeways Master Plan that encompasses the Primary Planning Area, Western Extended Planning Area, and the Eastern Extended Planning Area. The Bikeways Master Plan contains goals and policies for developing and implementing a bikeway system that will provide a viable transportation alternative to the automobile, improve safety for bicyclists, and provide residents with access to parks, open space, trails, and other recreational opportunities. This Plan identifies existing and proposed bicycle routes and bicycle support facilities throughout the planning areas. Readers should refer to this plan for additional information regarding existing and proposed bicycle routes and support facilities." Guiding Policy A. Provide safe bikeways along arterials (See Figure 5-3). B. Improve and maintain bicycle routes and support facilities in conformance with the recommendations of the City's Bikeways Master Plan. Implementing Policy C. Complete the bikeway systems illustrated on Figure 5-3. 3 /;0 rSj,g7 D. Improve bicycle routes and support facilities in accordance with the Bikeways Master Plan in conjunction with development proposals. E. Ensure on-going maintenance of bicycle routes and support facilities that are intended for public use and located on private property in conjunction with development proposals. Section II. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. Subsection i. Revise the "NOTE" in Figure 5.3, Pedestrian and Bicycle System map of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to read as follows: "NOTE: Bicycle Circulation System has been amended. Please refer to Figure 5-3b for the current bicycle circulation system. Please refer to the Bikeways Master Plan for additional information." [The revised Figure 5.3, Pedestrian and Bicycle System map is included as Exhibit B.] Subsection ii. Replace Figure 5-3b, East Dublin Bicycle Circulation System map with Figure 4, Existing and Proposed Bikeways from the Bicycle Master Plan, which shall be modified to show only the current Eastern Dublin Specific Plan boundary, and shall be named Figure 5-3b, East Dublin Bicycle Circulation System as included as Exhibit C. Subsection iii. Add the following paragraph to Section 5.5 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to Bicycle Circulation, after the existing first paragraph of that same section. "The City has adopted a Bikeways Master Plan that encompasses the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The Bikeways Master Plan contains goals and policies for developing and implementing a bikeway system that will provide a viable transportation alternative to the automobile, improve safety for bicyclists, and provide residents with access to parks, open space, trails, and other recreational opportunities. This Plan identifies existing and proposed bicycle routes and bicycle support facilities throughout the Specific Plan area. Readers should refer to the Bikeways Master Plan for additional information regarding existing and proposed bicycle routes and support facilities." Subsection iv. Revise Policy 5-17 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to read: "Policy 5-17: Establish a bicycle circulation system which helps to serve the need for non-motorized transportation and recreation in eastern Dublin that is consistent with the Bikeways Master Plan." Subsection v. Revise the first sentence of Program 5D of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to read: "The City shall require development projects in eastern Dublin to include provisions for bicycle circulation that are consistent with the Bikeways Master Plan, and as follows:" 4 4; ~ /g7 Section III. West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendments. Modify Exhibit 7 , West Dublin BART Specific Plan Circulation System map, to be consistent with Figure 4, Existing and Proposed Bikeways from the Bicycle Master Plan, as included as Exhibit D. Section IV. Village Parkway Specific Plan Amendment. Revise the second sentence of the fifth paragraph on page 20 of the Village Parkways Specific Plan to read as follows: "Village Parkway is designated as a Class III Bikeway Route, which provides for shared use of a bikeway with either pedestrians on a sidewalk or motor vehicles on a street." Section V. All provisions of the General Plan Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and Village Parkway Specific Plan not amended by this resolution shall remain in full force and effect. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby find that the proposed amendments to the Bicycle Circulation System maps and text amendments in the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan and Village Parkway Specific Plan are consistent with all other goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan and Village Parkway Specific Plan. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:\CIPICity Bicycle Master Plan\CC Reso GP ASP A.DOC 5 +.1 ~; . ~ii :',~;;~:S:'J[:-..:;~~ ..~'" '1' <:;z:!'~ ;;, "" 12.1:1... ~ !; /! ii . ~: ;" .\..ii::.....'~....~'~i : '.'; : d~ I ; ; :'!' fI "';";':',,'.":/ .' ~; '. 'i, " ~~ f1.' HI . ............................ I...~:::..;..;~, .ll '( ) f .' .......< ..... , :: /.: ( r ..~ l' ....7 I .. h~l i/,\, " t. Ljd )~)I .' ~!i'" E (I) (1)- ... tn ~~ C)CI) .- C LLO ; .!!! ~ CJ ... C"') I II) I, o ~ CJ ~ CJ .- m c .- .c ~ C 'I- o ~ o Ii ~. ~ ~ h!l ~~ a:ti.@iiii5~ ~:fiiia.::u ! I .. .. ;l , ....c~ ~ ~ '!5 ~ "5 .!!! . m '" j ~ b: ~ a.. .:a ii ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~d cr ~ ~ ;\ il "8 I f j &: ~ :E ~"lllili :-0 ! , " 'ij';l P ;;. ~ ~ :I -0 tl ~~i ! C -ill"" HiP=li ..- C 0 ~. il. i'S.iIt~;e e of w a.. Z us U a. :l.. i I ; i: i a"" ~ : 0:: IiiirriI " - ~:!il "'''' " 0 o~ J!.5 ~~~ ~oj iii: 1lI...::J 11- 0 -;;1 :1_01=_" ,ja ~~: : ~~ jjS is 1~1l1~~iIO~ c..8i.iii.il:2~i() ~-~~i]~ei..~ lrY~i 11~wQ. EXIIIBIT It. To the Resolution ~/ z. Ll3 ~ / 7" . ./. - ....J Q) <D C!J "5 :; O"l 0 0 ::J ~ O:..c . 0: OJ C 'I:r "0 Et ..c <D- mt: C CO "C .::! ia .13 01 -0:1 0 0 ", '. CO) 0.. >.Q. ~ - I- 0 CO-' .S:! <D .9,<ll Z C- o<< In c: .Ul CfJ (tl .lD ~ CO~ .~ I . <( C >- ;:: _CO =CO 0: 0 ... '" .s:2 (j') co CD ~L (f.) ell .., en LU .- .c ==::. "C .., en '+- 0 ia2 . . '"- . ca ca .- c: r= c LO--CD Q) 0 0 l- ll. (J 01.. W ,We CIJ CD 1: ~..,,, I . 0 (1) u c__g~ 0 ~ .CD >- . 0 .! lh; a:: I 0 c:=: C. ::::Juo .. 0 'ii p.::.: ::l I . 0 CIJ 0 0). CD.- . 0 UJ == _ II=:! LI" 0.. OJ I . 0 ~c.l~ (f.) .~ +-~ .. .... .......~....... z '- 1'" t -t "-, .....~........... ... ". ." \ :"' "\ : '.... ....., . , .... : " \. : " ,....., " I \ ,. I Fall~'/'I.,J;l~_ I ooo~.OOCOOQQOQCOOO,?O I 000 ......, C o " \ \ .\ \ \. 00.:;...... .....-- l, 000 " " "\ I . 0 \ A~ % . \ 0 .... "'-- . 0 Tas' Rd 0 gCO;;;. . . ;0-- coo . sa) ..' 00":> /'. ... .";'~ OOOOl:;lOl:;loooooo' 00 ~ I. .:-:.... _ ~OQoococooccoooooooooooooo .. . ......._~~... . ~. . ...... .... ., ......... -'L- .............. ... at=-- .. .-:~ L.- · o' e. I · ..........~, A- ~ .0 o. .... ..~ .. · r....e............. . ~ ~'... ". : .0 ...+ ~ : . .. . . . . . . . 1111I ". . Q ~ . . . . . . .. ..... . " a:I" . ClJ. '-. <. . c:. m. -. . 0... " ~~ . -. .- . O. Ql .. 0.. Cf.l: . . . " ..~.... o ~.... Q) ..; .....-.-; . <T.~.... t: .....:'1J~ -r::i o ...,I'~~a~,.9 > g 9..Cf.l m 00 c: o ~ ~ o o 0 u ;>, () :D -= Q) S () .s ~ 0 .... ..:;:1 oS 0::1 c: ..0 ~ ("') oS I 'l) .S Q) ~ 0::1 ooc: .- 0 ~ '-= o .- ...."'0 .... "'0 ~ ctl .... (l) oS .... (l) c: lID en ctl <tJ ~ 0 ~ .... Q) .0 tl ctl Q) ;;:E "'0 -= Q) [/) E :>.. <tJ ctl :?; c: 0 Q.l ..>d Q) ($ ..0 en Q) ctl ..9 ..::: E 0 - (l) l-< ~~ ;>'0 C/) l-< ~ 0 Vl .g ctl 0 ctl- '3P-. () S .... i:J .8 Q) '" u ;>, Ul G~ .- 0 p:) ..:;:1 ctl 0 '3 -0 u .... Z 'u f! ....II!O'I...... ..... ~ Exhibit . >0. "' . ~" ~. /1.. .t: VI" tel; .....':. ~\..,,-., ~ g.: \,., -..$_. ,,~ C """\.'f," """~'l>....,, .....it.... ~J' ::...::~. :=: ....11...: .. ,. . -. 11 .. .. llIIi a. 81 .. ... .... lit ..... :m~lIIiI . 'j$$-~ ...... :=: : .- .. .... . '.. lI!I .. " " " .. ~ ':,. .... .... . :. = ~... '*",. :.: a. ....... ..........,.. lIII .. .$. .. .. .. .. . . . " /I :: = · .:::.:~... e: ~~~... .. :":.. .,- '.' >, \ I I; 'fi- ~; ~....... €~~" 5: ~ 8./1. " gJ. \\. '" '''-. "'.1'........ ....t.:........S';. \\ "~: ~~:;.. ~ ~ ~ ..~... .. ::>.., . to , ) ,,-:... .. u. "': .. ~ ~ ~ ;;J \ ..," .. " .. ~E/1. ~ \ I.. : I; It. 0 \ I "'l = :'..... U . . r;,.. ;p. "". ...... l ~ ....; 7 '\ ',\~ ... .. ........ iI" I .... ~.><" .. ........ \\ ..... -g'El',; ..... .... i . .....r,sO" -m__......, ,.. \ · u- g ~ ........... : ." .. :;:;"0 '\0 .. \...~f-::: · ....~~........"................"....~......-::..'i... .:::: ......~. ).. ". ".......... ": .. (Jt;f \It;flfI'lfSSV.l; ~ ~ "...,." i3 ..>I. ~ ~:;; \ j~ \ \ ". .. .",. ~ "S , ..... .",. a: .....0 Z o ~ w -' Cl EXHIBIT L;!f 0 !~7 ,QE r'!CI) 11)1;) (1)~ :;(1) me:: .- 0 LL:;:; ~ ~ (.) ... 1,;:.1 ~~ o CI) - (.) ~ (.) .- m c ,Q ~ C - tI) cu w o . Ii: o ~ ~ VI o ~ o ii w [] . ! !.t "2 ~IJi'i~ ~Lfai~~5 ~ I . j ,.......51 ~ ?; ~ ~ ~ . S ! 11 .. ~ ~ c: i i! ~Q UI 0 c: S of i l ~ $. ~ jl l:t & I ~ 3l~~l~! !..tl6 hi ~o ~ j ~ i - 1i Q ~~ hi i ~ .. '" : H.d~ ~~p~l ~ ~L~H l I j~j ilia ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ i~! H ~~ ~~~ ~i ]! a ~ ~ 111 iIi = ~~ in H ~ 5G~JOi jd!HiHa ~~l!~~~!~ct j I ~ j II q c. To the Resolution i'"~..?. ~@,~2 .., ~~- Y'o ~ r..:t r-.. ::= ..0. .- ..c x u..J b2 <(C CClro .S 0:: - u ..04= ::l .- O~ ol-l c.. ~lf) S E OJ ol-l V'l J1 c o :.p .!E! ::l ~ o . .5 .c . . ~ . 5 c ~ 3 ~ .li . . . ~ ~ .. iO iO iO iO . .. iO .j r- h '.' D !h D N :; .. 0 >- ~!j g :;j .... bii~ '" z. . C 0 0 f@- ~ c ~ c ~ J 27 ~ ;3 " . o " ri CI ii :0 Co :c :E ~ :: N ~~ ~ I< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N. to1 ;:;- :5 5 ~ ~ ~ !~ ~ ~ i i . ~ ~ - ,. 0 ~ ~-l! ~ ~~~.:! _8~~ ~ 8 :g .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I n ~1. i I~ B~1 .:5., ,~ tJ .. ~.t; I.\)\! j l:~ .... Ul lli:1 '.: !:3 Exhibit D 4~ ~ )g7 RESOLUTION NO. - 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ********************* ADOPTING A BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, in 2005, as part of the Dublin City Council's Goals and Objectives, the City Council adopted as a high priority the development of a City-wide Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, in response to this high priority goal, the Public Works Department initiated a Capital Improvement Program project to develop a Bikeways Master Plan and to evaluate existing bicycle conditions and access to parks and open space areas throughout the City; and WHEREAS, in order to maximize public input in developing the Bikeways Master Plan, the City held three public meetings on February 22,2006, March 31, 2006, and July 19,2006, and invited City residents, public agencies, businesses and other stakeholders to attend; and WHEREAS, the Bikeways Master Plan contains goals and policies for developing and implementing a bikeway system that: 1) provides a viable transportation alternative to the automobile and thus improves transportation choices for Dublin residents; 2) improves safety for bicyclists; and 3) provides residents with access to open space, trails, and other recreational amenities; and WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan sets forth a blueprint for a system of bikeways in Dublin and the Bikeways Master Plan builds upon that blueprint by creating a comprehensive plan that includes an evaluation of existing conditions, a prioritized list of recommended improvements for both on- and off- street facilities and recommendations pertaining to bicycle parking, safety, education and enforcement; and WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, and has since been amended numerous times; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the original General Plan was prepared and adopted in 1984 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the various General Plan Amendments which have been approved over the years; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects of implementing the proposed Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Parks and Community Services Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Bikeways Master Plan on June 19,2007; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Parks and Community Services Commission recommend City Council adoption of the Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Community Services Commission did hear and consider the said foregoing reports, recommendations and testimony and used its independent judgment to evaluate the proj ect; and 1 AnACIDIDT 3. 1-rl , /~7 WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Parks and Community Services Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Council adopt the proposed Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, on June 26, 2007, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on the Mitigated Negative Declaration; a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment, and Village Parkway Specific Plan Amendment to incorporate changes related to bicycle circulation; and General Plan Conformity for the Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment, and Village Parkway Specific Plan Amendment for the bicycle circulation. The Staff Report further recommended that the Planning Commission make a determination that the proposed Bikeways Master Plan is in conformance with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider the said foregoing reports, recommendations and testimony and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 07-33 recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bikeways Master Plan, which is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 07-32 recommending that the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment and Village Parkway Specific Plan Amendment to incorporate changes related to bicycle circulation. The Planning Commission further made a determination that with the proposed General Plan Amendments, the proposed Bikeways Master Plan is in conformance with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the project, including the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment and Village Parkway Specific Plan Amendment, and Bikeways Master Plan, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The City Council considered a Staff Report dated July 17, 2007, and incorporated herein by reference, and all written and oral testimony; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution _-07 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Resolution _-07 adopting the General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment and Village Parkway Specific Plan Amendment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby find that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the Bikeways Master Plan as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto. 2 LIS ~ /157 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:ICIPICity Bicycle Master Plan Ice Reso Bikeways.doc 3 DO q 1~1 ,/. OuiJ/lIJ Bikeways Mdster Plan -- Acknowledgements Mayor Janet Lockhart City Council Kasie Hildenbrand, Vice Mayor Tony Oravetz Tim Sbranti Kate Ann Scholz Planning Commission Bill Schaub, Chairperson Doreen Wehrenberg, Vice-Chairperson Donald Biddle Greg Tomlinson Morgan King Parks and Community Services Commission Sue Flores, Chairperson Steve Jones, Vice-Chairperson Alan Elias Rich Guarienti Angela Muetterties Alex Deering, Student Representative City Staff Ferd Del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer, Project Manager Herma Lichtenstein, Parks & Facilities Development Manager Jeff Baker, Senior Planner Mark Lander, City Engineer Rose Macias, Community Safety Assistant (Retired) Bikeway Master Plan Public Meeting Participants (See Appendix E for list) Consultants Fehr & Peers RHAA Funded by State TDA Article 3 Funds and ACTIA Measure B Bicycle Program Funds Cover images (clockwise from upper left): Amador Valley Boulevard Class II Bike lanes, Dublin employees on Bike to Work Day, Iron Horse Trail, Tassajara Creek Trail, Martin Canyon Creek Trail Bikeways Master Plan Page 1 2007 !j/ ,:?1 ) ~)i /f Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- EXECUTIVE SUMMARy............................... ............. .... ........................... ....... ............... .... .................... .......... ........ 3 1. DEFIN ITIONS...................... ................................................................ .................................. ...................... ... ..... 8 2. INTRODUCTION.. ............................ ......... .................................. ................ ............... ...................... .............. ..... 9 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS........... ......................... ...................................... ............... ............. ..... .......9 CONFORMANCE WITH FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................13 3. GOALS AND POLiCiES.......................................... .......................................................................... ................ 15 4. BICYCLE NETWORK. .......................... ............... ........................................................................ ..... ................. 18 NEEDS ANALySiS................ .................... .................................................................. ......................................18 TYPES OF BIKEWAY FACILITIES .. ........................................................ ......................................................... 22 5. EXISTING FACiLITIES........................................ ................................................ ............................................. 24 LAND USE AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS.. ............................................ .......... .......... ........................ ......... 24 KEY CORRIDORS............. .............................................................................................................. .................25 6. PROPOSED BIKEWAY NETWORK.................. .................................... ........................................................... 33 CORRIDOR STUDIES....................................... ...................................................................... .........................39 7. SUPPORT FACiLITIES......................................................................................................................... ............ 57 TYPES OF BICYCLE PARKING AND SUPPORT FACiLITIES........................................................................57 EXISTING FACiLITIES................................................................................................................................ ......57 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS................................................... .......................................................... ................58 8. SAFETY, ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATION ...............................................................................................60 BICYCLE COLLiSiONS.... ............ .................................................................................................... ........... ......60 SECURITY.... ............. .............. .... ...................................................................................................................... 63 BICYCLE EDUCATION PROGRAMS.............. ............................ ..................................................................... 63 BICYCLE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS........................................................................................................ 64 9. PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS ...................................................................................................................65 10. FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION .......................... .................... ..................................................................69 Bikeways Master Plan Page 2 2007 52 o;f JS]1 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- This Bikeways Master Plan contains goals and policies for developing and implementing a bikeway system that can be broken down into three general categories: . Provide a viable transportation alternative to the automobile and thus improve transportation choices for Dublin residents . Provide residents with access to open space, trails, and other recreational amenities Also embraced in the Plan is a Vision Statement created by the Bikeway Master Plan Public Meeting Participants envisioning the City as a place with many safe and pleasant bikeway facilities, and a City that encourages bicycling as a healthful and enjoyable activity. . Improve safety for bicyclists The City of Dublin's General Plan sets forth a blueprint for a system of bikeways in Dublin. This Bikeways Master Plan builds on that blueprint by creating a comprehensive plan that includes an evaluation of existing conditions, a prioritized list of recommended improvements for both on- and off-street facilities, and recommendations pertaining to bicycle parking, safety, education, and enforcement. In addition, this plan incorporates items from a number of documents pertaining to bicycling in Dublin, including the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Downtown Core Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the Municipal Code. Goals for the plan include developing a comprehensive bikeway system for both commuting and recreation, creating links to existing trails, parks, and open space, improving bicycle connections to transit, improving safety, developing programs to encourage bicycling, and maximizing the amount of state and federal funding for which Dublin is eligible. This plan complies with the California Streets and Highways Code, which is a requirement to compete for funds in the State Bicycle Transportation Account. VISION STATEMENT The purpose of the Bikeways Master Plan is to make Dublin a city with many safe and pleasant bicycle facilities that provide access to parks, trails, and open space as well as to schools, jobs, and community facilities; a city in which the needs of bicyclists and other trail users are considered in balance among all modes of travel; and a city that encourages bicycling as a healthful and enjoyable activity. Improving bicycle access throughout the City benefits not only cyclists, but also walkers, hikers, wheelchair users, and other trail users, and improves quality of life for all Dublin residents. Dublin residents currently enjoy a system of pedestrian-bicycle trails along creeks, channels, and some major roadways. Many of the new roads under development include either bicycle lanes or adjacent paths. The City has installed bicycle parking at key locations, including City Hall and the Dublin Library. The Police Department organizes bicycle safety rodeos at several elementary schools each year, and plans to expand this program in the future. This document is intended as a conceptual guide for City staff and members of the public. Individual projects may differ from the Plan's recommendations, but the main project alignments and policy recommendations should be implemented to the greatest degree possible. Highlights of the recommendations include: Bikeways Master Plan Page 3 2007 q)':;; , ic8 II Oub/m Bikeways Master Plan - . Continued development of successful trail corridors such as the Tassajara Creek Trail and improved access to the Iron Horse Trail and other trails. . Improved bicycle access to parks and open space including the Martin Canyon Creek trailhead, Stagecoach Park, Alamo Creek, and Emerald Glen Park. . Bicycle lanes andlor routes on several key cross-city corridors, including Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon Road, Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road. . Bikeways on key freeway crossings, including 1-580 at San Ramon Road and Tassajara Road, and the Alamo Canal Trail undercrossing. . Development of education and enforcement programs. In addition, the Bikeways Master Plan includes an Existing and Proposed Bikeways map, which illustrates all of the proposed projects, as well as the existing bicycle facilities in the City. Bikeways Master Plan Page 4 2007 t:...... c~ ""'- c~ ir\ , , ~-: >, ~: .;:', ~ " ...... ".:::::\~~ ~~: ...~'\\..\.....""!.. .. Ii. 0 I'll. ..'1::.::.:.::... ::: ......:-.~: ~.... .. .. .. .. .. ...... ..:.. ::: .. ..... .-. ..~.. .... ::: : a_. .. . .. .. _. .. ....... -.- .-. .. J -:.... .:.. ::: :, .:. .. .. ......,.. .. l .::.:.. ....~ ::: :.- ...... e... ..Jo........... ...... .. ,... .. or' ~p ~:, I ..: ffi: \ ~~ ~~ .. 5: I ~~ ~Q. .. ~: d! ..............11......... .. '\ ~g4.. ~ .. ;:X : t: ~ ....... .. ~E-t;ll :: :~~~., .. : :,. u ;J . .. -. '1 .......... .... , . .. ..... ., : -../. : ' , ,. ... ~ , , ....."......... .... .. ., ..' ." ... .... .... ." .. .; .1.-. . .r: '.' , , '1 ." ~~~ .. . "-I . 0" I o ." ....... =:2 .. ~:::t .. .. .. " '" o z o '" ~ " t~ ~~4 , E o. Ow , / ~ \ o ~\ ~rt- ~\ '" , . ~ ~ ~ ~~; Q. 2:'- 3 r~ "'.... a 'VON31:JVH if ;i .. '1~ OlON~~ .. .- .. . ........ " '. .. " .................. , =~~<V^ J~ ~~- ~,."'<) \{/ ~ ;: tn ~ CO ~ (3) ~ -- m -c (3) tn o C- O l.- n. -c c:: CO C) c: -- ... tn -;< w Ql co " z ....c: ~ c:- o ro z C1l U >- c: III c: U :.::; >- :J :J ro III 0 ii5 I- ~ Q) III ~ CD 0:: .c ~ .: ro z. e <l: .Ql ro ~ C3 0 CD J: (/) 0.. U -#' i I I '-l C1l I : e e " .~ 0 () / :;:, c: >- c: U C1l 0 :J E ~ ii5 C1l ~ > Ol 0 III e a. Ol a::: .w E .~ e ~ III 0 0 :2 "<il CD 0 e .S "0 0 III CD ii5 C1l >- U 0 III ro C1l .~ I- 0 ~ III 0 :0 a::: Cl. C1l ~ .c ~ e ~ <J :J E r- (/) 0.. CD :L u.. / I / ~4 ~ta 111 ~ 0 \ I -- ,/ 0 / ! 1... ~ /: ~/.. ~~ -.". I. I +41... .. f :... .... : / ,,: . ..~ J.. .._ . . . . I :.. ..- ! :'. . . , I ... ....J... ~:, ...... I . .. ........ \ .. ,.' , \~ , / : . . . . . . , , . . .. . . .- '" . ..- ....... : '. .... ~ t: '" .. .~-~ I .'" c:::.- ,1..- ci~ I,' ~o:. / .. .' ',. . . . . : ' . ., . ., . . : :~ . ' : ~' . ,. ....... :- .",- : :r' .'" : . ~ :B :1 . ., . ., .. I. "'. . . . . ,. ... .. . .' " .:~ . .. : ., . . .. . . ~-5 . 0 ~. .x'" \ " " \ III C1l c: ro ...J C1l '" ,ii III <Il ro .ro .~ -:; in .= I- C1l ro U :; C1l ro U U ~ C1l C1l C1l 0 f; > > ,I:: en ro ro .~ Cl. Q) C1l Cl. c: '" a::: l- e =:l .. ro ,ii =:l -: Q) U U .. OlU ~ C1l C1l 0 - III III .. e C1l a. >- <Il 0 0 ~ .- c: e en c: U <Il Cl. Cl. " .- ro a. :J ro 0 0 :;: x _ ~ U5 -J a: a: a. W 0.. in III I c ~ oB " a. 0 0 <Il C1l C1l U 0 U5 ,j) C1l 0 c: ~ o 1- III III C1l C1l :; :; 0 o 0:: a::: C1l ~~ iii - III III .c .c ro roo.. 0.. C1l ~~ iii III III ~ ~ U U ~ .~ a. en .: 'x in W ~ I III III <Il C1l C1l C1l e c: c: ro ro ro ....J ....J ...J C1l C1l Q) .>< .>< '" iii co Ie = = _ III III ro U U C1l III o Cl. o a: III III III III III <Il ro rorou U ,3 "0 ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ 1ii Vi c.. c>> 'x x 0 ~ W IU a: m ::: I i3 I III III ro U Ol .~ en .x W U .. C1l " III c 8.~ o ~ a: in ::: .. u I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 53 ~ ' g l) Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- Dublin can implement portions of the Bicycle Plan in public and private development, implementation of City programs, development of new roadway and transit facilities, and scheduled roadway maintenance. For instance, providing bicycle parking as part of the permit process for new and redevelopment projects can accomplish the goal of increasing support facilities for cyclists. The key policy recommendations contained in the plan include the following: Support Facilities · Evaluate the needs of the community for bicycle parking on a project-by-project basis, considering the type of non-residential development, proximity to transit, etc. (Community Development Department) · Make a list of locations of bike racks and lockers available to the public. (Public Works Agency) · Encourage the School District to provide safe and secure bike parking at all schools. (Public Works Agency) Safety and Education · Expand the bicycle rodeo program to serve all of Dublin's elementary schools, as well as middle schools and community centers to reach older children. (Police Services Department) · Work with the Community Services Department to identify ways to promote the health benefits of recreational cycling. Consider displaying promotional materials and advertising recreational rides. (Public Works Agency and Parks and Community Services Department). · Combine the successful Flat Repair Clinics with bicycle rodeos and bicycle safety education for adults, or establish an adult bicycle education program. (Police Services Department and Parks and Community Services Department) · Establish a bicycle helmet program through various statewide helmet programs that provides low-cost helmets to youth. (Police Services Department) · Consider working with Safe Moves, a statewide non-profit organization that has a bicycle and pedestrian safety education program for school children and senior adults. (Police Services Department) · Educate drivers about the rights of bicyclists by making bicycle safety a part of traffic school curriculum, producing a brochure on bicycle safety and rights for public distribution, providing signs at strategic locations, and other measures. (Public Works Agency and Police Services Department) · Collect and analyze bicycle collisions on an annual basis to determine high-collision locations, primary collision factors, helmet use, and other trends, and use this data to develop safety and education programs. (Public Works Agency and Police Services Department) Funding and Implementation · Prepare multi-agency joint applications for funding of projects of regional significance. (Public Works Department) · Use existing funding sources (Le. Measure B Bike and TDA Article 3 funds) as matching funds for State and Federal funding. (Public Works Department) · Require construction of bicycle facilities as part of new development. (Planning Department) Bikeways Master Plan Page 6 2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I !50 ~ r/l7 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- . Continue to include proposed bikeways as part of roadway projects involving widening, overlays, or other improvements. (Public Works Department) Monitoring · Review roadway improvement plans to ensure that bikeway segments and related improvements are implemented, developer impact fees are identified (if applicable), and design standards are met. (Public Works Department) . Provide interested residents with materials, information, and other support as the system is being implemented. Plan and manage bicycle promotional and educational events, such as Bike to Work Day and Bike to School Day. (Public Works Department) . Keep track of long term path maintenance, schedule repairs, and respond to calls from the public or staff regarding maintenance needs. (Public Works Agency and Parks and Community Services) · Work closely with various funding agencies such as ACT lA, MTC and Caltrans to keep abreast of funding opportunities and to follow up on applications to ensure maximum success. (Public Works Department) · Provide enforcement along bike paths. (Police Services Department provides enforcement of City- operated bikeways) · Maintain surface conditions through periodic street sweeping. (Public Works Agency) · Include in the City's Volunteer Program the maintenance of bikeways. (Public Works Department) This Plan is consistent with Alameda County's Regional Bicycle Plan, Bike Plans and maps from the cities of San Ramon, Pleasanton, and Livermore, and the East Bay Regional Park District's Trails Master Plan. This Plan addresses items (a) through (k) in Section 891.2 of the California Streets and Highways Code. The Plan should be updated every five years to reflect its status and maintain City eligibility for certain state funding sources. Bikeways Master Plan Page 7 2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sf , )g7 Dublm Bikeways Master Plan -- 1. DEFINITIONS DEFINITIONS (see Appendix A for illustrative examples of the following): Bikeway - All facilities that provide primarily for bicycle travel. Class I Bikeway (Bike Path) - Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow minimized. Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) - Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or a highway. Class III (Bike route) - Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic. Sharrow - Shared road bicycle marking used to alert road users of the location a bicyclist may occupy within the traveled way. Bicycle Support Facilities - Facilities that bicyclists use when they reach their destinations. They can include short- and long-term bicycle parking, showers, lockers, restrooms, lighting, and public pay phones. Bikeways Master Plan Page 8 2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5g ~ k9~ Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- 2. INTRODUCTION VISION STATEMENT The purpose of the Bikeways Master Plan is to make Dublin: a city with many safe and pleasant bicycle facilities that provide access to parks, trails, and open space as well as to schools, jobs, and community facilities; a city in which the needs of bicyclists and other trail users are considered in balance among all modes of travel; and a city that encourages bicycling as a healthful and enjoyable activity. Improving bicycle access throughout the City benefits not only cyclists, but also walkers, hikers, wheelchair users, and other trail users, and improves quality of life for all Dublin residents. INTRODUCTION Bicycling is a low-cost, quiet, non-polluting, and healthy form of transportation ideal for many trips. It is also a pleasant, enjoyable activity that can improve personal health, promote a sense of community, and provide access to recreational amenities. A bicycle network benefits an entire community, including walkers, hikers, and wheelchair users, and people of all ages and abilities. While this plan incorporates mixed-use trails and access to open space, its primary focus is on bicycling. The City of Dublin General Plan sets forth a blueprint for a system of bikeways in Dublin. This Bikeways Master Plan builds on the original blueprint with an evaluation of existing conditions and a prioritized list of improvements that include on- and off-street bicycle facilities. The Bikeways Master Plan is the official policy document addressing the development of bicycles facilities for transportation and recreation purpose. The Bikeways Master Plan is divided into nine chapters that address the plan's relationship to existing plans, new goals and policies, bicycling needs, existing conditions, a recommended bicycle network, support facilities, safety and education improvements, funding, and project prioritization. In developing the Plan, City staff worked with the Bikeways Master Plan Public Meeting Participants, composed of representatives of Dublin-area stakeholders to ensure consistent, regular input and feedback. Three public meetings were held with the Public Meeting Participants between February and August 2006, and the draft Plan was recommended for approval by the Bikeways Master Plan Public Meeting Participants in July 2006. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS This Bikeways Master Plan is consistent with plans and policies at a Federal, State, and local level. Federal Policies There are four key policy sources at the Federal level: . The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) . The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Joint Statement, Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach . The American Association of Transportation Official's (AASHTO's) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities . The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Bikeways Master Plan Page 9 2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5CJ ~ )~1 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- SAFETEA-LU, passed in 2005, integrates bicycle and pedestrian travel into the mainstream transportation system. This builds on previous federal transportation bills, beginning with ISTEA (passed in 1991), and TEA-21 (passed in 1998). The legislation asserts that bicycle and pedestrian facilities should offer a viable transportation choice while prioritizing the safety of all road users. SAFETEA-LU requires that bikeways and pedestrian walkways be considered as the rule rather than the exception in all federally funded transportation projects. SAFETEA-LU also includes a Safe Routes to School program, which provides funding for safety and access projects that improve conditions for children walking or bicycling to school. The Federal Highway Administration's Joint Statement, Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach offers a base for bicycle and pedestrian planning. The statement establishes overall policy as well as performance measures. The three key principles contained in the statement are as follows: . Bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects unless exceptional circumstances exist; . Municipalities should use approaches to achieving the policy that have worked elsewhere as a model; and . Public agencies, professional associations, or advocacy groups should adopt several action items to improve the overall conditions for bicycling and walking. The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities offers design guidance for accommodating bicycle facilities into transportation projects. The Americans with Disabilities Act Title //I is legislation enacted in 1990 that provides thorough civil liberties protections to individuals with disabilities with regards to employment, state and local government services, and access to public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications. Title III of the Act requires places of public accommodation to be accessible and usable to all people, including those with disabilities. Regional and State Policies Regional and State policies that relate to this Bicycle Plan include: . California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual · California Vehicle Code . The Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Policy on Routine Accommodation . Alameda County Regional Bicycle Master Plan . East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan . Zone 7 Water Agency Stream Management Master Plan Interim Report The Caltrans Highway Design Manual is the main source for design standards for bicycle facilities in California. Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design, sets the basic minimums for bike lane and trail widths. It also establishes policies for the type and placement of signs. The Project Development Procedures Manual, Chapter 31: Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities defines the means by which local jurisdictions may receive Caltrans approval for State-funded projects. The Project Development Procedures Manual includes information about State grant programs, following the State mandate in the Streets and Highways Code that the State disburse a minimum of $7.2 million annually to bicycle projects as part of the Bicycle Transportation Account. Bikeways Master Plan Page 10 2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 60 ~ fJ 7 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- The California Vehicle Code includes several sections related to bicycle operation, while allowing local jurisdictions leeway to create their own policies. For example, Section 21200 establishes bicyclists' right to share the road with vehicles, and makes them subject to the same rules and regulations as drivers. These sections also define conditions under which a bicyclist may "take the lane," as well as instances when drivers are allowed in bicycle lanes. RegionalConnecuons This Bikeways Master Plan is consistent with regional and neighboring cities' bicycle plans. Bicycle network maps for Alameda County and the cities of San Ramon, Pleasanton, and Livermore were reviewed and considered in developing Dublin's recommended network, in order to promote a coordinated regional bicycle system. These plans are described briefly below. Alameda Countv The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency is currently updating the Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan. The Draft 2006 Bicycle Network map shows the following proposed facilities relating to Dublin (please refer to Definitions on Page 9): · Class II lanes on Dublin Boulevard from San Ramon Road to Tassajara Road, on an extension of Dublin Boulevard from Tassajara Road to the Dublin city limit, and on Dublin Boulevard and Collier Canyon from the Dublin city limit to Doolan Road, connecting in Livermore to Class II lanes on North Canyons Parkway. · Class II lanes on San Ramon Road from Alcosta Boulevard south over 1-580, connecting to Class II lanes on Foothill Road in Pleasanton. · Class II lanes on Dougherty Road from the Contra Costa County line south over 1-580, connecting to Class II lanes on Hopyard Road in Pleasanton. · A Class III route on Tassajara Road from the County line south to the Dublin City limit, and Class II lanes on Tassajara Road from the Dublin city limit south across 1-580, connecting to Class II lanes on Santa Rita Road in Pleasanton. · The Alamo Canal Trail underpass at 1-580. · A Class I trail along Tassajara Creek from the County line south to just north of Somerset Lane. These projects are all incorporated into this Bikeways Master Plan. The 1-580 overcrossings are proposed as freeway crossing studies, with the understanding that they will entail significant coordination between Dublin, Pleasanton, and Caltrans. City of Livermore The City of Livermore's Proposed Bikeways and Trails Network map in their General Plan shows both proposed Class II lanes and a Class I trail along an extension of Dublin Boulevard. The Class I trail would connect to a proposed trail along Collier Canyon Road, while the proposed Class II lanes would connect to existing bike lanes on North Canyons Parkway. City of San Ramon The City of San Ramon's Bicycle Network map in its 2020 General Plan shows existing Class II lanes on San Ramon Valley Boulevard (which becomes San Ramon Road in Dublin), Village Parkway, and Stagecoach Road, Bikeways Master Plan Page 11 2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I G I ~ {9~ Dublm Bikeways Master Plan -- and existing Class III routes on Davona Drive, Alcosta Boulevard and Kimball Avenue. It also shows proposed Class II lanes on Dougherty Road. This Bikeways Master Plan proposes connecting Class II lanes on San Ramon Road, Stagecoach Road, and Dougherty Road, and a connecting Class III route on Davona Drive. City of Pleasanton The City of Pleasanton's Existing Community Trails & Bike Paths map shows an existing Class I path along Alamo Canal, existing Class II lanes on Hopyard Road (Dougherty Road in Dublin) and Santa Rita Road (Tassajara Road in Dublin), and an existing Class III route on Foothill Road (San Ramon Road in Dublin). No proposed bicycle facilities are shown. This Bikeways Master Plan proposes to study a connection to the Class I Alamo Canal path under 1-580, and connecting Class II lanes on San Ramon Road, Dougherty Road, and Tassajara Road (with a potential overcrossing at 1-580). In addition, several of the trails in Dublin are the shared responsibility of the City, the East Bay Regional Park District, and the Zone 7 Water Agency. Coordinating with the County and other cities and agencies will maximize the likelihood of securing funding and enable an integrated bicycle network. Local Policies The City of Dublin has many policies that support bicycling. These include policies within larger plans such as the Dublin General Plan and the Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan, as well as, Specific Plans and Guidelines such as the Village Parkway Specific Plan and the Fallon Village Design Guidelines. The following is a list of Dublin plans that include policies related to bicycling. · The Dublin General Plan calls for a "comprehensive, integrated trail network that permits safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access within urban areas and between urban areas and open space areas." The General Plan also recommends an integrated multi-modal circulation system that encourages pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and other non-automobile transportation alternatives. The General Plan's Roadway Standards call for all streets to serve a balance of vehicle, bicycle, pedestrians, and transit. · The City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan calls for oft-street paths linking community amenities such as parks, schools, open space areas, neighborhood retail and other destinations. · The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires bicycle parking in all parking lots with 20 or more spaces in non-residential zoning districts and in all multi-family residential complexes. · The City of Dublin 2004-2009 Proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program includes several bicycle projects, such as raising catch basin grates on Dublin Boulevard and studying an Alamo Canal Trail under 1-580. · The Downtown Core Specific Plan's objectives include providing pedestrian and bicycle linkages between the downtown core area and other portions of Dublin. · The Village Parkway Specific Plan recommends that new commercial and office development provide bicycle storage facilities for employees and visitors. · The West Dublin Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Specific Plan's objectives include creating bicycle linkages between the BART area, Downtown Core, and other portions of Dublin. · The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan's land use patterns and intensities are designed to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, cycling, bus, and others. The plan also calls for a Bikeways Master Plan Page 12 2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I b2 i 181 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- bicycle circulation system including bicycle lanes on Gleason Drive, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road and convenient and secure bicycle parking facilities at key destinations. · The San Ramon Road Specific Plan calls for pedestrianlbicycle access along San Ramon Road and Martin Canyon Creek from San Ramon Road to the west edge of the Nielsen Elementary School grounds. · The Fallon Village Design Guidelines Trails and Parks Plan recommends Multi-Use Trails on both east and west sides of the creek-side open space as well as along both sides of major roadways in the Fallon Village area. · The City of Dublin Green Building Ordinance encourages new commercial and institutional buildings to be designed with bicycle racks or storage and shower and changing facilities. It also encourages residential development to include covered bicycle storage. · The Zone 7 Arroyo Management Plan encourages local cities such as Dublin to construct, operate and maintain public recreational trails along selected flood control channels or arroyos. The plan includes design standards for bicycle and pedestrian trails as well as staging areas. CONFORMANCE WITH FUNDING REQUIREMENTS The Bikeways Master Plan conforms to the California Bicycle Transportation Act (BT A), the Transportation Development Act (TDA), and Measure B requirements, which allows the City to pursue grant funds for bicycle projects from these sources. The requirements of the BTA funding source are generally considered the most challenging, so satisfying the BT A will also expand the City's opportunities to pursue a variety of Federal and State funding sources. Measure Band TDA require that the plan contain a list of prioritized projects approved by the City Council. These lists may be found in Chapter 9. Table 1 summarizes the 11 elements required by the BTA and their relationship to the City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan. Bikeways Master Plan Page 13 2007 I b3'~ /8'7 I Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- I I TABLE 1 RELATIONSHIP OF CALIFORNIA BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ACT (1994) TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN California Bicycle Transportation Act (1994) Bikeways Master Plan 1. Estimated number of existing and future bicycle commuters Description in Chapter 3. 2. Map and description of land use and settlement Description in Chapter 4. Land uses shown on patterns, including shopping centers, City buildings. and employment centers Figure 1. 3. Map and description of existing and proposed Description of existing bikeways in Chapter 4. bikeways Description of proposed facilities in Chapter 5. Existing and proposed bikeways shown on Figure 4. 4. Map and description of bicycle parking facilities Description in Chapter 6. Existing facilities shown on Figure 5. 5. Map and description of multi-modal connections Description in Chapter 4. Multi-modal connections shown on Figure 3. 6. Map and description of facilities for changing and Description in Chapter 6. Support Facilities shown storing clothes and equipment on Figure 5. 7. Description of bicycle safety and education programs Description in Chapter 7. 8. Description of citizen and community participation, including letters of support. Description in Chapter 1. 9. Description of consistency with transportation, air quality, and energy conservation plans, including Description in Chapter 1. incentives for bike commuting 10. Description of proposed bicycle projects and Description of proposed facilities in Chapter 5. implementation priority Prioritization discussed in Chapter 9. 11. Description of past expenditures and future financial needs for bicycle facilities Description in Chapter 8. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Bikeways Master Plan Page 14 2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (0'-1 ~ )g'j Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- 3. GOALS AND POLICIES The Bikeways Master Plan contains goals and policies for developing and implementing a bikeway system that can be broken down into three general categories: · Provide a viable transportation alternative to the automobile and thus improve transportation choices for Dublin residents · Improve safety for bicyclists · Provide residents with access to open space, trails, and other recreational amenities and encourage cycling for health and recreation. These goals and policies are outlined below. Goal 1 : Support bicycling and the development of a comprehensive bicycle transportation system as a viable alternative to the automobile. Policies: 1.1 Integrate the proposed highest priority on-street and off-street bikeway projects contained in this plan as part of the larger five-year Capital Improvement Project (CIP) update that the City undertakes for all projects. 1.2 Update the City's General Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan to reflect the goals and policies in this plan. 1.3 Update the Plan every five years. Goal 2: Maximize the amount of state and federal funding for bicycle transportation improvements for which Dublin is eligible. Policies: 2.1 Identify current regional, state, and federal funding programs along with specific funding requirements and deadlines. 2.2 Pursue multi-jurisdictional funding applications with neighboring cities and other potential partners such as BART and the East Bay Regional Park District. 2.3 Encourage the formation of reliable local, regional, and state funding sources that can be used to leverage federal funds. Goal 3: Build upon existing bicycle facilities. Policies: 3.1 Encourage the use of existing natural and man-made corridors such as creeks, canals, and other open space corridors for future multi-use trail alignments. Bikeways Master Plan Page 15 2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f;5 tJ.fr /g7 Dubllf) Bikeways Master Plan -- 3.2 Identify existing bicycle education programs and expand these programs as appropriate. 3.3 Conduct bicycle counts and surveys whenever vehicle counts are conducted to gauge the effectiveness of various improvements and programs. Goal 4: Develop a bicycle system that meets the needs of commuter and recreational users, helps reduce vehicle trips, and links residential neighborhoods with regional destinations. Policies: 4.1 Develop a bicycle commuter route system that connects residential neighborhoods to employment areas, multi-modal terminals, and schools. 4.2 Develop a recreational route system that uses low-volume streets and off-street multi-use trails to serve recreational destinations such as parks and open space. 4.3 Develop policies that encourage people to bicycle to work. Estimate the future benefits of reduced congestion, parking, and improved air quality and health to make the City competitive in applying for grants. 4.4 Balance user convenience with safety concerns. Where needed, develop a dual system that serves both the experienced and inexperienced bicyclist. 4.5 Encourage employers to provide secure bicycle parking, showers and changing rooms for bicycle commuters. 4.6 As a condition of project approval, require major development projects with major transportation impacts to construct adjacent bicycle facilities included in the proposed bicycle system. 4.7 Evaluate the needs of the community for bicycle parking on a project-by-project basis. 4.8 Consult the Recommended Bikeways map prior to implementation of street improvement projects. 4.9 Install bicycle stencils and bicycle-sensitive loop detectors (or other detector type) on bikeways as part of new signals, signal upgrades, and resurfacing/restriping projects. 4.10 Provide appropriately-signed detours for bicyclists during construction projects. Goal 5: Maximize multi-modal connections to the bicycle system. Policies: 5.1 Ensure that the bicycle system serves transit stops and stations. 5.2 Work with local and regional transit agencies to install bike lockers at existing and new stations and bike storage on BART. 5.3 Take advantage of available funding sources to provide strong bicycle connections to transit. Bikeways Master Plan Page 16 2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GG :r /8 'l Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- Goal 6: Improve bicycle safety. Policies: 6.1 Monitor bicycle-related collisions annually and target a reduction rate over a specific period of time. 6.2 Expand the "bicycle rodeo" program that is held at elementary schools to serve older children and adults. 6.3 Develop a maintenance schedule for bicycle facilities. 6.4 Work with the school district to identify "Safe Routes to Schools" improvements for cyclists and pedestrians. Goal 7: Develop a coordinated marketing strategy to encourage bicycling and to increase awareness of the importance of regular physical activity. Policies: 7.1 Develop and update a Bikeway Map showing bicycle facilities for public distribution both in print and via the City's website. 7.2 Coordinate with other agencies (Le. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Dublin Unified School District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and Regional Rideshare Programs) and local businesses on annual bicycle events such as "Bike to Work Day," "Bike to School Day", and bicycle safety courses. 7.3 Provide information about the advantages and opportunities afforded by the bicycle system to groups who may help publicize the system. 7.4 Coordinate efforts with neighboring cities, local bicycle clubs, and relevant associations. Bikeways Master Plan Page 17 2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I G1cf}gry t'} Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- 4. BICYCLE NETWORK The Bikeways Master Plan sets forth a blueprint for completing a system of bikeways and support facilities within the City of Dublin. The current General Plan circulation element consists of two circulation maps and two policies in the 2005 update to Dublin's General Plan. The General Plan's circulation maps include 16 existing and future bicycle routes as well as policies encouraging the City to provide safe bikeways on arterial streets and complete the bikeway system shown on the maps. This Bikeways Master Plan builds upon existing on-street and off-street bicycle facilities throughout the City, focusing on access to Dublin's parks, trails and open space areas, and also includes criteria for defining different types of bicycle facilities, a project list, design standards, and education and safety programs. NEEDS ANALYSIS Dublin has many qualities favorable to bicycling, including a temperate climate, existing regional trails and relatively flat terrain. However, heavy traffic and a lack of bicycle facilities on major arterials are existing constraints to bicycling. The only east-west arterial, Dublin Boulevard, carries high traffic volumes (over 30,000 vehicles per day) and has limited bicycle facilities. North-south connectors such as San Ramon Road, Dougherty Road, and Tassajara Road also carry high traffic volumes (17,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day) and provide limited or incomplete bicycle facilities. In addition to busy streets and incomplete facilities, other constraints are the interstates located on the southern boundary of Dublin (1-580) and through central Dublin (1-680). These interstates present obstacles when crossing south into Pleasanton and traveling east and west within Dublin. Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFT A) also presents a unique constraint to Dublin. As shown in Figure 1, Camp Parks is a large section of land close to the center of Dublin that divides the City in half. Camp Parks roads are exempt from City control and, therefore, bicycles do not currently have access through Camp Parks. However, this Plan, along with other documents, recommends consideration of bicycle route extensions through the southern portion of Camp Parks if this portion of Camp Parks is developed by the private sector in the future. Bicycle Trip Types Bikeways, like streets and sidewalks, are used by a wide range of people--children riding to school, commuters riding to work, people exercising, racing, or touring. This analysis takes into account the different user groups to design a comprehensive bicycle system that meets their needs. Related to the user groups mentioned above is trip purpose, which helps identify common needs among the groups. In general, bicycle trips can be broken down into recreational (including all discretionary trips), commuter (whether to work or school) or shopping trips. The biggest difference between these groups is that while recreational riders may be interested in routes leading to parks or other areas of interest, commuters and shoppers are interested in the shortest and safest route between two points. The Bikeways Master Plan identifies appropriate improvements for recreational and commuter bicycle facilities. Bikeways Master Plan Page 18 2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I {;8 ;1 )2' Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- Recreational Destinations and Needs Dublin has a diverse recreational system that includes city parks and trails as well as regional parks and trails that appeal to various types of bicyclists. Recreational bicycling includes children riding to a nearby park, more serious cyclists riding tours, casual riders riding in the evening for exercise, and older adults riding to a community center. The common attribute of all of these activities is that they are generally done for the pleasure of the ride itself, they have a recreational facility as a final destination, they are discretionary by nature, and they value speed and directness less than surroundings and relative safety. Recreational bicyclists can generally be categorized into two groups. The first group is casual bicyclists who typically have short trips and often include less experienced cyclists, particularly young children and older adults. The second group includes more experienced and athletic riders who generally seek scenic back roads as their favorite domain. It is important to understand these distinct types of bicyclists because the proposed system must provide opportunities for both groups. For the person riding for exercise, the needs are for a relatively quiet route with no stops, away from automobile traffic, if possible, preferably with visual interest and shades from the wind and sun. A loop configuration is preferred so that the rider ends up back at his/her starting point without backtracking. For the person going to another recreational destination (a park or a shopping mall), the route may consist of fairly direct back streets that allow arrival with reasonable time through a comfortable environment. For other casual riders, a route that leads through interesting neighborhoods, along creeks, or through parks and open space offers the greatest interest. Commuter and Student Destinations and Needs Commuter and student destinations include downtown employment centers, office parks, and elementary, junior high, and high schools. Targeting bikeway improvements to commuters is important because most roadway congestion and a significant portion of air contaminants occur during the AM and PM peak periods. In many cases, bicycling as a commute alternative has the potential to improve traffic and air quality. For example, bicycle commuters in the City of Davis have reduced peak hour traffic volumes by over 15%-- to the point that many downtown streets that would normally require four traffic lanes (with no bike lanes) have only two traffic lanes and ample room for bicyclists. While Davis may be an anomaly, national surveys have shown that about 20% of the adult population would use a bicycle to ride to work, at least occasionally, if a properly designed bikeway system existed. Roughly 14% of work-trips in Dublin are under 9 minutes. This shows that there is a substantial target group for bicycle commuters. Commuters and students have similar travel behavior, which is typically to take the most direct route from origin to destination. For grammar school students, this may consist of residential or collector streets, with few crossings of major arterials. For junior high and high school students, riders may have to cross several arterials to reach school. For college students and adult commuters, rides are most often less than five miles but may be as long as 10 or 15 miles. The nearest university/community colleges are the Amador Valley Adult & Community Education campus in Pleasanton and Las Positas College in Livermore (about seven miles away), and the Diablo Community College in San Ramon's Dougherty Valley. Commuters and students (in the morning) travel during peak periods of traffic to destinations that may have high levels of congestion and speeds. For example, one of the most dangerous parts of a student's commute is the drop-off zone in front of the school where many vehicles search for parking or drop-off spaces. Commuting bicyclists have simple and obvious needs. They require bike lanes or wide curb lanes along arterials and collectors, loop detectors at signalized intersections, signals where school children need to cross busy Bikeways Master Plan Page 19 2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (c/) ;f Jg I} Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- arterials, periodic maintenance of the pavement, and adequate bicycle storage and lockers/showers at their destination points (see Chapter 7, Support Facilities). Most commute bicycle trips are fewer than five miles and are not regional trips, except for those commuters linking to another mode, such as at bus stops or transit stations. Continuing to allow bicycles on other modes such as bus and BART and providing bike lockers at transit stations will help extend the range of commute bicyclists in Dublin. Existing and Future Bicycle Commuters A common term used in describing demand for bicycle facilities is "mode split." Mode split refers to the form of transportation a person chooses to take, such as walking, bicycling, public transit, or driving. Mode split is often used in evaluating commuter alternatives such as bicycling, where the objective is to increase the percentage of people selecting an alternative means of transportation to the single-occupant (or drive-alone) automobile. Table 2 presents 1990 and 2000 Census data for the journey-to-work mode split for the City of Dublin. TABLE 2 JOURNEY-TO-WORK MODE SPLIT FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN Mode 1990 2000 (Home-based work trips) Drive Alone 79.7% 79.1% Carpool 11.9% 9.9% Public Transit 2.0% 5.4% Bicycling 0.5% 0.3% Walking 2.2% 1.3% Other Means 0.3% 0.7% Work at Home 3.4% 3.2% Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census. Bikeways Master Plan Page 20 2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7?J ef ) 87 rj Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- As shown in Table 2, bicycle trips represent 0.3 percent of home-based work trips in Dublin. This should not be misinterpreted as the bicycle mode share of all trips for several reasons: . Journey-to-work data only represents commute trips, which tend to be longer than shopping, school, recreation, and other trips, and are therefore less compatible with bicycling. . Census journey-to-work data fails to capture people who commute by bicycle one or two days per week. . Journey-to-work data does not account for commuters with multiple modes of travel to and from work, such as commuters that ride a bicycle to a BART station before transferring to transit for the remainder of their journey to work. . No separate accounting of shopping, school, or recreational trips is made in the Census; these trips make up more than half of the person trips on a typical weekday and a significantly greater proportion on the weekend. These trips also tend to be short to medium in length and are therefore very well suited for bicycling. . Journey-to-work reports information for adult work trips, but does not request data on school trips, which are much more likely to be bicycling trips because school-aged individuals cannot drive until the latter half of their high school years. School trips, recreation trips and other non-work related trips make the overall bicycle mode split higher than 0.3%, and may make it as high as 1.5% (based on MTC's 2000 travel forecasts). According to the 2000 Census, there are 9,325 households in Dublin. Assuming approximately 9 daily person trips per household, there are a total of approximately 83,925 daily person trips in Dublin, of which approximately 250 to 1,260 each day are by bicycle (assuming an overall mode share of 0.3% to 1.5%). Of course, as the City grows, the number of potential bicycle trips increases. Future bicycle trips will depend on a number of factors such as the availability of well-connected facilities, and location, density, and type of future land development. With appropriate bicycle facilities in place and implementation of employer trip reduction programs, the bicycle mode split could increase above its current rate. Bikeways Master Plan Page 21 2007 ! l ~.:~ ~ ~ l ~~ ~ . ~ TYPES OF BIKEWAY FACILITIES Bikeway planning and design in California typically relies on the guidelines and design standards established b~ Caltrans as documented in "Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design" of the Highway Design Manual (5 ' Edition, California Department of Transportation, January 2001). Chapter 1000 follows standards developed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and identifies specific design standards for various conditions and bikeway-to-roadway relationships. Caltrans standards provide for three distinct types of bikeway facilities, as generally described below and shown in Appendix A. C/ass I Bikeway (Bike Path) provides a completely separate ~ight-of-way and is designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle and pedestrian cross-flow minimized. Bike paths are for non-motorized use only. It should be noted that Class I paths adjacent to roadways (also known as "sidepaths") with intersecting driveways and roadways have a high collision potential for cyclists, because drivers who are exiting driveways or intersecting roads and looking for oncoming traffic do not expect cyclists to approach from the opposite direction.' For these reasons, when the City reviews plans for development adjacent to proposed Class I facilities, driveways and cross-flow traffic should be minimized. When driveways cross Class I paths, the City should consider warning signs and pavement markings (such as "Bike XING" or STOP bars) for both drivers and bicyclists, as appropriate. These safety issues do not apply to regional trails, which generally have few intersections. • C/ass ll Bikeway (Bike Lane) provides a restricted right-of-way and is designated for the use of bicycles with a striped lane on a street or highway. Bicycle lanes are generally at least five feet wide. Vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross-flow are permitted. Class II lanes are preferred to Class I paths on roadways with multiple intersections and/or driveways, for the reasons described above. Class lll Bikeway (Bike Route) provides for a right-of-way designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicles. A Shared-Use Arrow (or "Sharrow") can be marked in the outside lane on a Class III route to show the suggested path of travel for bicyclists. This is often done when the route has on-street parking, in order to encourage cyclists to ride a safe distance away from the parked vehicles' "door zone." The Sharrow can also be used at intersections with multiple turn lanes to show bicyclists the recommended lane for through travel. The Sharrow also shows drivers that cyclists should be expected on the street and given su~cient room. A sign stating "Bicycle Allowed Full Use of Lane" is often included. ' Wachtel, Alan and Diana Lewiston, Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections, Institute of Transportation Engineers Joumal, September 1994. pp. 30-35 Bikeways Master P/an Page 22 2007 \~ ~~ .~ ~'~ (~ )- ! fJ 11 ... "'l ~.>.}J ~ ~ \: ~ 'I'j ~ ~ ,. il Ii i,' '" ,,-. ~ ... ~... ,. -~ , ." ~ , .. \ .. ... ~ ;-., " ~ ,- '" ''';(,1',,, " it."'.I~ "'lQif "J"!:. , ~ J ~ uJ-~. ~l'i r.-J -~ ;Ii I! '"' ~ It 1/.' l\ ..,:'t, 7' ., .i \:l ..- ..." rx go 'W~ oJ: ~ t' <1";1. 'It 'll ~~ ~, III .1' ...,'" r ..., ~ ~ Il i:I lr. .~~' ...~'\ ~ ,,, L ::; l"'l.l" l ;j' .' III fl.1 ;}I '" r:J !l .. Jr l\ ',.U .' ," I ~J ~ ',~ fI, J . ~. I' ... " III ~ I." Ioi.~ f (\ ~ ~';,- .;t; . ;, -,. "!':'~ f:!' JIi! C.':! l,&l ~ ... ... ~t 1 "'" " - p "'\1 ,...<1r.\ ~l'.... .' -r,g. ...: '"Iii\t1 ~:Io'l l!fl ,,~I\~ 11 . I'( 1ii.:;f;1:_....' . l1.L l:.qri' Oil ., c .I II 1lI f! ..... ~ ~ t, '~1lf"''i "::J"i ~-~~ fJ;J - t{ / ~ a fJ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 4" ~iJ 'tfl ~ - "~ r;,Q' III ~ I;l --. I. " . fr I JI- I . I!] t~ =~~.. ~. II i ~ d , ! , 1 1 \ ~ ~". \,,~ ;.''# , il - r :;: '-.; ~ -= '~::. :.. ~, ~'~i . " n liD UU~~~. il n Il!>,~ U !l II ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~I II - ff' \\ 1 fl .I~. '0- r. ~-.... 'iV'~ \_ . ~'" I' '1' .. i ? ~l:G ' .'. E:~~ _ F~ ~-.~ l~r y~. ':~jr: " -~ J..= . ~~...~ .~. .". ,,:' I ug~:?l.\ il / , ' .~ ~<.t(I,: --~. r ~ ~~r~ rJ ~ - , .~~. ~ ~- :5. b~ I ~ ~ ~ .' n . III ~ ... l.I 1I~ ~, '1\ II 'Ii ~ .~Rt r!~ ~ . - ~. / ,~ ~ . ... r;:, II!l ~ ~ ,~:(~~,~ rt To 1;1' ill 8 ~ l'\ - ... [ . ~ ,.,Ib n .1)1 I' CI II !J~ ill; { ~~ ~~< iP iii "'" r ~~II., ~ ! ~ CI " ",..~ lJ III III Q II ~ " t' f',1 "1~ loll .1' " "" f!",t 'Ill "... , 1 ..~ '" ~ l.-A'\, )1, ~ ~-, r " I: r: ... ~ (/ ~ '1==/1 r-..:J ~, 1'1: "\1 .lI ~II.."1l .. c.Y~ t ~ ~ u 1.'Il:f:.J :r ~ to II t~r r:P C" {I :iI ~ (b~ ~ fl ~ [' ~ , r : ~ ,(.~LI" , y ')' '7 . rfl, ~ OIl ~ 1 .... J~'" ~" ~~~~.:J r':l~U{ ~~~ . ~..J .. 5' , ""- -...:... .. ~ "" ". ~. .t \~ ~ iCII _ ~ r~, jJ 6..,;" 0. ,]y .. ,~ ~ (~ ~ ~ , :\ 0 L""~. If' Il:;Q",,/L -b~ rJ :: ~ t' t::'flv,~ ~ il -, "'':.,~ (. ~ r n '" !J ~ ~,~ v'';'-. ~ , il' ~ " " ~ Dl 11< ~ l"~ , ~rJ ~ ~ l , I:l ! ~ '" h to ~ J : I~ r ,j " I~'" r: I;: ~ :,~_ ,,~..~~ 4j j. "'.~ ~ J: ~ .)- _: -.I JJ !, ~ J. rP "I: , --, '- n /; i\::,,-_, ~1i~~~f~~ f"",-", f.'~:!'?~;>, ., ~ ;>.{'~- ---'-- I" ~TfI a', , .J.~ = ~ -t'-,~~ :0 . 1 "'~r .;r """'" . ,...cu CUtn I..::J :J" .~ c:: U.CU -I ~ !CI r 1 ~' r-- Q) Cij U C/) z'" B c _2 (;j ii5 C I- _2 a: QI (;j ~II>:5 (jj (1)'Q},-.- t- 5~$a: ~ ~ ii5~~ 6i61IUi o z " II> Q; II> C (/) $ <ll OJ C 0 C QI_ :Q 0 ~ ~ II> ,~ ~ o a. 0 _!:.! 0 g. Ci :0 ..c ..c E ~~cnw ~€l4.~ 5 -(ij ctS:;::;. ";:; C C QI QI-o :Q '00 II> QI Qla: a:~-o >- ,- Q) E~~ ~~~~ osg(ij ~~::lc... 0111 ~ (ij ~-~ E ~ ~ - E E '00 ctlOa.Q) .0 0 0 a: CD "0 Qi >. EO> = E,gt3 ~ 05-ou. ~~~.!!! -iii 0: C OJ a; -Q3 El ,!; a:zc...cn 110 (ij """' Q).O <- u ~ $ :E Q)E -- - 0 = ctl E ~E(ijo ~ ~ '0 0 ::) "'0 - - .... c Q) ca 'S - E Q; .g ~ !5 ~ g' ~ :.J () C) lllll - 73~ rg j 0llbl1l7 Bikeways Master Plan ~ 5. EXISTING FACILITIES Fehr & Peers conducted an inventory of existing bikeway segments in Dublin based on the City's current General 'Plan bikeway map, additional information obtained from the City, and field visits. The City currently has approximately 21 miles of bikeway facilities, consisting of: . 13 miles of Class I bike paths . 8 miles of Class II bike lanes . 1/3 mile of Class III bike routes It is worth noting that approximately 5.5 miles of the Class I paths are side paths along only one side of a street, and 1.4 miles of the Class II lanes are only on one side of the street. The Existing Bikeway Network map on Figure 2 illustrates the locations of existing bikeways. Note that unpaved open space trails are also included on the map as a reference. These trails do not meet Caltrans design standards for Class I bike paths. They primarily serve hikers and mayor may not permit mountain bicycling depending on park regulations. However, open space trails are recreational destinations providing access to creeks, ridges, and undeveloped areas their trailheads may be reached by bicycle. LAND USE AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS In addition to showing the types and locations of existing bikeways, Figure 2 also locates major bicycle activity centers such as schools, parks, and the library. Figure 1 shows the existing land use pattern in the city. Interstate 580 serves as the southern boundary to the city, and Interstate 680 crosses the City near the Downtown Area. Camp Parks RFTA occupies a large amount of land in central Dublin between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road, from Dublin Boulevard to the border with San Ramon, and almost splits the City in half. Retail uses are concentrated along Dublin Boulevard on both sides of 1-680, as well as along San Ramon Road and Village Parkway. Major employment centers include offices along Dublin Boulevard and office parks on Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive. There are some light industrial uses along Sierra Court. The Dublin school system includes six public elementary schools, two public junior high schools, two public high schools, and five private schools. Public facilities include the Civic Center and library on Dublin Boulevard at Civic Plaza, the Shannon Community Center on San Ramon Road (currently closed), the Dublin Senior Center on Amador Valley Boulevard, the Dublin Swim Center at Dublin High School, and the Frank Stager Gym on York Drive. Dublin is a growing city, and is expanding to the east and west. A large amount of this expansion will be new housing development. For example, Fallon Village is a large development of over 3,000 units and 2.5 million square feet of non-residential space located in eastern Dublin north of 1-580 and east of Fallon Road. In western Dublin, the Schaefer Ranch development located north of the extension of Dublin Boulevard includes up to 302 housing units and 250 acres of parks and open space. A transit village near the DublinlPleasanton BART station is now under construction and a new West Dublin BART station is currently being planned. There are also plans for new mixed-use development, shopping centers, and commercial/office space along Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road in eastern Dublin. All of this development will change land use patterns in the city and could potentially generate additional bicycle trips. Bikeways Master Plan Page 24 2007 ..-; L/ of /8 'l '1 OublllJ Bikeways Master Plan -- KEY CORRIDORS Dublin currently does not have a complete north-south on-street bicycle connection between San Ramon to the north and Pleasanton to the south. However, Dublin does have a number of off-street north-south bike corridors that extend across the city, many of which are regional Trails managed by the East Bay Regional Park District. There is no existing east-west bicycle connection in Dublin. This is in part because both Interstate 680 and Camp Parks RFTA present barriers, dividing the eastern and western ends of the City. Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard (with connections to other streets including Gleason Drive and Central Parkway) could provide on-street east-west access. On-Street North-south routes: · San Ramon Road is a four-lane arterial with a parallel off-street path on the west side as well as bicycle lane striping between Silvergate Drive and Alcosta Boulevard. San Ramon Road extends from the northern city boundary to the southern city boundary, and crosses 1-580 with on- and off-ramps. The speed limit on San Ramon Road is 40 miles per hour and the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is between 17,000 vehicles in the north and 29,000 near Silvergate Drive. . Village Parkway is four-lane collector with Class II bike lanes between Amador Valley Boulevard and the City of San Ramon. Between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard, Village Parkway is a Class III bike route. South of Dublin Boulevard, there are no existing bike lanes. The City of Dublin recently improved the section of Village Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard with a median, landscaping, benches and trash cans. The speed limit on Village Parkway is 30 to 35 miles per hour and the ADT is between 10,000 vehicles in the north and 20,000 between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard. . Dougherty Road is a four-lane arterial that runs from the southern city boundary, where it crosses 1-580 with on- and off-ramps, to the northern city boundary. It has an off-street bike path along the east side from the Iron Horse Trail to the northern city boundary. Dougherty Road provides connections to the Iron Horse Trail, Amador Valley Boulevard, and Alamo Creek Park. It also serves as the western boundary of Camp Parks RFT A. The speed limit on Dougherty Road is 35 to 45 miles per hour and the ADT is between 18,000 vehicles in the north and 44,000 near 1-580. . Tassajara Road is a four-lane arterial in eastern Dublin. The street has bicycle lane striping at major intersections between Dublin Boulevard and the south leg of North Dublin Ranch Drive. South of Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road crosses 1-580 with an on- and off-ramp. Tassajara Road could provide a straight north-south connection through Dublin as well as access to the retail uses on the western side of the street. The speed limit on Tassajara Road is 35 miles per hour and the ADT is between 20,000 vehicles near Gleason Drive and 30,000 near 1-580. . Fallon Road is a two/four-lane arterial that will connect with Tassajara Road in northern Dublin in the future. There are existing bicycle lanes at several of the most recently paved intersections as well as a bicycle lane on one side of the street between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive. Fallon Road provides access to the Sports Park and the future Fallon Village development in eastern Dublin. Off-Street North-South routes: . San Ramon Road Path is a sidepath used by both pedestrians and cyclists and extends along the west side of San Ramon Road from Dublin Boulevard north to the City Limit at Alcosta Boulevard. The ten foot wide asphalt path is striped with a yellow center line. Between Silvergate Drive and Dublin Boulevard, the Bikeways Master Plan Page 25 2007 75 ~ }8 7 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- path is frequently crossed by driveways to parking lots. This section of the path has been designed with curves and small hills. North of Silvergate Drive the path is straighter and is not crossed by driveways. . The Iron Horse Trail is an East Bay Regional Park District Regional Trail that extends from Pleasanton to Concord with proposed extensions to Niles Canyon in Fremont. Within the City of Dublin the trail extends from the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station to the San Ramon Border. The Iron Horse Trail intersects with the Alamo Creek and Alamo Canal Trails and the Dougherty Road Bike Path. The asphalt trail surface is 12 feet wide. . The Alamo Canal Trail is an East Bay Regional Park District Regional Trail that extends from the southern city limit near the Dublin Library and Civic Center and extends north up to the Iron Horse Trail. Currently, there is a closed gate that creates a gap in this trail connection. . The Alamo Creek Trail is a City trail that extends from the Iron Horse Trail north through Alamo Creek Park to the northern city limit near Crossridge Road. The trail ranges from 12 to 14 feet in width. With the exception of a short gravel-paved segment through Alamo Creek Park, the rest of the trail is paved with asphalt. . The Dougherty Road Bike Path is an 8-foot wide asphalt sidepath that parallels the east side of Dougherty Road from the city limit with San Ramon and connects with the Iron Horse Trail near Scarlett Drive. This path currently ends at the City's border with San Ramon. · The Tassajara Creek Trail extends from Dublin Boulevard north to Somerset Lane. Extensions will continue north with new development to the Tassajara Creek Regional Park. Most of the trail is managed by the East Bay Regional Park District and is designated as a Regional Trail. Between Gleason Drive and Dublin Boulevard, the trail runs on both sides of Tassajara Creek. The west bank trail is managed by the EBRPD, while the east bank trail is managed by the City. Between Gleason Drive and Central Parkway, the trail runs adjacent to Emerald Glen Park. . The Fallon Road Bike Path is a 12 foot wide concrete sidepath on the west side of Fallon Road from Kingsmill Terrace to Gleason Drive. A bridge from the path crosses a swale connecting to unpaved maintenance access roads near Oak Bluff Court. On-Street East-West Routes: . Dublin Boulevard is the main east-west arterial that runs through Dublin. It has four to six lanes and intersects major north/south routes including San Ramon Road, Village Parkway, Dougherty Road, the Alamo Canal Trail, the Iron Horse Trail, Hacienda Drive, the Tassajara Creek Trail, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road. Dublin Boulevard provides access to many commercial, office, and civic uses as well as the Dublin BART Station and the future West Dublin BART Station. There is existing bicycle lane striping on one side of the street from Lockhart Street to Brannigan Street (east of Tassajara Road) and on both sides of the street from Tassajara Road to Tassajara Creek. Bicycle lane striping also exists at intersections between Hibernia Drive and DeMarcus Boulevard. The City's General Plan shows proposed bicycle lanes along Dublin Boulevard through Dublin. These lanes will provide access to the new Schaefer Ranch development in west Dublin and the new Fallon Village development in eastern Dublin. The speed limit on Dublin Boulevard is 45 miles per hour east of Dougherty Road and 35 miles per hour west of Dougherty Road. The ADT on Dublin Boulevard ranges from 6,000 vehicles in the west to 34,000 near Sierra Court. · Amador Valley Boulevard is a two-lane collector that runs between San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road and intersects both the Iron Horse Trail and the Alamo Creek Trail. There are existing bicycle lanes on Amador Valley Boulevard between San Ramon Road and the Iron Horse Trail, and on the north side Bikeways Master Plan Page 26 2007 /6 ~ /27 Dublm Bikeways Master Plan ~ of the street from the Iron Horse Trail to the Alamo Creek Trail. However, the segment between the Iron Horse Trail and Dougherty Road (Alamo Creek Trail and Dougherty Road on the north side) is incomplete. The speed limit on Amador Valley Boulevard is 25 to 35 miles per hour and the ADT is between 7,000 vehicles near Penn Drive and 20,000 by 1-680. . Gleason Drive is four-lane collector between Arnold Road and Fallon Road in east Dublin. It has complete bicycle lanes between Arnold Road and Tassajara Road, and bicycle lane striping between Brannigan Street and Fallon Road. Gleason Drive provides connections to the Tassajara Creek Trail, Emerald Glen Park, and the future Sports Park. In the future, Gleason Drive may be extended west through Camp Parks RFTA to Dougherty Road. The speed limit on Gleason Drive is 40 miles per hour. . Central Parkway is currently a two-lane collector that runs between Arnold Road and Fallon Road south of Gleason Drive. The segment of Central Parkway between Lockhart Street and Fallon Road is expected to be open for traffic use by 2008. Currently, there are bicycle lanes on Central Parkway between Arnold Road and Tassajara Road, but no bicycle facilities east of Tassajara Road. Like Gleason Drive, Central Parkway provides bicycle connections to the Tassajara Creek Trail, Emerald Glen Park, and the future Sports Park. As part of the Fallon Village development project, the Parkway will be extended east of Fallon Road to Croak Road in the future. The designated speed limit on Central Parkway is 35 miles per hour. Central Parkway is planned to be expanded to 4 lanes in the future. Off-Street East-West Route: . The Iron Horse Trail / Tassajara Creek Trail Connector provides a Class I bike path connection between these two East Bay Regional Park District Trails along existing sidewalks on the north side of Dublin Boulevard. Between the Iron Horse Trail and Iron Horse Parkway, the trail is a 12 foot wide asphalt sidepath. The path narrows to 5 feet between Iron Horse Parkway and Sybase Drive where no development improvements exist. From Sybase to the Tassajara Creek Trail, the path is 12 feet wide and paved with concrete. Key Gaps in the Bikeway Network As Figure 2 shows, Dublin lacks a continuous bikeway system that provides connections throughout the City and to important origins and destinations. With the exception of a few corridors, such as Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway, and the Regional Trails, bikeways are sporadic. Key gaps include: . Dublin Boulevard east-west connection: A corridor study is being proposed to identify the right-of-way needed to accommodate Class II bike lanes along Dublin Boulevard. In particular, the segment through the Downtown area between San Ramon Road and the Alamo Canal Bridge would require acquisition of right-of-way for the bike lanes and could result in major impacts (Le. removal of street trees, utility relocation, etc.). If the resulting study shows that Class II bike lanes are too costly and difficult to construct, a Class III bike route designation with shared-use pavement marking and signs will be evaluated as an alternative at those locations. . Additional east-west connections through Dublin: East of Arnold Road, Gleason Drive and Central Parkway have existing bicycle lanes except for the sections between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Drive where no frontage improvements have been built on Gleason Drive; and Central Parkway has inconsistent markings. Completing the bicycle lanes on Gleason Drive and Central Parkway, providing extensions through the southern portion of Camp Parks if this portion of Camp Parks is developed by the private sector in the future, and providing a link to Amador Valley Boulevard's existing bicycle lanes will provide an additional east-west connection that will help to integrate the on-street and off-street bikeway systems. Bikeways Master Plan Page 27 2007 /71 )21 Dub/If] Bikeways Master Plan -- · North-south on-street connections on major arterials: On San Ramon Road, continuous bike lanes exist between Alcosta Boulevard (at the north City Limit) and Silvergate Drive. Although there are no bike lanes south of Silvergate Drive, there may be an opportunity to complete the bike lanes up to Dublin Boulevard by restriping the lanes. On Tassajara Road and Fallon road, bike lane striping exists only at intersections. Completing these bike lanes between intersections will increase the number of north-south connections in Dublin, providing access to existing and new development as well as connections to San Ramon and Pleasanton. · Interstate-S80 crossings: With the exception of the Iron Horse Trail, currently, there are no designated on- street 1-580 crossings for bicyclists between Dublin and Pleasanton. 1-580 is the southern boundary of the City and separates Dublin from Pleasanton. A study of the freeway crossings needs to be undertaken to identify ways of reducing/eliminating hazards while riding over the freeway where on- and off-ramps are located. Providing adequate connections across 1-580 would likely increase bicycle commuting and recreational riding between the two cities. Upcoming Projects The City has several upcoming bikeway projects. Some are development projects and some are part of the City's Capital Improvement Projects. On-street bikeway projects that are currently planned or partially funded include the following: Capital Improvement Proiects · Raising Catch Basin Grates: As detailed in the 2005 City of Dublin Proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, this project would raise the grade of catch basin grates along both side of Dublin Boulevard between Donlon Way and Village Parkway. These improvements will make it easier for bicyclists to ride inside the curb line. · Scarlett Drive-Iron Horse Trail Extension: This project would provide an extension of Scarlett Drive north of Dublin Boulevard with bicycle lanes, and relocate and enhance a portion of the Iron Horse Trail. The roadway element is a connection between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard (within the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way). . Bike Lan~Amador Valley Boulevard: Stagecoach Road to Dougherty Road: This project will install a bikeway along Amador Valley Boulevard between Stagecoach Road and Dougherty Road. This project will connect the Iron Horse Trail, the Alamo Creek Trail, and the Dougherty Road Bike Path. Development-Funded Proiects . Dublin Boulevard Bicycle Lanes: Bicycle lanes are proposed as part of the widening of Dublin Boulevard between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive and the intersection improvement of Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. These roadway improvements are in the 2005 City of Dublin Proposed Five- Year Capital Improvement Program. . Constructing Bicycle Lanes in Eastern Dublin: This project is described in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Streets included in the Plan include Gleason Drive, Central Parkway, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road north of Central Parkway. As described in other sections of this plan, these streets currently have limited bicycle lanes. The project also includes widening of the bike/pedestrian trail along the Camp Parks frontage on Dublin Boulevard between Iron Horse Parkway and Sybase Drive. Off-street bikeway projects that are currently planned or partially funded include: Bikeways Master Plan Page 28 2007 7g i)~ 1 OublllJ Bikeways Master Plan -- Capital Improvement Proiects · The Alamo Canal 1-580 Gap Elimination will provide a connection from the Alamo Canal Trail in Dublin beneath 1-580 to connect with the Alamo Canal Trail in Pleasanton, transforming it into a regional trail. The feasibility study for this project is included in the 2005 City of Dublin Proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and has over $30,000 in funding for 2005-2006. This project has also been identified by the Zone 7 Water Agency in the Stream Management Master Plan Interim Report (March 2004). The City is working jointly with East Bay Regional Park District, the City of Pleasanton, Caltrans, BART, and Zone 7 Water Agency to secure funding for its construction. Development-Funded Proiects . Tassajara Creek Trail Northern Extension: An extension of the Tassajara Creek Trail from Somerset Lane north to the Tassajara Creek Regional Park will be constructed with future housing development. A continuation of this trail within the Tassajara Creek Regional Park will be developed by the EBRPD. . Schaefer Ranch Open Space & EBRPD Lands - Dublin Hills Regional Park: A number of unpaved multi-use regional trails have been planned for the western hills of Dublin in the areas of Schaefer Ranch, Donlon Canyon, Martin Canyon, and Calaveras Ridge (see Figure 4). These trails will be developed by the East Bay Regional Park District and the Schaefer Ranch developer. . Fallon Village: The Fallon Village Stage One Design Guidelines recommend multi-use trails on both the east and west sides of the creek-side open space as well as along both sides of major roadways in the Fallon Village area. Bikeways Master Plan Page 29 2007 T....... I C\J -....... <~ '\ \\-- 1'- I C----- - -- - ---------: I , , I , , I I , r---- " I " \\~ ------_____1 I ,~ ~. ~~4 &.)\.... ." 'O"ii.x: 61"t ~ 1-';;0- ... ..... g:ij~ ~~ ...::E ,_ _ fl all VllvrVSSVl a: o 5 ~ ~ Cl ~.~ ~ ~~4 l~ 5 ~ .....t JI OtiJ~~, ;~ ~h ~.. c ~ .~ ~~ E~ Jj ~ o VON31:)VH "- :;l all OlONllV VILLAGE PKY .l \ .Ir, l\ / l.. } \ / -..-- It \ , / / / / , / , / ( -;; :it;; ~.~ "'.- ... -, ,.0 I ;r- - J ~~ :;;~ ~ ,! r l. ..... "- "- ..... \ , \ \ " " " \ .... .-"" c 'T,~g-t! .. 'l~ E~ '/1'3 r~'~r>. 'r',.. 1f:...;1. 11' I / r -' .-- '\. ... "" 1 .:!.c ~v ~i ~ c .c~ oX'" " , _I : / L CHAAAO AD '\ / , ~ ......~~ ' .... CI- ~01~~ e ~G)~ - , I- ~ '" Ntn Cl)ca ~~ C)CI) -- ~ u.. -- OJ c: I -- .... tn -- >< W Q) ~ z....~ "0 Z OJ c: (f) ::J ~ h: 1 * .~ ~ iJlj r ~ l~ ~ ~ II [J II ~ <tl "C c: :J o aI ~ i:3 '-1 I , '-' (f) r::n c: 32 .S (f) aI o .!,1 2:0 o :J cne.. c: .Q ro U5 I- 0: ex: aI "0 OJ (f) o c- o a: c: o ~ j) r: ::( II @ ..... ~ l~ ~ (f) OJ OJ "C"C UjUj OJ 0 o~ (f) .c ro e.. OJ -" ai (f) (f) OJ OJ c: c: <tl <tl ...J...J OJ OJ -" -" aiai (f) OJ "S o 0: OJ -" ai (f) (f) <tl o ~ ~ l1. .~ ..: 'x ii'i w (f) (f) (f) (f) <tl <tl 00 .. .. 0 r::n ~ c c: ;~~ .:.t. .x 'x ii'i w w .(0 .= "C OJ > (f) <tl (f) c- <tl c: ::0 ::> g .~~ ~ ~11':~ i:ii x CJ 'x ~,iwl 010 = = = .. .. .. o .. .. .. o 20 oJ )21 Dubllll Bikeways Mastel Plan - Multi-Modal Connections Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), the regional commuter rail transit system, provides service at the Dublin/Pleasanton Station on the Millbrae-Dublin/Pleasanton line. Bicycles are allowed on BART trains during non-commute hours (4 AM to 6:30 AM, 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM, and 6:30 PM - Closing) and all day on weekends and holidays. During AM peak periods (6:30 AM to 8:30 AM), westbound bicycles are not allowed in stations between Dublin/Pleasanton and Powell Street and eastbound bicycles are not permitted between the San Francisco Airport station and Montgomery Street station. In the PM peak period (3:30 PM to 6:30 PM), westbound bicycles are not allowed in the stations between Embarcadero and Daly City and eastbound bicycles are not allowed in stations between Civic Center and San Leandro. BART's Bicycle Access and Parking Plari contains recommendations for access and parking improvements for both existing and future stations, as well as promotions, incentives, support and education for existing and potential bicyclists. According to the plan, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station has a high priority for bicycle parking improvements, based on current bicycle locker use. The DublinlPleasanton BART Station Access Plan3 recommends installing at least 34 additional lockers, as well as bicycle-sensitive loop detectors and signage on key bicycle routes. BART has recently developed wayfinding signage for bicyclists both in station areas and on surrounding bikeways and other roads. These signs help direct bicyclists to the station, as well as to bicycle parking, stairs, and elevators. The Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is also used as a hub by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) Wheels bus service and Contra Costa County's County Connection bus service. The location of the BART station is shown on Figure 1. Wheels operates approximately six bus routes through Dublin, all with buses equipped with bicycle racks. County Connection operates three bus routes connecting at the Dublin BART station, all with bicycle racks. There is also a park and ride lot at the KolI Center office complex at the southwest corner of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan calls for development of a transit village north of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. Currently, there are multi-family residential units under construction and there are proposals to develop more housing, office and retail near the station. As this occurs, it will be important to provide bicycle connections between the transit village and the BART Station as well as with the rest of Dublin. There are also plans for a West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The location of the station is west of 1-680 on Golden Gate Drive at 1-580. Figure 1 shows this proposed location. If constructed, bicycle access to the station and bicycle parking facilities will be crucial to enabling multi-modal connections. Figure 3 shows existing Multi-Modal connections. 2 BART, August 2002 3 BART, August 2002 Bikeways Master Plan Page 31 2007 r....... CJ -..... C..,- " ('I. tn C o M Q) J... :J+: C)(.) .- Q) U.c c o () ......... .I;J. ! @~G'~ er t~.~ ; "rJ ~ ... ,------- - --- ("'\) " / I ,__u _ ____ _. _ _ u__ __: I I i I I I I I )----- I I " \\~ , .- '. ll'fr. ;:f J ~.. ....... ~-'"">-. ~~4 ",-<t ~~- - as -C o == I -- ... - / r-' Ot:f Vt:fVrvsSVl " f) .f -L ~ \L r 1i H i~4 Ik 's ~ ~~ It ~,~~~~;~ ~~~ ;M :J == / c ",'~ ~~ ~~ E~ J~ :i ..., /, ., J :""r.., I l\'. "p, I. Q) n; u Z .... ~ (5 Z ~ '" """- ;:r; ~:i ~ I "r-, /\ .;1 l___J \,,/'""'-;/ \, I ~ (1j Q) -0 Ul c: c: >. ::J ::J (1j 0 I- ;: Ul ~ m l~ Q) a: ..c: ..- ~ - .?:- .Ql 0 ~ ~ -< 0 ltl <3 m I .- a.. ..- -- ~ I (;) D! I I , c: 0 +J (1j U5 cr. l- e) a: c c: < :s; 0 m ..;::::; (1j -0 as - Q) .!!2 Cf) Ul 0 .~ I- 0 0 a: 0- ..c: .D -< 0 0 ::l ~ Cf) 0- m a.. .. 6161 Q) ...... €1 .r: 0 I I ~' :; I ,- ~I / / / --1 , I , Il ( I , {... I , I / / I ;.- I ~.. " I I., J . ... 1 I '; I , I I I ~~ } II -5: .y "'I /1 r I '^ I \ f, I I I ., I I I I I I I' -I===L___=-I / / / / / / / ( I I f .I ";i :it; 'E'~ a: .- ,..0 .:l~ ~~ 03" .', - I /1 r " .... .... .... '- \ Ul Ul Q) - ~ ::J Q) 0 ~ a: Q) ..s::::. - Cf) 'w Ul c: (1j ::J ~ m I- ~ I " \ \ " " \ .1 2c2 cA I!J1 .r\ Dub/If] Bikeways Master Plan -- 6. PROPOSED BIKEWAY NETWORK The recommended bikeway network is not meant to accommodate every bicyclist and bicycle trip in the City. Once completed, this network will provide safer and more direct travel paths for a majority of those bicycling within Dublin. A bikeway network consists of routes that are designed to be the primary system for bicyclists traveling through the City. It is important to recognize that by law, bicyclists are allowed on all streets and roads regardless of whether they are a part of the bikeway network. The bikeway network is a tool that allows the City to focus and prioritize implementation efforts where they will provide the greatest community benefit. Streets or corridors selected for inclusion in the network should be targeted for specific improvements, such as the installation of bicycle lanes, off-street paths, or signage. The proposed system was developed according to the following planning criteria: Coverage: The system should provide equitable, reasonable access from all areas of the city to both commute and recreation routes. Ideally, the system should provide a bicycle path, lane, or route within one-half mile of any residential street. Purpose: Each link in the system should serve one or a combination of these purposes: recreation, connection, and commuting. On-street facilities should be continuous and direct, and off-street facilities should have a minimal number of arterial crossings and uncontrolled intersections. Connection to Employment Centers: Downtown, Business Park, major retail, and other employment centers should be accessible from all neighborhoods by a reasonably direct system. Connection to Schools and other Community Facilities: Schools and community facilities such as Community Centers, the Library, and City Hall should be accessible by bikeways. While not serving every residential street, the bikeway system should provide feeder routes with special treatments at busy intersections, such as bicycle loop detectors or signage. Connection to Parks and Open Space: Parks and open space should be accessible by bikeways so that residents are able to bicycle from home to both local and regional recreation. Connection to Regional Bikeways: The bikeway system should provide access to regional bikeway routes, regional trails, and routes in adjacent communities. Figure 4 illustrates the Existing and Proposed Bikeway Network. The proposed system includes a total of approximately 52 miles of new bikeway facilities in addition to the 21 miles currently in place. Table 3 shows the number of existing and proposed miles for each bikeway classification. This does not include several freeway overcrossing studies, which are discussed below. TABLE 3 Length (Miles) of System by Bikeway Classification Bikeway Classification Existing Proposed Total Class I 12.8 13.0 25.8 Class II 8.3 39.2 47.5 Class III 0.3 3.0 3.3 TOTAL 21.4 55.2 76.6 Bikeways Master Plan Page 33 2007 23 ~1lS7 Ou/)/,n Bikeways Master Plan -- Table 4 provides a list of the proposed on-street bikeway network projects, organized west to east, as well as the existing conditions along the roadway. Table 5 provides a list of the proposed off-street bikeway network projects, also organized west to east. Proposed Bikeway Network On-Street Facilities The project list in Table 4 lists 38 recommended on-street facilities, organized from west to east. These include 25 Class II lanes, nine Class III routes, and four "freeway crossing studies." These projects represent a total of nine key corridors for on-street bicycle travel: 1. Dublin Boulevard 2. San Ramon Road 3. Village Parkway 4. Amador Valley Boulevard 5. Dougherty Road 6. Gleason Drive 7. Central Parkway 8. T assajara Road 9. Fallon Road The goal is to provide continuous on-street bicycle facilities along these major corridors. In many cases, including Dublin Boulevard, Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway, Gleason Drive (west of Tassajara Road), Central Parkway, and San Ramon Road, these roads have existing bicycle lane striping along portions of the corridor. In other cases, such as Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive (east of Tassajara Road), and Fallon Road, bicycle lanes are striped at some intersections. In addition, portions of San Ramon Road, Dougherty Road, Fallon Road, and Dublin Boulevard also have bicycle paths adjacent to the roadway along one side. However, in some instance, these corridors do not have consistently striped and marked on-street bicycle facilities for their entire length. Class II lanes are recommended on the majority of these routes. As detailed in the design guidelines included in Attachment E, these lanes should be a minimum of five feet wide with a preferred width of six feet, measured from the edge of the gutter. A four foot lane is allowed where there is no on-street parking and no gutter, but is not preferred. When necessary to provide this width, vehicle lanes should be narrowed to 11.5 or 11 feet, and parking lanes can be narrowed to seven feet. Some corridors such as Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road may need to be split into segments or phases to account for different conditions and possible need for street widening along the corridor. In these cases, the City should endeavor to complete the listed project to the maximum extent possible to avoid discontinuous segments. In all cases, bicycle lanes should be striped and marked on both sides of the roadway at one time to provide continuity and discourage wrong-way riding. If there are shorter segments of the corridors where there is insufficient width for bicycle lanes, it may be appropriate to provide on-street signage or stencils to raise the visibility of bicyclists and alert motorists that they are likely to encounter cyclists. Bikeways Master Plan Page 34 2007 g4 ~ /g, Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- In addition to the corridor projects, the list includes four Class 11/111 projects that provide access to the planned West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station: Regional Street, St. Patrick Way, Golden Gate Drive, and Amador Plaza Road; and five Class II projects to access the planned Transit Village and existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART station: Iron Horse Parkway, Demarcus Boulevard, Altamirano Street, Martinelli Way, and Arnold Drive. Dublin should work with Alameda County to ensure that these facilities include appropriate signage and access to bicycle facilities for BART users. The other on-street projects provide access to parks, schools, and other community facilities. The freeway crossing studies are potential extensions of proposed Class II facilities on key corridors that include existing freeway overpasses. These projects will require detailed engineering analysis, as well as significant coordination with the City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, and Caltrans on design and funding. They call for creative approaches, such as "blue lanes" or other innovative treatments, particularly at ramp locations4. These study corridors also provide an opportunity to work with regional agencies and organizations such as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the East Bay Bicycle Coalition on standards for freeway overcrossings. These on-street bicycle facilities will provide access across Dublin, from north to south and east to west, and to major destinations within the city. Where appropriate, City staff should coordinate the planning of these facilities with staff from San Ramon, Pleasanton, and Livermore to ensure continuity across city boundaries. Each project is described briefly below. Description of proposed on-street projects 2-1 Schaefer Ranch 1-580 underpass Class II Lanes: This underpass is planned as part of the Schaefer Ranch development and will use the existing paved road that passes under 1-580. Class II lanes should be included on this roadway to provide access from Dublin Boulevard to the existing Class III route south of 1-580 in Pleasanton. 2-2 Silvergate Drive Class II Lanes: This collector street provides access from San Ramon Road to Martin Canyon Creek and Dublin Boulevard. It has sufficient width for bicycle lanes, which could also serve as a traffic calming measure. 2-3 San Ramon Road Class II Lanes: San Ramon Road provides north-south access from Dublin Boulevard to the northern city limit, with connections to the Shannon Community Center, Mape Memorial Park, and Dublin Elementary School. There is currently a sidepath adjacent to the western side of the road, and bike lane striping between Silvergate Drive and the northern City Limit. Complete bike lanes on San Ramon Road between Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate Drive will serve both commuters and recreational riders and will connect to the Class II facility on San Ramon Valley Boulevard in San Ramon. 3-1 Regional Street Class III Bike Route: A Bike Route designation is proposed on Regional Street between Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick Way as part of a series of Class III facilities connecting Dublin Boulevard to the planned West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. This facility will allow BART users to bypass a section of Dublin Boulevard. 2-4 S1. Patrick Way Class II Lanes: S1. Patrick Way currently exists between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road, with connecting ramps to 1-680 and 1-580. This road will be extended to Regional Street with 4 For additional information about blue lanes, see www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BlKEPED/planproc.shtml Bikeways Master Plan Page 35 2007 ~5 O~ I g 1 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- the development of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Bike lanes on St. Patrick Way between Amador Plaza Road and Regional Street will provide an alternate route to Dublin Boulevard for BART users. 3-2 Golden Gate Drive Class III Route: Golden Gate Drive extends south from Dublin Boulevard towards 1- 580, and will be extended to the planned West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. A Class III Bike Route designation is proposed on Golden Gate Drive between St. Patrick Way and the BART station to provide access for BART users. 3.3 Amador Plaza Road Class III Route: Amador Plaza Road extends south from Dublin Boulevard towards 1- 580. A Class III Bike Route designation is proposed between Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick Way. This facility will allow BART users to bypass a section of Dublin Boulevard. 3-4 Davona Drive Class III Route: Davona Drive provides access from Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon to Village Parkway with connections to Murray Elementary School and the Dublin Swim Center. A Class III route will also connect the existing lanes on Davona Drive in San Ramon and Village Parkway in Dublin. Because of the low vehicle volumes on this road, Class II lanes are not necessary. 2-5 Village Parkway Class II Lanes: Village Parkway has existing bicycle lane striping between the northern City limit and Amador Valley Boulevard, but it should be upgraded to current standards. Bike lane markings should be added, and striping at intersections with right turn lanes should be improved so that the bike lane continues to the inside of the right turn lane rather than ending when the right turn lane begins (see design guidelines in Appendix A). 3-5 Village Parkway Class III Route: Village Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard is currently classified as a Class "' route, but there are no signs or pavement markings to alert bicyclists or drivers to this designation. Shared-use markings (sharrows) and Bike Route signs should be added to alert drivers to bicyclists' presence and to guide bicyclists to a safe location within the lane. 2-6 Amador Valley Boulevard Class II Lanes: Amador Valley Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Stagecoach Road is currently striped with Class II lanes, but these should be upgraded to current standards. Bike lane markings should be added, and striping at intersections with right turn lanes should be improved so that the bike lane continues to the inside of the right turn lane rather than ending when the right turn lane begins (see design guidelines in Appendix A). 2-7 Amador Valley Boulevard Class II Lanes: Amador Valley Boulevard between Stagecoach Road and Wildwood Road is currently striped with a Class II lane only on the north side of the road. A Class II lane could be added to the south side of the road on this segment, by restriping the roadway. No right-of-way acquisition is required. 3-6 Amador Valley Boulevard Class III Route: Between Wildwood Road and Dougherty Road, Amador Valley Boulevard splits into two lanes in each direction, which decreases the right-of-way available for a bike lane. Instead, a Class III route with signage is recommended. A sharrow is not recommended here; instead, cyclists will choose their lane position based on their destination. 2-8 Stagecoach Road Class II Lanes: Stagecoach Road provides access between Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon and Amador Valley Boulevard. Class II lanes are recommended for the segment between the City limit and Stagecoach Park, where there is an existing shoulder that can be marked as a bike lane. Lane widths and grate configurations must be verified to confirm that this is feasible. These lanes will Bikeways Master Plan Page 36 2007 26 ~ 1~1 Oublm Bikeways Master Plan -- connect to existing Class II lanes on Stagecoach Road in San Ramon and provide access to the Dougherty Hills open space and Stagecoach Park. 3-7 Stagecoach Road Class III Route: A Class III Route is recommended on Stagecoach Road between Stagecoach Park and Amador Valley Boulevard, where there is insufficient roadway width for Class II lanes. Vehicle volumes are sufficiently low that only signage is necessary. 2-9 Dougherty Road Class II Lanes: Dougherty Road provides access between the cities of San Ramon and Pleasanton, and includes on- and off-ramps at 1-580. There is currently a sidepath adjacent to the eastern side of the road from the Iron Horse Trail to the northern City limit. Class II lanes are recommended for the extent of the roadway in Dublin between the City limit and Sierra Lane (a separate project will examine options for the 1-580 crossing). This will provide access to Alamo Creek Park and the Iron Horse Trail, and will connect to planned Class II lanes on Dougherty in San Ramon. City staff should work closely with the City of San Ramon to ensure that this connection is made. 2-10 Iron Horse Parkway Class II Lanes: Iron Horse Parkway provides access between the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Dublin Boulevard. Class II lanes are proposed here as part of a series of Class II facilities connecting Dublin Boulevard to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and planned Transit Village. These facilities will be developed in conjunction with the Transit Village and should be coordinated with Alameda County staff. 2-11 Demarcus Boulevard Class II Lanes: Demarcus Boulevard provides access between the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Dublin Boulevard to the west of Iron Horse Parkway. Class II lanes are proposed here to connect Dublin Boulevard to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and planned Transit Village. These facilities will be developed in conjunction with the Transit Village and should be coordinated with Alameda County staff. 2-12 Altamirano Street Class II Lanes: Altamirano Street is a new street planned as part of the Transit Village development at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. It will provide access between Arnold Road and the BART parking garage. Class II lanes on this road will be developed in conjunction with the Transit Village and should be coordinated with BART staff. 2-13 Martinelli Way: Martinelli Way is a new street planned as part of the Transit Village development at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. It will provide access between Arnold Road and Iron Horse Parkway. Class II lanes on this road will be developed in conjunction with the Transit Village and should be coordinated with Alameda County staff. 2-14 Arnold Road Class II Lanes: Arnold Road runs along the western edge of Camp Parks from Broder Boulevard to 1-580. There are existing Class II lanes on the segment between Gleason Drive and Central Parkway. These lanes are proposed to be extended from Central Parkway to the planned Altamirano Road near 1-580. These lanes will provide access to the planned Transit Village and existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. 2-15 Gleason Drive Class II Lanes: Gleason Drive runs between Arnold Road and Fallon Road and provides access to the Tassajara Creek Trail and Emerald Glen Park. It currently is striped with Class II lanes between Arnold Road and Tassajara Road, but may require some improvements. For example, the eastbound lane disappears approaching the intersection with Tassajara Road, and the westbound lane is Bikeways Master Plan Page 37 2007 01 ~ ;g1) Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- placed to the right of a right-turn lane at the intersection with Arnold Road. This project is to upgrade the existing striping and lane markings per current design guidelines. 2-16 Gleason Drive Class II Lanes: Gleason Drive has no bike lane striping between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street adjacent to undeveloped parcels. This project is to stripe Class II lanes continuously between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. This will provide access to destinations including Emerald Glen Park and the future Sports Park near Fallon Road. This project will be completed by the developer as part of their frontage improvements. 2-17 Central Parkway Class II Lanes: Central Parkway runs between Arnold Road and Fallon Road and provides access to Dougherty Elementary School, the Tassajara Creek Trail, Emerald Glen Park, the future Sports Park, and Fallon Village. Similar to Gleason Drive, Central Parkway has existing Class II lanes striped between Arnold Drive and Tassajara Road, but it may require some improvements, particularly at the current endpoints. For example, the westbound lane is placed to the right of a right-turn lane at the intersection with Arnold Road. This project is to upgrade the existing striping and lane markings per current design guidelines. This project will be completed by the developer as part of their frontage improvements. 2-18 Central Parkway Class II Lanes: This project is to extend the existing Class II lanes from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road. This will provide access to Emerald Glen Park, the future Sports Park, and Fallon Village. This project will be completed by the developer as part of their frontage improvements. 2-19 Hacienda Drive Class II Lanes: Hacienda Drive runs between Gleason Drive and the 1-580 freeway, and provides access to large offices and residential developments. It is currently striped with Class II lanes, but may require some improvements. For example, the northbound lane is placed to the right of a right- turn lane at the intersection with Gleason Drive. This project is to upgrade the existing striping and lane markings per current design guidelines. 3-8 Grafton Street Class III Route: Grafton Street is an undeveloped road between Gleason Drive and Central Parkway. A Class III Route is proposed when the facility is built. 3-9 Lockhart Street Class III Route: Lockhart Street is an undeveloped road between Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road. A Class III Route is proposed when the facility is built. 2-20 Tassajara Road Class II Lanes: Tassajara Road runs north-south through Dublin from the City border with San Ramon to 1-580 and provides access to residential areas, Emerald Glean Park, and offices. It currently has intermittent bike lane striping at some intersections. This project will stripe and mark continuous Class II lanes along all of Tassajara Road to the 1-580 ramps, which will provide an important cross-town facility for bicyclists. 2-21 Fallon Road Class II Lanes: Fallon Road runs between north Dublin and 1-580, and provides access to the Dublin Golf Course, Fallon Village, and the future Sports Park. It will be extended to connect to Tassajara Road near the northern City limit. There is currently intermittent bike lane striping at some intersections along Fallon Road, as well as a bike lane on one side of the road between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive. There is also a Class I path on the west side of the road between Gleason Drive and Kingsmill Terrace. This project will stripe continuous lanes on Fallon Road for its entire length up to the 1-580 ramps and to Tassajara Road as the road is extended. Bikeways Master Plan Page 38 2007 gg cY~ !g~ Dublm Bikeways Master Plan -- 2-22 Upper Loop Road Class II Lanes: Upper Loop Road is being constructed as part of the Fallon Village development. It will provide access between Fallon Road and Croak Road. This project will stripe continuous bike lanes along the road, as well as to a planned park to the north. This project will be completed by the developer as part of their frontage improvements. 2-23 Croak Road Class II Lanes: Croak Road is being constructed as part of the Fallon Village development. It will provide access between Central Parkway and Upper Loop Road. This project will stripe continuous bike lanes along the road. This project will be completed by the developer as part of their frontage improvements. CORRIDOR STUDIES C-1 San Ramon Road 1-580 Crossing: The 1-580 crossing at San Ramon Road includes on- and off-ramps for 1-580 East and West from San Ramon Road in Dublin and Foothill Road in Pleasanton. There is currently a Class III route on Foothill Road south of the ramps. A bicycle facility on the crossing would connect the proposed Class II lanes on San Ramon Road to this existing bicycle route, as well as to Stoneridge Mall, offices, and other destinations in Pleasanton. Planning and design for this facility must be coordinated with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans. C-2 Dougherty Road 1-580 Crossing: The 1-580 crossing at Dougherty Road includes on- and off-ramps for 1- 580 East and West from Dougherty Road in Dublin and Hopyard Road in Pleasanton. There are currently Class II lanes on Hopyard Road south of the ramps. A bicycle facility on the crossing would connect the proposed Class II lanes on Dougherty Road to these existing lanes, as well as to offices, residences, and other destinations in Pleasanton. Planning and design for this facility must be coordinated with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans. C-3 Tassajara Road 1-580 Crossing: The 1-580 crossing at Tassajara Road includes on- and off-ramps for 1- 580 East and West from Tassajara Road in Dublin and Santa Rita Road in Pleasanton. There are currently Class II lanes on Santa Rita Road south of the ramps. A bicycle facility on the crossing would connect the proposed Class II lanes on Tassajara Road to these existing lanes, as well as to offices, residences, the ValleyCare Medical Center, and other destinations in Pleasanton. Planning and design for this facility must be coordinated with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans. C-4 Fallon Road 1-580 Crossing: The 1-580 crossing at Fallon Road includes on- and off-ramps for 1-580 East and West from Fallon Road in Dublin and EI Charro Road in Alameda County and Livermore. There are currently no bicycle facilities on EI Charro Road south of the ramps. However, as eastern Dublin grows and the EI Charro corridor develops, a bicycle facility on the crossing could provide connections between the proposed Class II lanes on Fallon Road and destinations in Pleasanton and Livermore. Planning and design for this facility must be coordinated with Alameda County, the City of Livermore, and Caltrans. C-5 Camp Parks access Corridor Study: Camp Parks Military Reserve is currently closed to the public, but there are plans to develop a portion of the reserve adjacent to Dublin Boulevard. This will provide an opportunity to study this corridor and provide a bike way(s) parallel to Dublin Boulevard, potentially along 5th Street between Dougherty Road and Arnold Road. This could connect to either Central Parkway or Gleason Drive. A more precise alignment will need to be developed in conjunction with the Corridor Study. Bikeways Master Plan Page 39 2007 8"'1 ~ /~1 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- C-6 Dublin Boulevard Corridor Study (Class II Lanes/Class III Bike Route): Dublin Boulevard is the only road in Dublin that provides continuous east-west travel through the city. It also provides access to key community facilities including Civic Center, the library, the Dublin Sports Fields, and the BART station, as well as many commercial buildings. Class II lanes are proposed for the entire length of Dublin Boulevard, though this will require right-of-way acquisition, particularly on the segment between San Ramon Road and the Alamo Canal Trail. Removing on-street parking, narrowing vehicle lanes, widening the street and redeveloping adjacent parcels may be necessary in places to provide a continuous facility. A corridor study of the arterial is being proposed to identify the right-of-way needed to accommodate Class II bike lanes on Dublin Boulevard. If the resulting study shows that Class II bike lanes are infeasible and too costly, Class III bike route designations will be considered at those locations. As Dublin Boulevard is extended further east, the bicycle lanes should also be extended to establish a connection to North Canyons Parkway and Las Positas College in Livermore. This will require coordination with Alameda County and Livermore. TABLE 4 PROJECT LIST: ON-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES 10 Project Proposed Class Location Existing Conditions Length ROW Construction Name Facility (miles) Req'd? Cost Local Roadway Facilities from Dublin Schaefer Boulevard south Existing paved road 2-1 Ranch 1-580 Bicycle Lanes II under 1-580 at 0.40 N $27,828 Underpass existing underpass at passes under 1-580 Schaefer Ranch Silvergate Low-volume collector 2-2 Bicycle Lanes II Silvergate Drive street with excess width 1.11 N $77,700 Drive available for bike lane. San Ramon Road Class I sidepath on west San Ramon from north of Dublin side of street. Bike lane 2-3 Road Corridor Bicycle Lanes II Blvd to Silvergate striping between 1.47 N $102,746 Silvergate Drive and Drive northern City limit. Regional Regional Street from Ends in cul-de-sac near 1- 3-1 Class III Route III Dublin Boulevard to 580; provides access to 0.11 N $1,000 Street St. Patrick Way office uses. Extends from Amador Plaza Road to Golden St. Patrick St. Patrick Way from Gate Drive only; will be Developer- 2-4 Way Bicycle Lanes II Regional Street to extended to Regional 1.40 Y built facility Amador Plaza Road Street with West Dublin/Pleasanton BART development. Bikeways Master Plan Page 40 2007 10 oJ 1611 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- TABLE 4 PROJECT LIST: ON-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES 10 Project Proposed ~Iass Location Existing Conditions Length ROW Construction Name Facility (miles) Req'd? Cost Golden Gate Drive Golden Gate from St. Patrick Way Ends in cul-de-sac near 1- 3-2 Drive Class III Route III to planned West 580; provides access to 0.31 N $1,000 Dublin/Pleasanton office uses. BART Station Amador Plaza Road Ends in cul-de-sac near 1- 3-3 Amador Plaza Class III Route III from Dublin 580; provides access to 0.11 N $1,000 Road Boulevard to St. Patrick Way" office uses. Davona Drive from Low-volume collector 3-4 Davona Drive Class III Route III Alcosta Boulevard to street; provides 0.70 N $2,818 Village Parkway connection to Murray Elementary. Bicycle lane striping, but inconsistent markings (bike symbol) and unclear Village Parkway striping at endpoints (Le. Village Stripe & mark between northern SB at Amador Valley 2-5 Parkway existing lane II City limit and Amador Boulevard, and NB at 1.15 N $80,606 Corridor per standards Valley Blvd Alcosta Road in San Ramon, bike lane ends when right turn lane begins: move bike lane to left of right turn lane). Class III Route Existing lanes extend Village with Sharrow Village Parkway north of Amador Valley 3-5 Parkway (shared-use III between Amador Blvd; existing Class III 0.34 N $2,000 Valley Blvd and route from Amador Valley Corridor arrow) Dublin Blvd Boulevard to Dublin Blvd marking** is not marked. Bicycle lane striping, but inconsistent markings (bike symbol) and Amador Stripe & mark Amador Valley incorrect striping at some 2-6 Valley existing lane II Boulevard from San intersections (Le. at 1.60 N $111,907 Boulevard Ramon Road to Village Parkway and EB Corridor per standards Stagecoach Road York Drive, bike lane ends when right turn lane begins: move bike lane to left of right turn lane). Amador Amador Valley Blvd Two-way lanes end at Stagecoach Rd, one-way 2-7 Valley Bicycle Lanes* II between Stagecoach lane on north side ends at 0.18 N $12,860 Boulevard Road and Wildwood Corridor Road** Alamo Creek Trail crossing. Bikeways Master Plan Page 41 2007 q I oj )81 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- TABLE 4 PROJECT LIST: ON-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES 10 Project Proposed Class Location Existing Conditions Length ROW Construction Name Facility (miles) Req'd? Cost Amador Amador Valley Blvd Eastbound, street ends at Valley between Wildwood Dougherty with right and 0.14 3-6 Class III Route III left turn lanes. N $2,000 Boulevard Road and Dougherty Westbound, right turn Corridor Road lane for most of block. Stagecoach Road Low-volume collector 2-8 Stagecoach Class II Route II between Alcosta Blvd street; existing shoulder 0.56 N $39,200 Road and Stagecoach Park can be re-striped as bike lane. Stagecoach Road Low-volume collector 3-7 Stagecoach Class III Route III between Stagecoach street; insufficient width 0.27 N $2,000 Road Park and Amador for bike lanes. Valley Blvd Dougherty Rd from Class I sidepath exists on Dublin Boulevard to east side of street from northern City limit. Iron Horse Trail to Dougherty Bicycle 11/111 May need to be a northern City limit. City of 1.79 N $125,284 2-9 Road Corridor Lanes/Route Class III route San Ramon's General between Dublin Plan calls for Class II Boulevard and Sierra lanes on Dougherty Lane. Road. Iron Horse Parkway Iron Horse from Dublin Four-lane divided access 0.28 Developer- 2-10 Bicycle Lanes II Boulevard to road into BART station N Parkway Dublin/Pleasanton with on-street parking. Built Facility BART station. DeMarcus Boulevard DeMarcus from Dublin Four-lane divided access 0.25 Developer- 2-11 Boulevard Bicycle Lanes II Boulevard to road into BART station N Built Facility Dublin/Pleasanton with on-street parking BART station. Altamirano Altamirano Street 0.27 Developer- 2-12 Bicycle Lanes II from Arnold Drive to Undeveloped road. N Street BART parking lot Built Facility Martinelli Way from 0.20 Developer- 2-13 Martinelli Way Bicycle Lanes II Arnold Road to Iron Undeveloped road. N Built Facility Horse Parkway Arnold Drive from Class II lanes exist on Central Parkway to Arnold Rd. between 0.48 2-14 Arnold Drive Bicycle Lanes** II end of roadway when Central Parkway and N $33,409 extended Gust north Gleason Drive of 1-580) Bikeways Master Plan Page 42 2007 '1;2 o~) r. I~I Dublin Bikeways Mastel Plan -- TABLE 4 PROJECT LIST: ON-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES 10 Project Proposed Class Location Existing Conditions Length ROW Construction Name Facility (miles) Req'd? Cost Gleason Drive Stripe & mark Gleason Drive from Bicycle lane striping, but 1.18 2-15 Corridor existing lane II Arnold Drive to inconsistent markings N $82,674 per standards Tassajara Rd (bike symbol). Gleason Drive Gleason Drive from No bicycle lane striping 2-16 Corridor Bicycle Lanes. II Tassajara Rd to adjacent to undeveloped 0.92 y $64,697 Brannigan Street parcels. Central Stripe & mark Central Parkway from Bicycle lane striping, but 1.18 2-17 Parkway existing lane II Arnold Drive to inconsistent markings N $82,886 Corridor per standards T assajara Rd (bike symbol). Central Central Parkway from Some bicycle lane 1.81 2-18 Parkway Bicycle Lanes." II Tassajara Rd to N $127,008 Corridor eastern city limit striping at intersections. Hacienda Stripe & mark Hacienda Drive from Bicycle lane striping, but 0.75 2-19 Drive existing lane II Gleason Drive to inconsistent markings N $52,633 per standards.. southern City limit (bike symbol). Grafton Street from 0.30 Developer- 3-8 Grafton Stree Class II I Route III Gleason Drive to Undeveloped road. N Central Parkway Built Facility Lockhart Lockhart Street from 0.70 Developer- 3-9 Class III Route III Dublin Boulevard to Undeveloped road. N Street Fallon Road Built Facility Tassajara Tassajara Road from Some bicycle lane 2.58 2-20 Bicycle Lanes." II south of Dublin Blvd N $180,833 Road Corrido to northem city limit striping at intersections. Some bicycle lane striping at intersections; bike lane on one side of street between Gleason Fallon Road Fallon Road from Drive and Central 2.68 Developer- 2-21 Bicycle Lanes.' II south of Dublin Blvd Parkway. Class I path on N Corridor to Tassajara Road west side from Gleason Built Facility Drive north to Kingsmill Terrace. Road will be extended to Tassajara Road. Upper Loop Road 2-22 Upper Loop Bicycle Lanes II from Fallon Rd to Road is under 1.23 N Developer- Road Croak Rd, via new development. Built Facility park Croak Road from Road is under Developer- 2-23 Croak Road Bicycle Lanes II Dublin Blvd to Upper development. 1.14 N Built Facility Loop Road !TOTAL COST $1,214,089 Bikeways Master Plan Page 43 2007 cu ~ 18'7 Dublin BlkcwclYs Master Plan -- TABLE 4 PROJECT LIST: ON-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES 10 Project Proposed Class Location Existing Conditions Length ROW Construction Name Facility (miles) Req'd? Cost Corridor Studies San Ramon San Ramon Road Existing overpass. Need 0.51 C-1 Road 1-580 Study Corridor other from Dublin Blvd to coordinate with City of n/a Unknown crossing across 1-580 Pleasanton and Caltrans. Dougherty Dougherty Road from Existing overpass. Need C-2 Road 1-580 Study Corridor other Dublin Blvd across 1- to coordinate with City of 0.41 n/a Unknown crossing 580 Pleasanton and Caltrans. Tassajara Tassajara Road from Existing overpass. Need 0.34 C-3 Road 1-580 Study Corridor other Dublin Blvd across 1- to coordinate with City of n/a Unknown crossing 580 Pleasanton and Caltrans. Existing overpass located Fallon Road from in Dublin and C-4 Fallon Road 1- Study Corridor other Dublin Blvd across 1- unincorporated Alameda 0.20 n/a Unknown 580 crossing County. Need to 580 coordinate with Alameda County and Caltrans. Across Camp Parks Camp Parks annex, from C-5 Access Bicycle Lanes II Dougherty Rd to Not accessible to the 0.98 y Unknown Corridor Arnold Rd between public. Study Gleason Drive and Central Parkway Class II lanes exist on one side of street from Dublin Blvd from Lockhart Street to Dublin western city limit to Brannigan Street, and on Y For both sides from T assajara Class II C-6 Boulevard Bicycle Lanes* 11I111* North Canyons Road to Tassajara Creek; 8.15 Bike Unknown Corridor Parkway in wide outside lane and no Lanes livermore.. parking between Hacienda Drive and Scarlett Drive. A Corridor Study is being recommended to identify Right of Way requirements and impacts. A Class III Bike Route designation may be recommended at those locations where Class II Bike lanes are infeasible. . Project shown on City's General Plan "Bicycle Circulation System" maps. Bikeways Master Plan Page 44 2007 "1'1 1181 DubllfJ Bikeways Master Plan -- Proposed Bikeway Network Off-Street Facilities Table 5 lists thirty-two recommended projects including off-street bicycle paths, street-side paths, intersection improvements at road / bicycle path crossings, freeway and road overcrossing studies, and a trail-side rest area. These projects represent ten major off-street path corridors: 1. Alamo Creek / Alamo Canal Trail 2. Iron Horse Trail 3. Dougherty Road Path 4. Dublin Boulevard Path 5. Tassajara Creek Trail 6. Grafton Street Path 7. Lockhart Street Path 8. Area 'F' East-West Path 9. Fallon Road / Lockhart Street Path 10. Fallon Village Creek Trails A primary goal of the recommended Class I off-street network is to extend, enhance, and provide additional connections to Dublin's existing off-street system. These off-street routes provide connections to parks and open space and are recreational amenities in themselves. Additionally these routes provide connections to schools, community and civic institutions and facilitate bicycling for everyday transportation and commuting. Proposed Class I off-street routes are generally of two types: 1) multi-use paths and trails along creeks, canals, and former railroad right-of-ways, and 2) multi-use side paths parallel to existing and future roads. Recommended enhancements to existing major multi-use trails include north and south extensions of the Tassajara Creek trail and trail gap closures on the Alamo Creek I Alamo Canal Trail to create connections with San Ramon and Pleasanton. New multi-use trails are also proposed in Fallon Village. Spur paths and trails that provide connections to major corridors are also recommended, such as the Nielsen Elementary / Mape Memorial Park Trail and Dublin High School/Iron Horse Trail Path. Multi use side-paths are recommended where they provide connections between bicycle trails along busy streets such as Dublin Boulevard. Additionally, multi-use side-paths are recommended where they provide connections to schools and parks along roads that are too narrow or otherwise unsuitable for Class " bicycle lanes. While bicyclists may always utilize roadways, off-street side-paths may provide a greater sense of comfort for children, the elderly, and inexperienced riders. As noted in Chapter 3, when sidepaths have intersecting driveways and roadways, drivers who are exiting driveways or intersecting roads often do not expect approaching cyclists. For this reason, when the City reviews plans for development adjacent to proposed Class I facilities, driveways and cross-flow traffic should be Bikeways Master Plan Page 45 2007 q5 0) 1~1 DubllfJ Bikeways Master Plan -- minimized. When driveways cross Class I paths, the City should consider warning signs and pavement markings (such as "Bike XING" or STOP bars) for both drivers and bicyclists, as appropriate. Recommendations for the off-street network also include enhancements to bicycle trail / roadway intersections such as at the Alamo Creek Trail/Amador Valley Boulevard intersection and the Iron Horse Trail intersections with Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard. These enhancements may include signage, pavement striping, in- ground flashing warning lights, signal improvements, and rest areas. A study for a bicycle bridge over 1-580 to extend the Tassajara Creek Trail is also recommended. Each project is described briefly below. Description of proposed off-street projects 1-1 Nielson Elementary / Mape Memorial Park Path: The proposed Class I path will connect an existing asphalt path from the San Ramon Road Bike Path and Mape Memorial Park along Martin Canyon Creek to the Nielson Elementary School site. Development and alignment of this path will require coordination with the Dublin Unified School District. 1-2 Shannon Community Center Path: An existing steep, narrow path connects the San Ramon Bike Path with the Shannon Community Center. Potential improvements to this path include repaving, and realignment to increase the path width and decrease the path grade. This project should be coordinated with future rehabilitation of the Shannon Community Center. 1-3 Dublin High School Path: A Class I multi-use path is recommended from the Dublin High School Campus, connecting with an existing bridge to the Iron Horse Trail along the south and east sides of the Campus. Development and alignment of this path will require coordination with the Dublin Unified School District. 1-4 Alamo Canal 1-580 Gap Elimination: This project will extend the Alamo Canal trail from its current end point near the Dublin Library, under 1-580, to connect with the end of the Centennial Trail in Pleasanton, creating an important regional trail link. This project will require coordination between the City of Pleasanton, Caltrans, East Bay Regional Parks District, and Zone 7. 1-5 Alamo Creek Trail/ Amador Valley Road Intersection Improvements: Improvements to enhance the safety, visibility, and continuity of the Alamo Creek Trail are proposed where it crosses Amador Valley Road. Recommended improvements include: signage, striping, and button-activated in-street flashing lights. 1-6 Dougherty Road Path / Iron Horse Trail: Improvements include extension of existing Dougherty Road Class I path up to the Iron Horse Trail. This will be incorporated in the Scarlett Drive Extension Project. 1-7 Iron Horse Trail/ Dublin Boulevard Trailside Rest Area: A rest area is proposed to include benches, map kiosk, bicycle racks, and a gateway element to announce the presence of the regional Iron Horse Trail along Dublin's main east-west street. This will be included as part of the Camp Parks Corridor Study. 1-8 Dublin Boulevard Path: Enhancement and widening of an existing path along Dublin Boulevard is proposed to provide a Class I path linking the Iron Horse Trail and the Tassajara Creek Trail. 1-9 Tassajara Creek Trail North Extension (East Bay Regional Park District trail): The existing Tassajara Creek Trail extends from Dublin Blvd. through Emerald Glen Park to Somerset Lane. Continuation of the Bikeways Master Plan Page 46 2007 q~ ~ Irlj Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- Tassajara Creek Trail to Tassajara Creek Regional Park will increase recreational opportunities. This project will be built by the developer. 1-10 Tassajara Creek Trail/ Fallon Road Connection: A new Class I path is proposed linking Fallon Rd. with the planned extension of the Tassajara Creek Trail. This project will be built by the developer. 1-11 Tassajara Road Path: A new Class I path is proposed from the Fallon Road I Tassajara Road intersection to connect with the future Moller Ranch trail. This project will be built by the developer. 1-12 Fallon Road Path North Extension: A continuation of the Class I Fallon Road Path is proposed to connect with Tassajara Road. In conjunction with projects 1-10 and 1-11 this project will provide access to the future Tassajara Creek Trail and Moller Ranch Trail from north-east Dublin neighborhoods. This project will be built by the developer. 1-13 Brannigan Street Path: There is potential for a Class I path on the west side of Brannigan St. between Gleason Dr. and Central Pkwy. This path would provide connections to Bike lanes on Brannigan street north of Gleason Dr., connecting with Fallon Middle School. Future roads and driveways crossing this path should be minimized. 1-14 Gleason Drive Path: There is potential for a Class I path on the south side of Gleason Dr. from Brannigan St. to Tassajara Road. Along with intersection improvements at Tassajara road, this path would provide access to Emerald Glen Park. Future roads and driveways crossing this path should be minimized. This project will be built by the developer. 1-15 Central Parkway Path: There is potential for a Class I path on the north side of Central Parkway from Brannigan Street to Tassajara Road. Along with intersection improvements at Tassajara road, this path would provide access to Emerald Glen Park. Future roads and driveways crossing this path should be minimized. This project will be built by the developer. 1-16 Chancery Lane Path: There is potential for a Class I path along Chancery Lane from Central Pkwy, crossing Dublin Blvd., and connecting with the Stormwater Pond. Along with the Grafton Street Path (1- 23) this path would create a Class I corridor connecting Ted Fairfield Park, Green Elementary, Fallon Middle School, and the Stormwater Pond. Future roads and driveways crossing this path should be minimized. 1-17 East Dublin Bike / Pedestrian Corridor: There is potential for a Class I path from Area FEast Neighborhood Park to the Area F West Neighborhood Park with a bridge crossing Grafton Street. This project will be built by the developer. 1-18 Grafton Street Path: There is potential for a Class I path on Grafton St. between Gleason Road and Central Parkway. Along with the Chancery Lane Path, this would create a Class I corridor connecting Ted Fairfield Park, Green Elementary, Fallon Middle School, and the Stormwater Pond. Future roads and driveways crossing this path should be minimized. This project will be built by the developer. 1-19 Oak Bluff Lane / Fallon Street Path Connection: An existing unpaved maintenance road could be paved to provide a Class I Connection from the end of Oak Bluff lane to an existing bike / pedestrian bridge connecting with the existing Fallon Street Path. Bikeways Master Plan Page 47 2007 01 ~ )~ 1 Dubllf) Bikeways Master Plan -- 1-20 Lockhart / Fallon Sports Park Path: A Class I path is proposed extending from Fallon Road down Gleason Drive and Lockhart Street to Dublin Boulevard. This project will provide access to Fallon Sports Park and along with the Fallon Road Path North Extension will create a significant north-south Class 1 corridor. 1-21 Upper Loop Road Paths: Class I paths are proposed on both sides of the Upper Loop Road in Fallon Village. These paths will connect to a future neighborhood park, elementary school, and open space. Future roads and driveways crossing this path should be minimized. This project will be built by the developer. 1-22 Fallon Village North Neighborhood Square Paths: Class I paths are proposed on both sides of a road extending from the Upper Loop Road to a future Neighborhood Square in Fallon Village. Future roads and driveways crossing this path should be minimized. This project will be built by the developer. 1-23 Fallon Road Grade Separation with Fallon Village Creek Trail & Dublin Sports Park: A bike and pedestrian bridge is proposed from the future Dublin Sports Park over Fallon Road to connect with future creekside open space trails in Fallon Village. This project will be built by the developer. 1-24 Fallon Village Creek Westbank Trail: A Class I path is proposed within future Fallon Village open space from Fallon Sports Park extending to open space north of Upper Loop Road. This project will be built by the developer. 1-25 Fallon Village Creek Eastbank Trail: A Class I path is proposed within future Fallon Village open Space extending from Central Pkwy to open space north of Upper Loop Road. This project will be built by the developer. 1-26 Central Parkway Paths: Class I paths along both sides of Central Parkway are proposed in the future Fallon Village extending from Fallon Road to Croak Road. This path will connect Fallon Sports Park with a Community Park along Central Parkway. Future roads and driveways crossing this path should be minimized. This project will be built by the developer. 1-27 Croak Road Paths: Class I paths along both sides of Croak Road are proposed in future Fallon Village extending from Dublin Boulevard to Upper Loop Road and connecting with future open space. Future roads and driveways crossing this path should be minimized. This project will be built by the developer. CORRIDOR STUDIES C-7 Tassajara Creek Trail 1-580 Overcrossing: A study should be undertake to explore the potential to extend the Tassajara Creek Trail from Dublin Boulevard along Tassajara Creek with a crossing over 1- 580 to connect with existing bike lanes in Pleasanton. This project will require coordination with the City of Pleasanton, Caltrans, and Zone 7. This project along with the Tassajara Creek North Extension would create a complete Class I facility in east Dublin extending to the northern and southern city limits. C-8 Stagecoach Park /Iron Horse Trail Connector: There is potential for a Class I multi-use path connecting from Stagecoach Road along the south side of Stagecoach Park to the Iron Horse Trail. This path would cross land currently owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad and Alameda County, which is currently being studied by the Planning Department with respect to its land use designation. This proposed project will be assessed as part of the Southern Pacific Land Use Study. Bikeways Master Plan Page 48 2007 /2 (/ .r-. 0 /9. ~"',! -'I (j ~ '-' Dublm Bikeways Master Plan -- C-9 Alamo Creek Trail! City of San Ramon Gap Elimination Study: The north end of the Alamo Creek Trail currently ends at the Crossridge Road cul-de-sac and access to an existing multi-use trail in San Ramon is prevented by a locked gate. A direct connection from the Alamo Creek Trail to the City of San Ramon trail is recommended, bypassing the cul-de-sac. This project will require coordination with the City of San Ramon. Environmental review of the connection is underway. TABLE 5 PROJECT LIST: OFF-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES 10 Project Name Proposal Class Location Existing Length RIW Construction Conditions (miles) Req'd? Cost Local Off-street Facilities Existing path From Amarillo Rd. along southern along southem edge of Mape Memorial Park, Nielson edge of Nielson with pedestrian 1-1 Elementary / Extend Bicycle / 1 Elementary to bridge over .25 N $150,000 Mape Memorial multi-use path existing path along Martin Canyon Park Path Mape Memorial Creek and Park to San connection to Ramon Rd. San Ramon Rd. Class I path. From San Ramon Existing steep, Shannon Bike Path and 1-2 Community Bicycle / multi- 1 future bike lanes narrow path in .04 N $25,000 Center Path use path up to Shannon need of widening Community Center and repaving. Unpaved pathway and landscaped Class 1 bike path area. from Iron Horse Improvements Trail to Dublin needed to Dublin High Bicycle / multi- High School along existing signage 1-3 School/Iron 1 the south and east surfacing, .26 N $156,000 Horse Trail Path use path sides of the fencing and campus landscaping at existing connection from Iron Horse Trail bridge to Dublin High property. Bikeways Master Plan Page 49 2007 q~ ~ /2"';' Dublll1 Bikeways Master Plan -- TABLE 5 PROJECT LIST: OFF-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES 10 Project Name Proposal Class Location Existing Length RIW Construction Conditions (miles) Req'd? Cost Existing Alamo Canal Trail ends From existing end near a steep of Alamo Canal embankment Alamo Canal Bicycle / multi- Trail Near Dublin beneath 1-580. 1-4 1-580 Gap 1 library, under 1- The Centennial .07 N $2,250,000 Elimination use path 580, connecting w/ Trail in Alamo Canal Trail Pleasanton in Pleasanton begins on the southern side of 1-580. Signage, striping, button- Alamo Creek activated in- Existing trail Trail/ Amador street flashing Alamo Creek Trail connection 1-5 Valley Rd. lights. Crossings other at Amador Valley crosses Amador .02 N $70,000 Crossing at Wildwood Rd. Valley Rd. mid- Improvements Road with minor block. roadway improvements. Existing southbound Dougherty Path Reconfigure becomes one Dougherty Road way north-bound Path /Iron bike path and Dougherty Rd. near 5th St. 1-6 Horse Trail signage as part 1 Path at Iron Horse Cyclists 0.02 N $70,000 of the Scarlett Connection Drive Extension Trail continuing to Improvements Project. Southbound Iron Horse trail must cross Dougherty twice for legal connection. Sign age/ gateway Iron Horse Trail/ element, map North side of Undeveloped. Unknown- 1-7 Dublin Blvd. kiosk, benches, other Dublin Blvd., east Part of the future n/a y Camp Parks Rest Area bicycle racks, side of Iron Horse Camp Parks Corridor trash/recycling Trail Study. Study bins, drinking water fountain Bikeways Master Plan Page 50 2007 DubllfJ Bikeways Master Plan ) ro ~ ;221 - TABLE 5 PROJECT LIST: OFF-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES 10 Project Name Proposal Class Location Existing Length RIW Construction Conditions (miles) Req'd? Cost Paving 12' asphalt path improvement, from Scarlett Dr. trail widening, North side of to Iron Horse Dublin Blvd. and sign age Dublin Blvd. from Expressway 1-8 improvements. 1 .4 N $240,000 Bike Path Landscape Iron Horse Trail to 5' asphalt path improvements Sybase Dr. from Iron Horse to eliminate Expressway to puncturevine. Sybase. Tassajara Creek Undeveloped. East Bay Tassajara Creek Bicycle / multi- from Somerset Ln. Regional Park Developer- 1-9 Trail, northern 1 through Tassajara 1.5 Y extension use path Creek Regional District project, Built Facility Park to be built by developer. From northwest corner of Fallon Road IT assajara Road intersection Undeveloped. south along Project identified Tassajara Road, with Tassajara Tassajara Creek connecting with Road and Fallon 1-10 Trail to Fallon Bicycle / multi- 1 planned Class II Road Precise 0.4 Y Developer- Road use path lanes on Ultimate Built Facility Connection Path Tassajara, and Alignment Plan continuing through 3/3/04. To be the Wallis Ranch built by development, developer. connecting to the Tassajara Creek Trail. Undeveloped. Project identified East side of Fallon with Tassajara Road from Fallon Road and Fallon 1-11 Tassajara Road Bicycle / multi- 1 Rd. / Tassajara Road Precise 0.15 N Developer- Path use path Road intersection Ultimate Built Facility north to planned Alignment Plan Moller Ranch Trail 3/3/04. To be built by developer. Bikeways Master Plan Page 51 2007 }O) of )91 Dublm Bikeways Master Plan -- TABLE 5 PROJECT LIST: OFF-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES 10 Project Name Proposal Class Location Existing Length RIW Construction Conditions (miles) Req'd? Cost Undeveloped. Project identified From north end of with T assajara existing path on Rd. and Fallon 1-12 Fallon Rd. Path, Bicycle / multi- 1 west side of Fallon Rd. Precise 0.75 N Developer- north extension use path Rd. near Kingsmill Ultimate Built Facility Terr. to Tassajara Alignment Plan Road 3/3/04. To be built by developer. West side of 1-13 Brannigan St. Bicycle / multi- 1 Brannigan St. from Undeveloped. .25 N Developer- Path use path Central Pkwy. to Built Facility Gleason Blvd. Class II lanes striped on Gleason Dr. On south side of west of Bicycle / multi- Gleason Drive Tassajara Rd., 1-14 Gleason Dr. use path, street 1 from Emerald Glen and striped .25 N Developer- Bike Path crossing ParkfT assajara intermittently Built Facility enhancements Rd. to Brannigan between St. Tassajara Rd. and Fallon Rd. To be built by developer. On north side of Class II lanes striped on Bicycle / multi- Central Parkway Central Parkway 1-15 Central Parkway use path, street 1 from Emerald Glen west of .25 N Developer- Bike Path crossing ParkfT assajara Tassajara Rd. Built Facility enhancements Road to Brannigan To be built by St. developer. Between Central Bicycle / multi- Parkway and Chancery Lane use path storm water pond Developer- 1-16 Bike Path 1 south of Dublin Undeveloped 0.5 N Built Facility Blvd Bikeways Master Plan Page 52 2007 /001. oP /81 ~ Dublm Bikeways Master Plan -- TABLE 5 PROJECT LIST: OFF-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES 10 Project Name Proposal Class Location Existing Length RIW Construction Conditions (miles) Req'd? Cost From Area FEast Neighborhood Undeveloped, East Dublin Park to Area F planned 1-17 Bike/Pedestrian Bicycle / multi- 1 West Sorrento .30 N Developer- Corridor use path Neighborhood development. To Built Facility Square, with be built by bridge crossing developer. Grafton St. Class 1 bike West side of future Undeveloped. To Future Grafton Grafton St. from Developer- 1-18 St. Bike Path path west side 1 Gleason Drive to be built by 0.3 N Built Facility of road Central Parkway developer. Existing path From existing from pedestrian bridge to Oak Oak Bluff Ln. - Bicycle / multi- bike/pedestrian Bluff Court is 1-19 Fallon Ct. 1 bridge along 0.02 N $18,000 Connection use path Fallon Rd. Path to unpaved. This Oak Bluff Ct. will provide a direct connection to the school. South side of Gleason Drive Bikeway is along from Fallon Rd. to Lockhart / Fallon Bicycle / multi- east side of mitigation Developer- 1-20 Sports Park use path 1 Lockhart St. corridor. To be 0.75 N Built Facility Path continuing on east built by side of Lockhart to developer. Central Pkwy. Undeveloped, From Fallon Road planned Fallon 1-21 Upper Loop Bicycle / multi- 1 to Croak Road, on Village 2.0 N Developer- Road Paths use path both sides of development. To Built Facility Upper Loop Rd. be built by developer. Bikeways Master Plan Page 53 2007 10..3 0) 1~1 r Dublm Bikeways Master Plan -- TABLE 5 PROJECT LIST: OFF-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES 10 Project Name Proposal Class Location Existing Length R/W Construction Conditions (miles) Req'd? Cost From Upper Loop Undeveloped, Fallon Village Road north to planned Fallon 1-22 North Bicycle / multi- 1 future Village 0.5 N Developer- Neighborhood use path Neighborhood development. Built Facility Square Paths Square, both sides To be built by of future road. developer. Fallon Rd. Undeveloped, Grade From proposed separation with Fallon Village planned Fallon Village Developer- 1-23 Fallon Village Bridge 1 Creek Westbank development. To 0.16 N Built Facility Creek Trail/ Trail to Future Dublin Sport Fallon Sports Park be built by Park developer. Undeveloped, Fallon Village From Fallon Road planned Fallon 1-24 Creek Eastbank Bicycle / multi- 1 to Open Space Village 1.06 N Developer- Trail use path north of proposed development. To Built Facility Upper Loop Road be built by developer. Undeveloped, Fallon Village Class 1 Bike From Fallon Road planned Fallon 1-25 Creek Westbank Path / Multiuse 1 to Open Space Village 1.00 N Developer- Trail Path 12' 'width north of proposed development. To Built Facility Upper Loop Road be built by developer. Undeveloped, From Fallon Road planned Fallon 1-26 Central Parkway Bicycle / multi- 1 to Croak Road, on Village .75 N Developer- Paths use path both sides of development. To Built Facility Central Parkway be built by developer. From Dublin Blvd. Undeveloped, to Upper Loop planned Fallon Croak Road Bicycle / multi- Village Developer- 1-27 Paths use path 1 Road, on both development. To 1.0 N Built Facility sides of Croak Road be built by developer. Bikeways Master Plan Page 54 2007 lo'-f~ )8j Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- TABLE 5 PROJECT LIST: OFF-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES 10 Project Name Proposal Class Location Existing Length RIW Construction Conditions (miles) Req'd? Cost Corridor Studies Unpaved gravel Tassajara Creek Special study Tassajara Creek, maintenance Trail, Freeway area for bridge from Dublin Blvd. road along C-7 Overcrossing overcrossing other and over 1-580 Tassajara Creek. 0.6 N Unknown Study and bicycle / connecting to Will require Pleasanton coordination with multi-use path Caltrans and Pleasanton. Stagecoach From Stagecoach Significant grade Park /Iron Bicycle / multi- Road along edge issues; Crosses C-8 Horse Trail use path and 1 of Stagecoach land owned by .06 Y Unknown Connector Southern Pacific (include in land bridge Park to Iron Horse and Alameda use study) Trail County. Existing Alamo Creek Trail ends at end of Crossridge Road cul-de-sac at the city border with Extend trail to San Ramon. Alamo Creek connect to Access to Trail/ City of existing path in Alamo Creek Trail existing path in C-9 San Ramon Gap San Ramon 1 at Dublin/San San Ramon is .02 N $30,000 Elimination connecting to Ramon city border prevented by Study Beaver Creek locked gate. Court Requires coordination with the City of San Ramon and improvements in City of San Ramon. TOTAL COST $3,009,000 Bikeways Master Plan Page 55 2007 t'"- 3l Q\ ~ -- , , ~-: >, . , ~: ~, -" .' .... ..~.....\.... ~ [: ::.~~:-:'~\~~\..~~~)......:.".. ~~: '.. -. .... .-..s I-U. -. . . . . -. .. . " . .. -s. .... .-. . -.. -. .-. . ...... .-. . .:.-. .... ::: : I .':.~ .... .:: .: ..... :.:.. a.:_. ::: : J ..~.:.. .........i:: :' ...... ..... s-. . (.1 ..... . ... ..- .:....8'.. ..JJ............ S."'_. ..,... . r .:~ 2:' ",/... " m. \ ~ t:Jt. z. .5'~ ~~ -s. ~: ~ ...............'1. .... .~;.. ~. ~~ ~ 3 . .t.x . c: J . .. ">- 0..:.: . " "rei E .... . " . ~E~ " : :.. 8 9 " .-. ........... ....!J " ;. .. . .... . ". : ....rl ~~. : . co!! . 0" , .. ~:2 .. :- .... .......:..................._ 1oI-::::!: = ~ "... " 1:3.... ...-..... ..-. ". .... ~ O~ ~vrvssvJ. ...... I , .-."". --....".-- 0 ..' ~.. '. ,,~. ," .." . .;. II '-:11 ... .... ... .......1....... " .' ..' .~--- ..- ~....... .' " 'U~..:.: ~~~ , a: o z o <n ;:i c: >~ t:. ~~4 , E o. 0," , / (:. % +-:1 ~ '" . . ~~~ Q.~ '" Q.....I:: E C::.c J::::~ ,::.... a VQN31:>VH ~ ~ '" · 'l~ mON~~ . . . , . . *. . ........ " .. '. .. '. ................ ...... ........ I ,,#\. ...... <j.<<"~ OC; ~v-~ .,. ,; " ",. u . ~/: ~~/: - ... \ . -,. ..-: .. tI.._ .. ,- . , . . .. : ..- .- .- . . . ..~... , tI. :;.. ...\...~... .. ! -, _.. ........ 1 ........ , .- ',~. '. , . , , . . , . , .... .-. .. ..- ....... , . .... -;;; .. 5t : !:; .... ~~ - , .. " . , . . , , : ' , " . ,- , , , " : : ~ : ~, . ,. . . ...... .' ... : : I .. .. \ , . :E3 :/ .'1.iiI :'. .tI... .~.. \ ../ ...:. .:.: . .. I :. .~'r: : 1 . i : l ) ~~__ _..,_ .~---1, ------- ----- ,I J / I -t-5 15 ~'" ~ ,":'" I * ~ "J :: 0'~~ ~ ~ ~:~ :: r....(J \!./ ... ~ :: ~ Q) '- ::::J C) -- LL (/) ~ ea ~ Q) ~ -- rn " (1) (/) o C- O I.- a.. " c: ea C) c: -- ... (/) -- >< W '" (ij U Z~~ ~ '0 ro z Q) "0 >. e Vl e :::i >. :J "0 ro Vl 0 :J I- ;;: Q) Vl Qj lD iil c:: .r= ~ -t: ~ ;:: e <! .2> iil ro G 0 lD J: a.. :0 ~ I " , Uw I Q) e e - ~ 0 U ~ e >. e 0 "0 Q) :;::; :J E S iil Q) CIl > 0) 0 Vl l- e a. 0) c:: 'iij .s e e <! Vl :E 0 0 ~ lD U e '5 "0 0 Vl lD iil Q) >. U "0 ,~ Vl ro Q) I- 0 ;;: 0 1i c:: 0. Q) ~ .r= 0 ~ U :J <! a: ~ CIl a.. lD u. .:: ~4 €l~ 61 ~O 0 Vl Q) e ro ..J Q) -"" iD = ........ Vl Vl ro .~ .~ Q Vl ro l- I- Q) "0 "0 "0 "5 ~ ro Q) Q) 0 <! Q) > > c:: "' ,f; ro ro .~ 0. 0. Q) Q) e e " -"" c:: I- ::> ::> .. iD -= Il "0 "0 .. 0)"0 .:( = Q) Q) ';; e Q) 0 Vl Vl 0. >. 0 0 ~ ~ ~ e Vl ':l Vl 0. 0. .. 'x ro 0. :l ro 0 0 u a:: .. iil U a: a: .. w '" 0. iii Vl I i c t ufl ~ :; 0 0 Vl Il Q) ':l "0 ii'i en l~ ~ Vl Vl .r= .t::. i;i i;i a.. a.. Q) ~~ iD Vl J) Vl Q) !! ~ 1ij ~ m ~ .J ..J Q) Il Q) .>< ." -"" iD iCi iD = Vl Vl ro U ~ .~ 0. "' .: .x iii W : I u Vl Vl ro U ~ :: Vl c 8.~ o .. It ~ J) Vl J) Vl " ..!!! i3 u ::1>0) - .!:: ';;5 en ";( .x IU W :: I ti I Vl Vl Q) ~'5 :J 0 o c:: c:: Q) ~~ iD = Vl II) ro U "0 :: ~ & o '" 0... 0'" n: iii _ Vl Vl ro U "0 Q) Vl o 0. o a: Vl Vl ro U 0) .!:: "' .;( W 5 I u )O~ oj 181 DublllJ Bikeways Master Plan -- 7. SUPPORT FACiliTIES Every bicycle trip has two components: 1) the route selected by the bicyclist and 2) the "end-of-trip" facilities at the destinations. Bicycle support facilities are facilities that cyclists use when they reach their destinations. They can include short and long-term bicycle parking, showers, lockers, restrooms, good lighting, and even public phones. The lack of bicycle facilities at the destination can be one of the largest deterrents to cycling for many riders. TYPES OF BICYCLE PARKING AND SUPPORT FACILITIES There are different types of support facilities just as there are different levels of bikeway facilities. Support facilities fall into one of four main categories: · Short-term Bicycle Parking: Bicycle Racks are low-cost devices that provide a location to secure a bicycle. Ideally, bicyclists can lock both their frame and wheels. The bicycle rack should be in a highly visible location secured to the ground, preferably within 50 feet of a main entrance to a building or facility. Short-term bicycle parking is commonly used for short trips, when cyclists are planning to leave their bicycles for up to a few hours. . Long-term Bicycle Parking: Bicycle Lockers are covered storage units that can be locked individually, providing secure parking for one bicycle. Bicycle Cages are secure areas with limited-access doors. Occasionally, they are attended. Each of these is designed to provide bicyclists with a high level of security so that they feel comfortable leaving their bicycles for long periods of time. They are appropriate for employees of large buildings and at transit stations. . Shower and Locker Facilities: Lockers provide a secure place for bicyclists to store their helmets or other riding gear. Showers are important for bicycle commuters with a rigorous commute and/or formal office attire. . Bicycle Stations: Bicycle Stations provide free all-day, attended bicycle parking. Three recent bicycle station projects include one in Long Beach, the Palo Alto CalTrain station, and the Downtown Berkeley BART station. Bicycle stations can provide bicycle tune-ups, repairs, and rentals in order to sustain their operation. They are intended to serve locations with large numbers of bicycle commuters needing long- term bicycle parking and are an excellent means of facilitating the intermodal connections between bicycles and transit. . Trailheads & Staging Areas: Trailheads and Staging Areas provide access to and support facilities along trails. These may include bicycle racks, public telephones, restrooms, drinking fountains, and maps and signage. EXISTING FACILITIES Several businesses offer minimal bike parking outside their stores, including the Safeway on Dublin Boulevard, the EXPO Design Center and Target on Amador Plaza Road, and the Safeway on Tassajara Road. Some employment centers, such as Sybase and the business park on Hacienda Drive near Gleason Drive also offer bicycle parking. Public buildings including the Civic Center, the Dublin Library, and Shannon Community Center provide bike racks. In addition, Emerald Glen Park and Bray Commons Park provide bike racks. Finally, there are currently 66 bicycle racks and 12 bike lockers (with room for 24 bikes) at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, and there are plans to add at least 34 additional lockers. Bikeways Master Plan Page 57 2007 101 cP/ j8, 1 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan I --- Showers and clothes storage facilities are provided at Dublin High School for students and at health/fitness clubs for members. Dublin middle schools also provide lockers for clothes storage. The Fire Stations, Civic Center, and the new Shannon Community Center offer showers, but these are not for public use. The existing City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.76.020.4.2) requires that parking lots in non-residential zoning districts with 20 or more spaces provide one bicycle parking space in a bicycle rack for each 40 vehicular parking spaces. It also requires that multi-family residential complexes provide one bicycle storage space within each residence or in lockable containers or spaces if not within the individual residence. The existing ordinance also does not include design or location standards other than that bicycle racks shall be designed to provide a minimum of four bicycle spaces in each rack, and so that a bicycle can be secured to the rack. It also states that the bicycle rack shall not encroach into the sidewalk which would reduce the unencumbered width of the sidewalk to less than four feet, and that bicycle racks shall have adequate lighting and provide the ability for surveillance. Finally, the ordinance lists standards for non-residential parking lots and multi- family housing only, rather than specifying recommended bicycle parking amounts for a variety of land uses. Figure 5 illustrates the existing support facilities. KEY RECOMMENDA liONS The following improvements and programs are recommended to increase the provision of end-of-trip facilities for bicyclists: . Evaluate the needs of the community for bicycle parking on a project-by-project basis, considering the type of non-residential development, proximity to transit, etc. . Make a list of locations of bike racks and lockers available to the public. . Encourage the School District to provide safe and secure bike parking at all schools. . Determine the adequacy of bicycle parking currently provided. Pursue grant funds or other funding to supplement insufficient bicycle parking at key locations in the City. Bikeways Master Plan Page 58 2007 r--- \:'J -......... co \,), "- Co .~ -......... ___________1 I I ,--.- --- ---- -- - --- --: I I i I I I I I j----- , , I \\ ~'~' \ ~ . ~ 'j ,~ 01; VllVrVSSVl . \ c wo~ ~~ ~: ..~ U~ i \ \S~,~~ I . . ~"l:'\' t-'- ~ J,....J~ =., Xu 5~ .J:E~ gg '- .3 ~ . . I , , I ")....1 c ~~ OX "' j?4E ~ -,€I~~ V \ . 't ;;5 :: ~ , E ::E~ 4 /' /' /' /" /' /' ( I 'I - I .,. cu Ou 'z.'~ "'.- ,.0 ~~ u'" .E J { /1.' l.. .... .... .... " \ \ \ ~ 0'" ~~ r V'i '": - -' " /' L CHARRO RD , '\ " /~~ <1:'/ ,,~ ~ 8.~ .::t "' ..~ ... 4 ~ c! ~E ~~ uGJ .... ~~4' ~~- 2~ ~ic ..~',~i! ~'E:' o u _ 't '" ~~~ ~';ac.. ... - i' r.. -:;',/' , If. ..:l: , !' 4 ~ ' c- o'" ='" ~i , / r- .t, ""~r"',:,... '-- '. ~:;iJ.'~:1 c.l~ If 5 . i :s!~... .::!a.. ...,.. E '" iC I I' -L I __ T' ~ 55 J; '5 H4 4.. ~ 'c3Q~tl 5:...~~.:":,!'i:t"\. ,:.. :'" llO -lPN310VH ~ ~ U OI:J 010NI:JV /' ..... . 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ !i! ,.;;; ffi .~ ~ z :; '" :0 o DOUGHERTY RD ;:,"/;-1 :.oM SCARLETT - -tPo ~(jl ~/ -l'/ <f '_--. :;-,1 '.t' ., #i';. '-.\,\,"'\ '>-< ~ ~3 ~~ ~ ~ '::'it [ ~:ij ~ ~E ~~ ~a~ 4J!1 !.g. ~~ VILLAGE.!KY ",oN 1'0 ......I'J' ~€I g'~~ c E c ~E~ ",0 u ;; -.~,'g~ ~ teL-I, "i ::E c" "4~E '~ ~ GJ a:, o ~,.. ,04..... D/i3'\11S I \ fl /'\ . / 1.__ J I ~ I( \ r-/ \/ { / I / / /' --, I I I / / I J.., !-; ,~ ~.\ ,r ;.. .,. ~ ,II :;. tL." ( ... .. fJ . .) (! A " / ,I I l -. ~'" ~ u .. c ",,, u'" "' 1" . :7>J /: I . \! ~' I, 1 I , , ......, " " " \ _I ~...~ ~ ~. ~~!~~ ,. '\U ~ -" tn (1) In (1) ~ ::::J C)-U -- CU u.u. -- ... -- - ... ~ o c: Q~ i' i<; o -- ... tn -- >< W ~ '" "'- "Ct; ~::E o .;; Q) n; u ~....~ (5 Z ~ ell Q) -0 C (/) c ::J >. ::l ell (/) 0 I- 3 - (/) "- co a: .L: Q) ~ Q) Q) "- co >. <( 0> "- ell - - 3: (3 co I C/) a.. i I D I -- I I - -~ C 0 '.j::; ell - C/) (/) I- 0> a: C C <( 1:J 0 CO '.j::; ::l ell -0 (/) CO U5 Q) (/) 0 .2 I- 0 0 :0 a: a. .L: 0 () ::l <( "- C/) a.. CO a.. .. ~ 6' tit Q) 4 .r: 0 (/) Q) ;e Ul '0 ~ ell U. U (/) "- l'lI (/) "- Q) IL Q) 3 ~ ~ t: () () 0 0 ell 0 .L: a. a: C/) Co -l ::I (/) Q) iC . . .>L- iD .. - Dublin Bikeways Master Plan , (vq ';f )8 '7 8. SAFETY, ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATION This section identifies various bicycle safety improvements and recommends specific actions which are designed to enhance safety for bicyclists through enforcement and education. While improving safety is extremely important and a high priority, riding a bicycle involves inherent risk that no improvements, including those listed in this section, can completely eliminate. BICYCLE COLLISIONS On-street bicycle riding is commonly perceived as unsafe because it exposes a lightweight, two-wheeled vehicle to heavier and faster- moving automobiles, trucks, and buses. However, collision statistics ~ show that, based on number of users and miles traveled, bicyclists face only a marginally higher degree of sustaining an injury than a motorist (Bicycle Federation of America). Death rates are essentially the same for bicycle and automobile collisions. Nationwide, roughly half of reported bicycle collisions show the bicyclist to be at fault. Bicycle collision statistics compiled from collision reports for the years 2000 to 2005 indicate that Dublin experiences about five to seven bicycle collisions each year. In 2000, there were 12 collisions, while from 2001 to 2005, there were between three and seven collisions each year. Without taking bicycle counts, it is difficult to infer if this drop in collisions is due to improved safety, a reduction in bicycling, or some other factor. It is important to note that these collision figures reflect reported collisions only; bicycle-related collisions tend to be under-reported especially if they do not involve bodily or property damage. According to collision reports filed by police, the cyclist was at fault in 75% of the collisions. This is quite a bit higher than the national average of 54%. The most common cause of bicycle collisions was wrong-way riding (riding against traffic or on the wrong side of the road), which was the primary collision factor in 34% of collisions. As discussed above, this may be due in part to the large number of sidepaths on one side of the road, which tend to encourage wrong-way riding. Additionally, some bicyclists believe that in the absence of bike lanes, they are more visible to motorists if they ride against the flow of automobile traffic; however, this practice results in turning conflicts between bicycles and autos and poses a danger for less experienced bicyclists who might unintentionally weave into the path of oncoming autos. Others believe that they are safer riding on sidewalks, which in fact increases their chance of being hit by a vehicle pulling out of a driveway and creates conflicts with pedestrians. The second most common primary collision factor was bicyclist failure to yield to driver's right of way, which was the primary factor in 12% of collisions. Other common factors include bicyclist failure to obey signals (10%), driver failure to yield to bicyclist's right of way (9%), and bicyclist not riding as close as practicable to right hand curb (8%). Secondary factors cited in the collision reports include lack of proper lights and driver inattention. In order to ride safely, bicyclists must not only follow the rules of the road (outlined in Section 21200 of the California Vehicle Code), but also communicate with each other and other facility users, such as pedestrians, when traveling on off-street paths. Figure 6 shows the locations of these collisions. In terms of streets, Dublin Boulevard had by far the largest number of reported collisions, with 19 collisions over the six year period. Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway had the second and third highest number of collisions, with 12 and nine, respectively. In terms of intersections, Amador Valley BoulevardNillage Parkway was the most common collision location, with four collisions, while Amador Valley Boulevard/San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard/Camp Parks Boulevard (DeMarcus Boulevard) both had three collisions. It is important to note that areas with high numbers of collisions Bikeways Master Plan Page 60 2007 DubllfJ BIkeways Master Plan })o <;f )8'7 generally represent areas with high levels of bicycling. A heavily-bicycled street with several collisions is not necessarily less safe than a street with fewer bicyclists, but because more people are riding on it, more collisions occur there. Without bicycle counts (which could be used to create a collision rate per cyclist), it is difficult to compare the actual safety of various streets. Additional collision data can be found in Appendix B. Construction Zones Dublin is growing rapidly, with construction projects and road work occurring throughout the city. These projects often result in construction vehicles parked in bicycle lanes, large truck traffic on city streets, and other conditions that affect bicycle safety. For these reasons, Dublin should continue to review construction traffic control plans for development and utility projects to ensure bicycle safety. Trail Crossings At locations where a multi-use trail crosses a street, the location of the crossing (mid-block or intersection> should determine what type of safety considerations are used to determine whether or not to mark a crosswalk. Trail crossings should be well lit and well signed. At all uncontrolled at-grade trail crossings, traffic calming and signage within 150 to 200 feet of the crossing should be considered. Warning signs should be installed within 30 to 50 feet of the crossing or as deemed appropriately by the City on a case-by-case basis. Button-activated, in- street, flashing warning lights may be considered as appropriate. If the crossing does not meet the demand or safety considerations for installation of a marked crosswalk and the nearest signalized crossing location is: 300 feet or more away on an arterial street; 200 feet or more away on a collector street; or 100 feet or more away on a local street, signage and landscaping should be used to direct cyclists to the adjacent signalized crossing. However, if the nearest signalized crossing is greater than 150 feet away and the location does not meet safety considerations for a marked crosswalk, and other at-grade treatments are infeasible, a grade-separated bicycle crossing should be considered. Bikeways Master Plan Page 61 2007 \:-- ~'l() <~~ ,-----------' I ---, I I I I I I . I I r-n-.! I " "\ ~l''l \ a . . ........, \ - - -- ------- - ---- .., ~~~ .....~o.. Qt;P/l::jVfVSSV1- - f1 w';. , \ c .g ~N ~~ e: N~ U~ :i Sl'N ~Ol:! I'D , c.~ o c~_ c:~~ c E c ~6~ U , \ r- \ / I /'\ . I l.. } \ I --~ (' \ / / / / / / ( ~ -;; I at: 'a."C I ,,:;; I "'.- ,..0 r -.., '~ .,....I ~~ I ::~ I , ~ I / I I " I , r -- -- l. " . " " " \ \ \. -. : / L CHAAAO AD , ,. -:;l .. t:'" 8.~ ",'" ........ ~~4 ~.x- ."", ~; c 'J~(~ ~-t ~:J7\~ A! 1 rU r ~~I~~1'.-, ,'l .1f:...:z- "tot ) , I r .' '-- '. a: ~;~ ~ Cl O~ OlON~V a:. o ~!-D "1"1" !l3l"s \ /r~1 v u( PI J; I ,? / <>:/ I~'/ --1 I I I ; / I J, I I I I I r I I I I I I I I I I / - -I.-",--=~.!.._--='; ", .~" ? "\, .1" 01 .., " f;\ [' -, I~I I" " J!.c. " U N C ;X~ J . / I I' ~. /; ,,' , I \! I. I \ " , " _I j~~ " ~@:&g y ev ';I i, ! <.oil) (1)0 ~o ~N 0)- -- 0 LLO o N ~ CIl 1Il c: In -g ::J ~ :J I- ;;: .0 0 a: .c ~il ~ Cii co <( .Q) :~ co n; .2":- i I () D I !~ 'm ~ '0 CIl > 1Il 0- c: ::::l .!!! Cl ~ C ';~ u X [W i I In Cl c: c: 32 0 '5 .~ In co U5 (5 .~ I- ,g :0 a: u:Je:( en a. co ~ .... €I ~ td CIl :G ~'C enC7.i CIl 0 6~ :2 ~; c. oij "' ,) In In CIl CIl c: c: 1Il 1Il ...J...J CIl CIl Y- Y- COCO c: o ~ (5 () .. CIl J:: U Ci >oll. U .. .- ,. co iii = .0 '0 .0 () .. 2l ~ .. :~ -; < ,!! IU ID In In In In In In 1Il 1Il 1Il U U ~ U g>> g> ~ en _ -.:; a: C en en Q) .ti 'x 'x :!: .x wwlDw I ~ x ~ I ~ . . en c: o -- (/) -- - - o o G) - (.) (.) -- m Q) iii o Z ....c: ~ o z c: o .~ U5 I- a: e:( co '0 CIl In o 0- o .t In CIl '5 o a: CIl Y- co j h? ~ Ie 7 Dubllll Bikeways Mastel Plan ~ SECURITY Enforcement on the City's multi-use paths should be provided by the Dublin Police Services Department. Existing vehicle statutes relating to bicycle operation violations will be enforced through the Police Department's normal operations. No additional manpower or equipment is anticipated. The Iron horse Trail, Tassajara Creek Trail, and the Alamo Canal Trail are under East Bay Regional Park District jurisdiction and are currently patrolled by Park Police and volunteer Trail Patrol. In general, multi-use pathway undercrossings require special attention because they can be perceived as unsafe areas, particularly after dark. Any undercrossing over 50 feet in length should be lighted, and all approaches to the undercrossing should provide the user a clear view all the way through the undercrossing. Undercrossings should be designed to avoid areas off the path where people can loiter. The Dublin Police Services Department may have to be provided with special vehicles (such as trail bikes) for patrolling the paths. It is estimated that one hour of additional police manpower is required for every 5 miles of pathway. The Dublin Police Services Department already has bicycle-trained officers. BICYCLE EDUCATION PROGRAMS Programs to teach current and potential bicyclists of all ages about the fundamentals of bicycle riding are important to establishing good riding skills. The City of Dublin's Police Services Department currently provides bicycle safety and education programs at elementary schools. These are typically "bike rodeos" in which kids ride through obstacle courses designed to improve specific bicycling skills. The rodeo also includes a safety talk which includes information about bicycle fit and proper helmet use and fit. The bike rodeos are held at elementary schools but are open to the public. They typically last about one hour and include 50 to 75 participants. In the past, bike rodeos have been held at one to three schools per year, but the program is expanding to four schools in 2006, with an ultimate goal of hosting an event at each elementary school. These are generally held in the spring, to prepare students for summer bicycling. They are advertised through fliers at the schools, the library, and civic center, notices in school newsletters, on the Police Department website, and in the local press, and supported by volunteers from local bicycle shops and various clubs as well as Police Department staff. In addition, the Dublin Cyclery, a local bike shop, has hosted free "Flat Repair Clinics" at the Dublin Library for adults. These clinics, which have been well attended, teach cyclists how to repair a flat tire and provide an opportunity to discuss bicycle safety issues. Dublin is a participant in the "Double Traffic Fines" program in school areas. The increased portion of the fine is supposed to be used exclusively to pay for the cost of school pedestrian-bicyclist safety programs. The following steps are recommended to build upon this effort: . Expand the bicycle rodeo program to serve all of Dublin's elementary schools, as well as middle schools and community centers to reach older children. · Consider combining the successful Flat Repair Clinics with bicycle rodeos and bicycle safety education for adults, perhaps on Saturdays or weekday evenings. Alternatively, establish an adult bicycle education program through the Dublin Community Education Center, the Amador Valley Adult and Community Education Program, the Parks and Recreation Department, or another City department that teaches adults how to ride defensively and encourages people to ride to work. This program may include the use of volunteers from local bicycle clubs and other organizations. Bikeways Master Plan Page 63 2007 })3 ~ 18, Dublm Bikeways Master Plan -- . Establish a bicycle helmet program through various statewide helmet programs that provides low-cost helmets to youth. In California, helmets are mandatory for all bicyclists under age 18. . Consider working with Safe Moves, a statewide non-profit organization that has a bicycle and pedestrian safety education program for school children and senior adults. The Safe Moves program offers school workshops, bicycle rodeos, bicycle registration, helmet inspection, and traffic assessment skills. . Educate drivers about the rights of bicyclists through a variety of means including making bicycle safety a part of traffic school curriculum, producing a brochure on bicycle safety and rights for public distribution, enforcing existing laws regarding both motorists and bicycles, encouraging the state to include questions about bicycle safety and operations on drivers license exams, and providing signs at strategic locations advising motorists to share the roadway with bicyclists. . Analyze bicycle collisions on an annual basis to determine high-collision locations, primary collision factors, helmet use, and other trends, and use this data to develop safety and education programs. . Consider working with the East Bay Bicycle Coalition, Valley Spokesmen, or other qualified instructors to offer the League of American Bicyclists' Street Skills cycling class at Community Centers. . Work with the East Bay Bicycle Coalition to provide safety quizzes and brochures to cyclists. . Consider partnerships with organizations such as Cycles of Change, which provide after-school programs for cyclists at Middle Schools. BICYCLE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS A sound approach to enforcement for both cyclists and motorists is an excellent tool to educate both audiences about the rules of the road. While it is important to enforce wrong-way riding, helmet laws for young cyclists, red- light running, and even speed limits, enforcement efforts targeted at cyclists represent an excellent opportunity to provide education as well. This approach allows police officers to enforce the laws without representing a potential barrier to cycling for less-experienced riders. The City of Dublin may want to pursue the program described below: . Bicycle Diversion Program: Bicycle Diversion Programs have been successfully pioneered in Arizona by the Tucson Police Department. Locally, the City of Sunnyvale has a program that targets juveniles. These programs are for both motorists and bicyclists ticketed for Vehicle Code violations pertaining to cycling. The violator may choose to pay the fine or to participate in a "Bicycle Traffic School," which teaches rules of the road and techniques to safely share the road. The Dublin Police Services Department may adopt a similar program as funding becomes available. The program would require additional ongoing resources for Police enforcement, program administration, hiring instructors, and offering courses. Bikeways Master Plan Page 64 2007 ) I Lf ~ )81 Dublm Bikeways Master Plan -- 9. PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS The proposed bikeway system, when fully implemented, may provide a comprehensive system for the City of Dublin. However, due to limited resources, the proposed segments need to be prioritized for implementation over the next 20 years. The prioritization provided in this Chapter is meant to serve as a guide and not an impediment to implementation. The City will pursue opportunities to implement projects through routine resurfacing or development projects as they arise, regardless of a project's place in the prioritization. The prioritization of the bicycle projects is based on the following five criteria: . Activity Centers: The project is near existing and planned activity centers such as parks, schools, employment centers, and shopping centers. . Connectivity: The project provides connections to existing bicycle facilities, activity centers, or closes a gap in the existing bikeway network. . Safety: For on-street facilities, the project provides a bicycle facility on a roadway with a high number of bicycle collisions over the past several years. For off-street facilities, the project is designed to minimize intersections and opportunities for conflicts with vehicles. . Regional Access: The project provides access to regional trails, bikeways in adjacent cities, across freeways, or to BART stations or bus stops. . Relative Ability to Implement: The project can be implemented based on the amount of roadwork and coordination needed. The scoring for each bikeway project and the resulting rankings are listed in Tables 6 and 7. A complete description of the prioritization scoring is provided in Appendix D. The scoring resulted in two prioritized lists, one for on-street and one for off-street projects. These prioritized lists should be reevaluated every five years when the plan is updated. Community workshops should be convened to participate in these updates. Bikeways Master Plan Page 65 2007 ))5 o~ /81 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- TABLE 6 ON-STREET BIKEWAY PROJECTS: PRIORITIZATION MATRIX 10 Project Activity Connectivity Safety Regional Ability to Total Points Centers Access Implement 2-6, ~mador Valley Boulevard 2-7, 2 5 3 3 3 15 3-6 Corridor 2-5, Village Parkway Corridor 2 5 2 3 3 15 3-5 2-3 San Ramon Road 2 5 2 3 2 14 Corridor 3-4 Davona Drive 2 5 1 3 3 14 2-9 Dougherty Road Corridor 1 5 2 3 2 13 C-1 San Ramon Road 1-580 2 5 0 5 0 12 crossing C-3 Tassajara Road 1-580 1 5 0 5 0 11 crossing C-6 Dublin Boulevard 2 5 2 2 0 11 Corridor 2-8, Stagecoach Road 3 2 1 2 3 11 3-7 2-1 Schaefer Ranch 1-580 1 2 1 5 2 11 Underpass 3-2 Golden Gate Drive 1 5 1 2 2 11 C-5 Camp Parks Access 1 5 1 3 1 11 2-17, Central Parkway Corridor 1 5 1 1 2 11 2-18 2-20 Tassajara Road Corridor 1 5 1 1 2 10 2-21 Fallon Road Corridor 1 5 1 1 2 10 2-19 Hacienda Drive 2 2 2 1 3 10 2-11 Demarcus Boulevard 2 2 2 2 2 10 3-9 Lockhart Street 3 2 1 0 3 9 2-15, Gleason Drive Corridor 3 2 1 0 3 9 2-16 3-1 Regional Street 1 1 1 5 1 9 2-4 St. Patrick Way 1 2 2 2 2 9 2-10 Iron Horse Parkway 2 2 1 2 2 9 2-12 Altamirano Street 2 2 1 2 2 9 2-13 Martinelli Way 2 2 1 2 2 9 C-2 Dougherty Road 1-580 1 2 0 5 0 8 Crossing 3-3 Amador Plaza Road 1 3 1 0 3 8 Bikeways Master Plan Page 66 2007 JIG of /gYj Dubl1n Bikeways Master Plan -- TABLE 6 ON-STREET BIKEWAY PROJECTS: PRIORITIZATION MATRIX 10 Project Activity Connectivity Safety Regional Ability to Total Points Centers Access Implement 2-2 Silvergate Drive 1 2 1 2 2 8 3-8 Grafton Street 1 2 1 2 2 8 2-22 Upper Loop Road 1 2 1 2 2 8 C-4 Fallon Road 1-580 1 1 0 5 1 7 Crossing 2-14 Arnold Drive 1 2 1 0 3 7 2-23 Croak Road 1 2 1 0 3 7 TABLE 7 OFF-STREET BIKEWAY PROJECTS: PRIORITIZATION MATRIX 10 Project Activity Connectivity Safety Regional Ability to Total Points Centers Access Implement 1-4 Alamo Canal/I-580 Gap 3 5 3 5 1 17 Elimination 1-8 Dublin Blvd. Bike Path 3 5 3 3 3 17 C-7 Tassajara Creek Trail & 3 5 3 5 1 17 Freeway Crossing Alamo Creek Trail/ 1-5 Amador Valley Rd. 3 5 3 3 2 16 Crossing Improvements 1-3 Dublin High School/Iron 3 5 3 3 1 15 Horse Trail Path Dougherty Road Path / 1-6 Iron Horse Trail 3 5 3 3 1 15 Connection Improvements 1-9 Tassajara Creek Trail, 3 2 3 5 2 15 northern extension Nielsen 1-1 Elementary/Mape Park 3 5 3 0 2 13 Path 1-2 Shannon Community 3 5 3 0 2 13 Center Path Alamo Creek Trail/ City 1-4 of San Ramon Gap 1 5 3 3 1 13 Elimination Bikeways Master Plan Page 67 2007 ))1 ~ /81 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- TABLE 7 OFF-STREET BIKEWAY PROJECTS: PRIORITIZATION MATRIX 10 Project Activity Connectivity Safety Regional Ability to Total Points Centers Access Implement Tassajara Creek Trail to 1-10 Fallon Road Connection 1 1 3 3 2 10 Path 1-14 Gleason Dr. Bike Path 3 5 Unknown* 0 2 10 Fallon Rd. Grade 1-23 separation with Fallon 3 1 3 0 2 9 Village Creek Trail/ Dublin Sport Park 1-24 Fallon Village Creek 3 1 3 0 2 9 Eastbank Trail 1-25 Fallon Village Creek 3 1 3 0 2 9 Westbank Trail 1-7 Iron Horse Trail/ Dublin 3 0 0 3 2 8 Blvd. Rest Area 1-20 Lockhart / Fallon Sports 2 2 2 0 2 8 Park Path 1-12 Fallon Rd. Path, north 0 2 3 0 2 7 extension Central Parkway Bike 3 . 1-15 Path 2 Unknown 0 2 7 1-17 East Dublin 3 1 2 0 1 7 Bike/Pedestrian Corridor 1-18 Future Grafton St. Bike 3 2 0 0 2 7 Path 1-19 Oak Bluff Ln. - Fallon Ct. 0 2 3 0 3 7 Connection 3 - 1-26 Central Parkway Paths 2 Unknown 0 2 7 1-11 Tassajara Road Path 0 1 3 0 2 6 Ichancery Lane Bike Patt 3 - 6 1-16 1 Unknown 0 2 - 1-21 Upper Loop Road Paths 2 2 Unknown 0 2 6 Fallon Village North . 1-22 Neighborhood Square 3 1 Unknown 0 2 6 Paths Brannigan St. Path 0 . 0 4 1-13 2 Unknown 2 . 0 4 1-27 Croak Rd. Paths 1 1 Unknown 2 . Note: Frequency of roads and driveways crossing proposed trails in future development areas is unknown. Bikeways Master Plan Page 68 2007 Dub/Ill Bikeways MiJster Plan /121 ~ )2,'7 -- 10. FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of the proposed bicycle system will require funding from local, state, and federal sources and coordination with multiple agencies. To facilitate funding efforts, this section presents conceptual construction cost estimates for the proposed system along with a brief description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities. At the conclusion of this section, a brief overview of overall funding and implementation strategies are provided. Current and Past Expenditures Over the past seven years, the City of Dublin has spent approximately $1.14 million on bicycle facilities. Annual expenditures over this period were as follows: . FY 99/00 - $84,689 . FY 00/01 - $129,422 . FY 01/02 - $361,926 . FY 02/03 - $238,037 . FY 03/04 - $217,016 . FY 04/05 - $0 . FY 05/06 - $112,544 These funds were spent on the following projects: 1. Construction of the Iron Horse Trail from the Northern City Limit (County Line) to Amador Valley Boulevard - $34,203 (99/00) 2. Construction of the Iron Horse Trail from Amador Valley Boulevard to Alamo Canal Trail - $376,900 (99-02) 3. Construction of the Alamo Canal Trail from the Iron Horse Trail to 1-580 - $373,229 (00-03) 4. Construction of Alamo Creek Trail north of Amador Valley Blvd. - $219,490 (02-04) 5. Tassajara Creek Trail Improvements - $27,270 (03-04) 6. Preliminary Engineering - Alamo Canal Trail under 1-580 - $31,400 (05-06) 7. Citywide Bikeways Master Plan - $81,144 (05-06) These expenditures total $1,143,636. In addition, the Parks Department budget includes annual funding for bicycle trail maintenance. For 2005 and 2006, bicycle trail maintenance totaled $127,000. This includes the following items: . Bike path maintenance: $47,125. This is for paths along San Ramon Road, Dougherty Road, and Alamo Creek (excluding what's covered by the Parks District). . Tassajara Creek Trail: $70,227. This is mainly landscaping. . Martin Canyon Creek Trail: $9,752 Understanding the City's investment in the existing bikeway system and what is required to complete the system is important in developing a funding strategy. With an approximate length of 21 miles, the existing bikeway system represents a substantial investment. Bikeways Master Plan Page 69 2007 Dubllf) Bikeways Master Plan }/Cj of )gj -- Cost of New Bicycle Facilities Construction Costs Table 8 provides a unit cost summary for the construction of bikeway facilities in Dublin. These estimates are based on costs experienced in Dublin and other communities throughout the State, with small increases to account for engineering, construction management, inspection, and contingency costs. More detailed estimates should be developed following the preliminary engineering stage as individual projects advance towards implementation. For purposes of this Bikeways Master Plan, conceptual construction costs for the proposed system were based on the following assumptions: . New Class I facilities would be constructed on generally flat right-of-way with no grade separation and minimal grading needed given the existing topography within the City; cost of right-of-way acquisition is not included. . New Class II facilities would require minimal or no roadway improvements . New Class III facilities would require signing only (with optional stencils). An adjustment to account for traffic control costs is included. TABLE 8 CONCEPTUAL UNIT COST ESTIMATES FOR BIKEWAY CONSTRUCTION Facility Type Estimated Cost per Mile Class I Bike Path - Construct path with minimal grading needed $600,000 Class II Bike Lane - Signing/Striping only $15,000 Class II Bike Lane - Signing/striping plus minimal roadway improvements $70,000 Class III Bike Route - Signing plus stencils in some locations $4,000 Note: costs are in 2006 dollars, excluding Right-of-Way costs. Bikeways Master Plan Page 70 2007 TABLE 9 CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY Proposed Cost Bikeway Classification Segments (2006 Oollars) (miles) Class I Bike Paths (excluding those 1.09 $2,979,000 to be built by developers) Class II Bike Lanes (excluding those 31.76 $1,202,271 to be built by developers) Class III Bike Routes 2.98 $11,818 Corridor Studies 2.15 Unknown Developer-Built Facilities: Class I 11.87 Unknown Class II 7.45 TOTAL 57.3 $4,193,089 Note that a minimum cost of $2,000 was assumed for the Class III projects. Thus, the total Class III cost is higher than a direct multiplication of the unit cost and mileage. Additionally, some of the Class I paths include other design elements that change the cost from a direct multiplication of unit cost and mileage. Construction of the Class I, II and III system would require approximately $4,193,089, which equates to an investment of approximately $209,655 per year over 20 years. A significant portion of the proposed system would be constructed as part of new development or as re-development occurs. The recommended corridor studies should be initiated to determine feasibility and related construction costs. Maintenance Costs Multi-use path maintenance includes cleaning, resurfacing, and re-striping the asphalt path, repairing bridges and other structures, cleaning drainage systems, removing trash, and landscaping. While this maintenance effort may not be incrementally major, it does have the potential to develop heavy expenses if it is not done periodically. The City of Dublin is responsible for maintaining all Class I paths in Dublin except for East Bay Regional Park District trails, which include the Iron Horse Trail, the Tassajara Creek Trail, and the Alamo Canal Trail. The estimated annual maintenance expenses for Class I bike paths is approximately $8,300 per mile. If all of the proposed bike paths were implemented, there would be a total of almost 13 miles of Class I facilities, including existing bike paths. The annual maintenance cost for Class I facilities is estimated at about $107,900. For Class II bike lanes, the cost consists of maintaining pavement markings and striping. The estimated annual cost is $62,000 for a full build-out of 39 miles of Class II facilities. Lastly, Class III facilities will require maintenance of bike signs located along the bike route. For approximately 3 miles of Class III bike routes at full build-out, the annual cost is estimated at $450. Tables 4 and 5 show the costs associated with the proposed on-street and off-street facilities. Bikeways Master Plan Page 71 2007 Funding Strategy With this understanding, the following options should be considered by the City for fulfilling the funding commitment necessary to complete the proposed system: . For multi-agency bikeway projects, prepare joint applications with other local and regional agencies, such as the City of Pleasanton, City of San Ramon, Alameda County, and the East Bay Regional Park District for competitive funding programs at the State and Federal levels. Joint applications often increase the competitiveness of projects for funding; however, coordination amongst the participating jurisdictions is often challenging. The City should consider acting as the lead agency, with a strong emphasis on coordination between participating jurisdictions and agencies (including BART, AC Transit, and Public Health organizations) on important projects to ensure they are implemented as quickly as possible. . Use existing funding sources as matching funds for State and Federal funding. . Include bikeway projects in local traffic impact fee programs and assessment districts. . Require construction of bicycle facilities as part of new development. . Continue to include proposed bikeways as part of roadway projects involving widening, overlays, or other improvements. The City should also take advantage of private contributions, if appropriate, in developing the proposed system. This could include a variety of resources such as volunteer labor during construction or monetary donations towards specific improvements. There are a variety of potential local, state and federal funding sources available for bicycle projects. These are summarized in Table 12 and described in more detail below. Some portions of the system can be completed as part of future development and road widening and construction projects. TABLE 12 TRANSPORTATION FUNOING SOURCES AND ELIGIBLE PROJECTS TDA County SAFETEA-LU Safe Office of SAFETEA-LU Routes to Traffic Project Type Article TFCA CMAlBicycle BTA Enhancements Transit Schooll Safety 3 Fund Enhancements Transit Construction/Engineering X capital project (Le. roadway X X X X X widening, bike lanes, shouldel paving, restriping, bike bridge) Bike paths, lanes, and/or X routes to provide access to X X X X X activity centers Hazard elimination or X improvement (Le. X X X substandard grates or culverts) Bikeways Master Plan Page 72 2007 Dublm BIkeways Master Plan JcXd ~ /87 -- TABLE 12 TRANSPORTATION FUNOING SOURCES ANO ELIGIBLE PROJECTS TOA County SAFETEA-LU Safe Office of SAFETEA-LU Routes to Traffic Project Type Article TFCA CMAlBicycle BTA Enhancements Transit School/ Safety 3 Fund Enhancements Transit Maintenance of non- Xl X X motorized bikeways Secure Bicycle Parking X2 X X X X X X Facilitation of bicycle-transit X X X X X trips Traffic control devices to X X X X improve bicycle travel Adjustment of traffic-actuated X X X X signals to be bike-sensitive Development or update of a X3 Bicycle Master Plan Bicycle promotion program X X X X Bicycle Safety Education X X X X X Program 1. Up to 5% of county's TDA Article 3 funds, 50% match required where county policy supports use of funds for this purpose. 2. At employment centers, park and ride lots, transit terminals, and where other funds are unavailable. 3. Limited to once every five years. Source: Draft 2005 Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan Federal Funding Sources The following federal sources provide funding that could be utilized by the City of Dublin for implementation of bicycle projects. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) -SAFETEA- LU provides funding for roads, transit, safety, and environmental enhancements. These are generally state and local improvements for highways and bridges that accommodate additional modes of transit. Improvements include capital costs, publicly owned intercity facilities, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This legislation also includes a Safe Routes to School program, with funding for projects that improve pedestrian and bicycle access and safety around primary and middle schools. Cities, counties, and transit operators can apply for SAFETEA-LU funds. An 11.5 percent local match is required for these funds. There are several bicycle-related programs funded through SAFETEA-LU. These include the following: . Surface Transportation Proaram Fund. Section 1108 (STP) - STP are block grant funds that are used for roads, bridges, transit capital, and bicycle projects. Eligible bicycle projects include bicycle transportation facilities, bike-parking facilities, equipment for transporting bicycles on mass transit facilities, bike activated traffic control devices, preservation of abandoned railway corridors for bicycle trails, and Bikeways Master Plan Page 73 2007 )c?3 ~ )87 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- improvements for highways and bridges. SAFETEA-LU allows the transfer of funds from other SAFETEA-LU programs to the STP Fund. Cities, counties, metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), and transit operators can apply for STP funds. An 11.5 percent local match is required for these funds when used for bicycle projects. . National Hiahway System Fund (NHS) - NHS funds provide for an interconnected system of principal arterial routes. The goal of the program is to afford access to major population centers, international border crossings, and transportation systems, meet national defense requirements, and serve interstate and inter-regional travel. This travel includes access for bicyclists. Facilities must be located and designed pursuant to an overall plan developed by each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) and state, and incorporated into the RTP. Both state and local governments can apply for NHS funds. A 20 percent local or state match is required for these funds. . ConGestion MitiGation and Air Quality Imoroyement ProGram. Section 1110 (CMAQ) - CMAQ funds are available for projects that will help attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) identified in the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments. Projects must be located within jurisdictions in non-attainment areas. Eligible projects include bicycle facilities intended for transportation purposes, bicycle route maps, bike-activated traffic control devices, bicycle safety and education programs, and bicycle promotional programs. Cities, counties, MPO, state, and transit operators can apply for SAFETEA-LU funds. An 11.5 percent local or state match is required for these funds. Note that this program will likely be discontinued. . Transoortation Enhancements ProGram, Section 1201 (TE) - The TE Program is a 10 percent fund set aside from the STP. Projects must have a direct relationship to the intermodal transportation system through function, proximity, or impact. This program has 12 activities that are eligible for funding. Two enhancement activities are specifically bicycle related: 1) provision of facilities for bicyclists, and 2) preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for bicycle trails). Local, regional, and state public agencies. special districts, non-profit and private organizations can apply for TE funds. Cities, counties, or transit operators must sponsor and administer the proposed projects. A 12 percent local match is required for these funds. . BridGe Reoair and Reolacement ProGram (BRRP) - BRRP funds are available for bridge rehabilitation and replacement. When a highway bridge deck is being replaced or rehabilitated with federal funds, the bridge-deck must provide bicycle accommodations, if access is not fully controlled. Bridge projects must be incorporated into the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Cities may apply for these funds. No local match is required specifically for bicycle accommodations. . National Recreational Trails Fund, Section 1112 - Funds are available for recreational trails for use by bicyclists and other non-motorized and motorized users. Projects must be consistent with a Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Projects include development of urban trail links, maintenance of existing trails, restoration of trails damaged by use, trail facility development, provision of access for people with disabilities, administrative costs, environmental and safety education programs, acquisition of easements, fee simple title for property, and construction of new trails. Private individuals/organizations, cities, counties, and other governmental agencies can apply for these funds. There are no specific local match requirements for these funds. . National HiGhway Safety Act. Section 402 - The Highway Safety Program is a non-capital safety project grant program under which states may apply for funds for certain approved safety programs and activities. There is a priority list of projects for which an expedited funding mechanism has been Bikeways Master Plan Page 74 2007 developed; bicycle safety programs have been included on this list. Eligible states must adopt a Highway Safety Plan (HSP) reflecting state highway problems. Eligible projects include bicycle safety programs, program implementation, and identification of highway hazards. State departments, cities, counties, and school districts may apply for these funds. No local match is required. . Transit Enhancement Activity, Section 3003 - The Transit Enhancement Activity fund can be used for bicycle access to mass transportation, including bicycle storage facilities and installation of equipment for transporting bicycles on mass transportation vehicles. Regional transportation planning agencies, state, and local agencies may apply for these funds. A 5 percent local match is required for these funds. . Hiahway Safety. Research. and Development Fund, Section 2003 - This fund can be used to improve bicycle safety through education, police enforcement, and traffic engineering. Projects must be incorporated into the RTIP. Cities, counties, and state agencies can apply for these funds. A 25 percent local match is required for these funds. . Section 3 Mass Transit Capital Grants - This fund can be used for mass transit station access including bicycle access, bicycle parking facilities, bicycle racks, and other equipment for transporting bicycles on transit vehicles. States, regional, local governments, and transit operators can apply for these funds. A 10 percent local match is required for bicycle related projects using these funds. State Funding Sources The following State of California sources provide funding that could be applicable for the City of Dublin: Environmental Enhancement and Mitiaation (EEM) Proaram - This program benefits bicycle projects that offset environmental impacts of new or modified transportation facilities. Local and non-profit agencies can apply for these funds. There is no local match required. Flexible Conaestion Relief (FCR) Proaram - This program is designed to reduce congestion on major transportation corridors by adding capacity to roadways. These funds can be used for bikeway projects if they are consistent with the RTP and included in the RTIP. There is no local match required for these funds. Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) - The following is an excerpt from the OTS website5: OTS grantees conduct traffic safety rodeos for elementary, middle and high schools, and community groups in an effort to increase awareness among various age groups. To boost compliance with the law and decrease injuries, safety helmets are properly fitted and distributed to children in need. Court diversion courses are established in several communities for those violating the bicycle helmet law. Other programs target high-risk populations and areas with multicultural public education addressing safer driving and walking behaviors. 5WWW.otS.ca.gov (as of 3/16/04) Bikeways Master Plan Page 75 2007 A bicycle community program should be designed to increase safety awareness and skills among bicyclists and should also address driver behaviors. Two types of programs are described below. A comprehensive program should include both elements: 1) education and 2) enforcement. Education - Educational efforts may be designed to include the entire community or specific target groups. Educational efforts may include bicycle rodeos, school presentations, public service announcements and the distribution of pamphlets and posters to increase public awareness and education. Enforcement - Enforcement efforts can include safety helmet violations, speed enforcement and visible display radar trailer deployment near schools and areas of high bicycle traffic. Several agencies have successfully implemented diversion programs for those cited for safety helmet violations. It is also appropriate to conduct occupant restraint and speed enforcement near schools during school commute hours. State Hiahway Ooerations and Protection Proaram (SHOPP) - This program is state-funded and used by Caltrans to maintain and operate state highways. Local jurisdictions are encouraged to work with Caltrans to help define projects, including bikeway projects on state highways. . Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article III funds are state block grants awarded annually to local jurisdictions for bicycle projects in California. These funds originate from the state sales tax and are distributed to local jurisdiction based on population. . Transportation Funds for Clean Air (TFCA, and formerly AB 434) funds are available for clean air transportation projects, including bicycle projects, in California. . California's Bicycle Transportation Account (BT A) is an annual program that is available for funding bicycle projects. Available as grants to local jurisdictions, the emphasis is on projects which benefit bicycling for commuting purposes. Local Funding Sources A variety of local sources may be available for funding bikeway improvements; however, their use is often dependent on political support. Alameda County Measure B Bicycle and Pedestrian Proaram: Measure B is a half-cent sales tax that was passed in --. Funds are distributed through the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA). 75% of these funds are distributed to cities and the County based on population, while 25% is allocated for regional projects. Currently, Dublin receives approximately $90,000 per year from Measure B for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Local Transoortation Fund. TDA Article 3 - This fund was established by the California legislature under the state Transportation Development Act of 1972. Revenues are derived from return of %-percent of the 7% state sales taxes' to the county of origin. Local jurisdictions can apply for these funds that can be used for transit and bicycle projects. Up to 2 percent of funding can be set aside for bicycle facilities and 5 percent can be used for supplementing other funds to implement bicycle safety education programs. Historically, Dublin has been able to obtain between $35,000 and $40,000 a year from County TDA funds that can be used for improving bicycle facilities. Bikeways Master Plan Page 76 2007 Transportation Fund for Clean Air - A four-dollar motor vehicle surcharge funds this program, which generates around $20 million in annual revenue. Bicycle facility and smart growth projects are eligible for funding. Applications are submitted in June each year for consideration. Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) - The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) disburses these funds, which are collected at the Federal and/or State level and are intended to incentivize smart growth- related projects in the Bay Area. Currently, the program funds planning grants, capital grants, and a housing incentive program (described below). While the most successful applicants have included a housing element in their applications, these grants are intended to foster transit use and mobility for bicyclists as well. HousinG Incentive ProGram (HIP) - The Housing Incentive Program is a smart growth grant funding program begun by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in 1998. The Housing Incentive Program disperses federal and/or state transportation funds as part of the Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program. HIP offers capital grants for transportation enhancement projects to cities and counties in the San Francisco Bay Area that develop and/or permit infill housing along existing public transit corridors. The amount of funds granted is relative to size and density of the residential development, but HIP funds can only be used by a local government agency for transportation enhancement projects. To be eligible for HIP funds the transit service intervals must be 15 minutes or less during peak periods and the housing in the development must be built to a density of at least 25 units per acre. New Construction - Future road widening and construction projects are one method of providing bike lanes. To ensure that roadway construction projects provide bike lanes where needed, it is important that the review process includes a designated bicycle coordinator. Planned roadway improvements in Dublin could provide bike lanes in the City. Since Dublin is growing rapidly with road expansions planned in several areas, there are many opportunities to leverage this construction work for new bicycle facilities. Assessment Districts - Different types of assessment districts can be used to fund the construction and maintenance of bikeway facilities. Examples include Mello-Roos Community Facility Districts, Infrastructure Financing Districts (SB 308), Open Space Districts, or Lighting and Landscape Districts. These types of districts have specific requirements relating to the establishment and use of funds. Impact Fees - Another potential local source of funding are developer impact fees, typically tied to trip generation and traffic impacts as a result of proposed projects. The Tassajara Trail extension project will be constructed by the developer and is included in the City Traffic Impact Fee program. No other bikeway projects are included at this time. Open Space District - Local Open Space Districts may float bonds that go to acquiring land or open space easements, which may also provide for some improvements to the local trail and bikeway system. ReGional Measure Two - On March 2, 2004, voters passed Regional Measure 2 (RM2), raising the toll on the seven State-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay Area by $1.00. This extra dollar is to fund various transportation projects within the region that have been determined to reduce congestion or to make improvements to travel in the toll bridge corridors The Safe Routes to Transit (SR2T) Program is part of Regional Measure 2. SR2T funds, are allocated on a competitive grant basis. To be eligible, projects must have a "bridge nexus," that is, reduce congestion on one or more state toll bridges by facilitating walking or bicycling to transit services or City CarShare pods. The East Bay Bicycle Coalition (EBBC) and the Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC) were named as joint project sponsors, with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) serving as the lead public agency co-sponsor for fund allocation purposes. Other Funding Sources Bikeways Master Plan Page 77 2007 ~1 r9{ 127 Dublm Bikeways Mastel Plan -- Local sales taxes, developer or public agency land dedications, private donations, and fund-raising events are other local options to generate funding for bikeway projects. Creation of these potential sources usually requires substantial local support. Bikeways Master Plan Page 78 2007 Monitoring and Marketing This section outlines various actions recommended in support of the related bicycle improvements. Monitoring City staff should coordinate all monitoring activities of the Plan and hold regular meetings with those involved. Some monitoring activities are listed below. . Plan Review: Roadway improvement plans should be reviewed to ensure that bikeway segments and related improvements are implemented, developer impact fees are identified (if applicable), and design standards are met. The review should also include an assessment of impacts to existing bicycle safety, access, and mobility and strategies to mitigate any impacts. . Collision Monitorino: Bicycle-related collision data should be collected annually from the Police Services Department and tabulated to show patterns by location and collision type. . Public Involvement: City staff should continue to provide interested residents with materials, information, and other support as the system is being implemented. Bicycle promotional and educational events, such as Bike to Work Day and Bike to School Day, should be planned and managed by the responsible departments. The City should coordinate public outreach and involvement with adjacent cities. . Maintenance: The Public Works Department should be responsible for the annual maintenance and operations budget, collaborating with the Parks and Community Services department. The Department should keep track of long term path maintenance, schedule repairs, and respond to calls from the public or staff regarding maintenance needs. . Fundino Monitorino: City staff should work closely with various funding agencies such as ACTIA, MTC and Caltrans to keep abreast of funding opportunities and to follow up on applications to ensure maximum success. . Ooerations Monitorino: The Police Services Department should be responsible for providing the needed enforcement along City bike paths and working in cooperation with the East Bay Regional Park District on District-maintained trails. Problems regarding security, privacy, vandalism, and crime along bike paths should be addressed. . Maintain surface conditions through periodic street sweeping to insure that existing and future bikeways are safe for bicyclists. . Continue to maintain a bikeway imorovement and maintenance 100 in the Public Works department where all observed and recorded hazardous conditions are listed and scheduled for repair or replacement. This list would include all grates that do not meet specific criteria. Each bikeway should be scheduled for sweeping no less than four times a year. Obstructions and potholes should be repaired as soon as possible after being reported. Bikeways Master Plan Page 79 2007 )~1 Marketing This section addresses actions a local jurisdiction may take to increase awareness and use of its bikeway system. Increased commuter bicycling is often one of the goals of a local Transportation Demand Management (TOM) program. One of the first steps is to identify and contact those local organizations or departments that have mutual interests in promoting bicycling, such as a health organization like the American Lung Association or a regional ridesharing agency. Not only will this coordination help gather resources and support, it will also help identify innovative techniques that have been proven successful in the past. Some common marketing techniques are described below. Bikewav Identitv A logo for the proposed bikeway system could be developed and signed relatively inexpensively on existing and future segments to raise the visibility of the effort. This identity would be used on all bikeway signs, brochures, maps, and other materials. The logo will help define the bikeway routes as a cohesive system rather than a series of disconnected routes. The design could be accomplished through a contest involving local schools and bicycle clubs, with a prize awarded to the winner. Directional, informational, and warning signs should conform to Caltrans Chapter 1000 and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices unless superseded by City guidelines. The City should also work with BART to develop signs that are consistent with BART's bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding standards. Maps and Brochures Maps of the existing bikeway system could be produced by the City, possibly aided by advertising revenues from local bike shops and other retailers. The map should be small and inexpensive to reproduce and update, and it should include safety and other information (such as City numbers to call with maintenance problems). The maps should be distributed to all local bike shops, libraries, schools, and major employers. Brochures on bikeway improvements and requirements are also effective education and marketing strategies. The City of Portland produces brochures on bicycle parking requirements for local employers and bicyclists alike. Other specialty brochures might cover steps neighborhoods and elementary schools can take to improve bicycling conditions, or introduce types of incentive programs employers can offer to encourage employees to bicycle to work. Maps, brochures, and other information should be posted on the City's website and provided to regional transportation organizations such as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for promotion on their websites. Bicvcle Safety Prooram Bicycle safety programs can also benefit marketing efforts. By educating the public about riding safely and properly, the City can promote bicycle riding in a positive manner. The City currently has a bicycle safety program that includes bicycle "rodeos" at elementary schools which cover bike fit, helmet use and fit, and riding skills. Safe Moves, a state-wide non-profit organization, has devised a bicycle safety education program for school children and senior adults and could help offer school workshops, bicycle registration, helmet inspection, traffic assessment skills, and additional bicycle rodeos for Dublin residents. Bicvcle-Friendlv Community Desionation A long-term goal for Dublin could be to be designated a "Bicycle-Friendly Community." This designation is awarded by the League of American Bicyclists based on the City's engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and planning efforts for bicycling. The designation includes a press release, local award ceremony, and road sign with the designation. See www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org for more details. Bikeways Master Plan Page 80 2007 Dublm Bikeways Master Plan } '2""[ /.....) D .; )81 -- Appendix A: Design Guidelines 81 x L3J 1 12; f 1[ '. ., CLASS I BIKEWAY (Bike Path) Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow minimized. 0:. ~ ~~ ~_ f'\ . ~'l' .~, rC \.. K[t 6" SOLID WHITE STRIPE w ... CLASS II BIKEWAY (Bike Lane) Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. /BIKEROUTESIGN ~ crt .. II LT 11> F E H R & PEE RS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS CLASS III BIKEWAY (Bike Route) Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic. Dublin Bicycle Master Plan BIKEWAY FACILITY TYPES 2" A.C. (MINIMUM) OR RECYCLED A.C. OR DECOMPOSED GRANITE WITH ADHESIVE 6" COMPACTED SUB-GRADE (AB2 OR GRAVELl \ ~ % t~7 -t 7' ..- 2% SLOPE ':(~~~;\5.<~:B~:~~~~;~:: >~;;;;~:S: :1~~~~:~f~~~~0~~gf.~~:~~~:%~)~;S:~'~:: ~~%~~~ NATIVE MATERIAL OR FILL COMPACTED PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ~~;~~::~'~:~:')~~? ~ - , " .". , <'< "'~S~<:::-~;~~'~~,;:~:.~''S:'' .... ~'....'<',. /' 4 10' 2' 6' FENCE (~~II~IIIIII~111Ilil~~~;~~1%~~~~~~~~}~b~~ 3' -5' 11> F E H R & PEE RS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 2' 2' 3' ~ ~5' .. 10' Dublin Bicycle Master Plan TYPICAL CLASS I BIKE PATH Dublin Bikeways Master Plan / ~~, 'iP )()1 f~ ---- 'ir 0 -- Bike Path Design Standards Bike paths are separated from roads by distance or barriers. Cross traffic by motor vehicles should be minimized. Bike paths can offer opportunities not provided by the road system. They can provide recreational opportunities or serve as desirable commuter routes. Two-way bicycle paths should be a minimum of 10' wide. Bike paths are usually shared with pedestrians and if pedestrian use is expected to be significant, the path should be greater than 10', preferably 12' wide. Where equestrians are expected a separate facility should be provided. A yellow centerline stripe may be used to separate opposite directions of travel. A centerline strip is particularly beneficial to bicycle commuters who may use unlighted bike paths after dark. Sidewalks and meandering paths are usually not appropriate to serve as bike paths because they are primarily intended to serve pedestrians, generally do not meet Caltrans' design standards, and do not minimize motor vehicle cross flows. Preferred Standards Minimum width 10.0' Vertical clearance 8.5' from roadbed Horizontal clearance 14.0' Maximum cross slope 2.0% Surface Concrete I Asphalt Bike Path Structures Bollards Entry structures using bollards are placed at bike path access points to separate the path from motor vehicles and to warn and slow bicyclists as they approach street crossings. A gate may be provided where service access is needed. The diagonal layout of bollards will make the space between the bollards appear narrower, slowing bicyclists and deterring motorcyclists from entering the trail. The bollards are spaced to provide access by people using wheelchairs. A trail sign post can be incorporated into the bollard layout. Bridqes Bridges will be required wherever bike paths cross creeks and drainages. Crossings can utilize pre-fabricated bridges made from self-weathering steel with wood decks. Openings between railings should be 4" maximum. Railing height should be a minimum of 42" high. Fences Fencing may be necessary on some bike paths to prevent path users from trespassing on adjacent lands, or to protect the user from dangerous areas. In areas where private residences are passed, privacy may be a concern. Screen fences should be used to maintain privacy of residents. Screen fences can be made of wood, concrete block or chain link if combined with vine planting. 82 6" Continuous White Stripe (Detail 39) 5' (min.) (6' or more desirable) * Where parking lane is less than 8', a 4" edge line or parking Tees are recommended between parking lane and bike lane. tp FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS TYPICAL SIGNING BIKE LANE I3Lf~ /g1 No Parking Markings or "BIKE LANE" Required ** 5' if curb/gutter is present; 4' if no curb/gutter present R81 Dublin Bicycle Master Plan TYPICAL CLASS II BIKE LANES 135 ~ ISl Optional Stencil No Parking * Where travel lane width is 10' or less, place stencil in center of travel lane. I. ~I W'dth V . I anes (See note below) TYPICAL SIGNING SHARE THE ROAD NOTE: Bike route width varies. 14' is desirable for a shared lane. fP F E H R & PEE RS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Dublin Bicycle Master Plan TYPICAL CLASS III BIKE ROUTES Sample Signage Standard Bikeways Master Plan 2007 Page 83 /31 ~ jg7 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- Shared Use Lane Marking (Sharrow) (For additional information, see www.bicycle.sfgov.org) t o 0 o 0....' , . o iii ~ ~ I --t- - - - - - 1o<,_~'" ~I~I.....".-- 1_ ~,"'''""tv'\.ru'. h........:l"'I: ,. ~) . ...,. ~IOlIlY OK 84 ~ 1.5m(S') 3.4m (11') 34m (1") -------- ~ 3Am (11') 34m P") ~ 1.5mIS') Dashed Stripe within 30m (100ft.) to 60m (200ft,) of intersection ~ ... .. ..~:. OPTIONAL: 4' - 5' (1,2m -1.5m) Bike Turn Lane (for heavy left-turn bike volumes, i.e, over 50/hour) fp F E H R & PEE RS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 2Am ~i~~ I ~i~~ (8') -jOf I I I -j I I -j I I Of I -.J I (~:\I 1,5m I '.Om IS') 3.4m 114m 113') Of (11') (11') ~ ., + + l. I '::I':m (76'1 Minimum ~i~~ I ~;~~ 3.4m (11') 34m 1("" I ~ + t I , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I Jo~'~ 3.4m (11') 3Am i,., ("') " /361/81 ~ - .. I 61.5 11200' I I I I I I I I I I Markings or "BIKE LANE" Required Signal Detector (with stenciled marker) Dublin Bicycle Master Plan BIKE LANES AT INTERSECTIONS I I I t + I I 3.4m 3,4m ; 111') 1111'1 '0 1.5m IS') Jr f- )30; 9f )237 a. Rlghl-turn-only lane NOTE: The dotted lines In cases "e" end "b" are opllonal (see CllS8 "c".) b. Parking lane Inlo rlght-lurn-only lane ,. I' III il 'I I " I II . I Arta I R3-8 ~ ~v Wll., (01 c. Rlght-tum-onty lane d. Optional right/straight and rlght-Iurn-only I fP F E H R & PEE RS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Dublin Bicycle Master Plan BIKE LANES APPROACHING RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANES /1I01/S/ rk'ng space . out for end pa I Bicycle parking lay 6'.0. 2'-0. I I' II I' 21'.0. 3'.6. 'I k'ng space . a out for internal par I Bicycle parking I y 1'.0. 3'-0. I I' CURB ,. I' 21'-0. d bicycle parking arked/moving cars an ~ Buffer zone between p iF & PEE RS FE H R ON CONSULTANTS T RA N S PORT A TI Dublin Bicycle Master Plan CK PLACEMENT GUIDELINES FOR ~~~:tPARKING SPACE IN PARALLEL ON- Crosswalk 11> FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS IIi \ ;f )3-1 / Bike racks should not be placed in bus stop zones B U S S T o p . '>::">/::::":;'::":: Commercial buildings . . . . . . '.. {iiij10%%!i~{WJ;i~i;Mi%1j}~g;j1&r:~!W/;;iB), Pedestrian zone 6' min; 10' optimum 2' or aligned with street trees S'min _1 . _ I 1_4'min Varies Lt1J( D ) -L ~ . Inverted U-rack or Horse Rail Rack Street Fumiture Dublin Bicycle Master Plan BIKE PARKING ON SIDEWALKS I. 11> FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS B <;> '" \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 3'-0. T Minimum 6'-0. Clear Space For Access & Circulation ~ 19'.10. B B B PROFILE VIEW ~ 3'.2. .1 ~ PLAN VIEW .1 B B )Lf'; ~ r2 7 6'.5. ~ 1 [=t=F1 IT SIDE VIEW Dublin Bicycle Master Plan GUIDELINES FOR PLACEMENT OF BICYCLE LOCKERS /13 ~ 1[J7 <;> N ~ ~ ~ 9 N 9 ;... ~ Bicycle Area Parking Pad ~ <;> M 2'.0" .1 T Minimum 3'-0" Clear Space For Access & Circulation (6'.0") --L PLAN VIEW NOTE: Drawing is not to scale. Dimensions of rack itself are for reference only. 9 M ~ ;" SIDE VIEW fP FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 2'.0" R-""",l""",,,,,,,,l,,,,,,.~,,,l,,,,,,,,,, I 10'.0" I ( . PROFILE VIEW Dublin Bicycle Master Plan GUIDELINES FOR PLACEMENT OF INVERTED U-RACK WAVE RACK 7'-8. /Lfl{ ~ )6/ ~ N PROFILE VIEW SIDE VIEW WAVE VARIATION RACK HORSE-RAIL RACK PROFILE VIEW E"-"""""""l",,,,,,,,,,, """l",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,l,,,,,,,,,,,~ I. ~ 10'-0. PROFILE VIEW fP FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS SIDE VIEW PROFILE VIEW SIDE VIEW INVERTED-U RACK 2'.0. 9 ;., [Brick Pavers ~ '" Fooling SIDE VIEW Dublin Bicycle Master Plan TYPICAL BIKE RACK DETAILS ILl-S ~ )8-} DlIiJllIl Bikeways Master Plan -- Appendix B: Collision Data The following bicycle collision statistics were compiled from collision reports filed by the Dublin Police Services Department involving bicycle-related collisions for the years 2000 to 2005. They reflect reported collisions only. Note that there were a total of forty (40) collisions over the five year period; however, not all of the collision reports had complete data. Therefore, some of the charts show a total of fewer than forty collisions. In addition, some of the charts of collision location show a total of more than forty collisions, since many collisions were at the intersection of two streets. 85 /Li0 * /8-; Dublin Bikeways Master Plan - Bicycle Collisions (2000-2005) n=40 14 12 12 III 10 ::=:II C 0 ~ (5 8 -..JI c U 7 7 - 0 6 I ... 6 - "t l: - '1 ClI -- .. ..a 5 E I :;) z 4 2 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 c ~ 'E (u 0._ '" c c 0 o :;:: :!Z! 0 "8 ~ - 0 .2 0. o a::: ~ ::> 'c Injury Rate Comparisons (2000-2005) 500 400 300 200 100 o . .il :-'1 .;,1 =1 r ~ Dublin San Jose (2005) (2003) National (2002) Alameda County (2000) Bay Area Statewide (2000) (2000) 86 /11 rr )27 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- Collision Type (2000-2005) n=40 30 26 25 ==:I II) C 0 ~ 20 ::::II (5 U - 15 ':='1 r.- ~~ ::' - - 0 ... Q) .0 10 E I ;:) z 5 4 2 2 = ..-- iiiiii o - 2 2 .bV, b~ oc> <0' ~ ~Ci e" e~ ......e~ '"," ~Vf:' ~b e c} <.e ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~Q .. .be ~ 0(- o eC> "(' v,<' v,b ~"(' if i)o" (-~ Bicyclist's Movement Prior to Collision (2000-2005) n=40 30 27 25 ==- II) c o 20 ~ (5 u '015 = ... Q) .0 ~ 10 z t'~==~..~~ : ::' .-.-- - - - - -- - -- ------ - -- - 2 2 4 r--- 5 4 o proceeding straight traveling wrong way making left making right crossing into other/not turn turn opposing lane stated 87 I Y 8 9f /87 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- Driver's Movement Prior to Collision (2000-2005) n=40 12 11 11 - o Q; .0 E :J Z 1;--- 6 1 0 ::::=:I lil C o 8 :=:I ~ o u 6 :'I ;:: -=-iiiiiiiiiiir=iiii ~ ;;;; =;;;;;;;;;;;:;=== 5 4 4 3 o __J 2 making right proceeding turn straight making left turn stopped entering traffic other/not stated Primary Collison Factor (PCF) (2000-2005) . Bicyclist Riding Agoinst Traffic/Wrong side of rood o Bicyclist Failure to Yield to Driver's Right of Way o Driver Failure to Yield to Bicyclist's Right of Way o Bicyclist Failure to Obey Signals . Bicyclist Not Riding as Close as Practicable to Right Hond Curb Q Bicyclist Riding on Sidewalk . Unsafe Speed by Bicyclist . Driver Failure to Obey Signals . Unknown . Other 88 )~Cj a;( Jf}7 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- Other Collision Factors: Bicyclist (2000-2005) n=9 3.5 3 3 ~ 2.5 =:II o ~ "0 u 2 2 = I :':~~<~~~ _1/:'<.1 ..' ";{'? I :..... J. _ ri{~';' I~~~~I ;i~.t~~ ;::; = - o Qj 1.5 .0 E :J Z ,~~}~ } 1 0- 0.5 lack of proper wrong way riding unsafe speed disobeying traffic vision failure to yield lights signals obscurement right of way on sidewalks Other Collision Factors: Driver (2000-2005) n=8 7 6 6 '" 5 t: 0 ~ "0 4 -~ U - 0 ... 3 .,. Q) .. .0 E :J Z 2 ~-- - -- t """ -- ;;;; 1 o inattention vision obscurement failure to yield right of way on sidewalks 89 I!::>v c;f )87 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan , 10 9 8 == III c: o ~ '0 u 7 ;;;:;::II - Collisions: Day of Week (2000-2005) n=37 9 6 6 6 6 - o ... lU .0 E ::J Z 5 4 3 2 - o 12 10 9 III c: 0 8 =:I ~ '0 u - 6 =lI 0 ... lU .0 E 4 ::J Z 2 o '=I '._..AJ';, ,\.-:-'.: ,-. =~. i~~r=: = 1". .', 1'.:,-::' 1.;"1 .~ I:='=''=' 4 4 I'" 2 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Collisions: Time of Day (2000-2005) n=38 10 8 --:: I 6 --- -- - --- ---- -------- -- --- 4 = o .-' ~. 6:00 to 9:00 9:00 AM to 12:00 to 3:00 3:00 to 6:00 6:00 to 9:00 9:00 PM to 12:00 to 6:00 AM 12:00 PM PM PM PM 12:00 AM AM 90 )51 ~ /87 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan ~ Collisions: Time of Day (2000-2005) n=38 40 III s:: o ~ 25 (5 U 15 20 -= ... :ii ___ 35 30 .... (\.I .!l 15 E ;:) z 10 5 2 2 o. Dark - Street Lights Daylight Dusk. Dawn Party at Fault - All Collisions (2000-2005) 91 J.5;< 0;{ ) 87 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan - Collision Locations (2000-2005) n=58 20 18 16 '" 14 c: 0 ~ 12 '0 u a 10 ... CII .0 8 E ;:) z 6 4 2 0 =19 == == ':::> ~ 12 ;;; -- : = - -- - -- ::; --- ~ ;;;;; = --~ 9 4 3 3 4 2 2 Dublin Amadar Baulevard Valley Baulevard Village San Raman Daugherty Regional Parkway Road Road SlTeet Scarlett Drive Hacienda Tamarack Drive Drive Collision Locations (2000-2005) n=22 4.5 ~,;)*!~~}i1~i~~~~~~~~]v;[tf:<",'C~~~f:~~~1;i~~~f.~i~i;;';5~;ii;-'~;,'t.t} "';;":;:~;~~~~~~[~.tt,\, 4 - 4 3.5' :==::lI '" c: o ~ '0 u a Qj .0 E ;:) z 3 = = 3 3 2.5 - = = 2 2 2 = == ;;;;; ;;; = ;;, 2 1.5 2 2 2 ~ -- -- 0.5 o Amador Amador Valley Valley Boulevard & Boulevard & Village San Ramon Parkway Road Dougherty Road & I. 580 W8 off. ramp Dublin Dublin Dublin Dublin Dublin Dublin Boulevard & 80ulevard & Boulevard & Boulevard & Boulevard & Boulevard & Camps Clark Village Scarlett Hacienda Regional Parks Avenue Parkway Drive Drive Street Boulevard 92 /53 ~ )27 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- Collision Location (2000-2005) n=40 25 20 18 '" c: o ~ 15 '0 U '0 a; ~ 10 :l Z 5 o Intersection 22 .. Non-intersection Collision in Crosswalk? (2000-2005) ..~'~ ..".;::~~y.:" \. ,'\ Yes 50% I , , I ~ 93 )54 9;f 187 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- Bicycle on Sidewalk? (2000-2005) Yes 35% , Driveway-Related? (2000-2005) ..'" ~;~~" ''':;;.''~.~'~ .. ",.., & .. -- Yes 23% 94 /55r;f )&7 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan I I -- Bicyclist's Gender (2000-2005) n=38 35 33 30 25 on c: 0 'on ~ 20 J -- u '0 Iii 15 = = = .c E ::l Z 10 5 5 0 Male Female Bicyclist's Age (2000-2005) n=38 10 9 9 9 .. '="'-"':':""'~'^' ^'J ., .. ., .,'"'"~ ~'.. .,;w...,........ '; ,',', ,~:~;_!~':'~.~:.? -:'~ ~~! ~.~~~~~~; l:~;:'~1~.;'~"'-1)(~U/~~;~ke~". l 8 7 ~ 7 o ~ 6 '0 u '05---- Q; .a 4 E ::l Z 3 I ;::; =' 5 5 ~:::;;::~ ~ 3 : .. I 2 o o o to 5 6 to 10 11to15 16t020 21 to 25 26t054 55and older 95 )~~ ~ /61 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- Helmet Used? (2000-2005) n=40 25 21 20 '" c 0 ;gj 15 - '0 u '0 11 Qj ..c 10 ::: E 8 :> z r--- - 5 I 0 Yes No Not reported Extent of Injury (2000-2005) n=24 16 14 14 ----.. 12 ~ '" c 0 10 = ~ '0 u '0 8 00=::1 Qj ..c E 6 :> z 4 2 0 9 - -------- ---- o Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Properly Damage Only 96 )S~1 )87 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan - Weather (2000-2005) n=38 35 33 30 ----." 25 '" c: 0 'in '5 20 U '0 ~ 15 I ;;;; ;;; ;;; E ;;;;J z 10 5 5 0 0 Clear Cloudy Raining 97 132 ~f IS'! Dublin Bikeways Master Plan -- Appendix C: Bicycle Accommodation in Development and Construction Projects 98 15q ;f fli DuIJ/1IJ Bikeways Master Plan -- The Federal Highway Administration's Joint Statement, Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach establishes overall policy as well as performance measures for incorporating bicycle facilities into transportation projects. The three key principles contained in the statement are as follows: . Bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects unless exceptional circumstances exist; . Municipalities should use approaches to achieving the policy that have worked elsewhere as a model; and . Public agencies, professional associations, or advocacy groups should adopt several action items to improve the overall conditions for bicycling and walking. Bicycle-related impacts should also be evaluated as part of a traffic study for all new development projects. The following are recommended significance criteria for bicycle-related impacts: Bicycle impacts are considered significant if: 1. A project disrupts existing bicycle facilities. Particular attention should be paid to on-street bicycle facilities on roadways with project-proposed driveways. 2. A project interferes with planned bicycle facilities. This includes failure to dedicate right-of-way for planned on- and off-street bicycle facilities included in an adopted Bicycle Master Plan or to contribute toward construction of planned bicycle facilities along the project's frontages. 3. A project conflicts or creates inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies or standards. 4. A project fails to provide a sufficient quantity of on-site parking for bicycles. Bicycle parking should be required of non-residential projects at a specified ratio (such as one bicycle parking space for each 20 vehicle parking stalls or per each 5,000 square feet of commercial space); should be well located, preferably in a well lighted and visible area; and should be functional and provide sufficient security to allow bicycle owners to lock both tires and the frame. Bicycle parking impacts can only be considered significant where local jurisdictions have adopted policies related to bicycle parking. Where such policies do not exist, impacts related to bicycle parking are considered less than significant, and improvements are considered recommendations rather than mitigation. In addition to requiring a set number of bicycle parking spaces, consideration should be given for the type of bicycle parking. Class I facilities, which allow the locking of both wheels and the frame of the bicycle, should be required in areas where bicycles will be parked for long durations (such as employment sites) 99 tho )g7 and where bicycle parking is not highly visible (such as in parking structures). Class" facilities, the most common of which is the inverted U rack, are appropriate for high turn-over areas (such as on a commercial street) and should interspersed for optimal convenience to destinations. 100 )b) ~ )8j Dublin Bikeways Master Plan - Appendix 0: Prioritization Methodology The methodology employed to prioritize the bikeway projects was developed by Fehr & Peers specifically for the City of Dublin, but is similar to that used by other agencies in their bikeway plans, including the City of San Leandro. There are a total of 19 possible points based on five elements: . Activity Centers . Connectivity . Safety . Regional Access . Relative Ability to Implement The methodology used to score projects within each element is described below: Activity Centers (three points): The number of local and regional activity centers on or near a proposed bikeway was counted. Activity centers include existing or planned parks, shopping centers, schools, and large employment centers. Examples of regional activity centers in Dublin are the Hacienda Crossings shopping center, Sybase, the Dublin Sports Fields, the East Bay Regional Park District open space, BART, and the Iron Horse Trail. The total number of activity centers along a bikeway route was averaged on a per-mile basis. . Projects with three or more activity centers per mile receive three points . Projects with between two and three activity centers per mile receive two points . Projects with fewer than two activity centers per mile receive one point Connectivity (five points): This criterion evaluates the ability of a bicycle facility to provide access to major streets, to provide connections between activity centers, and to connect to and extend existing bicycle facilities. Projects with high connectivity received five points, moderate connectivity received two points, and low connectivity received one point. A more detailed description of how each proposed bikeway was evaluated is shown below. . A proposed bikeway receives five points if it meets one of the following conditions: connects to existing bikeways and/or activity centers on both ends bridges a gap in an existing "crucial" bikeway (defined as a bikeway that provides cross-town access or is on a major arterial) 101 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan } 6d~! /2l ~ serves as a collector of other bikeways or residential streets passes through the entire city · A proposed bikeway receives two points if it meets the following conditions: does not qualify for five points connects to existing bikeways and/or activity centers on one end serves as a bypass to busy arterial streets · A proposed bikeway receives one point if it meets two of the following conditions: does not qualify for two or five points connects to a proposed bikeway on one or both ends Safety (three points): On-street Droiects: The methodology for assessing the safety of on-street lanes and routes is based on the number of bicycle collisions on the roadway over the past five years: · Projects that provide a bikeway facility on a roadway with more than 5 collisions over the past five years receive three points. · Projects that provide a bikeway facility on a roadway with 3 to 5 collisions over the past five years receive two points. · Projects that provide a bikeway facility on a roadway with fewer than 3 collisions over the past five years receive one point. Off-street Droiects: The methodology for assessing the safety of off-street bicycle trails is based on the potential for conflicts with motor vehicles: · Intersection improvement projects and grade separation projects receive three points. · Trail and path projects that cross roads and driveways fewer than one time per mile receive three points. · Trail and path projects that cross roads and driveways fewer than two times per mile receive two points. · Trails and path projects that cross roads and driveways fewer than three times per mile receive one point. 102 )~ 1 )67 Dublm Bikeways Master Plan -- Regional Access (five points): The methodology for assessing regional access for each project was as follows: · Projects that provide access across a freeway receive five points · Projects that provide access to a regional trail or bikeway or a bikeway in an adjacent city receive three points · Projects that provide direct access to a BART station receive two points · Projects that provide direct access to a bus stop receive one point Relative Ability to Implement (three points): The relative ability to implement a project was determined through a review of existing plans, field review of the study area, and the level of construction required for implementation. The methodology for assessing ability to implement each project was as follows: On-street projects: · High implementation ability: projects that do not require re-striping or modification of existing street layout receive three points · Moderate implementation ability: projects that require re-striping and minor modifications to the existing layout receive two points · Low implementation ability: projects that require major construction or inter-jurisdictional coordination receive one point Off-street proiects: · High implementation ability: projects along existing maintenance or access roads that do not require significant grading receive three points. · Moderate implementation ability: projects that require moderate grading and construction receive two points. · Low implementation ability: projects that require major construction, significant grading, bridges, or require coordination with multiple agencies receive one point. 103 Appendix E: City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan Public Meeting Participants NAME TITLE/ORGAN IZA TION 1. Shawn Costello 2. Richard Guarienti 3. Doreen Wehrenberg 4. Jim Townsend 5. Charles Richey 6. Charles Tyler 7. Robert Raburn 8. Joe Seto 9. Kim McNeely 10. Tim Chan 11 . Jon Milleli 12. Christine Kaehuaea 13. Ben Lee 14. Edwin Osada 15. Laurianne Behrens 16. Francis Cushman 17. Zev Kahn 18. Cill Lide 19. Bonnie Powers 20. David Bewley 21 . Mary Jo Keortge 22. Fritz Weiss 23. Larry Akinsiku 24. Jim Kohnen 25. Kurt Kummer Citizen-ADA Advocate Parks Commissioner Planning Commissioner East Bay Regional Parks District Staff Livermore Cyclery-Dublin Store Chamber of Commerce c/o Dublin Cyclery East Bay Bicycle Coalition Zone 7 Water Agency Staff Dublin Unified School District Staff BART Planning Staff Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident-ACTIA Watchdog Com Valley Spokesmen Cycling Club Valley Spokesmen Cycling Club Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Zone 7 Water Agency Staff Dublin Resident Pleasanton Parks Commissioner 104 /t51,8'--J RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 33 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN PA 06-032 WHEREAS, in 2005, as part of the Dublin City Council's Goals and Objectives the City Council adopted as a high priority the development of a City-wide Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, in response to this high priority goal, the Public Works Department initiated a Capital Improvement Program project to develop a Bikeways Master Plan and to evaluate existing bicycle conditions and access to parks and open space areas throughout the City; and WHEREAS, in order to maximize public input in developing the Bikeways Master Plan, the City held three public meetings on February 22, 2006, March 31, 2006, and July 19, 2006, and invited City residents, public agencies, businesses and other stakeholders to attend; and WHEREAS, the Bikeways Master Plan contains goals and policies for developing and implementing a bikeway system that, 1) provides a viable transportation alternative to the automobile and thus improves transportation choices for Dublin residents; 2) improves safety for bicyclists; and 3) provides residents with access to open space, trails, and other recreational amenities; and WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan sets forth a blueprint for a system of bikeways in Dublin and the Bikeways Master Plan builds upon that blueprint by creating a comprehensive plan that includes an evaluation of existing conditions, a prioritized list of recommended improvements for both on- and off- street facilities and recommendations pertaining to bicycle parking, safety, education and enforcement; and WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985 and has been amended a number of times since that date; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the original General Plan was prepared and adopted in 1984 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the various General Plan Amendments which have been approved over the years; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects of implementing the proposed Bikeways Master Plan (attached as Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and General Plan Conformity for the Bikeways Master Plan on June 26, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project; and Attachment 4 )J;h ~ )21 WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part ofthis resolution. B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the Bikeways Master Plan as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of June 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg, Commissioner Tomlinson NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Biddle ABSTAIN: Commissioner King Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Community Development Director G:\PA#\2006\06-032 Bikeways Master Plan\PC Reso MND Bikeways Master Plan. DOC 2 }Io '1 tJ /f}7 RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 32 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN . . RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND VILLAGE P ARKW A Y SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE CHANGES RELATED TO BICYCLE CIRCULATION AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FOR THE PROPOSED BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN PA 06-032 WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, and has been amended a number of times since that date; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the original General Plan was prepared and adopted in 1984 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the various General Plan Amendments which have been approved over the years; and WHEREAS, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive planning framework for future development of the eastern Dublin area. In connection with this approval, the City certified a Program Environmental Impact Report ("Program EIR") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH No. 91103064). The Program EIR was integral to the planning process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives and area-wide mitigation measures for development within eastern Dublin; and WHEREAS, the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan currently includes text related to bicycle circulation, and the "West and Central Dublin Bicycle Circulation System" map (Figure 5-3a) and the "East Dublin Bicycle Circulation System" map (Figure 5-3b) which together show the location of existing and proposed bike routes within the City of Dublin and the Sphere of Influence; and WHEREAS, the Resource Management section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan currently includes text related to bicycle circulation, and the "Pedestrian and Bicycle System" map (Figure 5.3) which was amended on June 17, 1997 (Resolution 77-97) and the "East Dublin Bicycle Circulation System" map (Figure 5-3b) which together show the location of pedestrian baths and bike routes within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan was adopted on December 19, 2000 (Resolution 227-00) and has been amended a number oftimes since that date; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for the original West Dublin BART Specific Plan was prepared and adopted in 2000 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the various West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendments which have been approved over the years; and WHEREAS, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan currently includes text related to bicycle circulation, and the "West Dublin BART Specific Plan Circulation System" map (Exhibit 7 of the Attachment 5 1hB1)27 Specific Plan) that shows the location of roadways and bicycle trails within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. WHEREAS, the Village Parkway Specific Plan was also adopted on December 19,2000 (Resolution 231-00) and has also been amended a number oftimes since that date; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for the original Village Parkway Specific Plan was prepared and adopted in 2000 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the various Village Parkway Specific Plan Amendments which have been approved over the years; and WHEREAS, the Village Parkway Specific Plan currently includes text regarding bicycle circulation as well as the "Village Parkway Specific Plan Circulation System" map (Exhibit 7 of the Specific Plan) that shows the location of roadways and bicycle trails within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. WHEREAS, in 2005, as part of the Dublin City Council's Goals and Objectives the City Council adopted as a high priority the development of a City-wide Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, in response to this high priority goal, the Public Works Department initiated a Capital Improvement Program project to develop a Bikeways Master Plan and to evaluate existing bicycle conditions and access to parks and open space areas throughout the City; and WHEREAS, amendments are proposed to the Bicycle Circulation System maps of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Western Dublin BART Specific Plan for consistency with the proposed Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, in addition to amendments to the Bicycle Circulation System maps, text amendments to the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Village Parkway Specific Plan are also proposed for consistency with the proposed Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on said application on June 26,2007; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment, and Village Parkway Specific Plan Amendment for the Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, Section 65401 of the Government Code requires planning agencies to make a determination of General Plan conformity for public works Capital Improvement Program projects, such as the Bikeways Master Plan. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. 2 Ibc) ~ ISl BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend City Council approval of the following amendments to the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan and Village Parkway Specific Plan based on findings that the amendments are in the public interest and will not have an adverse affect on health or safety or be detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement and that the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan and Village Parkway Specific Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. Section I. General Plan Amendments. Subsection i. Replace Figure 5-3a, West and Central Dublin Bicycle Circulation System map and Figure 5-3b, East Dublin Bicycle Circulation System map with Figure 4, Existing and Proposed Bikeways of the Bicycle Master Plan and shall be renamed "Figure 5-3 City of Dublin Bicycle Circulation System" as included as Exhibit A. Subsection ii. Revise Section 5.4 of the General Plan to read as follows: "The City has adopted a Bikeways' Master Plan that encompasses the Primary Planning Area, Western Extended Planning Area, and the Eastern Extended Planning Area. The Bikeways Master Plan contains goals and policies for developing and implementing a bikeway system that will provide a viable transportation alternative to the automobile, improve safety for bicyclists, and provide residents with access to parks, open space, trails, and other recreational opportunities. This Plan identifies existing and proposed bicycle routes and bicycle support facilities throughout the planning areas. Readers should refer to this plan for additional information regarding existing and proposed bicycle routes and support facilities." Guiding Policy A. Provide safe bikeways along arterials (See Figure 5-3). B. Improve and maintain bicycle routes and support facilities in conformance with the recommendations of the City's Bikeways Master Plan. Implementing Policy C. Complete the bikeway systems illustrated on Figure 5-3. D. Improve bicycle routes and support facilities in accordance with the Bikeways Master Plan in conjunction with development proposals. E. Ensure on-going maintenance of bicycle routes and support facilities that are intended for public use and located on private property in conjunction with development proposals. . Section II. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. Subsection i. Revise the "NOTE" in Figure 5.3, Pedestrian and Bicycle System map ofthe Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to read as follows: 3 }10119ry "NOTE: Bicycle Circulation System has been amended. Please refer to Figure 5-3b for the current bicycle circulation system. Please refer to the Bikeways Master Plan for additional information." [The revised Figure 5.3, Pedestrian and Bicycle System map is included as Exhibit B.] Subsection ii. Replace Figure 5-3b, East Dublin Bicycle Circulation System map with Figure 4, Existing and Proposed Bikeways from the Bicycle Master Plan, which shall be modified to show only the current Eastern Dublin Specific Plan boundary, and shall be named Figure 5-3b, East Dublin Bicycle Circulation System as included as Exhibit C. Subsection iii. Add the following paragraph to Section 5.5 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to Bicycle Circulation, after the existing first paragraph of that same section. "The City has adopted a Bikeways Master Plan that encompasses the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The Bikeways Master Plan contains goals and policies for developing and implementing a bikeway system that will provide a viable transportation alternative to the automobile, improve safety for bicyclists, and provide residents with access to parks, open space, trails, and other recreational opportunities. This Plan identifies existing and proposed bicycle routes and bicycle support facilities throughout the Specific Plan area. Readers should refer to the Bikeways Master Plan for additional information regarding existing and proposed bicycle routes and support facilities." Subsection iv. Revise Policy 5-17 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to read: "Policy 5-17: Establish a bicycle circulation system which helps to serve the need for non-motorized transportation and recreation in eastern Dublin that is consistent with the Bikeways Master Plan." Subsection v. Revise the first sentence of Program 5D of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to read: "The City shall require development projects in eastern Dublin to include provisions for bicycle circulation that are consistent with the Bikeways Master Plan, and as follows:" Section III. West Dublin. BART Specific Plan Amendments. Modify Exhibit 7, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Circulation System map, to be consistent with Figure 4, Existing and Proposed Bikeways from the Bicycle Master Plan, as included as Exhibit D. Section IV. Village Parlcvvay Specific Plan Amendment. Revise the second sentence of the fifth paragraph on page 20 of the Village Parkways Specific Plan to read as follows: 4 11/ co.f )g 7 "Village Parkway is designated as a Class III Bikeway Route, which provides for shared use of a bikeway with either pedestrians on a sidewalk or motor vehicles on a street." Section V. All provisions of the General Plan Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and Village Parkway Specific Plan not. amended by this resolution shall remain in full force and effect. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed amendments to the Bicycle Circulation System maps and text amendments in the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan and Village Parkway Specific Plan are consistent with all other goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan and Village Parkway Specific Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, based on the foregoing findings and recommendations, the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed Bikeways Master Plan is in conformity with the General Plan, as amended. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of June 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg, Commissioner Tomlinson NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Biddle ABSTAIN: Commissioner King Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Community Development Director G:IP A#\2006\06-032 Bikeways Master PlanlPC Reso OP A SP A Conformance.DOC 5 ) 'V 1 JfkR,','.: :2' 5' 14 y.~,pi! .... .... .,',,> (1) 1i) ....~ ::sC/) C) .- C LL('I 1'i ~ : ~~i : :~tYfi'!t.;: ::~~1'i~~'::r:;;~......... .~..t ..~\, '.t:::::::;.. 111 -:~~;;;.:.~..\::::::U!~ i -~ .:....~~~~nl) ~.... A-' ........_..~ f ":$a~ .:.. '" ~I . ': ";, !t U ". ~: . ''''--esj. :~(,"i~..ir"~'~i . .-' i ~ ,~. : ~~.. J .{ .... U : ~ f" t~ 3 ,,' ~ ..-J.........;.......':1 1 \~\.. ~,~ ". : f.......~ it @' i'~' . .' "I.:. -l.:! ..... i ; ..... ,~:' " ~~ -; i .....~.:..-..::...........~~.":.~.........................._.......:::....:: .. ...~5 ..,,~,<i.....\_........~... Uth'tNI'VSJ\'J " '. o +-} C". ~ g~! !j~ ~./' ,.' ? /~ 'l :: f E: ./ ~',. ..U~: J; ~~ ..~/. ~.2 ....1/-.: j" "';i.:, ,'., .. '01 ~ ::I ~ .- (,) (1) - (.) ~ (.) .- m c .- - .c ::s C .... 0 ~ (,) ~ ~ ~ ~z~ ,,;. f :di.n! ii~tl)fi5 ft I ',',I" . : n ~"1 f i .. il I · i ~ ~!!J~i j":~B ~:i . q I l ~ - ':'0 ~ = U L1! ~." 'g oi ii !. ~ ~ i . 5 ~ IV tE 0: ;=. n-H~~i II ':iqH~~ Ian if ~ fI} 0 Do. 0. '1;1::198 a- ; 15: : H H d .~ H '5 0 " . Ii': .. n. n.: ii :.. ~j . . ~\ 110 ~ I 01 00 liE~H'l a~li~~ L j I : i i I Exhibit A y/, z, t13'~ ) r7 - -J <n <n co :; :; co 0 0 ::J C ~." ~ O:.c . 0: Ql 0 'C .!! -06 .c ID- me: CO ~ 0 ;; -ra -co - 0 CO) c.. ~c.. ~ Z C- oOl 'CI) co"'" .Q al .2al ,~ .ltl en e: co=:; cc~ jj: < ca c: (.) ... c>- 'i: _CD =CD CD en Cl') . CO (j) 0; In III W .- .c !',~ ~. CD III III "I- 0 0 'C ell III .... .- c: !h; .''-oj CD 0 0 (.) "'... ill CD 1!~:;: LO (;j_ c.. CJ) (1) 0 0 ci CD 0 I . 0 .!! "5~9 a: . 0 <=: c.. l.i~: ~ s-' >- I ., 0 a; ::1-00 0 W (J) ! ..~ 0 I . 0 3: - .- 0). CD.- . 0 t:~=: CO iIa..m I . 0 ~~ ............. Z '- tI> o U ;>, u :E - c: o t3 u o .:: -S 0 l-4 'P .a ca .0 S r';1 .a ~ .S ~ ca 0IlC: ~ .g o ..... _"0 t;"g <..=, ... 2::.a o c: ~~ ~p.. 0.. t - -d en o ca "O::;E c: C/) o ;>, S III ca ~ c: 0 o~ ]($ C/) 0 lll..Cl ..Cl- l' 1 't "'-, :...~~............,r :, , : " ......... . , ..... : . *\ \. : , I....' " , \ , . , F a:1l~?'I...El.d.._ I oodl('oooooooooo 00090 I 0000 " 00 " S B o ... t;~ ;>'0 C/.l ... c: 0 o ~ .,p tU lll- "5p.. .g S U2:3 ~~ U en G= ..... 0 r::o '.p III - tU =:I "0 ~ Z '8 ~-- ~.... ..' """~.'C '. .. 2:: OJ e: ;:: .c ::J o Exhibit JS~' c } JIfOf ;:,~! ~ .s I"'}.,... II) fJ) Q)~ '-en :::I O')c .- ~ LL I __I "a . ~" ~ " ",." ..... If.,, ..<:: VI. ~ E:. 00" Z ~. o nl. ...... :;.~. ~ \ \ \ \ \ I @\~:".~..~ S5..... .~~'.._. _..~II. . .ar..."... ",... ....... ~ ..~...ef:: .::.. ::: ...... +.!" it a. -.. .f:.. . Mil 'i-..". ~ .. . .If, 'S... .::. If-. -.. ...'~ ..".. J .......... c-. "'.-.. _f:. 1Il-. .....~':, ....... .:: J ...~ , ... ,:.. / ......... .,.."............. (" ..,..,~..... .....'a ..: t .':.-:.:...- S", :: II! ..Ji-..... ..:-.. \' '" · · I! .__ ~1r .. 4o" ...,.,... Cl · lI':<.~~ ~: 1 {;J,,",, "'" , ~: ~ /,...",... -'a $~ "~",~, ". ~. ~... _A. ., O. ::;j.' .,.. Vl",.,...,." ..~: .. ~ "" .. .. .. .. ~.' .. "Co" _ ....'...." ~ ~ ~ 04 .. .a~ . VI .:3\J · c: "J · I.L,V') lit . .>O.:::L · J: . "[!E;U : ~ ." m,e.'o.. ~ · D · 8 f. _,,, .. . ar: .~."'-'J lit....,t:..,. Ie_ " '. ........ it .- " '4'". ... , ' . '. . . -. =: ". " . \ \ \ \ I --- -~ j I I \ \ , ... .. ,"0 0;.>< ll'Elu 1-.- D.. nl u.. '. .. .. ..... '.. t:.!! -..I g:g .. ~:;E :: .. ., '" ~ ::::s ~ .- () Q) - C) ~ C) .- m c .- - ..Q :::I C .... fJ) ca W r J :i ll: t fIi .E ~ 1i w iJ i. ..c:~ ~ f. ,g . ~HHB z II [jf' j .. i I I j i 1 ,,;!l ~ 11 Hi!!_ !"IIB B ~ ~ o i . ! ~ j ~ ....0 ~ - '1= ~ F ~ I J 1l n il i 5"'t~"'1~ . @''li i"" ~ ~~~;f~G.l "'I.... "'" · :}: 'EI... ~ : 0: : U 8! !~ i~ ~! ~~ Hu H 55 mil 13 1313.011 HIHiHI j~~i~~~~n. ~! q i ! i Exhibit C ~jI7fi~) 1 H ;;:ii b - ~ n{ >- ,~.. g ~ ~H ... tia z. . . c ~ ~ . ~ iQ " . I til~N. ~ :R g. ~ :!:. "': ~ ~ 0 a$ ~ ~:: ~ ,,0 0 0 ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ i ~ b2 E f'.. ~ c ~ ,~ ';c' ~ ro d' (JJ.7.';, .~ a: >- @~~ ..Cl U') !l~' !:: - U .y '" ::; .- .oti:: c o ! c." .J:::. ~ .- .2 X Cl u oI-J LU Q) ~ > oI-J C. VI ~ ~ U') . ~ ~ ! 0 .c . . ~ . ~ c "- ~ ~ ~ . . . iQ ~ ~ " iQ is B .. a . a ~ u ~~o c ';i~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ 'J;! ~ cgol!! _u~~ 8 ;g '~ ~~ -: N ~ ;0 ~ ~~ a ~ ~ \ On i I 21:1 :'! ~ ~J ~ E1!i !~~ o l'l f@- ~ '" o o o Exhibit D CITY OF DlJBLiN PARKSAND COMMUNITFSERVICES COMMISSION ])lIAF'P~lZ!T'lJ~qF;:',.ljfJNE ~$,. 2QIJ,?: /g1 The June 18, 2007 meeting of the Parks and Community Services Commission was called to order at 7:01p.m. at the Dublin Civic Center, Dublin, California, by Chairperson Flores. Pledf!e of Allef!iance Chairperson Flores led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call Commissioners Present: Flores, Guarienti, Jones, Muetterties and Elias Commissioners Absent: Deering Oral Communications 3.1 Brief Informational Onlv RelJorts from Senior Center and Youth Advisory Committees Senior Center Advisory Committee Al Edge reported that the attendance at the L.IF.E. (Learn Iriformation for Empowerment event conducted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 was less than expected. It seems that many of the other senior centers in the area had events that same weekend. Many seniors were not aware of the event. He suggested that the planning and advertising for the event next year begin earlier. Overall, the event went well. Cm. Muetterties asked how many vendors participated in the event. Edges replied about 20 vendors which included Hope Hospice, Valley Care Hospital and the Dublin Police. Youth Advisory Committee - None 3.2 Public Comments - None Avvroval of Minutes -Mav 21, 2007 Cm. Guarienti referred to Page 5, Other Business, Item 4, inserting "Iron Horse" before "trail to commute to BART". ON A MOTION BY CM. ELIAS, SECONDED BY CM.GUARIENTI, THE COMMISSION VOTED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 21,2007, AS CORRECTED. ABSTAIN - FLORES Written Communications - None PublicHearin~-None Unfinished Business - None New Business 8.1 Bikewavs Master Plan Parks & Community Services Director Diane Lowart presented the Staff Report. In Fiscal Year 2005-2006, the City Council approved a City Council High Priority Goal to develop a City-wide Bikeways Master Plan. In response to this goal, the Public Works Department initiated a Capital Improvement Program project that would develop the Plan and evaluate existing bicycle conditions and access to parks and open space areas. It is anticipated that the Master Plan will be used to prioritize future bicycle projects. Lowart introduced Senior Civil Engineer Ferd Del Rosario who gave an overview of the process undertaken to develop the Bikeways Master Plan. Rosario stated that the firm of Fehr and Peers was hired in December 2005 to develop the Bikeways Master Plan. In order to maximize public input in developing the Plan, the City held three public meetings and invited city residents, public agencies, businesses and other stakeholders that showed interest in having a Bikeways Master Plan. Following the three public meetings, Staff further reviewed the draft Bikeways Master Plan to make certain that the proposed policy recommendations and proposed capital projects contained in the Plan were achievable. Based on this review, further revisions were made to the Plan to clarify the policies and capital projects included in the Plan. Del Rosario reviewed ATTA~BlENT " Minutes - June 18, 2007 Page 2 of6 ) 11 ~ /81 Attachment 2 to the Staff Report which identified proposed revisions to the Plan. He then introduced Seleta Reynolds of Fehr & Peers, who gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining the Plan. Commission Input Cm. Guarienti thanked Del Rosario and Reynolds for a great job and the public who were on the committee for showing up tonight. The dialogue was really important in developing this plan. He referred to Page 11 of the report which talks about the Alameda County CMA currently updating the Alameda County Bicycle Plan. He reported that the County Plan has now been adopted and this should be reflected in the City plan. He also stated that the some of the maps need to be reviewed so that they accurately reflect the text and suggested that the maps be looked at. Chair Flores asked Cm. Guarienti ifhe had any questions for Ms. Reynolds before opening the discussion to the public. Cm. Guarienti stated he had a question having to do with the modification in the report to the East/W est Connection on Dublin Boulevard. The projects getting to the West Dublin BART were deleted. He asked if that was tied in with the Dublin Boulevard project in total, because there was also a project to look at to get to the West corridor. Del Rosario stated that they are somewhat connected. Because of the limit of the width of the existing lanes on Dublin Boulevard, we felt that we need to do a more detailed analysis in order to look at the impact to utilities, businesses, etc. In addition, the West BART Station has not opened yet and we want to see how the circulation of cars and traffic going in and out of the BART station is going to affect bicycling. Cm. Guarienti clarified that the study will be to study the whole area. Del Rosario replied, yes. Public Input Zev Kahn, Dublin resident, stated that he initially has attended all three meetings. At that point he was representing ACTIA's Citizens Watchdog Committee. He is here tonight just to follow-up and completes his duties, since he is no longer on the committee. One of the prime aspects discussed had to do with safety. If we do not have something written that addresses how the bicyclist should have a code of ethics or conduct in the city, he thinks that at some point we may be faced with the critical mass like in San Francisco that we do not need here. Otherwise, the report was very well done. Edwin Osata, Dublin resident, stated that he has been involved in several of these meetings before. He drew attention to Attachment 3, Modification of the Dublin Boulevard East/West and its allocation to Class 3. That section is very busy, the roads are narrow and does not lend itself to Class 3 and is very dangerous to ride your bike there. He also commented that he lives off Dougherty Road and has been involved in the Alamo Creek Park Trail. He would have wished that the opening of the gate would have been independent of the Alamo Creek bike path which gets closed at sumise and sunset. Richard Osborne, 10717 Inspiration Circle, stated that he commutes 2-3 days a week on his bike to Dublin Ranch Middle School. He just saw the ad in the paper for the meeting tonight and was not aware of any of the previolJs meetings. He called the City Engineer and reported that he comes down Dublin Boulevard going east to San Ramon Boulevard and turns left. Because there is East and West traffic turning left at the same time, it is a frightening situation. He ~ished that something could be done about that and asked if it would be possible to look at left turns so that only one side of the street is going left. In addition, you cannot setoff the street lights with a bike, so he cuts sideways and goes on the sidewalks. This also needs to be addressed. David Buelly, 1166 Brittany Lane, stated that he attended the meetings in the past. He would like to see this item put before the City Council with as much urgency and forthrightness as is possible. The overall goal is to have a readily available and useful trail system throughout the City. This would be a great amenity to the city and will add value to the community. We have the opportunity to try to see that it develops as much as possible. There are existing areas that we can connect to and the Iron Horse Trail is a prime example. He has ridden the Alamo Creek Trail and the gate is locked. However the City Council has resolved this matter which is now in the hands of San Ramon. However it is taking a long time to open the gate. A lot of people are going to benefit from it being opened. Cm. Guarienti has spoken on this matter many times in the past and was accurate. All the negative comments about it were speculative in nature. Buelly referred to page 67, Alamo Creek Trail City of San Ramon Gap Minutes - June 18, 2007 Page 3 of6 )1.Q ~181 Elimination, which was assigned a prioritization number. It should already be a done deal and reflected in the report. The hours should be extended and encouraged for riding at night. Commission DiscussionlRecommendation Cm. Guarienti stated that he wants to see this item move forward. He would like to have the Commission look at having a committee in place to meet 2-3 times a year with staff input. Chair Flores stated that the agenda summary includes staffs process as to why they have suggested against an advisory committee. Lowart stated that the reasons included the fact that it is a new plan and that it is something we want to take a look at to see how it can be implemented internally. Staff does not feel that there is a compelling need for a committee at this time. Chair Flores asked if the Public Works Department currently have committees that they staff. Lowart referred this question to Melissa Morton, Public Works Director. Morton stated that there is not a Public Works committee. The principle objective of this document is to be well placed to compete for grant funds. It is meant to create part of a cohesive multi model transportation plan to make sure that all citizens have varied opportunities to access the amenities that are being developed in the City of Dublin. When we looked at whether a specific committee for bicycles was necessary, we concluded that the commissions we have already marry the multiple model objectives very proficiently through the goals and objectives process. What we have advocated is basically a "wait and see" posture. Instead of creating a committee, we will examine how the document functions in bringing in the grant funds we are hoping for. If we are still lacking, then examine the need for a committee in the future. Chair Flores asked the Commissioners if they had any comments or input. Cm. Jones stated that he would like to see how the plan as is works out and if down the road a committee is needed and then look at it at that time. Cm. Elias stated that he appreciates the fact that the public came out tonight to share their views of the plan and to voice their concerns. This needs to be a living and breathing document that serves as the master plan. He is trying to understand after approval by the City Council, how additions to the plan will be made over time and how it will be reviewed and additional public input that might come along. Morton stated that the Bicycle Master Plan is scheduled for review every five years. Renewal of the objectives and examining the projects already constructed and how they are working or not working, will occur over a five year basis. Chair Flores stated that she understands the importance of public comment about having a committee, but if it is going to take staff time, she would like to wait and see where we are going and go from there before deciding on having a committee. Our staffs time is precious. Cm. Jones stated that the public's input tonight has been great. If down the road the public feels that things are not being looked at or their comments not being taken seriously, they can always come to a Parks Commission or City Council meeting and state their concerns. He truly believes that our staff will take into consideration the input provided here tonight, particularly the concerns regarding Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Guarienti stated that the reason he wanted to see a committee formed was to have the opportunity for when projects go out for funding, that you have the public input to do that. A process to get people involved. Cm. Jones stated that he would like to see that education of youth and adult bicyclists as part of the plan, particularly for adults. Minutes - June 18, 2007 Page 4 of6 111 :f )~7 Reynolds stated that there are a lot of marketing materials for rules of the road, courtesy, right of way, etc. A code of conduct may be a little strong, but we can put a sidebar or box outlining those things directed to bicyclists, pedestrians, and drivers. She pointed out on Page 64, that there is a description of a Bicycle Diversion Program, which has been done in Arizona and Texas and locally in the City of Sunnyvale for juveniles. The officers go out and issue warnings to bicyclists that are running stop signs or not being courteous. The bicyclists then have to go to bicycle traffic school. It is only a suggestion and would require a great deal of resources from the Police Department. Morton stated that Commander Thuman has included in 2007-08 budget adult education as part of their bicycle training. ON A MOTION BY CM. JONES, SECONDED BY CM. MUETTERTIES, THE COMMISSION VOTED UNANIOUSLY TO ADOPT THE BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN AS PRESENTED. 8.2 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2006-201 L Proposed Update FY2007-2008 Parks and Community Services Director Diane Lowart presented the Staff Report. The City's Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is developed for the purpose of identifying future capital facility needs and resources available to meet those needs. A new Five-Year Program for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 through Fiscal Year 2010-2011 was adopted last year. For Fiscal Year 2007-2008, an update to the 2006-2011 CIP has been prepared. The park and recreation facility projects recommended by Staff for inclusion in the CIP reflects the City's priorities with respect to creating and enhancing community park, recreation and open space facilities for Dublin residents. Priorities were determined based on the need for the project and the availability of funding for the project. The Parks and Community Services Commission are requested to review the proposed CIP for input regarding the park and recreation facilities included in the program. The recommendations of the Commission will be presented to the City Council at the Budget Hearing on June 28,2007. Lowart reviewed the Projects Completed during Fiscal Year 2006-2007 including: Dublin Historic Park Master Plan; Dougherty Hills Park - Dog Park; Park Furniture Replacement for Alamo Creek and Stagecoach Parks; and Park Play Area Renovations for Alamo Creek Park. She reviewed the projects included in the Proposed CIP Update 2006-2011 including: Parks & Community Services Needs Assessment; Stagecoach Park Assessment District Water Meter; Shannon Community Center Reconstruction; Dublin Historic Park Acquisition; Emerald Glen Park Recreation and Aquatic Complex; Park Furniture Replacement; Park Play Area Renovations; Dublin Ranch Neighborhood Parks; Dublin Sports Grounds Renovation; Fallon Sports Park; Eastern Dublin Parks; Schaefer Ranch Neighborhood Park; Wallis Ranch Neighborhood Parks and Dublin Historic Park Development. Unfunded park projects include: completion of the final phase of Emerald Glen Park; completion of the Emerald Glen Park Recreation and Aquatic Center; one additional neighborhood park in the Dublin Ranch development; Dublin Sports Grounds Turf Renovation; construction of the final two phases of Fallon Sports Park; Cultural Arts Center; Eastern Dublin Parks; Emerald Glen Park Community Center; Transit Center Park; and future phases of the Dublin Historic Park. Lowart recommended that the Commission confirm project priorities as proposed by Staff or determine alternate priorities for recommendation to the City Council. Commission Input Cm. Elias asked what level of construction contingency is built into the numbers. Lowart stated that on an annual basis the costs are increased by the engineering news record construction cost index at a minimum. We also look at the costs we are getting for current projects now and at a minimum have another 15% contingency on top ofthat. We have large contingencies on most of the projects. Minutes - June 18, 2007 Page 5 of6 /81J 1 J8-1 Cm. Elias encouraged the City to find ways of funding projects. Staff did a great job on the CIP. He is excited to be on the Commission where we are not just worrying about sprinkler head repairs. To the extent possible, please build these parks with the right drainage, turf in the beginning without having to go back and fix things like we are doing now. Lowart stated that after completing the preparation of the budget and CIP, it turns out that the City is very good financial shape. The City Council will be considering approximately $6.5 million to go towards additional projects at their June 28 meeting. The City Manager is recommending that the some of the money be used for park projects. The Commission concurred that staff did a great job on preparation of the CIP. Public Comment - None ON A MOTION BY CM. GUARIENTI, SECONDED BY CM. JONES, THE COMMISSION VOTED TO CONFIRM THE PRIORITIES AS PROPOSED BY STAFF TO THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2006-2011. 8.3 Winter 2007 Quarterlv Report Parks & Community Services Manager Paul McCreary presented the Staff Report and reviewed the programs offered during the 2007 Winter Quarter. LEISURE CLASSES - During the winter of 2007, 26 instructors offered 82 leisure classes. SENIOR CENTER - Total Attendance was 8,945 with average daily attendance of 149. There were 2,345 volunteer hours. SHAMROCK PRESCHOOL - There are three curriculum levels and a total of five classes offered. There were 36 participants enrolled in the Red Rockets classes, 34 participants in Green Giants, and 20 in the Blue Explorers class. PLAYGROUND PROGRAMS - Session I of After School Recreation continued, which was reported on in the fall 2006 quarterly report. Session II began in February, which the Commission will receive a report in the spring 2007 quarterly report. Five After School Enrichment workshops/classes were offered during the winter 2007 quarter. Despite enhanced advertising of the program, participation decreased significantly and several workshops had to be cancelled due to insufficient enrolment. A total of26 participants registered for the Winter Break Camp Emerald Glen. TEEN PROGRAMS - During the winter quarter, Session I of Student Union continued, which was reported in the fall 2006 quarterly report. Session II began in February, which the Commission will receive a report in the spring 2007 quarterly report. Also during the winter three events were offered including Capture the Flag, Paintball Trip and a Middle School Dance. Total attendance was 197. YOUTH SPORTS - The City of Dublin / Junior Warriors Youth Basketball League is for boys in first through twelfth grades and girls in first through eighth grades. There were 548 participants on 59 teams. The City offered two pre-season youth basketball clinics with 93 children attending. The City initiated a new program offering private and semi-private hour-long training sessions for players in first through tenth grades and 54 youth took advantage of the training. Each quarter the City offers several youth sports programs through independent contractors in addition to those operated directly by the City. During the winter 2007 quarter the City offered Kidz Love Soccer (KLS) classes. ADULT BASKETBALL LEAGUE - Two leagues (Men's 5-on-5 "C & D") were conducted during the winter quarter. The league had 16 teams this season which was a 45% increase over the previous year. SPECIAL EVENTS - The 23Td Annual Community Tree Lighting Ceremony was held at the Dublin Civic Center on Thursday, December 7th, 2006. The estimated attendance at this year's event was over 350. Minutes - June 18, 2007 Page 60f6 )g,. O;f )& 1 Breakfast with Santa is a family-oriented special event co-sponsored with the Dublin High School Band Boosters. This year the maximum attendance was increased to 190 participants for each sitting, creating an 8% increase in registration from the previous year and establishing a new attendance record. The "Letters from Santa" program was offered for the twelfth consecutive year during the winter quarter. This year 124 letters were mailed, representing a 32% increase from the previous year and setting a new record. Other Business Brief INFORMATIONAL ONLY Reports from Parks & Communitv Services Commissioners and/or Staff Cm. Jones asked if a sign will be posted at the Dougherty Hills Dog Park for the closure. Lowart stated that a sign will be posted to refer people to access the cities web site for information regarding the closure of the dog park. Cm. Muetterties asked why the dog park is being closed. Lowart stated that the dog park is getting a tremendous amount of use. The dogs are playing in the newly installed water fountains which have now created a drainage issue. Cm. Jones inquired when the non-profit groups can be trained on use of the senior center kitchen. McCreary stated that once the group has reserved the facility for an event, they need to pay the $25 Orientation Fee and then they would contact Camille to schedule the training. Cm. Muetterties reported that she attend the Shannon Park Art Selection Committee. Maquettes should be available for display in August or September. It is hoped that the maquettes can be displayed at the Library as well, however there are security issues. She also attended the Day on the Glen meeting. There is a lot of planning involved for this event and things that will need to be fine tuned. Cm. Flores asked if the Commissioners Dinner is an annual or bi-annual event. Lowart replied, annual. Staff Reports Lowart reported the following: · The Fathers Day Picnic on Sunday, June 17 was very successful with 250 participants. · The first Summer Concert is scheduled for Friday, July 6 from 7-9pm in the fountain plaza. McCreary reported on the following: · The final family event is the Family Camp Out scheduled for Saturday, July 7th at Alamo Creek Park. To date there are 119 participants registered. · The Teen Dive-In was last Friday, June 15. The move Grease was shown. Adiournment Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:02p.m. Respectfully submitted, Char J. Young Administrative Technician APPROVED: Chairperson DRAFT Planning ~~l~~!sion Mi/mtes IcWRA~/~1 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg, Commissioners King and Tomlinson; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Richard Ambrose, City Manager; Melissa Morton, Public Works Director; Jeff Baker, Senior Planner; Ferd Del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer; and Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Biddle; and Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The June 12, 2007 minutes were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 7.1 Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Update to the 2006-2011 Capital Improvement Program Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager, presented the specifics of the item as outlined in the Staff Report. On a motion by Cm. Tomlinson, seconded by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Biddle absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 31 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN FINDING THAT THOSE PROJECTS COVERED IN THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN AS PART OF THE 2006-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN 65 jUflf 10 lUU, Attachment 7 DRAFT ) 8..s 01 )~ 1 DRAF1!T PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 07-005: Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for a 72-acre portion of Fallon Village known as Phase 1 of Cantara at Positano (portion of Neighborhood 1) and Salerno at Positano (portion of Neighborhoods 2 and 4) for 247 single-family detached units. Ms. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, informed the Planning Commission that the Applicant submitted a request to remove this item from the Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for this evening. She asked that the item be continued to a future Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission concurred to continue the item to a future Planning Commission meeting. 8.2 P A 06-032 Bikeways Master Plan: Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and making a determination of General Plan conformity for the Bikeways Master Plan, including Amendments to the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the Village Parkway Specific Plan to incorporate changes related to bicycle circulation. Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. Mr. Jeff Baker, Senior Planner, and Mr. Ferd Del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the specifics of the project, including General Plan conformity and the environmental document, as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub pointed out that the blue-dotted line on Exhibit A of Attachment 2, City of Dublin Bicycle Circulation System map, is not defined in the legend. Mr. Del Rosario stated that the map would be revised to define the blue-dotted line in the legend. Chair Schaub asked if Staff could postpone reprinting the amended Specific Plans until next year when the Plans would be revised again. Mr. Baker explained that in order to keep the Plans consistent, they would need to be reprinted at the time of revision. He further stated that Staff would make every effort to change pages where possible rather than reprint the entire documents. Cm. King expressed concerns about proposing Class III bicycle routes for the cross streets to the south of Dublin Boulevard in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. He stated that he has been advised by avid bicycle riders that those streets are not safe enough to be proposed for Class III bicycle routes and should be proposed for Class II bicycle lanes. He further stated that it is premature to plan a bicycle circulation system for an area that is not built-out, such as the West Dublin BART area. He stated that it is not sound planning to implement a bicycle circulation system for specific plan areas that would be studied and potentially revised in the very near future. He stated that he could not vote to recommend such a premature action. He further expressed concern with whether the Environmental Review is consistent with the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, specifically Goal 13. 66 'In/< 2(;, 200; . PUIU4F ~l1ti' 1;\-9 DRAFT 16~~ /Sf Ms. Melissa Morton, Public Works Director, explained that the proposed Bikeways Master Plan considers the West Dublin BART area as an area for study. She stated that the area would be re- examined in terms of feasibility for bicycle circulation and what works best for the area. Cm. King reiterated his concerns with preparing a bicycle circulation plan before completing the specific plan for the area. He further reiterated his concerns about proposing Class III bicycle routes for the cross streets to the south of Dublin Boulevard in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area due to the questionable safety for the bicycle riders. He stated that he has been advised that if bicycle riding is encouraged in the area, Class 2 bicycle lanes, which are safer, should be proposed. He expressed concern about the Class 2 bicycle lanes that were initially proposed for the cross streets to the south of Dublin Boulevard in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area, and then later changed to Class 3 bicycle routes due to the costs involved with creating Class 2 bicycle lanes. Cm. King asked about the additional revisions to the Bikeways Master Plan after City Staff's review. Ms. Morton explained that the Parks and Community Services Commission examined the changes that were made by Staff. She reiterated that the West Dublin BART area would be further studied due to the development in the area and the proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. She explained that interchanges in the area would also be studied. She further explained that one of the principal purposes of developing the Bicycle Master Plan was to work in concert with the Planning Commission's request to consider multiple modes of transportation and ensure that adequate linkages exist. She stated that the Bicycle Master Plan would examine linkages to major amenities and identify certain areas for further study. Cm. King expressed concern that a Planning Commission vote in favor of this project is also a vote in favor of the City Council's adoption of the proposed Bicycle Master Plan. He further expressed concern about the potential growth of traffic on Dublin Boulevard in the Downtown area due to development in the area. He stated that background questions regarding the proposed use of the bicycle trails should be answered before the proposed Bicycle Master Plan is moved forward. He suggested that references in the Bikeways Master Plan regarding the West Dublin BART area be removed pending further study of the West Dublin BART area. Chair Schaub stated that he agrees that there are issues with bicycles trails crossing Dublin Boulevard to the north and south. He stated that he would like to see this issue addressed in the near future. Vice Chair Wehrenberg pointed out that the proposed bicycle trails are simply proposed, and remains under study. Cm. King expressed concern that a Planning Commission vote in favor of the project may be considered an approval of the entire project; and he does not approve the entire project. Cm. Tomlinson stated that it does not seem to be under the Planning Commission's purview to negotiate specific aspects of the Bikeways Master Plan, as it has already been discussed with the Parks and Community Services Commission and at various community meetings. He stated that there are benefits to using a comprehensive Citywide Bikeways Master Plan as a template. PiaJmUhl (- , - tfN e',1 67 June ,J', ,;'01';: DRAFT )~i;f ;gry He further stated that while Cm. King's concerns are potentially valid, he does not believe a decision in favor of the Plan would preclude Cm. King's concerns from being explored and addressed in the future. Ms. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, stated that it is important to keep in mind that when the Planning Commission reviews General Plan or Specific Plan Amendments, Staff must present the City documents that need to be made consistent with the Amendments. She further explained that it is City Council's direction that development should not be halted during the creation of the proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Hearing none, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. King stated that he could not agree that the Bikeways Master Plan is consistent with improving bicycle connections to transit centers. He stated that as soon as the Bikeways Master Plan is adopted, there would be an instant inconsistency. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that, as the Planning Commission representative at all three public meetings held to maximize public input in developing the Bikeways Master Plan, she observed a large amount of feedback from participants during the interactive sessions. She stated that she is supportive of the Plan. Chair Schaub stated that he is also supportive of the Bikeways Master Plan. He further stated that he would like to see the proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan address bicycle trails that cross north and south of Dublin Boulevard in the West Dublin BART area. Ms. Morton reiterated that the West Dublin BART area is considered an area for future study; therefore, the Plan is consistent with the Planning Commission's concerns expressed during this meeting. On a motion by Cm. Tomlinson, seconded by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 3-0-1, with Cm. Biddle absent and Cm. King abstaining, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 32 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE CHANGES RELATED TO BICYCLE CIRCULATION AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FOR THE PROPOSED BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN P A 06-032 r nrrnt/ ('or;: =u;s,;aor- i\ . iIi,;,. Veti'I1L 68 .'JUJJe ;.'(', .;00; DRAFT )Jt~ le'1 RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 33 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN PA 06-032 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE OTHER BUSINESS Cm. Tomlinson asked about the materials the Applicants for item 8.1 would brings to support the project. Ms. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, stated that the Applicants would present a much better submittal. Ms. Ram informed the Planning Commission that there would be two special meetings held in August 2007: A joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting to kick-off the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan on August 7, 2007, and a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting to discuss The Plaza, a proposed project, on August 14,2007. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he would be on vacation August 11-16, 2007, and requests that the August 14, 2007 meeting be re-scheduled, if possible, so that he could attend the meeting. Ms. Ram stated that she would look into re-scheduling the meeting and would send an email to the Planning Commissioners with the final dates. 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). The Planning Commission did not have any items to report. ADTOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Community Development Director 69 .'June 311, 2011:: ~ ~ . )g1 ~~. fg'1 Additional Revision to the Bikeways Plan after City staff Review: 1. Dublin Boulevard east-west connection: The report has been changed to recommend a corridor study of the arterial to identify the right-of-way needed to accommodate Class II bike lanes along Dublin Boulevard. In particular, the segment through the Downtown area between San Ramon Road and the Alamo Canal Bridge would require acquisition of right-of-way for the bike lanes and could result in major impacts (i.e. removal of street trees, utility relocation, etc.). If the resulting study shows that Class II bike lanes are too costly and difficult to construct, Class III bike route designation with shared- use pavement marking and signs will be evaluated as an alternative at those locations. 2. Amador Plaza Road, Regional Street, and Golden Gate Drive Class II bike lane designation has been changed to Class III bike route. After further review it was determined that when streets are widened to accommodate Class II bicycle lanes, it would result in major impacts such as removal of trees, utility relocation, major right of way acquisition, etc.. Bicycle activities on these streets will be monitored and evaluated upon completion of St. Patrick Way and opening ofthe West Dublin BART Station, when traffic circulation around the BART station normalizes. 3. County Line Canal Path- This proposed Class I facility was removed from the list as a parallel and nearby Class I pathway located at Dublin High School is being proposed from Village Parkway to the Iron Horse Trail. 4. Pond Path: This proposed Class I facility proposed around a stormwater pond south of Dublin Boulevard and east of Grafton Street was removed from the list as it will not be compatible with the operation and maintenance of the stormwater pond. 5. Instead of revising the existing off-street parking ordinance to address bicycle parking, the amended report recommends the evaluation of the needs of the community for bicycle parking on a project-by-project basis. G:\P A#\2006\06-032 Bikeways Master Plan\BWMP Revisions.doc Attachment 8