HomeMy WebLinkAbout*November 7, 2017 Agenda PacketNovember 7, 2017 Dublin City Council Agenda Page 1 of 3
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
Council Chamber, 100 Civic Plaza DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
A G E N D A
Agendas and Staff Reports are posted on the City’s Internet Website (www.dublin.ca.gov)
Agendas may be picked up at the City Clerk’s Office for no charge, or to request information on being placed on
the annual subscription list, please call 833-6650.
A complete packet of information containing Staff Reports and exhibits relate to each item is available of public
review at least 72 hours prior to a City Council Meeting or, in the event that it is delivered to City Council
members less than 72 hours prior to a City Council Meeting, as soon as it is so delivered. The packet is
available in the City Clerk’s Office and also at the Dublin Library.
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.1. Camp Parks 75th Anniversary
The City Council will present a proclamation honoring the 75th anniversary of Camp Parks.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present the proclamation.
3.2. Dublin Camp Parks Military History Center Sponsor Recognition
The City Council will be asked to formally accept donations and recognize sponsors who
contributed toward Dublin Camp Parks Military History Center.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recognize sponsors and formally accept Dublin Camp Parks Military History Center
sponsorship donations.
3.3. Proclamation in Recognition of Small Business Saturday (November 25, 2017) and
Presentation by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce on Discover Dublin 2017 Holiday
Efforts and Other Related Activities
The City Council will consider proclaiming November 25, 2017 as Small Business Saturday.
Additionally, the Dublin Chamber of Commerce will provide an update on Discover Dublin
2017 holiday efforts and other related activities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the report and proclaim November 25, 2017, as Small Business Saturday in Dublin.
3.4. Community Spotlight: Certificate of Recognition for Open Heart Kitchen
The City Council will present a "Community Spotlight" certificate of recognition to Open
Heart Kitchen in recognition of their continued contributions to the Dublin community.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present the Certificate of Recognition.
3.5. Public Comment
At this time, the public is permitted to address the City Council on non-agendized items. Please step to the podium and
clearly state your name for the record. COMMENTS SHOULD NOT EXCEED THREE (3) MINUTES. In accordance with
State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted ag enda. The Council may
respond to statements made or questions asked, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the
matter. Any member of the public may contact the City Clerk’s Office related to the proper procedure to place an item on a
future City Council agenda. The exceptions under which the City Council MAY discuss and/or take action on items not
appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(1)(2)(3).
November 7, 2017 Dublin City Council Agenda Page 2 of 3
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the City Council with
one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or the City Council who would like an item removed from the Consent
Calendar for purposes of public input may request the Mayor to remove the item.
4.1. Approval of the October 17, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the October 17, 2017 Regular City
Council meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the minutes of the October 17, 2017 Regular City Council meeting.
4.2. Fiscal Year 2017-18 1st Quarter Financial Review
The City Council will receive a financial report through the first quarter for Fiscal Year
2017-18 and consider amendments to the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget via a budget change.
The City Council will also receive an update to the City's 10-Year Forecast.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the report, including the update to the 10-Year Forecast, and approve the budget
change.
4.3. Acceptance of Council Chamber Audio and Visual System Improvements
On May 16, 2017, the City Council awarded a construction contract for the Council Chamber
Audio and Visual System Improvement Project, (CIP No. GI4099). The work is now
complete and ready for City Council acceptance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Accepting the Council Chamber Audio and Visual System
Improvement Project (CIP No. GI4099).
4.4. City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2018
The City Council will consider approving a Legislative Platform for 2018 for the City of
Dublin. The Platform would guide the City’s response to pending and possible legislation
that affects the Dublin community.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving the 2018 City of Dublin Legislative Platform.
4.5. Notice of City Engineer’s Receipt of Tract 8364 Final Map for Review and Pending
Decision on Tract 8382 Final Map
The City Council will receive a notification of the City Engineer’s receipt of the Final Map
for review for Tract 8364, Boulevard development, and the City Engineer’s pending approval
of the Final Map for Tract 8382, Boulevard development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the notification.
4.6. Mayor's Recommendation for Appointment to Senior Center Advisory Committee
The City Council will consider the Mayor’s recommendation for appointment to fill an
unscheduled vacancy on the Senior Center Advisory Committee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Confirm the Mayor’s recommendation of appointment to the Senior Center Advisory
Committee or provide other appropriate direction.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
5.1. Overview of New Housing Legislation
The City Council will receive a report summarizing the Legislature’s recently-enacted
package of housing legislation and its impacts on the City. In Staff’s judgment, the new laws
are likely to have a limited impact on Dublin’s existing practices.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the report.
November 7, 2017 Dublin City Council Agenda Page 3 of 3
6. PUBLIC HEARING – NONE.
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – NONE.
8. NEW BUSINESS
8.1. Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study
The City Council will consider the City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study (Study).
This Study evaluated the feasibility of improving Iron Horse Trail access and circulation
along the trail segment from just north of Dougherty Road crossing to the East
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station parking area in Pleasanton. As part of the Study review,
the City Council will also provide direction on the Iron Horse bridge design type planned
over Dublin Boulevard.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study and provide direction on the
bridge design.
8.2. Approval of a Hotel (Transient Occupancy Tax) Incentive Program
The City Council will consider approving a Hotel (Transient Occupancy Tax) Incentive
Program to aid in attracting investment and assisting in the development of hotels in the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving the creation of a Hotel (Transient Occupancy Tax)
Incentive Program.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
Brief information only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports
and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB1234).
10. ADJOURNMENT
This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a)
If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate
alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make
a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833-
6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Mission
The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, and fosters
new opportunities.
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: November 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Camp Parks 75th Anniversary
Prepared by: Tegan McLane, Cultural Arts and Heritage Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will present a proclamation honoring the 75th anniversary of Camp
Parks.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present the proclamation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
The City Council will present a proclamation to Camp Parks Garrison Commander Lt.
Col. Gerald Hall, celebrating the 75th anniversary and honoring military personnel who
have served there.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
N/A.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Camp Parks 75th Anniversary Proclamation 2017
3.1
Packet Pg. 4
A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF D U B L I N, C A L I F O R N I A
WHEREAS, in 1942, following the United States of America’s entry into World War II, the U.S. Navy acquired
2600 acres in the Dublin area from local farmers to build a training and deployment center for the Navy’s
construction battalions, the Seabees; and,
WHEREAS, construction began on October 15, 1942, and Camp Parks was formally commissioned on
January 19, 1943; and,
WHEREAS, Camp Parks has a long and proud history of continuous operation as a military base, first for
Navy, then Air Force, then Army, and now currently as Parks Reserve Forces Training Area; and
WHEREAS, Dublin residents have long welcomed military personnel and families into the community; and,
WHEREAS, City of Dublin officials and Camp Parks command staff have reaffirmed their commitment to a
positive partnership, with such projects as the Dublin Camp Parks Military History Center; and
WHEREAS, Veterans Day is observed across the Nation on the 11th day of the 11th month;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby celebrate the
75th anniversary of Camp Parks and honor the countless military personnel who have passed through Camp
Parks, however brief or lengthy their stay here.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Dublin encourages all members of the
community to visit the Dublin Camp Parks Military History Center to learn more about the base and its history.
DATED: November 7, 2017
______________________ ______________________
Mayor David Haubert Vice Mayor Don Biddle
___________________________ ____________________________ ________________________
Councilmember Gupta Councilmember Goel Councilmember Hernandez
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 5
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
a
m
p
P
a
r
k
s
7
5
t
h
A
n
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
r
y
P
r
o
c
l
a
m
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
7
(
C
a
m
p
P
a
r
k
s
7
5
t
h
A
n
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
r
y
)
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: November 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Dublin Camp Parks Military History Center Sponsor Recognition
Prepared by: Tegan McLane, Cultural Arts & Heritage Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will be asked to formally accept donations and recognize sponsors
who contributed toward Dublin Camp Parks Military History Center.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recognize sponsors and formally accept Dublin Camp Parks Military History Center
sponsorship donations.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Sponsorship donations toward Dublin Camp Parks Military History Center totaled
$5,900. Sponsorship donations helped offset the cost of planned furniture expenses for
the new facility.
DESCRIPTION:
The Dublin Camp Parks Military History Center opened May 25, 2017. Since opening,
more than 206 people have signed the guest book. Signatures include 41 Dublin
residents, as well as visitors from 21 cities in the greater Bay Area and as far away as
Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Florida and Washington, DC.
Signatures include notable guests including US General Carter F. Ham (retired), who
led Operation Odyssey Dawn, in Libya in 2011, Ivan Bolden, Chief of Army
Public/Private Initiatives, Congressman Eric Swalwell and former Dublin Mayor Guy
Houston.
Here is a sample of the feedback received from the public:
“Eight years as a Seabee, unaware of Seabee involvement in Camp Parks.
Excellent presentation. A real gem.” Earl Wallis, Sacramento CA, Seabee
3.2
Packet Pg. 6
Page 2 of 3
“Seabee Joseph G. Silva was my grandfather and was at Pearl Harbor and Iwo
Jima. I’m so glad to see Seabees get this museum and recognition.” Anon.
“Came to visit the new museum. My dad, Captain Raymond Cloutier spent
hundreds of hours with Tommie working on the old museum. Great work!” Capt.
Michele Cloutier
Also, five individuals were inspired to donate artifacts after visiting the Military History
Center. These include items from the collections of Col. Barton Evans (retired), who led
US Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command while stationed at Camp
Parks in the 1970s, and Lt. Col. Gerald Hall, base commander for Parks Reserve
Forces Training Area.
The Dublin Camp Parks Military History Center exhibits were funded by the City of the
Dublin. Tenant improvements provided by Parks Reserve Forces Training Area
(PRFTA) included flooring, lighting and ultraviolet protective coverings for the windows.
The City sought donations from community groups and local businesses for furnishings
to make the space more comfortable for visitors, usable as a community meeting space
and functional as an exhibit prep area. Three community groups and companies
contributed.
Dublin Rotary Club donated $3,300 to fund three park benches to provide seating in the
exhibit space.
Dublin Historical Preservation Association donated $2,000 to fund 40 stacking chairs for
the community meeting space. PRFTA recently hosted a meeting at the facility for
current and retired 91st Division officers, and the Tri-Valley History Council held its fall
quarterly meeting there.
IKEA donated in-kind furnishings valued at $600, including artifact storage racks,
bulletin boards and carts used by Heritage Staff when maintaining and updating the
exhibits.
The City is still accepting donations toward multimedia equipment for the meeting
space, display stands for exhibit cases, exterior signage, and future temporary exhibits.
Dublin Camp Parks Military History Center's operational plan calls for the temporary
exhibit space to change twice a year. The second temporary exhibit features the
centennial of 91st Division (Training and Support), which uses Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area as an important training facility. The 91st Division exhibit opens this
month and runs through the end of April 2018.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Sponsors were provided with a copy of this Staff Report.
3.2
Packet Pg. 7
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
3.2
Packet Pg. 8
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: November 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Proclamation in Recognition of Small Business Saturday (November 25,
2017) and Presentation by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce on Discover
Dublin 2017 Holiday Efforts and Other Related Activities
Prepared by: Hazel L. Wetherford, Assistant to the City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider proclaiming November 25, 2017 as Small Business
Saturday. Additionally, the Dublin Chamber of Commerce will provide an update on
Discover Dublin 2017 holiday efforts and other related activities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the report and proclaim November 25, 2017, as Small Business Saturday in
Dublin.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Costs associated with the Discover Dublin shop local campaign are included in the
Fiscal Year 2017-2018 budget.
DESCRIPTION:
Small Business Saturday Proclamation
The national Small Business Saturday campaign was founded by American Express in
2010 to encourage people to support small, local businesses. The event traditionally
takes place on the Saturday following Thanksgiving and “Black Friday,” known as the
first day of the busy holiday shopping season. There are 100 businesses in Dublin
included on the Shop Small map by American Express this holiday season.
Discover Dublin
In 2011, the City partnered with the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and launched
“Discover Dublin for the Holidays,” a social media-based campaign to encourage and
increase shopping throughout the City of Dublin during the holidays. In 2015, the
3.3
Packet Pg. 9
Page 2 of 2
campaign was rebranded as “Discover Dublin CA” and expanded to a year-round effort
to promote Dublin-based businesses and activities throughout the year.
The City partners with the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to maintain an active
Facebook page, “Discover Dublin,” where it regularly promotes upcoming retail and
business events and welcomes new businesses. Social media campaigns were
delivered during seasons associated with high volumes of retail, including: Restaurant
Month and Valentine’s Day; Spring Break, Mother’s Day and prom; graduation and
summertime; and back-to-school. The 2017 campaign will conclude with promotion to
encourage shopping in Dublin during the busy holiday season.
Additionally, the City of Dublin and the Dublin Chamber of Commerce are partnering to
present the Decorate Dublin Holiday Contest, which seeks to increase festive decor in
Dublin's retail areas.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Small Business Saturday 2017 Proclamation
3.3
Packet Pg. 10
A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
“Small Business Saturday – November 25, 2017”
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin believes that small businesses are the backbone of our economy and the glue that
holds communities together. According to the United States Small Business Administration, there are over 28 million small
businesses in the United States and they represent more than 99 percent of American companies, create two-thirds of the net
new jobs, and generate half of the private gross domestic product; and
WHEREAS, small businesses employ over 50 percent of the working population in the United States; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin supports our local businesses that create jobs, boost our local economy, and preserve
our neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, advocacy groups and public and private organizations across the country have endorsed the Saturday
after Thanksgiving as Small Business Saturday; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim November 25, 2017, as
“Small Business Saturday” and urges the residents of this community, and communities across the country to support small
businesses and merchants on Small Business Saturday and throughout the year.
DATED: November 7, 2017
_________________________ _________________________
Mayor Haubert Vice Mayor Biddle
_________________________ _________________________ _________________________
Councilmember Gupta Councilmember Goel Councilmember Hernandez
3.3.a
Packet Pg. 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
m
a
l
l
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
2
0
1
7
P
r
o
c
l
a
m
a
t
i
o
n
(
S
m
a
l
l
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
)
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: November 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Community Spotlight: Certificate of Recognition for Open Heart Kitchen
Prepared by: Rhonda Franklin, Management Analyst
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will present a "Community Spotlight" certificate of recognition to Open
Heart Kitchen in recognition of their continued contributions to the Dublin community.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present the Certificate of Recognition.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
In an effort to highlight the benefits of non-profit agencies that serve the Dublin
community, the City Council will present a "Community Spotlight" certificate of
recognition to Open Heart Kitchen in recognition of their contributions to the Dublin
community by preparing nutritious meals free of charge to hungry people in need in
Dublin and the Tri-Valley area. Open Heart Kitchen operates three meal programs in
the Dublin area: Hot Meal Program, Senior Meal Program, and Children’s Weekend
Bag Lunch Program.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Certificate of Recognition
3.4
Packet Pg. 12
CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION
Given to
OPEN HEART KITCHEN
In recognition of their continued contributions to the Dublin community by
preparing nutritious meals free of charge to hungry people in need in Dublin and
the Tri-Valley area.
Presented by the
City Council of the City of Dublin
Dated: November 7, 2017
Mayor David G. Haubert Vice Mayor Don Biddle
Councilmember Abe Gupta Councilmember Arun Goel Councilmember Melissa Hernandez
3.4.a
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
(
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
p
o
t
l
i
g
h
t
:
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
O
p
e
n
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: November 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Approval of the October 17, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
Prepared by: Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk/Records Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the October 17, 2017 Regular
City Council meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the minutes of the October 17, 2017 Regular City Council meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
DESCRIPTION:
The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the October 17, 2017 Regular
City Council meeting.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Minutes of the October 17, 2017 Regular CIty Council Meeting
4.1
Packet Pg. 14
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
REGULAR MEETING – OCTOBER 17, 2017
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 17, 2017
Closed Session
I. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Title: City Attorney
II. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency designated representatives: Vice Mayor Biddle and Councilmember Goel
Unrepresented employee: City Attorney
III. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: An approximately 21.5' wide x 14' deep portion of Campbell Way right of
way fronting APN 986-0034-009-00 (Transit Center Site A-3)
Agency negotiator: City Manager
Negotiating parties: Ashton at Dublin Station, LLC
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance – The pledge of allegiance was recited by the
City Council, Staff and those present at the meeting.
Attendee Name Title Status
David Haubert Mayor Present
Don Biddle Vice Mayor Present
Arun Goel Councilmember Present
Abe Gupta Councilmember Absent
Melissa Hernandez Councilmember Present
2. Report on Closed Session – There was no reportable action out of Closed Session.
3. Oral Communications
Mayor Haubert stated there had been a gras s fire in Dublin this afternoon and there
were no reports of any loss of lives or structures.
A moment of silence was observed for the victims of the North Bay fires.
Division Chief/Fire Marshall Bonnie Terra gave an update on the Dublin fire. She also
thanked Santa Barbara Fire Department, San Bernardino County Fire Department,
Livermore Fire Department, Pleasanton Fire Department, Hayward Fire Department,
Oakland Fire Department, San Ramon Valley Fire, Spring Valley Volunteer Fire
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
I
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 17, 2017
Department, Alameda County Fire, and Cal Fire for providing resources and mutual aid.
Mayor Haubert stated that Cm. Gupta was absent due to the fire and sent his best
wishes to him and his family.
3.1. Summer Events Sponsor Recognition and Wrap-Up Reports
The City Council presented Certificates of Recognition to event sponsors.
3.2. National Bullying Prevention Month 2017
Shannon Ray Kim provided public comment on this item.
Bobby Khuliar provided public comment on this item.
The City Council presented the proclamation and adopted the following
resolution as amended:
RESOLUTION NO. 130 – 17
AFFIRMING THE CITY OF DUBLIN’S COMMITMENT TO THE VALUES OF DIGNITY,
INCLUSIVITY, AND RESPECT FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS AND THAT
THE CITY OF DUBLIN IS “NO PLACE FOR HATE”
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Arun Goel, Councilmember
SECOND: Melissa Hernandez, Councilmember
AYES: David Haubert, Don Biddle, Arun Goel, Melissa Hernandez
ABSENT: Abe Gupta
3.3. Public Comment
Eve Perez, Director of Government Affairs for Ygrene Works, provided public
comment.
Georgean Vonheeder-Leopold, Vice President of Dublin San Ramon Services
Distract, provided public comment.
Janine Thalblum, Dublin resident, provided public comment.
4. Consent Calendar
4.1. Approved the minutes of the October 3, 2017 Regular City Council meeting.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
I
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 17, 2017
4.2. Presented the Proclamation declaring October 23-31, 2017 as "Red Ribbon Week".
4.3. Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 131 – 17
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCURE COMPUTERS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT
FROM DELL, INC.
4.4. Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 132 – 17
APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH SIERRA DISPLAY, INC.
FOR BANNER SERVICES
4.5. Received the Notice of City Engineer’s Receipt of Final Maps
4.6. Received the Payment Issuance Report.
4.7. Received the report and confirmed the General Fund reserve designations as of
June 30, 2017.
4.8. Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 133 – 17
AMENDING THE BENEFIT PLAN
RESOLUTION NO. 134 – 17
AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN
RESOLUTION NO. 135 – 17
AMENDING THE SALARY PLAN FOR FULL-TIME PERSONNEL
4.9. Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 136 – 17
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH
INDIGO/HAMMOND + PLAYLE ARCHITECTS, LLP
4.10. Approved Boulevard's Public Art Master Plan, as recommended by the Heritage
and Cultural Arts Commission.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
I
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 17, 2017
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Arun Goel, Councilmember
SECOND: Don Biddle, Vice Mayor
AYES: David Haubert, Don Biddle, Arun Goel, Melissa Hernandez
ABSENT: Abe Gupta
5. Written Communication – None.
6. Public Hearing
6.1. Amendments to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.04 (Encroachments),
Chapter 8.92 (Wireless Communication Facilities), Chapter 8.36
(Development Regulations) and Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review)
pertaining to Wireless Communication Facilities effective city-wide
By consensus, the City Council continued this item to the December 5, 2017
meeting.
7. Unfinished Business – None.
8. New Business
8.1. Consideration of Communications Protocols with Dublin Unified School
District
By consensus, the City Council agreed to continue this item to the November 21,
2017 meeting.
8.2. Dog Park Public Art Deaccession
The City Council approved the deaccession of Michele Alacantra’s Animal Series
Sculptures at Dougherty Hills Dog Park and directed Staff to replace it with a
more suitable piece in the near future.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: David Haubert, Mayor
SECOND: Arun Goel, Councilmember
AYES: David Haubert, Don Biddle, Arun Goel, Melissa Hernandez
ABSENT: Abe Gupta
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
I
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 17, 2017
8.3. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Progress Report
By consensus, the City Council agreed to move this item to a future meeting
when all City Council members are present.
8.4. Discussion of Special Needs Appointment to the Human Services
Commission
By consensus, the City Council directed Staff to include the special needs
community in its outreach to fill open seats on the Human Services Commission
and that a preference will be given by the City Council to have at least one
member on the Commission with special needs. Staff will bring back an item, if
needed, should the bylaws of the Commission need updating to carry out this
direction.
9. Other Business – Brief information only reports from City Council and/or Staff,
including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at
City expense (AB1234).
By consensus, the City Council directed Staff to return with an item regarding the
Affordable Housing Program in Dublin, and discuss the possibility of having a program
for teacher housing.
By consensus, the City Council directed Staff to return with an item regarding vested
and non-vested properties in Dublin.
10. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. in the memory of Staff Sgt. Sean Diamond and
all the fallen troops; and in solemn memory of the victims of the North Bay fires.
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
I
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: November 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Fiscal Year 2017-18 1st Quarter Financial Review
Prepared by: Colleen Tribby, Director of Administrative Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a financial report through the first quarter for Fiscal Year
2017-18 and consider amendments to the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget via a budget
change. The City Council will also receive an update to the City's 10-Year Forecast.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the report, including the update to the 10-Year Forecast, and approve the
budget change.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Approval of the budget change will result in the addition of $1,930,000 to the General
Fund revenue budget, and will increase General Fund expenditures $5,500. Total
General Fund reserves are projected at $125,324,931 by June 30, 2018, representing
5.8 months of the projected Fiscal Year 2018-19 budget. This report also contains a
brief update of the 10-Year Forecast.
DESCRIPTION:
The focus of this report is the Fiscal Year 2017-18 General Fund Amended Budget,
including updated revenue and expenditure estimates, as well as an update to the 10-
Year Forecast. As a reminder, the Amended Budget includes budget amendments
already approved by the City Council since July 1, as well as carry-over budgets from
Fiscal Year 2016-17. The Budget Change Form (Attachment 1) lists all new
amendments needing City Council approval.
FY 2017-18: Projected Results (Attachment 2)
General Fund revenues are projected to come in $1,930,000 higher than the Amended
Budget due to the following:
4.2
Packet Pg. 20
Page 2 of 3
1. Property tax revenue increased $1,230,000 over the budget, based on the
most recent information provided by Alameda County and the City’s property
tax consultant. This change reflects growth in overall assessed valuation (AV)
by 7.702% ($1,058,471,523) over last year. This was the second-highest AV
growth of cities in Alameda County, following Newark’s 14.945% growth.
2. Other Taxes (Property Transfer Tax) is anticipated to increase $250,000 over
the budget, which trends closer to last year’s number and ties to the increase
in property tax revenue.
3. Interest income is also expected to come in close to last year’s number,
adding $450,000 in revenue over budget.
On the expenditure side, the City’s contract for actuarial services for the retiree health
provision to the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority is increasing $5,500 over the original
estimate.
After incorporating those changes, total reserves are projected to increase $2,902,840
from the prior year, as illustrated in the table below. Reserve details are shown in the
General Fund Reserves Summary (Attachment 3).
Total Reserves, Compared to FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 Amended Budget
Actual
2016-17
Amended
2017-18
Q1
Change
New
Amended
2017-18
Revenue 83,950,420 83,355,652 1,930,000 85,285,652
Expenditures (66,244,975) (76,329,909) (5,500) (76,335,409)
Transfers Out (5,542,414) (6,047,403) (6,047,403)
One Time Accrual Adjustment 1,069,534 -
Year End Reserves $122,416,591$123,394,931$41,793,973$125,319,431
Change to Reserves from Prior Year $978,340 $2,902,840
10-Year Forecast
The City maintains an ongoing 10-Year Forecast of revenues and expenditures and
provides detailed assumptions in the annual budget document. However, throughout
the year, Staff monitors these factors and updates the forecast to reflect major changes
that will have long term effects.
Based on the information provided in this report, the City’s long-term forecast is being
adjusted. The General Fund has its last breakeven year in Fiscal Year 2021-22 (one
year later than the last Forecast), with a $1.5 million deficit projected in Fiscal Year
2022-23.
This information will be presented to the City Council’s appointed Fiscal Sustainability
Task Force at its next meeting on November 15.
4.2
Packet Pg. 21
Page 3 of 3
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Budget Change Form
2. General Fund Summary
3. General Fund Reserves
4.2
Packet Pg. 22
Budget Change Reference #:
From Un-Appropriated Reserves X Budget Transfer Between Funds
From Designated Reserves Other
1001.2405.64061 $5,500.00
1001.0000.411xx $1,230,000.00
1001.0000.42201 $250,000.00
1001.0000.46101 $450,000.00
Posted By:Date:
General Fund - Other Taxes - Property Transfer Tax
Linked to property sales.
General Fund - Interest Income
Higher interest income in FY 2016-17 carried into the
current year.
**********Finance Use Only**********
As Presented at the City Council Meeting
Updated number from Property Tax consultant.
CITY OF DUBLIN
FISCAL YEAR 2017-18
BUDGET CHANGE FORM
City Council's Approval Required
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Higher consulting services cost for DRFA OPEB update due
to GASB 75 implementation, cost is shared between cities
of Dublin and San Ramon
General Fund - DRFA - DRFA Obligations
General Fund - Property Tax
REVENUES
C:\Users\carolines\appdata\roaming\iqm2\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\2623 2623
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
B
u
d
g
e
t
C
h
a
n
g
e
F
o
r
m
(
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
1
s
t
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
)
X
11/7/2017
Higher interest income in FY 2016-17 carried into the
Updated number from Property Tax consultant.
Higher consulting services cost for DRFA OPEB update due
to GASB 75 implementation, cost is shared between cities
C:\Users\carolines\appdata\roaming\iqm2\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\2623 2623
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
B
u
d
g
e
t
C
h
a
n
g
e
F
o
r
m
(
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
1
s
t
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
)
GENERAL FUND SUMMARY ATTACHMENT 2
FY 2017‐18 1st QUARTER
Actual
2016‐17
Adopted
2017‐18
Amended
2017‐18
Q1
Change
New
Amended
2017‐18
Revenues
Property Taxes 36,964,785 37,971,147 37,971,147 1,230,000 39,201,147
Sales Taxes 20,001,379 20,296,801 20,296,801 20,296,801
Development Revenue 12,350,738 9,798,859 9,998,369 9,998,369
Other Taxes 6,834,545 5,947,000 5,947,000 250,000 6,197,000
Licenses & Permits 318,981 309,096 309,096 309,096
Fines & Penalties 94,205 111,432 111,432 111,432
Interest Earnings 1,286,942 876,000 876,000 450,000 1,326,000
Rentals and Leases 1,117,593 1,081,672 1,081,672 1,081,672
Intergovernmental 258,508 198,618 198,618 198,618
Charges for Services 5,274,724 6,092,717 6,092,717 6,092,717
Community Benefit Payments 699,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Other Revenue 910,561 259,235 272,800 272,800
Subtotal Revenues 86,111,961 83,142,577 83,355,652 1,930,000 85,285,652
Unrealized Gains/Losses (2,161,541) ‐
Total Revenues 83,950,420 83,142,577 83,355,652 1,930,000 85,285,652
Expenditures
Salaries & Wages 10,387,331 12,422,136 12,422,136 12,422,136
Benefits 5,409,898 6,298,523 6,298,523 6,298,523
Services & Supplies 2,077,805 3,252,530 3,226,975 3,226,975
Internal Service Fund Charges 3,040,296 3,049,881 3,049,881 3,049,881
Utilities 1,793,538 2,830,310 2,830,310 2,830,310
Total Contracted Services *42,600,147 46,004,428 46,318,255 5,500 46,323,755
Capital Outlay 935,960 469,112 523,612 523,612
Contingency ‐ 460,000 420,000 420,000
Subtotal Expenditures 66,244,975 74,786,920 75,089,692 5,500 75,095,192
Carryovers from Prior Year 1,240,217 1,240,217
Total Expenditures 66,244,975 74,786,920 76,329,909 5,500 76,335,409
Operating Impact 17,705,444 8,355,657 7,025,743 1,924,500 8,950,243
One Time Adjustment for Accruals 1,069,534
Transfers Out (5,542,414) (2,440,629) (6,047,403) (6,047,403)
Impact on Total Reserves 13,232,565 5,915,028 978,340 2,902,840
TOTAL RESERVES 122,416,591 125,319,431
* Contracted Services Detail (1)
Actual
2016‐17
Adopted
2017‐18
Amended
2017‐18
Q1
Change
New
Amended
2017‐18
Police Services 16,245,666 18,259,770 18,872,121 18,872,121
Fire Services 11,788,015 12,402,322 12,402,322 12,402,322
Maintenance Services (MCE)4,484,851 4,829,511 4,829,511 4,829,511
Development (Reimbursable)2,700,966 2,626,655 2,938,088 2,938,088
Development (Not Reimburseable)4,649,928 4,959,491 5,246,068 5,246,068
Development 7,350,894 7,586,146 8,184,156 8,184,156
Other Contracted Services 2,730,721 2,926,679 3,223,541 5,500 3,229,041
Total Contracted Services 42,600,147 46,004,428 47,511,652 5,500 47,517,152
(1) Contracted Services Detail includes carryovers from FY 2016‐17 totaling $1,193,397.
4.2.b
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
1
s
t
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
)
GENERAL FUND RESERVES SUMMARY ATTACHMENT 3
FY 2017‐18 DESIGNATIONS
Reserve Balances
Actual
2016‐17
Increase
2017‐18
Decrease
2017‐18
NET
CHANGE
Projected
2017‐18
Non‐Spendable 198,875 ‐ (159,613) (159,613) 39,262
Prepaid Expenses 39,262 39,262
Advance to Public Facility Fees ‐ ‐
Advance to Fire Impact Fee ‐ ‐
Advance to PERS Side Fund 159,613 (159,613) (159,613) ‐
Restricted 1,762,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,762,000
Heritage Park Maintenance 750,000 750,000
Cemetery Endowment 60,000 60,000
Developer Contr ‐ Downtown 873,000 873,000
Developer Contr ‐ Nature Pk 60,000 60,000
Developer Contr ‐ Heritage Pk 19,000 19,000
Committed 36,213,716 ‐ ‐ ‐ 36,213,716
Economic Stability 8,000,000 8,000,000
Public Safety Reserve 1,600,000 1,600,000
Downtown Public Impr 452,170 452,170
Economic Development 2,000,000 2,000,000
Emergency Communications 741,000 741,000
Fire Svcs OPEB 3,334,672 3,334,672
Innovations & New Opport 1,813,408 1,813,408
One‐Time Initiative 1,341,408 1,341,408
Specific Committed Reserves
Maintenance Facility 76,033 76,033
Cemetery Expansion 5,272,210 5,272,210
Fallon Sports Park 200,000 200,000
Civic Ctr Expansion 22,746 22,746
Storm Drain Trash Capture 722,198 722,198
Shannon Center Parking Lot 967,680 967,680
Utility Undergrounding 1,170,190 1,170,190
Advance to Public Facility Fee 6,000,000 6,000,000
Dublin Sports Ground 2,500,000 2,500,000
Assigned 50,126,808 ‐ ‐ ‐ 50,126,808
Accrued Leave 998,235 998,235
Operating Carryovers 1,240,217 1,240,217
CIP Carryovers 1,739,331 1,739,331
Non‐Streets CIP Commitments 3,879,516 3,879,516
Catastrophic Loss 13,918,531 13,918,531
Service Continuity 3,150,000 3,150,000
Pension Rate Stabilization Plan 2,000,000 2,000,000
Chevron Debt Payoff 5,238,622 5,238,622
Pension & OPEB 10,614,353 10,614,353
Fiscally Responsible Adj 325,000 325,000
Municipal Regional Permit 1,870,030 1,870,030
HVAC Replacement 2,000,000 2,000,000
Relocate Parks Dept 250,000 250,000
Specific Assigned Reserves
Civic Ctr Renovation‐Police 1,962,100 1,962,100
Façade Improvement Grants 250,000 250,000
Contribution to ISF 500,000 500,000
Fire Equipment Replacement 190,873 190,873
Unassigned 34,115,192 159,613 2,902,840 3,062,453 37,177,646
Unassigned‐Unrealized Gains (3,860,531) (3,860,531)
Unassigned (Available)37,975,723 37,975,723
TOTAL RESERVES 122,416,591 159,613 2,743,228 2,902,840 125,319,431
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
(
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
1
s
t
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
)
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: November 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of Council Chamber Audio and Visual System Improvements
Prepared by: Rosemary Alex, Parks & Facilities Development Coordinator
and Hazel L. Wetherford, Assistant to the City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On May 16, 2017, the City Council awarded a construction contract for the Council
Chamber Audio and Visual System Improvement Project, (CIP No. GI4099). The work
is now complete and ready for City Council acceptance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Accepting the Council Chamber Audio and Visual System
Improvement Project (CIP No. GI4099).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
CompView, Inc. (Audio and Visual Construction Contract)
Original Contract Amount $189,652.13
Change Order #1 ($661.06)
Total CompView, Inc. Contract $188,991.07
DESCRIPTION:
On May 16, 2017, the City Council approved a construction contract with CompView,
Incorporated for the Council Chamber Audio and Visual System Improvement Project,
(CIP No. GI4099). The City issued a Notice Inviting Bids in March 2017 for the Dublin
Civic Center – Council Chamber Audio and Visual System which included audio, visual,
electrical, carpentry, and finishing work. The City received only one unresponsive bid
which was missing a signed third addendum. With the low response on the initial bid
and comments received by audio and visual contractors, Staff issued a second notice
inviting bids that would only encompass the audio and visual update.
CompView, Inc. has now completed the audio-visual scope of work which included new
microphones, public lectern, lobby monitor, speakers, operator touch panel, projector
screens, projectors, speaker timers and interface equipment to ensure operation of
4.3
Packet Pg. 27
Page 2 of 2
system and compatibility with TV30 broadcast system. Occupancy was granted by the
City's Building Department on September 1, 2017 and with the work now complete,
Staff is seeking formal City Council acceptance of the project.
The City presently holds a performance bond from CompView, Inc. in the amount of
$189,652 to provide the necessary security for the performance of the work involved.
Since the work is now complete and ready for acceptance, the performance security
requirement can be reduced in accordance with authority contained in Section 66499.7
of the Government Code, to an amount necessary to guarantee warranty of the work for
a one-year period in the amount of $18,899, which is 10% of the final contract amount,
and is sufficient to cover the one-year guarantee period.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A Notice of Completion will be filed with Alameda County upon City Council action. A
copy of the Staff Report was sent to CompView, Inc.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Accepting the Council Chamber Audio and Visual Improvement Project
(CIP No. GI4099)
4.3
Packet Pg. 28
RESOLUTION NO. XX-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
ACCEPTING THE COUNCIL CHAMBER AUDIO AND VISUAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT (CIP NO. GI4099)
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2017 the City of Dublin entered into a contract with CompView,
Inc. to perform Contract No. GI4099, Council Chamber Audio and Visual System Improvement
Project; and
WHEREAS, the improvements have been completed in accordance with the plans and
specifications, and any approved modifications thereof, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
of the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of the contract, CompView, Inc. is required to warranty the
improvements for a period of one year following acceptance of the work by the City of Dublin;
and
WHEREAS, the improvements are now completed, and the original performance bond
security requirements can be reduced, in accordance with the authority contained in Section
66499.7 of the Government Code of the State of California, to an amount found necessary to
guarantee maintenance of the completed work for the aforesaid one-year period.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby:
Approve and accept the audio and visual improvements completed within the said
Council Chamber and authorize Staff to file a Notice of Completion with Alameda
County, subject to the aforesaid one-year warranty; and
The aforesaid performance bond security requirement can be reduced from the amount
of $189,652 to the amount of $18,899 upon acceptance by Staff of the replacement
maintenance bond as security for the aforesaid one-year maintenance period; and
The said original performance bond posted in connection with the work involved in the
construction of said facility be hereby released upon acceptance of said warranty; and
Authorize the City Manager or his designee to release the retention, if after 35 days of
filing the Notice of Completion there are no subcontractor claims.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of November, 2017, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
c
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
A
u
d
i
o
a
n
d
V
i
s
u
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
C
I
P
N
o
.
G
I
4
0
9
9
)
(
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
_______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
c
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
A
u
d
i
o
a
n
d
V
i
s
u
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
C
I
P
N
o
.
G
I
4
0
9
9
)
(
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: November 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2018
Prepared by: Hazel L. Wetherford, Assistant to the City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider approving a Legislative Platform for 2018 for the City of
Dublin. The Platform would guide the City’s response to pending and possible
legislation that affects the Dublin community.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving the 2018 City of Dublin Legislative Platform.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
DESCRIPTION:
On December 20, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 180-16 approving a
Legislative Platform for 2017 that includes the goals, strategies and priorities for
organizing the City’s legislative interests. The 2018 proposed Platform (Attachment 2)
identifies the fundamental legislative issues deemed important to the City, and upon
City Council approval, will allow Staff to respond to the rapidly changing nature of
legislative items efficiently and without delay. The Legislative Platform is annually
adopted for each legislative year.
The draft 2018 Legislative Platform states that the City values its ability and authority t o
exercise local control and to protect and enhance the quality of life for Dublin residents.
To that end, the City’s primary legislative focus is to protect local government authority
and promote stable revenue for local governments to plan for future growth and needed
public facilities and services. The 2018 Legislative Platform priority areas are:
General Administration
Fiscal Sustainability
4.4
Packet Pg. 31
Page 2 of 2
Public Works
Community and Economic Development
Public Safety
Parks / Quality of Life
Environmental Sustainability
The goals, strategies and priorities outline the approach and process the City will follow
in implementing the Legislative Platform. Once approved, the Legislative Platform will
allow the City Council and Staff to respond in a timely manner to pending and possible
legislation.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving the City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2018
2. Exhibit A to Resolution - City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2018
4.4
Packet Pg. 32
RESOLUTION NO. XX-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
APPROVING THE CITY OF DUBLIN LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM 2018
WHEREAS, the Legislative Platform (“Platform”) for the City of Dublin for 2018 allows
City Staff to respond quickly in support of, or in opposition to, legislative issues based on
Dublin’s core values and City Council goals, especially in time-sensitive situations; and
WHEREAS, the Platform also permits City Staff to connect and communicate with
legislators regarding issues and impacts from the City’s perspective; and
WHEREAS, the Platform is an evolving document that changes due to City needs and
conditions as well as federal, state, county and local priorities and activities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin
adopts the City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2018 attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor or his or her designee is authorized to sign
letters of opposition or letters of support, as drafted by City Staff for legislation as long as they
are consistent with the Platform.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of November 2017, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
(
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
)
Legislative Platform: Goals, Strategies and Priorities
City of Dublin Legislative
Platform 2018
DR
A
F
T
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
(
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
)
City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2018
1 I Page
Our Mission
The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment,
and fosters new opportunities.
Our Vision
Dublin is a vibrant city committed to its citizens, natural resources, and cultural heritage. As Dublin
grows, it will balance history with progress, to sustain an enlightened, economically balanced and
diverse community.
Dublin is unified in its belief that an engaged and educated community encourages innovation in all
aspects of City life, including programs to strengthen our economic vitality and preserve our natural
surroundings through environmental stewardship and sustainability. Dublin is dedicated to promoting
an active and healthy lifestyle through the creation of first‐class recreational opportunities, facilities,
and programs.
Our Values
Our Values in Building Community
o Promote locations and events that bring
people of all ages together.
o Provide more venues for family‐based
activities.
o Foster heritage and cultural development.
Our Values in Ensuring a Safe Community
o Provide high quality police and fire
services to insure the safety of the citizens
living in the community.
o Provide education and training to
residents and businesses that would
promote public safety.
Our Values in Guiding Development
o Assure that development contributes
positively to the City's fiscal health.
o Support pedestrian‐friendly development,
transit‐oriented development, green
building, and environmental
responsiveness.
o Promote high quality design and
architectural standards in private
development and in all public facilities.
o Develop transportation systems that
facilitate ease of movement throughout
the City.
Our Values in Governing
o Commit to openness and responsiveness
to the public and community.
o Operate at all times with honesty and
integrity.
o Exercise fairness in consideration of issues.
o Provide a high level of customer service
and responsiveness from City staff to
citizens.
o Embrace technology to improve
effectiveness and efficiency.
o Strive to build an informed community
through communication.
Our Values in Relating to Other Communities and
Entities
o Encourage collaboration and
communication with other communities
on issues of mutual concern.
o Encourage public and private partnership
of mutual benefit. DR
A
F
T
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
(
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
)
City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2018
2 I Page
Introduction
The 2018 Legislative Platform highlights the City Council’s positions on important issues to engage in the
legislative process for the benefit of Dublin residents. City Staff monitors bills introduced into the
California Assembly or Senate as well as their path towards becoming a law. The Platform provides Staff
with direction and allows the City, on the Council’s behalf, to quickly respond in support of or opposition
to bills and other legislative or gubernatorial actions in time‐sensitive situations. Additionally, the
Platform enables staff to communicate Dublin specific issues and impacts to state legislators.
The Legislative Platform evolves as the City's needs adjust, new issues arise, and conditions at the
federal, state, regional, county, and local level change. The City values its ability and authority to
exercise local control and to protect and enhance the quality of life for Dublin residents. To that end, the
City's primary legislative focus is to protect local government control and promote stable revenue for
local governments to plan for future growth and needed public facilities and services.
The City of Dublin Legislative Platform priorities are:
General Administration
Fiscal Stability
Public Works
Community and Economic Development
Public Safety
Parks / Quality of Life
Environmental Sustainability
Goals
Advocate the City’s legislative interests at the federal, state, and county levels.
Inform and provide information to our legislators, City Council and staff on the legislative
process and key issues and legislation that could have a potential impact on the City.
Serve as an active participant with other local governments, the League of California Cities,
regional agencies, and local professional organizations on legislative/regulatory issues that are
important to the City and our region.
Strategies
Communicate legislative positions on proposed federal, state, and county legislation, measures,
initiatives, and governmental regulations.
o Work with City departments and our legislative advocates to develop positions on
proposed legislative measures.
o Review positions and analysis by the League of California Cities, legislative advocates
and other local government / professional associations in formulating the City’s
position.
o The City will take positions only on proposals that clearly impact our City or are a threat
to local control.
DR
A
F
T
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
(
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
)
City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2018
3 I Page
o Actively track key bills through the legislative process.
o Communicate the City’s position through correspondence, testimony, and in‐person
meetings.
o Work cooperatively with other cities, associations and the League of California Cities on
advocating the City’s legislative position.
o Meet with legislators and their representatives, as well as other federal, state and
county government officials on a regular basis, to discuss local government issues,
proposed legislation, request for funding assistance, and City programs and services.
The Process
Oversight of the Legislative Platform
Upon the Legislative Platform adoption, the City Manager’s Office will exercise day‐to‐day oversight of
legislative matters. In addition to coordinating formal action through the City Council, the City Manager
and Assistant to the City Manager will administer the City’s Legislative Platform.
Responding to Legislative Proposals
Upon the Legislative Platform adoption, the following process will be followed in response to legislative
proposals:
Once a determination has been made that a legislative proposal may impact the City, a letter
outlining the City’s position will be drafted for the Mayor’s or City Manager’s signature.
If a legislative proposal or regulation arises that is not addressed by the adopted Legislative
Platform and it is determined that it may impact the City, a draft position letter will be prepared
for the City Council to review.
A copy of all legislative letters will be distributed routinely to the City Council.
DR
A
F
T
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
(
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
)
City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2018
4 I Page
Legislative Priorities for 2018
General Administration
Staff recommends that the City Council support:
1. Legislation that enhances local control and allows cities to address the needs of local
constituents within a framework of regional cooperation. Support legislation that streamlines
and simplifies the job of running a city and oppose efforts that erode the City’s authority to
control its own affairs.
2. Legislation that provides funding to schools for operational or infrastructure needs.
Staff recommends that the City Council oppose:
1. Legislation that would diminish or eliminate local governments’ ability to contract out for the
provision of services.
2. Legislation that requires cities to use district‐based elections.
3. Legislation that attempts to restrict local authority or decision‐making whether by state or
federal legislation or ballot propositions.
Fiscal Sustainability
Staff recommends that the City Council support:
1. Legislation that maintains or enhances ongoing revenues to the City.
2. Legislation which updates the tax structure to enhance local government revenues that have
declined due to the expansion of e‐commerce, increased consumption of services rather than
durable goods, and innovations in technology.
3. Legislation and regulatory actions that ensure timely distribution of mandated reimbursements
owed to the City.
4. Legislative reforms that would remove unnecessary state‐imposed mandates.
5. Legislation that provides for the use of incentives for local government action rather than
mandates (funded or unfunded).
6. Legislation that establishes infrastructure financing districts or other funding mechanisms for
infrastructure improvements.
7. Legislation that changes the Communications Act of 1934 that removes the distinction between
“capital” and “operating” funds in order to provide more local control for community television
stations in the use of their public, educational, and government (PEG) channel fees.
8. Legislation that supports measures to increase transparency of all public employee salaries and
benefits.
9. Legislation that supports measures to provide sustainable public pensions and other post‐
retirement benefits to ensure responsive and affordable public services.
Staff recommends that the City Council oppose:
DR
A
F
T
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
(
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
)
City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2018
5 I Page
1. Legislation that undermines and preempts local authority over local taxes and fees. Monitor
state and federal budget deliberations and oppose attempts to balance the state and/or federal
budget by shifting funds from local government.
2. Legislation that imposes unfunded or inadequately funded federal and state mandates on local
governments.
3. Legislation that eliminates development fees or limit the ability of cities to levy fees to provide
for infrastructure or services.
4. Legislation that requires or expands state involvement in City financial audits, fiscal monitoring,
general oversight, or assistance by the State Treasurer, State Controller or other state agencies.
5. Legislation that defers reimbursements for state mandated programs.
Public Works
Staff recommends that the City Council support:
1. Legislation that will provide local governments with new and innovative revenue options and
resources to finance critical infrastructure maintenance and construction needs for
transportation, water supply, wastewater, storm water, and other critical infrastructure
systems.
2. Legislation that will provide access or public‐private partnership to 5‐G Cellular Network for
connected and Autonomous vehicle technology implementation. Support is needed to establish
long term agreements with technology companies that are seeking access to city infrastructure
for creating a 5‐G Cellular Network.
3. Legislation that would enable the sale of traffic data (traffic signal and other) to recover the cost
of data.
4. Legislation that ensures the City receive its fair share of transportation funding and keeping the
funding decisions at the local level.
5. Legislation that supports reducing congestion and delay along Freeways in the Tri‐Valley Area.
6. Legislation that supports freight movement (between Bay Area and Central Valley) project that
could reduce truck traffic along I‐580. These projects may include rail based freight movement
or sharing the passenger rail corridors for freight movement.
7. Legislation that supports Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) including the implementation of
Connected/Autonomous vehicles. Legislation that enhances the safety of City streets for car,
bicycle and pedestrian traffic, reduces traffic congestion, or supports regional transportation
improvements.
8. Legislation that encourages the optimum and sustainable utilization of local groundwater basins.
9. Legislation that enhances the reliability of water transmission and storage through the Delta and
Tri‐Valley.
10. Legislation that provides funding or incentives for the cost‐effective development of local water
resources, water conservation, or expansion of recycled water infrastructure and improvements
to reduce dependence on imported water sources.
11. Legislation that creates flexibility in the implementation of mandatory storm water programs
and provides funding for those programs.
12. Legislation that support a constitutional amendment to lower the threshold for approval of sales
and use taxes for transportation purposes. Currently, such taxes must be approved by two‐
thirds of the voters.
13. Legislation that allows fuel tax indexing or an increase to provide additional funding for local
street projects, especially maintenance, and support efforts that protect against transportation
DR
A
F
T
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
(
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
)
City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2018
6 I Page
funding diversions. Specific legislative support should be pursued for streamlining emergency
funding that minimizes bureaucratic.
14. Legislation that provides cap and trade funds derived from transportation fuels for clean
transportation purposes.
Staff recommends that the City Council oppose:
1. Legislation that would infringe upon the ability of local governments to effectively administer
and modify state and local construction provisions and standards.
2. Legislation that takes away local control on managing and operating local streets.
3. Legislation that reduces the City’s condemnation authority regarding acquisition of properties
required for public projects.
Community and Economic Development
Staff recommends that the City Council support:
1. Legislation that maintains cities’ authority over land use decisions.
2. Legislation that strengthens local governments’ regulatory authority and control over the siting
of medical marijuana dispensaries.
3. Legislation that would create a more equitable Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
process. Support legislation that creates more flexibility for local jurisdictions to work together
to provide housing that counts toward RHNA requirements.
4. Legislation that enhances the City’s efforts to retain existing businesses and attract new
businesses.
5. Legislation that provides tangible and productive tools and incentives to support job creation
and retention.
6. CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) legislation that eliminates redundant, costly and
cumbersome mandates and restrictions.
7. Legislation that advances or encourages innovation, entrepreneurship, start‐ups, small business
opportunities, and/or workforce development.
8. Legislation that provides incentives for affordable housing and transit‐oriented development.
9. Legislation that increases financial assistance to provide affordable, transitional, special needs
and emergency housing to the homeless, seniors, veterans, and people with special needs.
10. Legislation encouraging the expansion of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics) programs in K‐12, higher education and libraries.
Staff recommends that the City Council oppose:
1. Legislation that would interfere with the decision‐making authority of local government in local
land use and zoning.
2. Legislation that erodes the ability of cities to condition and deny projects that inadequately
mitigate impacts to the community.
3. Legislation that weakens local governments’ ability to regulate massage establishments through
zoning code provisions.
4. Legislation and regulatory efforts that would diminish or eliminate the authority of cities to zone
and plan for the development of telecommunications infrastructure, including the siting of
cellular communications towers or transmission sites.
DR
A
F
T
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
(
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
)
City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2018
7 I Page
5. Legislation that would diminish or eliminate cities’ authority to regulate condominium
conversions.
Public Safety
Staff recommends that the City Council support:
1. Legislation and grant opportunities that increase funding for local law enforcement, fire
suppression and prevention, hazardous materials mitigation, and emergency medical services.
2. Legislation that provides funding to local agencies for training, disaster preparedness crime
prevention, public outreach, and emergency planning.
3. Legislation which ensures cities have control of regulating local medical marijuana facilities
instead of the state, protects public safety with standardized security requirements, protects
public health with uniform health and safety standards, and ensures patient safety with a quality
assurance protocol.
4. Legislation that improves data and information dissemination from the railroads and Federal
government, preparedness funding, and first‐responder training for oil‐by‐rail shipments.
5. Legislation that maintains and increases grant funding for the Community Oriented Police
Services (COPS) program.
6. Legislation that provides a greater share of asset forfeiture funds for cities and increases latitude
for spending local funds.
Parks / Quality of Life
Staff recommends that the City Council support:
1. Legislation that creates new funding opportunities for parks and community facilities.
2. Legislation that provides funding for ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) facility and park
upgrades.
Environmental Sustainability
Staff recommends that the City Council support:
1. Legislation requiring manufactures to be responsible for safe disposal or reuse of their products
and by‐products, particularly for hazardous products such as sharps, unused prescription drugs,
and fluorescent light bulbs.
2. Legislation that encourages manufacturers to include post‐consumer recycled material in
their products and encourages state and local government agencies to use less‐toxic and
recycled content products.
3. Legislation that supports the development of alternative technologies such as anaerobic
digestion or mixed waste processing that result in waste diversion from landfills.
4. Legislation and policies that assist local government in meeting or exceeding established
goals of reducing water consumption without preempting local planning decisions.
5. Legislation that enhances building energy efficiency standards and building safety standards.
6. Legislation protecting the interest of California’s Community Choice clean electricity providers
and their customers.
DR
A
F
T
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
(
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
)
City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2018
8 I Page
7. Legislation that assists regional and local governments in development and implementing
energy efficiency and conservation strategies and ensure that local governments can continue,
and not be preempted in, their efforts to achieve economic improvements through increased
energy efficiency and conservation plans that seek to decrease carbon emissions (a League of
California Cities Federal Priority).
8. Legislation that supports regional and local government efforts to develop and implement
programs to reduce air pollution.
9. Legislation or grant opportunities for cities that provide funding for developing or enhancing
alternative vehicle fueling stations.
10. Legislation to address litter control and abatement problems in California.
11. Legislation that would make it easier for cities to fund and comply with new and increasingly
stringent storm water quality permit requirements.
12. Legislation that lessens the financial impact of state and federal unfunded mandates related to
compliance with environmental programs and regulations.
Staff recommends that the City Council oppose:
1. Oppose legislation that preempts local planning decisions regarding solid waste facility sites,
preempts local solid waste and AB 939 fee setting authority, or imposes taxes or fees on
local solid waste programs to fund State programs not directly related to solid waste
management.
DR
A
F
T
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
(
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
2
0
1
8
)
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: November 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Notice of City Engineer’s Receipt of Tract 8364 Final Map for Review and
Pending Decision on Tract 8382 Final Map
Prepared by: Laurie Sucgang, Senior Civil Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a notification of the City Engineer’s receipt of the Final Map
for review for Tract 8364, Boulevard development, and the City Engineer’s pending
approval of the Final Map for Tract 8382, Boulevard development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the notification.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no impact on the General Fund.
DESCRIPTION:
The Boulevard development (formerly Dublin Crossing) is located along Dublin
Boulevard, just west of Arnold Road. The development is being subdivided into several
neighborhoods. The developer has prepared the Final Map for Tract 8364 and has
submitted it for review by Staff. The developer has prepared the Tract 8382 Final Map
for the backbone streets and large lots for Phase 2. In accordance with Chapter
9.24.080 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, this is notice of the following:
☒ City Engineer’s receipt of the following Final Map(s) for review:
Tract Location Developer Number of
Units/Lots
Type
8364 Boulevard,
Neighborhoods 11
and 12
Dublin
Crossing, LLC
6 Lots Large Lots for
future
subdivision
4.5
Packet Pg. 43
Page 2 of 2
☒ City Engineer’s pending decision on the following Final Map(s):
Tract Location Developer Number of
Units/Lots
Type
8382 Boulevard, Phase
2
Dublin
Crossing, LLC
11 Lots Public Streets,
Park, Large
Lots for future
subdivision
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Final Map for Tract 8382
4.5
Packet Pg. 44
4.5.a
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
T
r
a
c
t
8
3
8
2
(
N
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
R
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
)
4.5.a
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
T
r
a
c
t
8
3
8
2
(
N
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
R
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
)
4.5.a
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
T
r
a
c
t
8
3
8
2
(
N
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
R
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
)
4.5.a
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
T
r
a
c
t
8
3
8
2
(
N
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
R
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
)
4.5.a
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
T
r
a
c
t
8
3
8
2
(
N
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
R
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
)
4.5.a
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
T
r
a
c
t
8
3
8
2
(
N
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
R
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
)
4.5.a
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
T
r
a
c
t
8
3
8
2
(
N
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
R
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
)
4.5.a
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
T
r
a
c
t
8
3
8
2
(
N
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
R
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
)
4.5.a
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
T
r
a
c
t
8
3
8
2
(
N
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
R
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
f
o
r
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
M
a
p
)
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: November 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Mayor's Recommendation for Appointment to Senior Center Advisory
Committee
Prepared by: Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk/Records Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider the Mayor’s recommendation for appointment to fill an
unscheduled vacancy on the Senior Center Advisory Committee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Confirm the Mayor’s recommendation of appointment to the Senior Center Advisory
Committee or provide other appropriate direction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
There are two unscheduled vacancies on the Senior Center Advisory Committee due to
Committee member resignations. The vacancies were posted and two applications
were accepted. Unfortunately, one applicant moved out of the City since the application
was received. Mayor Haubert has since reviewed the remaining submitted application
and interviewed the applicant. Mayor Haubert is recommending JunKun He to a one-
year term on the Senior Center Advisory Committee, with the term expiring in December
2018.
Staff will continue to promote the remaining unscheduled vacancy.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
4.6
Packet Pg. 54
Page 2 of 2
None.
4.6
Packet Pg. 55
Page 1 of 6
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: November 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Overview of New Housing Legislation
Prepared by: Lindsey F. Zwicker, Associate Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a report summarizing the Legislature’s recently-enacted
package of housing legislation and its impacts on the City. In Staff’s judgment, the new
laws are likely to have a limited impact on Dublin’s existing practices.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
The Legislature approved a package of more than a dozen bills focused on housing on
September 15, and the Governor signed them all. These bills constitute a legislative
response to a perceived state-wide housing crisis. With this package of legislation, the
Legislature took several different approaches to the housing issue, approving bills to
provide more funding for affordable housing development, bills aimed to streamline local
government approval of housing projects, bills designed to restore local government
authority to impose inclusionary housing requirements on private housing developers,
and bills strengthening the state’s anti-NIMBY laws. The following describes each of
the approved housing bills and discusses its impact on the City, if any.
SB 2: The “Permanent Source” of Funds for Affordable Housing. SB 2 was
designed to provide a “permanent source” of funds for affordable housing development
through the imposition of a $75 fee on most recorded documents (except for home
sales). The recording fee is expected to generate approximately $200 - $300 million per
year for affordable housing. Half of the funds generated in 2018 will be made available
to local governments for updating planning documents and zoning ordinances in order
to streamline housing production, and the other half would go to the state for homeless
5.1
Packet Pg. 56
Page 2 of 6
assistance programs. Beginning in 2019, 70% of the funds will be directly allocated to
local governments by the same formula used for the federal Community Development
Block Grant program, to be used for a variety of affordable housing projects and
programs, and the other 30% will be used by the state for farmworker housing, mixed
income multifamily housing, and other programs.
SB 3: $4 Billion Housing Bond. This bill will place a bond act on the November 2018
state ballot, with bond proceeds to be used to fund various existing housing programs.
$1.5 billion of the funds would go to the stat e’s Multifamily Housing Program for
affordable housing development loans, $1 billion of the funds would go to the state’s
CalVet veteran’s home loan program, with the remainder of the funds allocated for
farmworker housing, the CalHome down payment and mor tgage assistance program,
transit oriented development and infrastructure supporting infill housing. The last state
housing bond (Proposition 1C) was approved in 2006. Those funds have long since
been allocated.
SB 35: Streamlined Approval Process for Housing Projects. SB 35 creates a
streamlined approval process for certain housing projects. SB 35 requires local
agencies to ministerially approve multifamily housing projects that meet a long list of
standards. Its requirements apply if the Department of Housing and Community
Development (“HCD”) determines that the local agency has issued building permits for
fewer housing units than its share of the regional housing need, by income category.
Unlike housing elements, demonstrating that zoning allows for the creation of the
required number of units would be insufficient.
SB 35 is intended to increase the supply of market rate and affordable housing in
California by requiring local governments to promptly approve eligible projects. In order
to qualify for streamlined processing, the applicant must propose a multifamily project
that deed restricts a specified percentage of the project's units to be affordable to
households making below 80% of the area median income. In Dublin for the
foreseeable future, because the City has exceeded its regional housing needs
obligations for above-moderate income units, a developer attempting to use SB 35
would be required to dedicate 50% of the units to households making below 80% of the
area median income.
In addition to satisfying these affordability requirements, the proposed housing
development must satisfy numerous other standards established by SB 35. A partial list
of these standards includes:
Density & Zoning: The proposed project must be consistent with objective zoning and
design review standards and not exceed the maximum density allowed within the
general plan land use designation.
Site Location: The project may not be located on a site that is in a coastal zone, a high
fire severity zone, within an earthquake fault zone, on a flood plain, prime farmland or
wetlands, or on certain other areas designated in the statute. Projects located in these
areas may still qualify for streamlined review if they meet certain additional
requirements. The project site must have at least 75% of the perimeter developed with
urban uses.
5.1
Packet Pg. 57
Page 3 of 6
Existing Housing: The project may not require the demolition of existing affordable
housing or housing subject to rent control or be on a site previously used as rental
housing within the previous 10 years.
Labor Standards: The applicant must certify, for projects greater than 10 units that are
not otherwise considered a public work, that it will pay prevailing wage or the equivalent
of prevailing wage. Applicants located in jurisdictions meeting certain population and
geographic requirements will also need to certify that the project will meet “skilled and
trained workforce” requirements specified in the bill.
A checklist outlining the process for determining if a project qualifies for streamlined
review is attached as Attachment 1.
A local agency must notify the applicant within 60 days of submittal if the proposed
housing development conflicts with any of the applicable “objective standards” (or 90
days if the development is more than 150 units). If the local agency does not provide a
written determination to the applicant within the required time period, the proposed
development is deemed to satisfy all of the required standards. Similarly, any objective
design review or public oversight of the development must be conducted by the local
agency within 90 days of the project submittal (or 180 days if the development is more
than 150 units). Project approvals under SB 35 last a minimum of three years.
We do not anticipate that many developers in Dublin will avail themselves of the
streamlined ministerial approval process, due to the limited availability and its
burdensome requirements. First, there are limited sites in Dublin that would be eligible,
since the site must be designated for multifamily development and 75% of the perimeter
of the site must be adjoin parcels developed with urban uses. Second, any developer
relying on SB 35 would be subject to costly requirements, including dedicating 50% of
the units to below-moderate income households, paying prevailing wage, and
employing a “skilled and trained workforce.” Based on our discussions with developers,
it seems very unlikely that they will take advantage of the opportunity offered by SB 35.
AB 1505: The Return of Inclusionary Housing. This bill overturns a 2009 appellate
court ruling. Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles ruled that cities
and counties were not permitted to require private developers to restrict rent levels
under the State’s Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Costa Hawkins limits local
governments’ ability to establish rent control.
Dublin’s inclusionary zoning ordinance requires developers of residential rental projects
to make 12.5% of the units affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income
households. The ordinance requires that affordable units be occupied by households
meeting both the income standards in the ordinance (income restrictions) and that the
rents be affordable to those households (rent restrictions). The City has addressed the
Palmer case by continuing to require developers to set aside affordable units but
refraining from imposing the ordinance’s rent restrictions. While the rents are not
restricted, and therefore Palmer is not violated, the rents that building owners can
charge is below market rates because of the reduced demand from tenants.
This bill authorizes (but does not mandate) local governments to require, as a condition
of development of residential rental homes, that new rental housing developmen ts
5.1
Packet Pg. 58
Page 4 of 6
include a specified percentage of affordable units for moderate, low, very low and
extremely low income households.
This bill does not limit the percentage of units that a jurisdiction may require to be
affordable. However, if an inclusionary rental ordinance that is adopted or amended
after September 15, 2017 requires that more than 15% of the total number of units in
the development be affordable to low-income households, the Department of Housing
and Community Development has the authority to review the ordinance if the jurisdiction
has either: (1) failed to meet at least 75% of its share of its regional housing need
allocation for the above-moderate income category over a five-year period, or (2) failed
to submit its annual housing element report for two consecutive years or more. An
economic feasibility study will be needed to determine whether the ordinance unduly
constrains the production of housing. Based on the study, HCD can require that the
ordinance require no more than 15% low income units.
Going forward, AB 1505 will allow the City to implement the ordinance as written and as
it had previous to the Palmer decision.
AB 678, SB 167 and AB 1515: Strengthening Anti-NIMBY Law. These bills
strengthen the State’s Housing Accountability Act (“the Act”), often referred to as the
“Anti-NIMBY Law,” which limits the ability of cities and counties to disapprove proposed
housing developments unless specified findings are made. The Act applies to housing
applications that meet the following criteria:
Meet a city's “objective general plan and zoning standards.”
The development would not cause a “significant, adverse impact” to public
health, or take water from bordering farms or preserved resources.
The development meets the standards of the California Environmental Quality
Act and the California Coastal Act.
AB 678 and SB 167 impose a higher standard of proof on local governments when they
make findings to support a disapproval of a housing project, award attorneys’ fees to
housing advocates (in addition to project applicants) that successfully challenge local
disapprovals, and allow courts to vacate local disapprovals and impose fines of $10,000
or more per unit for violation of the Housing Accountability Act. AB 1515 directs courts
to give less deference to local government determinations of a project’s consistency
with local zoning and general plans.
SB 540 and AB 73: Workforce Housing and Housing Sustainability Districts.
Under SB 540, which is sponsored by the League of California Citi es, local
governments can identify Workforce Housing Opportunity Zones within their boundaries
and conduct necessary environmental reviews and public engagement at the “front
end,” possibly eliminating time-consuming environmental reviews for specific projects
later proposed within the zones. Local governments would need to act on the proposed
developments within 90 days of application, and would not be able to turn down
development that satisfies the plan’s criteria. The environmental review and
streamlining process within these Workforce Housing Opportunity Zones will be in effect
for 5 years, and development will need to be completed within that time frame. AB 73
authorizes local governments to establish Housing Sustainability Districts, and provides
incentive funds for upfront zoning and environmental review to localities that issue
5.1
Packet Pg. 59
Page 5 of 6
permits for residential units on infill sites within the district. Under AB 73, local
governments must allow residential use within each district by ministerial permit.
Incentive payments must be returned if no construction begins within 3 years.
AB 1397 and SB 166. No Net Loss Zoning. These bills will modify the existing “No
Net Loss Zoning” law. That existing law ensures that local governments do not
downzone sites or approve new housing at significantly lower densities than is projected
in their housing elements without identifying other sites that could accommodate the
local need for housing sites at specified income levels. The bills modify the No Net
Loss Zoning law to require local governments to maintain adequate housing sites at all
times throughout the planning period for all levels of income. It would also require
agencies to make specified findings when they approve a project that would be
developed at fewer units by income category than were identified in the jurisdiction’s
housing element.
AB 72 and SB 879: Housing Elements. AB 72 authorizes the Department of Housing
and Community Development to review actions by cities and counties for compliance
with their adopted housing elements, and allows the Department to revoke housing
element compliance for inconsistent actions. AB 879 makes changes to housing
element requirements and directs the Housing and Community Development
Department to conduct a study evaluating the reasonableness of local fees charged to
housing developments.
AB 1521: Expiring Affordability Restrictions. This bill strengthens the law regarding
the preservation of assisted housing developments by requiring an owner of an assisted
housing development to accept a bona fide offer to purchase from a qualified purchaser,
if specified requirements are met. For assisted housing developments, SB 1521 (1)
requires the owner to provide notice of use restrictions that are expiring after January 1,
2011 to all prospective tenants and existing tenants within 3 years of the scheduled
expiration of rental restrictions; (2) expands potential remedies for failure to provide
notice to include the imposition of prior restrictions, restitution of imprope r rent
increases, and award of attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff; (3) requires
HCD to certify persons or entities that are eligible to purchase the development and to
receive notice of the expiring restrictions based on their experience w ith affordable
housing; (4) revises the procedure regarding the owner’s ability to accept an offer to
purchase; and (5) requires HCD to monitor compliance and provide an annual report to
the legislature beginning in 2019.
AB 571: Farmworker Housing. AB 571 makes several changes to the farmworker
state low income housing tax credit program to make the historically underutilized
program more flexible. Only 50% (rather than 100%) of the units funded under the
program must be occupied by farmworker households. In addition, the bill also makes
several changes to the law regarding migrant farm labor centers for advance payments
up to 20 percent of annual operating costs and measures. These changes to the
farmworker housing are intended to make the projects more feasible and increase the
supply of farmworker housing.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
5.1
Packet Pg. 60
Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Senate Bill No. 35 Eligibility Checklist
5.1
Packet Pg. 61
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
e
n
a
t
e
B
i
l
l
N
o
.
3
5
E
l
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
(
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
o
f
N
e
w
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
)
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
e
n
a
t
e
B
i
l
l
N
o
.
3
5
E
l
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
(
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
o
f
N
e
w
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
)
Page 1 of 4
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: November 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study
Prepared by: Obaid Khan, Transportation and Operations Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider the City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study
(Study). This Study evaluated the feasibility of improving Iron Horse Trail access and
circulation along the trail segment from just north of Dougherty Road crossing to the
East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station parking area in Pleasanton. As part of the Study
review, the City Council will also provide direction on the Iron Horse bridge design type
planned over Dublin Boulevard.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study and provide direction on the
bridge design.
DESCRIPTION:
The Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) directly funded and hired a
consultant to prepare the Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study that analyzed and proposed
the improvements to be considered along this segment of the trail corridor, including the
proposed bridge over Dublin Boulevard. City staff worked with the consultant and is
acting as the local lead agency on this project.
The Study was closely coordinated with the master planning of the 30-acre community
park planned to be constructed as part of The Boulevard at the northeast corner of
Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive intersection. The Park Master Plan layout includes
an area for the footprint of future bridge foundation as well as approach ramps on the
north side of Dublin Boulevard.
An extensive public outreach process was undertaken between January 2015 and May
2016 to understand the types of improvements trail users and stakeholders wanted to
see incorporated into the Iron Horse Trail and bridge crossing of Dublin Boulevard
accessing the BART station. The outreach included a variety of approaches to reach
different types of Dublin residents, trail users, affected agencies and included the
8.1
Packet Pg. 64
Page 2 of 4
following methods to gain public and stakeholder opinions:
Trail Audit Walk and Community Workshop #1 – January 24, 2015
o Group session breakouts and bike/walk tour
Stakeholder Group Interviews – February 6 and 10, 2015
o Trail Users (Bike East Bay, Trail Trekkers, etc.)
o Public Agencies (EBRPD, Cities of Pleasanton and San Ramon, ACTC,
LAVTA, Zone 7, Kinder Morgan Pipelines)
o Local Schools (DUSD, Safe Routes to Schools Advocates, Tri-Valley One
Stop Students)
o City of Dublin Staff (Community Development, Public Works, Dublin Police
Services, Parks and Community Services)
Outreach at the Dublin Farmers’ Market – May 21, 2015
Advisory Committee Meetings (City Staff, BART, EBRPD, LAVTA, ACTC)
Community Workshop #2 – October 7, 2015
ACTC Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee Presentation – October 8, 2015
Zone 7 Field Meeting with Project Partner Agency Staff (BART/LAVTA) –
February 25, 2016
Community Workshop #3 – April 28, 2016
Online Community Survey – Available April 11 to May 19, 2016
After the public outreach process and multi-modal technical assessment, a range of
proposed improvements was compiled to improve safety, comfort, and efficiency for
those traveling on the Iron Horse Trail. The identified near-term and long-term
improvements were intended to enhance trail access for users of all ages and abilities
and to connect more commuters to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.
In addition to several proposed trail enhancements, the bridge crossing over Dublin
Boulevard is being recommended at the future Scarlett Drive intersection. Following the
conclusion of the community workshop process, three bridge types were considered as
shown on page 11 of the Study (attachment 1). Both the Steel Truss Arch and Basket
Handle Arch design types have two slightly different variations for the bridge end
supports and the third bridge type is a Cable Stayed bridge design. Primary selection
criteria focused on selecting the most cost-effective bridge type. While many
participants in the process indicated that they liked the Cable Stayed bridge design,
when costs were considered, they gravitated towards the other design options and
indicated they preferred the Steel Truss Arch much more than the other bridge types.
The "truss arch" bridge design is like the Iron Horse Trail Bridge on Ignacio Valley Road
in Walnut Creek. Figure 3 provides a conceptual rendition of the Steel Truss Arch type
bridge looking easterly along Dublin Boulevard.
FIGURE 2 - Recommended Bridge Type – Steel Truss Arch Bridge over Dublin
Blvd.
8.1
Packet Pg. 65
Page 3 of 4
FIGURE 3 - Bridge Rendition from Dublin Boulevard Looking Easterly
Cost and Funding
Based on preliminary estimates included in the Study, a truss bridge will cost
approximately $5.7 million to construct (not inclusive of construction management and
inspection costs). In addition to the $1 million contribution from The Boulevard
developer, ACTC allocated, in April 2017, $1,294,000 for environmental work and
design for the proposed bridge. It is also anticipated that this project will be eligible for
additional regional multi-modal transportation funding. The City does not anticipate
using any General Fund dollars to design or construct the bridge.
Next Steps
After the City Council provides its feedback on the bridge type, Staff will immediately
release a Request for Proposals for environmental and design services. Staff will then
bring to the City Council a future agenda item that will include the ACTC grant funding
agreement to pay for the environmental and design work, creation of a specific CIP
project, as well as a consulting services contract(s) for the environmental and design
work. This City Council agenda item is anticipated at the January 2018 meeting.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A copy of this report has been provided to Alameda County Transportation Commission
(ACTC) and the ACTC Citizen Watchdog Committee.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study
2. Appendix A to the Study - Relevant Plans and Policies
3. Appendix B to the Study - Existing Conditions & Built Environment Factors
Methodology
4. Appendix C to the Study - Crosswalk Treatments & Detection
8.1
Packet Pg. 66
Page 4 of 4
5. Appendix D to the Study - Grade Separation Cost Estimates and Designs
6. Appendix E to the Study - Detailed Cost Estimates
7. Appendix F to the Study - Preliminary Environmental Review
8.1
Packet Pg. 67
March 2017
City of Dublin Iron Horse TrailFeasibility Study
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
WC14-3178
Project Partners
In Association with:
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
contents
Iron Horse Regional Trail Feasibility Study | FINAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 2
GLOSSARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 4
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ............................pg 6
RELEVANT PLANS & POLICIES ........................pg 16
EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................pg 18
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
& PREFERRED IMPROVEMENTS .....................pg 44
PHASING & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .............pg 66
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .........pg 82
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 85
SECTION 01
SECTION 02
SECTION 03
SECTION 04
SECTION 05
SECTION 06
SECTION 07
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: BEF Rating Methodology Ranges ...................pg 32
TABLE 2: Dublin Iron Horse Trail BEF Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .pg 36
TABLE 3: Forecasted Trail User Demand ......................pg 40
TABLE 4: Trail Segment Alternatives BEF Comparison .........pg 47
TABLE 5: Dublin Blvd Grade Separation Cost Estimates .......pg 53
TABLE 6: Dublin Blvd Crossing BEF Comparison ..............pg 56
TABLE 7: Dougherty Rd Crossing BEF Comparison. . . . . . . . . . . .pg 60
TABLE 8: Transit Zone BEF Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .pg 64
TABLE 9: Possible Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .pg 67
TABLE 10: Iron Horse Trail Phasing & Implementation Plan . . . .pg 68
SECTION 08
SECTION 09
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
2 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
introduction
01
introduction
Iron Horse Trail Feasibility
Study Goal:
The goal of this study
is to identify potential
improvements to enhance
the Iron Horse Trail
within the City of Dublin
by establishing the trail
as a “front door” to the
City and the rest of the
regional trail. Through
enhancements informed
by community and
stakeholder input, the Iron
Horse Trail presents a key
opportunity to increase
the amount of bicycling
and walking within the City
and reduce automobile
trips.
The Iron Horse Regional Trail is a multi-use pathway that runs north-south
through Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, connecting the Cities of
Concord, Walnut Creek, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and the
Town of Danville; and is managed by the East Bay Regional Parks District.
Originally, this 40-mile span of right-of-way was used by the Southern Pacific
Railroad but was abandoned in 1977. The Iron Horse Trail has since become
an active transportation corridor for inland Contra Costa and Alameda
counties providing many connections to residential neighborhoods, parks,
schools, two BART stations, and commercial/retail uses. The Alameda County
Transportation Commission, which oversees transportation funding within
Alameda County, provided a $358,000 grant to explore a funding program
along the trail within the City of Dublin.
After an extensive public outreach process and multi-modal assessment, a
range of proposed improvements was compiled to allow the public and City
officials to begin selecting project elements to improve safety, comfort, and
efficiency for those travelling on the Iron Horse Trail. The identified near-term
and long-term improvements were intended to enhance trail access for
users of all ages and abilities and to connect more commuters to the East
Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station.
This study synthesizes the findings of multiple technical memoranda
produced by the project team over the past year. The information was
consolidated into an overview of the public involvement, existing
conditions, alternatives analysis, and implementation strategy for the trail
within the study area. Figure 1 highlights the Iron Horse Trail Feasibility
study area, which extends from just north of Dougherty Road to the East
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. This area was selected to focus on the trail
access near BART and to address trail crossings at Dougherty Road and
Dublin Boulevard.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Dublin BlvdDublin Blvd
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Project Study Area
Figure X
WC
1
4
-
3
1
7
8
_
X
_
S
t
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
DUBLINDUBLIN
PLEASANTONPLEASANTON
580
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
LEGEND
Iron Horse Trail
Study Area
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 3
Figure 1: Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study Area
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
GLOSSARY
02
4 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
The visual glossary on the following page is meant to act as an easy to use
reference for the active transportation terms used throughout this report.
The intent of the visual glossary is to provide readers with an overview of
commonly used terms by professionals in the bicycle and pedestrian planning
fields.
glossary
Curb Extensions / Bulb-outs
An extension of the sidewalk into the
street to create a shorter pedestrian
crossing distance and make
pedestrians more visible to vehicles.
Class I Shared-use Path
A completely separated right-of-
way for the exclusive use of bicycles
and pedestrian with minimized
interruptions.
Class II Buffered Bicycle Lane
A modified on-street bicycle lane
with a striped buffer to provide clear
delineation from the vehicle travel
lanes.
Advanced Stop Bars
Striped markings before a crosswalk
to advise motorists where to stop
before arriving at an intersection or
crosswalk.
Class II Standard Bicycle Lane
A striped lane for dedicated one-way
bike travel on a roadway.
Class IV Separated Bikeway
(Cycletrack)
A physically separated path along a
street dedicated to bicycles.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 73
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 5
Signal Cycle
The amount of time a traffic signal
will allow all movements to occur.
Long signal cycles can create delay
and frustration.
Wayfinding Signage
A network of signs that highlight
nearby amenities and services that
are accessible from a given location.
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
A signal timing strategy that allows
people walking to proceed during an
all-red phase in order to give them a
head start during the signal cycle.
Long-term Bicycle Parking
Bike lockers or shelters used to house
bicycles for extended periods and
can include smart-card technologies
such as BikeLink.
Passive Signal Detection
Signal actuators that can
automatically sense the presence of
a bicycle or pedestrian in a crosswalk.
Slip Lanes
A dedicated lane for right-turning
vehicles with the expectation that
they will not have to stop.
Speed Feedback Sign
A commonly used device that utilizes
radar to measure and display the
speed of passing vehicles.
Short-term Bicycle Parking
Bike racks that are not usually
secured or sheltered and are
generally found near highly visible
areas or entrances to buildings.
Ladder Crosswalk Striping
This type of striping enables the
crosswalk to be better defined to
automobiles.
Triple-Four Crosswalk
Crosswalk striping with piano key
markings and a gap between them
to direct pedestrian and bicycle
traffic, can include bicycle stencils.
Desire lines
The preferred path of travel for
bicyclists and pedestrians that forms
when users must go out of their way
to reach a destination.
Decomposed Granite (DG)
Pavement building material
composed of weathered granite
typically used for heavy-use paths in
parks or shoulders along trails.
Pedestrian-scale Lighting
Lighting specifically oriented toward
pedestrians that is often lower in
height and spaced closer together
than traditional roadway lighting.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 74
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
03
6 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
community engagement
An extensive public outreach process was undertaken to understand the
types of improvements the public would like to see incorporated into the
Iron Horse Trail. The outreach included a variety of approaches to reach
different types of Dublin residents and included the following methods to
gain public and stakeholder opinions:
• Stakeholder interviews
• A walking/biking audit on the trail
• Three community workshops
• Outreach at the Dublin Farmers Market
• Advisory committee meetings
• Online Alternatives Survey
The workshops and events focused on providing the public with general
information about the project and soliciting important feedback to learn
about what types of improvements would directly benefit residents and
encourage them to use the trail more often. This process allowed for
frequent trail users, occasional users, and even some individuals who never
used the trail before to identify key concerns regarding the Iron Horse Trail.
Feedback received during these outreach efforts focused on issues that
make the trail feel disconnected from the overall transportation network.
Attributes that contributed to this sentiment include: poor pavement
quality, isolated segments, and lack of connectivity with adjacent land uses
Multiple public outreach
strategies were employed
to get feedback from
various trail users.
The workshops and events
focused on providing
the public with general
information and an
opportunity to provide
input on what the trail can
look like in the future.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 75
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 7
such as schools or other points of interest. Comments frequently centered
on the trail’s ability to serve as a viable commuter option due to the long
distances between uses and safety concerns at intersections when there
are heavy volumes of vehicular traffic. Other participants in the outreach
efforts focused on the trail’s role as a place for weekend recreation and to
provide a separate facility that families can use with their children. Historical
information and civic identity for the community could be enhanced
through better use of educational signage and amenities. In terms of safety,
some residents identified that the current trail width creates conflicts
between cyclists and pedestrians, especially on the weekends, since both
pedestrians and cyclists enjoy the opportunity to walk or bike next to a
partner. This creates situations in which cyclists must maneuver around
pedestrians or pedestrians must step off of the pathway to avoid cyclists.
Additionally, some BART and transit commuters highlighted the lack of
lighting along the trail during the evening as a deterrent to being able to
utilize the trail safely since the trail is open between the hours of 5:00 AM to
10:00 PM. The following sections summarize the public outreach efforts that
were held specifically for this project.
Workshop 1: Visioning & Trail Audit -
January 24, 2015
The first workshop was held at Core Performance, a fitness gym in Dublin
near the Iron Horse Trail study segment. It focused on communicating
the overall intent of the project to the public and discussed the existing
conditions of the trail. Participants provided ideas for improving the trail
user experience. The workshop began with a presentation by the consultant
team and City of Dublin staff, followed by a visioning exercise to allow
participants to imagine what their ideal version of the Iron Horse Trail
would look like. The visioning exercise provided an alternative method to
understanding what future improvements could be included in this plan to
meet the needs of participants.
After the initial presentations, attendees had the option to participate in
a bicycle or walking audit of the trail study area. This exercise provided an
opportunity for the consultant team to discuss issues with participants at
the exact problem locations to point out specific issues or areas of concern.
Feedback from participants included the need for landscape improvements,
more efficient connections to BART, the lack of public art and wayfinding,
safety concerns at intersection crossings, and a lack of trail-oriented lighting.
After the audits, the walking and biking groups regrouped to discuss the
problems they noticed in the field and to pinpoint the issues they would
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 76
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
03
8 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
like addressed on blown up maps of the study area. The results from
each groups’ discussion were then shared back to the entire group. The
comments were consolidated into two maps which identified the major
reoccurring themes presented by each group.
The comments and feedback received during the audit and visioning
exercise are summarized into the high-level categories below:
Functionality and Connectivity: Participants stressed the need for a
utilitarian trail with connections to BART and other destinations, with less
emphasis on aesthetics. The trail should be planned as a component of a
larger, more connected Dublin and regional bicycle network.
Active Transportation: Many discussions and comments from participants
were centered on the trail’s role to reduce car trips and a way to encourage
non-auto trips in the region.
Trail Crossings: Several comments revolved around the challenging at-
grade intersections at Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. Heavy traffic
volumes created wide intersections with long pedestrian crossing times.
These crossings were cited as areas that discourage walking and biking on
the trail. Pedestrian over- or under-crossings were frequently mentioned as
possible solutions.
Wayfinding and Signage: Many participants felt that the locations of
nearby destinations, such as the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, were
not obvious while on the trail and were difficult to find if one was unfamiliar
with the area. Trail-oriented wayfinding signage was suggested to help
people find local destinations.
The comments and
feedback received provide
insight into the following
areas:
Functionality and
connectivity to BART,
active transportation
and recreation along the
trail, trail crossing safety
concerns, and wayfinding
needs.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 77
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 9
Dublin Farmers’ Market
May 21, 2015
To present and document feedback on existing conditions
the consultant team and City staff hosted an interactive,
informational exhibit at the Dublin Farmer’s Market on Bike to
Market day. This event allowed Farmers’ Market-goers to vote for
a preferred look and setting of the Iron Horse Trail using other
segments as precedents. The precedent areas allowed market-
goers to better understand how the trail varies throughout the
region and to show ways the trail could be enhanced in Dublin.
This event used existing conditions information and gained
feedback from a diverse cross-section of Dublin residents.
Approximately 30 people provided comments and voted
on their preferred local examples of trail segments, at- grade
crossings, and overcrossings.
Community members were first asked to highlight perceived
problems with the section of the Iron Horse Trail under study, as
well as potential solutions, using poster-sized maps to facilitate
ideas. The majority of the comments received on the study
area maps targeted four major improvement areas: Dougherty
Road crossing, Dublin Boulevard crossing, on-trail experience,
and the trail-to-BART transition. The desire for overcrossings at
both Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard were mentioned
the most. Other concerns were the lack of adequate signage
and wayfinding for nearby destinations. Commenters also
characterized the on-trail experience as “desolate” and
“unfriendly” landscaping as causes of discomfort. Respondents
also suggested non-transportation functions for the trail, such
as community programming or facilities, like a playground
and events for residents. Many commenters mentioned that
the BART connection is difficult, and the study would be very
successful to the degree it can facilitate an easier path to the
station.
An interactive poster labeled “What Makes a Great Trail?”
invited market-goers to vote with stickers on their preferred
example of existing trail segments, at-grade crossings, and trail
overcrossings. Trail segments in Pleasant Hill and San Ramon,
trail at-grade crossings in San Ramon, and trail overcrossings in
Walnut Creek (Ygnacio Valley Road), all garnered the most votes.
Farmers Market
attendees were provided
the opportunity to
highlight components of
what makes a great trail.
Existing Iron Horse Trail
segments from around
the region were used
to provide precent
examples that attendees
could vote on for
inclusion in Dublin.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 78
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
10 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
03
Workshop 2: Preliminary
Improvements -
October 7, 2015
The second workshop was held in the Regional Meeting Room
at the Dublin City Hall. The intention of the workshop was to
solicit community input on potential near-term and long-term
trail improvements. These improvements included updates
to roadway crossings, enhanced connectivity to transit, and
on-trail amenities such as wayfinding and lighting. Input and
results at this workshop would drive the creation of alternatives
for both trail segments and trail crossings, alongside technical
and engineering considerations.
Community members were encouraged to utilize this meeting
as a dialogue and clarifications could be made as the presenters
discussed the proposed improvements. Many participants
wanted to know more about future adjacent developments
and the extension of Scarlett Drive. With multiple projects in the
planning stages surrounding the trail, this project was being
used to ensure coordination between them, to enhance access
to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, and to connection the
trail to the south into Pleasanton. Some concerns were raised
about the cost of grade-separated crossings but participants
liked that the City already has some matching funds provided
by adjacent developments to help pay for the structure at
Dublin Boulevard.
Intersection improvements at Dougherty Road and Dublin
Boulevard were requested in the short-term to help with the
existing difficulties in making these long crossings. The City
indicated that improvements would be included with the
Dougherty Road Widening and Scarlett Drive Extension projects
where possible to help implement improvements in the near-
term. The improvements included enhanced signage to warn
vehicles to the presence of the trail crossing, high-visibility
crossing striping, and aligning the trail with the crossings.
At-grade crossings would be retained should a potential
overcrossing be installed.
Feedback regarding trail segment cross-sections included
a strong desire to have separated facilities for bicycles and
pedestrians where possible or to have a wider trail with a
centerline to clearly delineate where the two-way travel should
be occurring. Shade structures and trees were specifically
requested on both sides of the trail but the project team
explained that the Kinder Morgan pipeline will run between
the trail and Scarlett Drive. Therefore, trees can only be planted
to the east of the trail. Many participants recognized that
incorporating enhancements to the trail through the BART
station to connect with Pleasanton would help to promote the
trail as a safe, comfortable place for more people to ride or walk
to BART. Cyclists were in favor of a separate bikeway (Class IV)
facility through the station to remove bicycle and pedestrian
conflicts near the BART station fare gates.
City of Dublin project
website provided an
easy place to store
project materials
and access the online
alternatives community
survey.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 11
Online Alternatives Community
Survey: Available from April 11,
2016 – May 19, 2016
Workshop 2 feedback was utilized to create Alternatives for both
trail segments and trail crossings. The alternatives were then
incorporated into a publicly available online survey hosted on
the City’s website. The survey was advertised through a variety
of means, including newspapers, the City’s website, social media
outlets, and through verbal announcements at community
meetings, including the third Iron Horse Trail Connectivity Workshop
held on April 28, 2016. The survey had over 80 respondents, and
provides insight into community preferences for the project.
Survey respondents were asked a series of questions, and then had
the option to write in comments and questions. Feedback from
the survey indicated that respondents were strongly in favor of a
new overcrossing at Dublin Boulevard (80 percent of participants
in favor) as opposed to leaving the crossing as strictly at-grade.
Comments included concerns about overall cost-effectiveness,
timely implementation, and safety. Bridge color and design were
lower priorities to survey respondents. Bridge costs were not
provided while viewing the alternatives designs to understand the
preferred design before refining the bridge options. While the most
expensive option for a cable stayed bridge with a tower had the
highest approval rating (3.14 out of 5), it only ranked slightly above
the next highest approval option for a steel truss bridge (3.09 out
of 5). Therefore, Option 1B, a steel truss bridge, was selected as the
preferred alternative from the survey due to the overwhelming
sentiment that cost should be the most important factor since the
estimated cost is significantly less.
For the trail cross-section, survey respondents were presented with
two alternatives. From the alternatives, respondents indicated a
strong preference toward Alternative Two which separates bicycle
and pedestrian travel. The trail can then better accommodate
slower moving pedestrians from faster moving cyclists through
providing each type of user with a dedicated area. Additional
safety measures requested by respondents included pedestrian-
scale lighting, bike speed limit signs, minimization of bollard
use, shade structures or trees, and benches. Other comments
showed support of the unique opportunity to create a corridor
for active transportation modes with many concerned about the
way in which the improvements would be financed. However, an
overcrossing would not be financed by the City, but by regional,
state, and Federal funding sources such as grant programs.
Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Bridge
Alternatives from Community Survey:
1. Steel Truss Arch (Two Options)
2. Basket Handle Arch (Two Options)
3. Cable-Stayed Tower
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
12 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
03
Workshop 3: Alternatives Analysis
& Preferred Improvements -
April 28, 2016
The third workshop presented the project alternatives for both trail
segments and grade separate crossings. Building upon feedback from
Workshop 2 and meetings with the Advisory Committee, the project team
presented two trail segment options and multiple over-crossing alternatives
for the trail crossing at Dublin Boulevard. Participants were invited to vote on
their preferred overcrossing and trail segment design after a presentation by
the project team. The trail cross-section with separate areas for bicycle and
pedestrians was voted much higher than the two-way mixed-flow option.
This is generally attributed to the future context of trail along Scarlett Drive
which will allow the separated pedestrian area to function more similarly to
a sidewalk by providing a lower speed option than when combined with
cyclists.
Discussions with attendees indicated that most were primarily concerned
with selecting the most cost effective bridge type. While many participants
indicated that they like the Cable Stayed bridge design, when costs were
considered they gravitated toward the other design options. Initial cost
estimates were discussed with attendees to give them a sense of the costs
and benefits per bridge design. Descriptions of bridge costs can be found
in Section 6 of this study. Participants indicated that they preferred the Steel
Truss Arch bridge options (1A and 1B) equally much more than the other
options.
Example of bridge
alternatives voting board
from Workshop 3. Trail
cross-section alternatives
were also presented at this
workshop.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 81
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Stakeholder Interviews
Representatives from local agencies or citizen groups that
play a direct role in the governance or use of the Iron Horse
Trail and nearby areas were contacted to be interviewed as
key stakeholders and provide insight to the use of the trail or
related issues. The interviews took place between February 6
and February 10, 2015. Key takeaways from the stakeholder
interviews are summarized below by type of respondent:
Trail Users
This group of stakeholders will be most impacted by any
physical changes to the Iron Horse Trail. Members of this
group represented organizations such as Trail Trekkers, and
Bike East Bay. These representatives provided insights as
advocacy groups that support active transportation, provided
key insights into near-term improvements they would like
to see to improve the functionality of the trail and provided
strategies to help create modal shift in Dublin by addressing
trail crossings and segments.
They described the trail’s user mix as being split between
recreational and commuter users. Conflicts sometimes
arise between the two groups when different types of
users may not understand what the other considers proper
trail etiquette. The Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road
crossings were mentioned as problematic with all stakeholders
identifying the need for a true “trail crossing” rather than a
standard crosswalk. A more seamless and easy connection to
BART, better pavement quality, and enhanced “place-making”
or trail identity for the trail were highlighted as areas that
should be addressed by the study.
City of Dublin Staff
Dublin City staff offered valuable insight into the relationship
between various ongoing City efforts and the potential
for the Iron Horse Trail to have effective connectivity
improvements. This group shared realistic insight about
potential funding sources and strategies often utilized by the
City. Representatives from Community Development, Facilities
Development, Parks & Community Services, Public Works, and
Dublin Police Services participated in the interview process.
The interviews largely focused on the role of the Iron Horse
Trail as a nature park, the need for coordination between
City departments, and the community desire for crossing
improvements at Dublin Boulevard. Adequate lighting was
also suggested as a method to improve perceptions of safety,
especially during the early evenings.
Other Public Agencies
This stakeholder group has the broadest perspective on the
management of the Iron Horse Trail. Representatives from the
East Bay Regional Park District (Park District), City of Pleasanton,
City of San Ramon, Alameda County Transportation
Commission (ACTC), and the Livermore Amador Valley Transit
Authority (LAVTA) were questioned about “off-trail” impacts
and possible interagency coordination issues or potential
political roadblocks that may arise during the various stages of
the planning and implementation of improvements.
Each representative stressed the importance of inter-agency
coordination for any successful project delivery. Key concerns
revolved around the various utility lines that share the trail’s
right-of-way. Zone 7 waterways and Kinder Morgan, an
energy company with pipelines in the area, would need to be
consulted during the engineering phase to resolve conflicts
with their infrastructure.
Local Schools
The priority of these stakeholders is the ongoing safety of
students and enhancing active transportation access to the
schools. Stakeholders included representatives from Dublin
Unified School District, Safe Routes to School advocates,
and Tri-Valley One Stop. Students were identified as the
biggest trail users, often coming from north of Amador Valley
Boulevard or from the Alamo Creek Trail. Staff did not use the
trail as much because many do not live locally within Dublin
or close enough to the schools. Safety was identified as a key
concern by parents of children that walk to schools.
The overall community is seen as safe; however, parents of
students have a poor perception of the trail. The future Dublin
Crossing development will feed into Dublin High School and
new students would benefit to improvements in trail comfort
and safety. A new elementary school in Dublin Crossing would
also have a strong opportunity to connect with the trail.
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 13
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 82
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
14 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
03
Advisory Committee Meetings
An Advisory Committee was established for this project
consisting of local agency stakeholders from City of Dublin
staff, Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), East Bay Regional
Park District, Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority
(LAVTA), and Alameda County Transportation Authority
(Alameda CTC).
City Staff Coordination Meetings
The project team met with City staff multiple times during the
project to discuss alternatives and to coordinate with other
ongoing planning efforts in the City. These meetings were
held at Dublin City Hall and included staff from Transportation,
Public Works, and Parks & Community Services. Trail concepts
and feasibility were discussed for project alternatives along
with discussing how the trail would interact with the Dublin
Crossing Park, Dougherty Road Widening, and Scarlett Drive
Extension projects.
Transit Zone Field Meeting with Project
Partner Agency Staff
The project team met near the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
station on February 25, 2016 with representatives from BART
and LAVTA who operates the Wheels bus system. Alternative
designs and alignments for trail improvements were discussed
with both partner agencies to ensure that transit zone
recommendations would be feasible and not disrupt service
for either agency. The final concept designs were then sent to
each agency for review and comment.
Alameda CTC BPAC Presentation
The project team presented the Preliminary Improvement
Plan and key project recommendations to the Alameda CTC
Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) with City
staff on October 8, 2015. The BPAC was supportive of the
recommended changes and offered further suggestions for
crossing treatments, separating trail users with dedicated
bicycle and pedestrian zones, and improvements near the
Dublin/Pleasant BART station. The comments provided by the
BPAC have been incorporated into the final recommendations
where possible.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 83
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 15
Page intentionally left blank.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 84
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
RELEVANT PLANS & POLICIES
04
16 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
The planning and policy landscape of the Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study
can be illustrated with adopted plans and environmental documents of projects
that are within or immediately proximate to the study area.
relevant plans & policies
Improving the connectivity of the Iron Horse Trail to the East Dublin/
Pleasanton BART station is generally consistent with, and supported
by, existing plans and policies. A number of policies related to land use,
circulation, alternative transportation, and civic identity address improved
cyclist and pedestrian safety and access to transit. Additionally, trail-related
improvements are often prioritized for funding because it is identified as
a regional asset by the City of Dublin and other agencies. Environmental
documents from nearby major projects also suggested potential mitigations
that a future project may need to address. The full-length memorandum
with specifics of each plan, policy, or environmental document can be
found in Appendix A.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 85
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 17
City of Dublin Guiding
Documents
The City of Dublin General Plan is supportive of improvements
to the Iron Horse Trail. One particular consideration is that
the trail is labeled as a “route of regional significance” in the
General Plan. As a result, all physical improvements will be
subject to a design review. Other sections of the General Plan
that are supportive of Iron Horse Trail improvements are those
pertaining to open space, regional identity, pedestrian routes
and bikeways.
Other planning documents with ramifications for the future
of the Iron Horse Trail are the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
2014 Update and the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. Both
documents are a policy foundation for future mixed-use,
high-density transit villages featuring interfaces with the
trail. Expected growth from these developments combined
with planned access to the Iron Horse Trail and transit may
stimulate future growth of trail users. Similarly, to the above,
the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan contains
a series of proposed bicycle networks that will feed into the
Iron Horse Trail and as a result may increase traffic on the Trail.
Other Agencies
Plans produced by agencies proximate to the Iron Horse
Trail include Alameda County, BART, the City of Pleasanton,
and the City of San Ramon. Most significantly, the Alameda
Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian plans both identify the
Iron Horse Trail as a priority in the Countywide Transportation
Expenditure Plan. This significantly improves the financial
feasibility of trail improvements. Although the study area for
this project falls outside of its jurisdiction, BART is generally
supportive of projects that improve bicycle and pedestrian
access to their stations, as specified in the BART Bicycle Plan.
Finally, the City of Pleasanton conducted their own Iron Horse
Trail Feasibility Study and Master Plan. Given that Pleasanton’s
jurisdiction is the portion of the trial immediately south of
the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, opportunities and
constraints identified there may be immediately relevant.
Notably from the report, the Iron Horse Trail right-of-way also
serves as a utility corridor for high-pressure gas lines, high-
voltage transmission towers, fiber optics cables, and a water
main. Environmental challenges include the potential for
ground liquefaction in an earthquake and flooding.
The City of San Ramon conducted a similar Iron Horse Trail
Feasibility Study to analyze potential improvements at the trail
crossings at Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow Canyon Road.
Ultimately, the City of San Ramon chose overcrossings as the
preferred improvements for both arterial crossings.
Environmental Reviews
A series of major projects in the City of Dublin were recently
subject to environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The study areas of these
projects intersect or are sufficiently proximate to the current
study area that environmental impacts affecting them may
also affect the feasibility of Iron Horse Trail improvements.
Generally, five types of environmental constraints were
discussed in the environmental review documents that may
have implications for the Iron Horse Trail feasibility study.
Of primary concern were air quality impacts related to
construction and operation of nearby projects, which could
have an adverse effect on trail users. Given the proximity
of fault lines, existing geological and seismicity-related
constraints as well as flood hazard areas had to be addressed.
Mitigations were also necessary for nearby populations of
protected wildlife. While not of specific relevance to this
project, these types of considerations may need to be
accounted for given the size and scope of the adopted
improvement plan.
Increased traffic as a result of future development was
estimated to result in additional impacts to peak hour Level
of Service (LOS) along Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road.
The EIRs examined grade-separated trail crossings on these
corridors as potential mitigation measures. Traffic impacts
resulting from trail crossing improvements will need to be
considered in the mitigations of other developments.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 86
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
05
18 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
User Experience Along the Trail
The two main trail segments within the study area extend
from Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard and from Dublin
Boulevard to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. These
segments experience similar issues and poorly connect with
adjacent land uses. Pavement conditions range from good
quality, recently paved pathway segments to poor quality
areas with significant cracking. The trail is generally about
10 feet wide throughout the study area and rarely has well-
defined shoulders. If shoulders are present, they are mostly
overgrown with vegetation or sometimes thorny weeds.
The adjacent landscaping is maintained intermittently by the
East Bay Regional Park District or completely absent in some
locations. Immature trees are dispersed along the segment
just north of the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and are
not close enough to the trail to provide shade during any time
of day.
Limited place-making features identify the Iron Horse Trail as
a key destination and transportation facility within Dublin.
Limited signs or gateway amenities indicate its presence to
residents or people passing by. East Bay Regional Parks District
provides limited signage along the trail and a trail map is
installed at the northern end of the BART station. However,
the trail is not identified on the BART station transportation
wayfinding signs located in multiple locations near the BART
Walking and biking on the Iron Horse Trail today, many trail users have
different experiences that can vary due to the changes in adjacent land uses,
access or barriers to transit, access to other regional amenities, or other factors
from the built environment. See Appendix B for the complete detailed analysis.
existing conditions
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 19
fare gates. Additionally, pedestrian-scale lighting is only available near the
BART station fare gates and bus bays. Minimal lighting from adjacent uses
reaches the trail and is primarily directed toward roadways.
While retail, local services, multi-family residential developments, and
other bicycle paths are located near the Iron Horse Trail, there are few
direct connections to reach these locations from the trail. For example, the
Dougherty Road bicycle path instructs southbound bicyclists to cross six
lanes of traffic to connect with the southbound approach from the Iron
Horse Trail on the north side of the intersection. Similarly, the multi-family
developments near the BART station are only accessible by travelling all
the way to the BART station or by deviating from the trail onto Dublin
Boulevard, since no midway access points exist.
Trail users indicated that plants
leave sharp stickers on the path,
which cause flat tires as shown in the
images below along the trail segment
between Dublin Boulevard and
Dougherty Road.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
05
20 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
User Experience at Trail Crossings
Trail crossings within the study area occur at wide, signalized intersections
with long crossing distances and no pedestrian refuge islands. Heavy
vehicle volumes along Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road result in long
signal times which extend delays for trail users. The crosswalks do not signify
the presence of the Iron Horse Trail and are marked as standard crossings
with two lines. Permitted right and left turn movements are allowed across
the trail right-of-way at Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road when trail
users may be crossing. Vehicle speeds were observed to be higher than the
posted speed limits along Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road which
can lead to high-speed turns. This creates potential conflicts with vehicles at
the trail crossing since high volumes of bicyclists and pedestrians use these
crossings and may not be seen by drivers.
Many of the existing intersections provide wider corner radii which
increases pedestrian crossing distances and may cause increases in vehicle
turning speeds. Wide corner radii also reduce the opportunity to to install
directional curb ramps. The existing curb ramps are standard diagonal curb
ramps.
Standard pedestrian actuated push buttons are installed at intersections
but are sometimes placed in positions that encourage cyclists to dismount.
Specific issues at each intersection are described below.
Dublin Boulevard/Iron Horse Trail Intersection at
Scarlett Drive
The Iron Horse Trail crosses Dublin Boulevard at the signalized intersection
with Scarlett Drive. The intersection has a crossing distance of 115 feet.
The signal cycle length is greater than 120 seconds which causes delays
for trail users. Large corner curb radii and the higher posted speed limit
along Dublin Boulevard create a suburban environment for trail users. The
crosswalk itself is striped with standard double white lines without any
special trail markings or indicatations to roadway users that higher than
average levels of bicycles and pedestrians may be crossing at that location.
The median on Dublin Boulevard does not have a refuge-type amenity.
Crosswalks at the intersection are offset from the trail’s desire line and there
is a lack of signage to direct trail users on how to continue along the trail. As
bicyclists approach the crossing area, they need to make 90-degree turns to
use the pedestrian actuated push button to call the pedestrian signal.
The Dublin Boulevard trail
crossing requires many
sharp turns.
These maneuvers make
it difficult for bicyclists to
navigate the intersection
and access the push
buttons. Trail users often
had trouble finding their
way back to the trail due
to a lack of directional
signage.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 21
Houston Place/Scarlett Drive Intersection
The trail runs parallel to Scarlett Drive adjacent to the Houston Place/Scarlett
Drive intersection. It is possible to travel northbound or southbound along the
trail without entering the intersection. Scarlett Drive dead ends at Houston
Place; however, Houston Place is side-street stop controlled for the eastbound
approach. The trail can be accessed via an uncontrolled crosswalk across
Scarlett Drive. Trail users here can access a nearby residential neighborhood as
well as businesses along Houston Place. Directional wayfinding signage is not
provided and the pathway connection itself between the Iron Horse Trail and the
intersection itself is narrow. Standard double-white line striping is provided for
the crosswalk.
Iron Horse Trail Crossing: Dublin Boulevard at Scarlett Drive
Iron Horse Trail Connection:
Houston Place/Scarlett Drive
Intersection
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
05
22 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Dougherty Road/Iron Horse Trail Intersection at Scarlett
Drive
Similar to the Dublin Boulevard/Scarlett Drive intersection, the intersection with
Dougherty Road is 130 feet long with a signal cycle length of greater than 120
seconds. The posted speed limit on Dougherty Road is 40 mph. The crosswalk
itself is a standard double white line and there is no median refuge. Large corner
curb radii do not feature curb extensions. While the crosswalks align with the
trail’s desire lines, the curb ramps need to be upgraded to further align with the
the crosswalks (see Figure 5b).
The northbound and southbound right-turn slip lanes may encourage higher
turning speeds. The slip lanes create channelized pedestrian waiting islands
(called “pork chops”). These pork chops have narrow pathways which make two-
way travel difficult for people biking and walking together in the same space.
Approaches to the crossing share similar issues to the intersection at Dublin
Boulevard; namely, that push button actuators are inconveniently located for
cyclists. However, unlike Dublin Boulevard, the approach to the push buttons
is more direct and does not require cyclists to make 90-degree turns. The push
button on the southern side of the crossing is located on a side of the path
which requires that cyclists dismount. The placement also on the left side of
the trail against oncoming trail users and may require dismounting if other
users are present. Permitted northbound right-turns, westbound right-turns,
and southbound left-turns are allowed to made through the trail crossing.
Westbound left-turns are protected and do not conflict with trail crossings.
Limited features highlight the presence of the Iron Horse Trail nearby, and there is
no wayfinding signage to identify nearby amenities or destinations.
The Dougherty Road crossing
has a long crossing distance
and a pork chop island with
narrow pass throughs.
With a slip lane and an
access road to the north of
the intersection, trail users
face potential conflicts with
vehicles.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 23
User Experience Near the BART Station
The East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is located between the eastbound and
westbound lanes of Interstate 580 (I-580) and can be accessed from either the
Dublin or Pleasanton sides via the BART Access Road that crosses under I-580.
Figure 2 (on page 24) on the following page shows the alignment of the Trail
through the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station “Transit Zone.” The Transit Zone,
for the purpose of this study, is generally defined as the greater BART station area,
inclusive of the bus boarding areas on the north and south sides of I-580. The
Transit Zone is generally the area south of Dublin Boulevard and north of Owens
Drive. Through this Zone, the trail transitions from a typical Class I path south of
Dublin Boulevard to a roadway-grade side path separated with a raised curb on
the west side of the BART Access Road. The trail then shares an alignment with
the BART sidewalk underneath I-580 and through the Pleasanton-side parking
lots. The sidewalk is designated as a “Bicycle dismount zone” and provides access
to the BART fare gates. Sidewalk widths range from about 20’ to 25’ throughout
the undercrossing. However, some sidewalk areas are reduced to less than 10’
where long-term bicycle parking is placed. To the south (on the Pleasanton side),
the Trail is aligned with a wide sidewalk on the west side of the BART Access Road
and extends through the Pleasanton-side parking lot to the intersection of the
Iron Horse Trail/Owens Drive.
Extending between DeMarcus Boulevard in Dublin and the Pleasanton-side
parking lot, the BART Access Road is designated for buses only and has travel
lanes that are typically 20.5’ wide under the I-580 overcrossing. The BART Access
Road has bus pull outs under the I-580 overcrossing to allow for passenger drop-
offs near the BART fare gates. There are also bus pull-outs on the east and west
sides of the Dublin-side bus shelter area north of I-580 and bus pull-outs on the
south side of the roadway on the Pleasanton-side bus shelter area where buses
pick up passengers. Underneath I-580, there is one marked crosswalk which
connects the Dublin-side bus area and multi-family residential uses to the BART
station. This crosswalk is aligned with the BART fare gates and serves passengers
coming from the Dublin parking lots, local businesses, residences, and bus stops.
BART and Bus Connections
The East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is a key multi-modal hub for both
Dublin and Pleasanton residents and employees and can be accessed from both
jurisdictions. Parking lots/garages are highly utilized and located on each side of
I-580. Bus stops are also located on both the Dublin and Pleasanton sides. Figure
2 details these features and indicates the bus routes that access the BART station.
Some pedestrian wayfinding exists but is primarily oriented toward bus and BART
riders making a BART/bus transfer or coming from one of the parking lots/garage.
There is minimal trail-oriented wayfinding signage within the Transit Zone or
within the station area directly near the BART fare gates.
The BART fare gates can be
accessed under the Interstate
I-580 overcrossing.
This image (below) from the
south side of the BART area
shows the lack of dedicated
bicycle facilities to directly
access the BART fare gates.
The north side bus bays
provide the primary bus
operations to the Transit
Zone.
Looking northbound from
the north side of the I-580
overcrossing it is evident
that bicyclists and pedestrian
facilities are inadequate and
are in need of repair.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
05
24 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
:
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
n
d
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
/
P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
o
n
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 93
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 25
The BART Access Road carries little traffic despite being the primary bus
route through the area. During the PM peak hour there are typically up to 12
northbound and 9 southbound bus trips on the BART Access Roadway. Similarly,
the BART Access Roadway typically experiences up to 10 northbound and 11
southbound bus trips during the AM peak hour.
The BART station is served by four main bus operators. The Central Contra Costa
Transit Authority (CCCTA) operates County Connection routes 35, 36, and 97X.
The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority operates the Wheels routes 1,3,
10, 12, 12X, and 20X. The Tri-Valley Rapid also accesses the station and is operated
by Wheels as a high-frequency bus line that operates between East Livermore
and West Pleasanton. Amtrak also operates a bus stop at the BART station that
connects to Stockton for train services.
The Modesto Area Express (MAX) operates an express route between the
Modesto Downtown Transportation Center and the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART
station. The BART access roadway, parallels the Trail connection north of the BART
station and runs under the I-580 overcrossing to allow certain bus routes access
to either the north or south bus stops. Additionally, BART Police vehicles and
various maintenance vehicles utilize the BART Access Road.
Bicycle Access to BART and Buses
Bicyclists can access the Transit Zone using the trail from Dublin or Pleasanton.
Signage near the freeway undercrossing indicates that bicyclists are required to
dismount and walk their bikes through the BART station area. Figure 3 on the
next page highlights the dismount area and bicycle parking locations within the
Transit Zone. On the Dublin-side, the ten-foot-wide trail approach to the BART
Access Road is at roadway grade and has lower quality pavement. This portion
of the trail is adjacent to a chain link fencing (“hard barrier”) on one side and an
asphalt curb on the other. As a result of the poor pavement quality and dismount
zone, more confident riders typically ride in the roadway and share the lane with
buses.
Bicycle parking at the BART station consists of long-term lockers and short-term
racks both inside and outside of the fare gates. In total there are approximately
102 short-term spaces and 36 long-term spaces on both the Dublin and
Pleasanton sides of the station. During weekday field observations, the short-
term spaces were almost fully occupied by 7:30 AM near the BART fare gates
under the freeway. As a result, bicycles were locked to the pedestrian barricade
in the median under I-580, indicating spillover in short-term parking in the area
directly in front of the fare gates. However, no bicycles were observed at the
northernmost or southernmost short-term spaces, which are approximately 600
feet away from the BART fare gates. This is likely due to their placement away
from the BART fare gates and outside of direct lines of sight of BART patrons and
BART Police where people may feel their bikes would be in jeopardy of being
stolen.
The East Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station area map does
not show the Iron Horse Trail
through the station (above).
Bicyclists are instructed to
walk their bikes through
the station area but is often
ignored by cyclists (below).
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
05
26 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Figure 3: Bicycle Amenities and
Access to Transit
Figure 4: Pedestrian Amenities
and Access to Transit
Mixed-Use Development
Mixed-Use Development
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 95
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 27
Figure 3 also shows the primary and secondary bicycle paths of travel observed
during a typical weekday morning commute. A few bicyclists were observed
riding on the sidewalks within the dismount zone to access bicycle parking.
Many cyclists ride on the sidewalk and do not dismount or ride on the BART
access road. A number of bicyclists were observed wrong-way riding northbound
in the southbound bus lane against bus traffic. A fairly high volume of cyclists
were observed exiting the BART station and then using the bus lanes which
require them to cross a vertical curb near the southern drop-off area to access
the Owens Drive & Willow Road intersection. No access ramp is provided at that
location to facilitate that bicycle desire line.
The “Bicyclists Must Dismount” signs are posted in the shared sidewalk space on
either side of the fare gates and at the southern and northern sides of the I-580
overcrossing. However, during multiple site visits, few bicyclists were observed
dismounting their bikes when approaching the BART station from either the
northbound or southbound approaches. This area is viewed as a large gap in
the continuity of the trail to most users and adequate signage is not provided to
properly direct the various trail users through the station.
Pedestrian Access to BART and Buses
Pedestrians who access the BART fare gate area were observed to primarily
come from the Dublin-side BART parking garage located to the north of the
station. Many of those exiting the BART station utilized the trail crossing on
the Pleasanton side to access office uses. The bus stations and mixed-use/
multi-family residential developments on the Dublin-side were observed to
provide about a quarter of the amount of pedestrian traffic as compared to the
pedestrian volumes from the parking garage. Pedestrian activity from the Dublin
portion of the trail was relatively small (not from adjacent land uses), as the
nearest existing residential uses adjacent to the trail are over half a mile north
of the BART station which are generally more accessible by bicycle. Figure 4
highlights the pedestrian amenities and most used paths of travel within the
The I-580 overcrossing
features lighting aimed
toward bicyclists and
pedestrians.
However, once outside
of the BART station area
limited pedestrian-scale
lighting is available with
most lighting aimed
toward the streets.
Iron Horse Trail Connection:
North of the BART Access Road
at DeMarcus Boulevard.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
28 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
EXISTING CONDITIONS
05
transit area.
A median barricade channelizes pedestrians to cross at the
marked crosswalk opposite the fare gates; however, some
pedestrians crossed near the bus bays on the Dublin-side,
and followed the trail on the west side of the roadway. Some
pedestrians walking from the BART parking garage were
observed walking in the northbound bus lane under I-580 to
enter the crosswalk and avoid large groups of people exiting
the BART fare gates.
Lighting
Pedestrian-scale lighting is not provided north of the BART
Access Road along the Iron Horse Trail connection to Dublin
Boulevard. The Iron Horse Trail may be used between the
hours of 5:00 AM to 10:00 PM, unless otherwise posted or
permitted according the East Bay Regional Park District.
However, there are four street lights that provide minimal
lighting to the trail alongside the BART Access Road across
from the Dublin-side bus bays. Lighting is also installed under
the I-580 overcrossing and along the walkways/bus bays with
a small cluster of lights at the southern end of the Transit Zone.
On the Pleasanton-side, some lighting is provided through the
kiosk areas.
User Experience Connecting
to the Trail
Bicycle Comfort Connecting to the Trail
Access to the trail for bicyclists traveling on the existing street
network can often be uncomfortable or stressful for riders
who are not as confident riding next to high volume or higher
speed roadways. The level of stress or comfort perceived by
a cyclist is heavily influenced by many factors. While some
streets experience low traffic speeds and volumes that create
an enjoyable bicycling experience for most users, other
roadways may contain high traffic speeds and volumes with
no separation from the travel lanes that cause the rider to feel
less safe. Depending on the level of stress, some cyclists may
be dissuaded from bicycling to the Iron Horse Trail because
of the perception of danger, despite the presence of existing
bicycle facilities. Improvements can be made to reduce the
stress felt by these riders to encourage riders of all ages and
abilities to comfortably access the trail.
To establish whether existing roadways and bicycle facilities
feel stressful to the average rider, a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
analysis was conducted to evaluate user perception of those
facilities. This methodology measures how much stress is
experienced by bicyclists due to various characteristics of
roads and bicycle facilities. The Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
methodology was developed by the Mineta Transportation
Institute in Low Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity1,
and is based on an application of Dutch bicycling standards
and existing research in bicycle transportation. LTS rankings
range from 1 (very low stress; tolerable by all) to 4 (very high
stress; tolerable to only a few). The LTS analysis for Iron Horse
Trail access was conducted in a manner consistent with
the methodology developed by Merkuria, Furth, and Nixon
(2012) which builds upon the Mineta Transportation Institute’s
methodology by setting the LTS score based on the weakest
link of each bicycle or roadway facility approach.
LTS is closely related to the Four Types of Cyclists theory
developed by Roger Geller at the Portland Office of
Transportation. This theory highlights the varying percentages
of the population’s willingness to ride a bicycle and where
they feel comfortable riding. LTS measures the quality of a
person’s experience while bicycling and can help identify
facilities where less confident riders feel comfortable and
safe. Low stress bikeways (LTS 1 and 2) are generally tolerated
by the largest percentage of the population known as the
“Interested but Concerned” group of cyclists (60 percent of
the population). In contrast, high stress bikeways are tolerated
by the smallest percentage of the population known as
“Strong and Fearless” cyclists (less than one percent of the
population). The development of low-stress connections and
the elimination of high-stress barriers is critical to attracting
new riders from the largest groups of potential cyclists
(“Enthused and Confident” and “Interested but Concerned”) to
feel comfortable on facilities adjacent to the trail.
1 Mekuria, Maaza, Peter Furth, and Hilary Nixon. Low-Stress
Bicycling and Network Connectivity. Mineta Transportation
Institute, San Jose State University, 2012. Print.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 97
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 29
LTS Analysis Results
The LTS methodology was applied to existing and proposed
bicycle facilities from the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan network for bicycle facilities and major roadways within
one mile of the Iron Horse Trail. Small neighborhood streets
where excluded from the analysis because they typically score
as LTS 1 due to low vehicle volumes and speed. The results
of the LTS analysis are shown in Figure 5 on the next page
which also highlights opportunity areas to increase bicycle
connectivity.
The on-street Class II Bicycle Lanes along Amador Valley
Boulevard have an LTS Score of 3 – suggesting that only
confident and experienced cyclists would be comfortable
using the bicycle facility. This score is due to the relatively high
speed limit and width of the bicycle operating way (bicycle
lane plus parking lane when applicable). Although some
segments of Amador Valley Boulevard would at times rate LTS
2, the methodology calls for the worst score to be applied to
an entire segment because of the mental barrier provided by
stressful situations throughout a corridor.
Dougherty Road ranks as LTS 4 primarily because of its high
traffic volume, varying presence of bicycle lanes, width of
available bicycle lanes, and posted speed limit. The Dougherty
Road Widening project will add consistent Class II bicycle lanes
(non-buffered) from Sierra Lane to the City limits.
Dublin Boulevard maintains an LTS 3 rating due to the Class II
bicycles lanes located directly next to high speed and volume
travel lanes. However, a Class I Multi-use path is located
along the northern side of Dublin Boulevard as an extension
of the Tassajara Creek Trail. Proposed low-stress bikeways in
the area around the BART station should present a number
of viable alternatives for cyclists of all abilities. Intersection
treatments recommended in the City of Dublin Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan Design Guidelines should continue to
be implemented to reduce stress at intersections. Ensuring
bicycle treatments carry through the intersection and provide
clear direction to cyclists about where they should be will help
to increase the perception of safety to the general cyclist.
Improving LTS and the presence of bicycle facilities along
major roadways that bisect the Iron Horse Trail can enhance
the user experience and provide easier access to the trail.
Other local destinations will also be easier to access from the
trail itself and can highlighted with destination wayfinding.
Pedestrian Connectivity Barriers and
Opportunities
In Dublin, access for pedestrians to the Iron Horse Trail is
primarily provided by connecting adjacent or intersecting
streets such as at the intersections with Dougherty Road and
Dublin Boulevard. While there are a number of planned and
existing residential uses that surround the trail in Dublin, most
potential trail users would need to travel around the path to
one of these two intersections in order to use the path. An
access point at Houston Place and Scarlett Drive is provided
between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard. There is also
one access point between Dublin Boulevard and the BART
fare gates at DeMarcus Boulevard but is made indirectly by
crossing over bus travel lanes.
With varying types of land-uses fronting the Iron Horse Trail,
pedestrian barriers include fencing around development
with minimal access points. Increasing permeability to land
uses will help to make the trail feel more like a front door
to these developments instead of the closed off back door
feeling which currently exists. Many of these fences can be
retrofitted for public or private use by installing gates to private
developments or removing gates altogether. For example, an
apartment building may provide access to the trail for their
tenants by installing multiple controlled access points.
Future developments should also plan for trail access by
providing access points at potential dead-end streets. The
future Dublin Crossing Park will also provide connections to
the trail. Figure 6 shows the locations of existing barriers
and opportunity areas for improved trail access. Additional
connectivity improvements to the Alamo Creek Trail are also
highlight near where both trails intersect. Many of these
connectivity improvements will involve discussions with
local property owners in order to implement or finance
enhancements.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 98
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
30 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
EXISTING CONDITIONS
05
Iron H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Alamo
C
a
n
a
l
T
r
a
i
l
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
l
v
d
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
l
v
d
Tassajara RdTassajara Rd
Doug
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Doug
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Village PkwyVillage Pkwy
Arnold RdArnold Rd
A
m
a
d
o
r
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
A
m
a
d
o
r
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
Hacienda DrHacienda Dr
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
k
w
y
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
k
w
y
Silvergate Dr Silvergate Dr
Hopya
r
d
R
d
Hopya
r
d
R
d
San Ramon
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
San Ramon
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
Scarlett DrScarlett Dr
Ho
u
s
t
o
n
P
l
Ho
u
s
t
o
n
P
l
Iron Horse PkwyIron Horse Pkwy
Foothill Rd Foothill Rd
Demarcus BlvdDemarcus Blvd
A
l
c
o
s
t
a
B
l
v
d
A
l
c
o
s
t
a
B
l
v
d
DU
B
L
I
N
DU
B
L
I
N
SA
N
R
A
M
O
N
SA
N
R
A
M
O
N
PL
E
A
S
A
N
T
O
N
PL
E
A
S
A
N
T
O
N
68
0
58
0
WC14-3178_1_Ex+PropBikeLTS
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
t
r
e
s
s
a
n
d
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
e
s
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
LE
G
E
N
D
LT
S
1
LT
S
2
LT
S
3
LT
S
4
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
On
e
-
M
i
l
e
B
u
e
r
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
s
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
T
r
a
c
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
L
T
S
)
:
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
s
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
T
r
a
c
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
L
T
S
)
:
LT
S
1
LT
S
2
LT
S
3
LT
S
4
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Iron H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Alamo
C
a
n
a
l
T
r
a
i
l
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
l
v
d
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
l
v
d
Tassajara RdTassajara Rd
Doug
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Doug
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Village PkwyVillage Pkwy
Arnold RdArnold Rd
A
m
a
d
o
r
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
A
m
a
d
o
r
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
Hacienda DrHacienda Dr
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
k
w
y
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
k
w
y
Silvergate D
r
Silvergate D
r
Hopya
r
d
R
d
Hopya
r
d
R
d
San Ramon
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
San Ramon
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
Scarlett DrScarlett Dr
Ho
u
s
t
o
n
P
l
Ho
u
s
t
o
n
P
l
Iron Horse PkwyIron Horse Pkwy
Foothill Rd Foothill Rd
Demarcus BlvdDemarcus Blvd
A
l
c
o
s
t
a
B
l
v
d
A
l
c
o
s
t
a
B
l
v
d
D
U
B
L
I
N
D
U
B
L
I
N
SA
N
R
A
M
O
N
SA
N
R
A
M
O
N
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
O
N
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
O
N
68
0
58
0
WC14-3178_1_Ex+PropBikeLTS
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
t
r
e
s
s
a
n
d
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
e
s
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
LE
G
E
N
D
LT
S
1
LT
S
2
LT
S
3
LT
S
4
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
On
e
-
M
i
l
e
B
u
e
r
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
s
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
T
r
a
c
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
L
T
S
)
:
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
s
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
T
r
a
c
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
L
T
S
)
:
LT
S
1
LT
S
2
LT
S
3
LT
S
4
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
:
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
t
r
e
s
s
a
n
d
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 99
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 31
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
Cu
r
b
c
u
t
Cu
r
b
c
u
t
Cu
r
b
c
u
t
Cu
r
b
c
u
t
Cu
r
b
c
u
t
Cu
r
b
c
u
t
Un
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
g
a
t
e
s
h
e
r
e
w
o
u
l
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
t
r
a
i
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
t
h
e
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
g
a
t
e
s
a
t
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
c
a
n
be
r
e
t
r
o
t
t
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
te
n
a
n
t
-
o
n
l
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
c
o
u
l
d
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
f
e
a
t
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
I
r
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
tr
a
i
l
s
a
s
a
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
a
m
e
n
i
t
y
In
s
t
a
l
l
c
u
r
b
c
u
t
s
an
d
b
o
l
l
a
r
d
s
Tr
a
i
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
o
ne
a
r
b
y
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
a
te
n
a
n
t
-
o
n
l
y
g
a
t
e
Tr
a
i
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
f
o
r
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
m
a
y
b
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
-
c
u
t
s
an
d
b
o
l
l
a
r
d
s
An
a
c
c
e
s
s
p
o
i
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
a
n
d
C
a
m
p
b
e
l
l
La
n
e
w
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
to
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
n
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
LE
G
E
N
D
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Cl
a
s
s
1
B
i
k
e
P
a
t
h
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
o
w
-
S
t
r
e
s
s
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
T
r
a
i
l
A
c
e
s
s
P
o
i
n
t
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
T
r
a
i
l
A
c
e
s
s
P
o
i
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
F
r
o
m
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
&
T
r
a
i
l
s
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
Ga
t
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
Cu
r
b
c
u
t
Cu
r
b
c
u
t
Cu
r
b
c
u
t
Cu
r
b
c
u
t
Cu
r
b
c
u
t
Cu
r
b
c
u
t
Un
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
g
a
t
e
s
h
e
r
e
w
o
u
l
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
t
r
a
i
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
t
h
e
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
g
a
t
e
s
a
t
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
c
a
n
be
r
e
t
r
o
t
t
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
te
n
a
n
t
-
o
n
l
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
c
o
u
l
d
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
f
e
a
t
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
I
r
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
tr
a
i
l
s
a
s
a
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
a
m
e
n
i
t
y
In
s
t
a
l
l
c
u
r
b
c
u
t
s
an
d
b
o
l
l
a
r
d
s
Tr
a
i
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
o
ne
a
r
b
y
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
a
te
n
a
n
t
-
o
n
l
y
g
a
t
e
Tr
a
i
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
f
o
r
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
m
a
y
b
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
-
c
u
t
s
an
d
b
o
l
l
a
r
d
s
An
a
c
c
e
s
s
p
o
i
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
a
n
d
C
a
m
p
b
e
l
l
La
n
e
w
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
to
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
n
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
LE
G
E
N
D
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Cl
a
s
s
1
B
i
k
e
P
a
t
h
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
o
w
-
S
t
r
e
s
s
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
T
r
a
i
l
A
c
e
s
s
P
o
i
n
t
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
T
r
a
i
l
A
c
e
s
s
P
o
i
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
F
r
o
m
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
&
T
r
a
i
l
s
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Figure 2
Fi
g
u
r
e
6
:
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
F
r
o
m
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
&
T
r
a
i
l
s
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
32 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
EXISTING CONDITIONS
05
Evaluating Trail User Comfort
Methodology Overview
Trail users along separated pathways are generally less
exposed to drivers than bicyclists and pedestrians using other
types of facilities. The LTS methodology does not evaluate
the difference between trails or measure the quality of the
experience. Class I Multi-use trail default to a rating of LTS
1. Additionally, at trail crossings these users can encounter
situations where vehicles may not be expecting bicycles or
pedestrians. The LTS methodology also does not evaluate trail
crossings.
As a result, people of varying ages and abilities may not feel
comfortable using certain parts of these types of facilities.
Many design elements of the trail make for more comfortable
user experiences along trails such as trail amenities,
maintained landscaping with visual interest, usable shoulders,
and more. To evaluate user comfort and to understand
the key design elements that benefit user comfort, a Built
Environment Factors (BEF) rating methodology was used to
measure how the existing trail segments and trail crossings
are experienced by trail users. The BEF methodology scores
the presence, absence, and quality of specific infrastructure
elements that are important to bicyclists’ and pedestrians’
perception of trail comfort. This customized methodology
allows for the identification of specific design elements to be
included in the proposed project and may help understand
why portions of the trail in other communities are particularly
successful and enjoyed by users. This particular set of scoring
criteria and weighting was developed using input from the
public at Workshop #1 and from City staff. Additional detail on
the methodology can be found in Appendix B.
Because the needs of trail users are distinct as they travel
along the path compared to roadway crossings, three BEF
methodologies were developed to analyze the following
criteria for existing conditions and potential future conditions:
• Trail Segments - trail width, shoulders, shade,
landscaping, amenities, wayfinding, pavement
quality, connectivity, maintenance, and lighting.
• At-Grade Crossings - crossing distance, user comfort,
leading pedestrian/bicycle intervals, vehicular turning
movements, curb radii, detection, path approach
comfort, gateway/wayfinding features, decorative
paving or triple four trail striping, cycle length,
vehicular speeds, and presence of slip lanes.
• Grade-Separated Crossing - trail width, at-grade
crosswalks, path approach comfort to/from adjacent
networks, gateway/wayfinding features, bridge
lighting, bridge structure fencing/siding, bridge
structure design, and sight distances/visibility along
the path.
Precedent Evaluation
As a regional trail that serves the needs of many different
Alameda and Contra Costa County communities,
understanding the Iron Horse Trail study area within Dublin as
compared to the trail as whole is important. Selected portions
of the trail were used to provide a diverse understanding of
the trail’s varying characteristics within nearby jurisdictions
and to identify the design elements that influence trail user
comfort in that area. One at-grade crossing in San Francisco
was identified for inclusion in this analysis due to its design
characteristics for comparison purposes. Limited examples
signalized crossings at intersections with conflicts removed
through phasing currently exist along the Iron Horse Trail.
Using the proposed BEF methodology, facilities can receive a
rating of poor, good, or excellent. The BEF methodology rates
the different facility types using the ranges presented in Table
1 below and Figure 7 summarizes precedent characteristics.
Table 1: BEF Rating Methodology Ranges
Facility Type Minimum
Possible Rating
Maximum
Possible Rating
Poor Rating
Range
Good Rating
Range
Excellent
Rating Range
Trail Segment -11 points 22 points
>0 points 1-9 points 10+ PointsAt-Grade Trail Crossing -12 points 21 points
Grade Separated Trail Crossing -9 points 16 points
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 101
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 33
Figure 7a: Precedent BEF Ratings
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 102
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
section title
34 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
EXISTING CONDITIONS
05
Figure 7b: Precedent BEF Ratings
Oversized
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 103
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 35
Figure 7c: Precedent BEF Ratings
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 104
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
36 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
EXISTING CONDITIONS
05
Table 2: Dublin Iron Horse Trail Existing Conditions Built Environment Factors Evaluation
Dublin Iron Horse Trail Study Area Location BEF Rating
Trail Segments
Iron Horse Trail Segment along the BART Access Road (North of the I-580 overcrossing) to
DeMarcus Boulevard Intersection Poor
Iron Horse Trail Segment between BART Access Roadway/DeMarcus Boulevard Intersection and
Dublin Boulevard Poor
Iron Horse Trail Segment between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road Poor
At-Grade Crossings
Dublin Boulevard/Iron Horse Trail Intersection at Scarlett Drive (Signalized)Poor
Dougherty Road/Iron Horse Trail Intersection at Scarlett Drive (Signalized)Poor
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015..
Based on the detailed BEF rating methodology presented in Appendix B, the precedent
locations were evaluated and then used to recalibrate the BEF rating system to provide
regionally balanced outcomes that are mostly Iron Horse Trail-specific. The results are also
presented with details on Figure 7. The outcomes of the precedent evaluation are also
used to identify design elements to promote visual consistency throughout the corridor,
as well as to better understand how these issues are dealt with in adjacent jurisdictions.
Detailed information can be found in Appendix B.
Dublin Iron Horse Trail Evaluation Results
Once the BEF methodology was recalibrated using the precedent locations from other
areas along the Iron Horse Trail, the BEF ratings were established for the Dublin Iron Horse
Trail segments and crossings using their existing conditions. Table 2 below details the BEF
ratings for the segments and crossings within the study area.
Many of the trail segment BEF ratings in other locations received higher ratings than those
within the study area. This is attributable to the inclusion of more trail amenities, presence
of shoulders, and better visual appeal. Generally, the trail segments in the study area
scored low for comfort, missing shoulders and shade features, and poor pavement quality.
At-grade crossings within the study area rated similarly to other at-grade signalized
crossings along the trail. Design elements that contributed to the study area crossings
low ratings included long crossing distances, higher vehicular speeds, uncomfortable
maneuvers for bicycles and pedestrians, and the presence of a slip lane in one location.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 105
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 37
Land Use & Forecasts
Existing & Future Land Use
The Iron Horse Trail study area is surrounded by varying types of land uses.
Immediately west of the trail are commercial and residential uses. To the east, the
land is largely undeveloped due to the U.S. Army-owned Camp Parks training
center. The Camp Parks area is approved to be developed as Dublin Crossing,
a large subdivision with approximately 1,995 housing units and up to 200,000
square feet of commercial space. The Dublin Crossing development will directly
interface with the Iron Horse Trail in the northern part of the study area and is
expected to rebuild the portion of the trail between Dougherty Road and Dublin
Boulevard.
North of the Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive intersection lies large amounts of
residential uses including affordable units at Emerald Vista with a mix of single-
family homes and multi-family developments. At the East Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station, a large portion of the Transit Village Center is constructed or under
construction, this area is planned to have approximately 1,800 housing units and
up to two million square feet of campus office space. Figure 8 shows future land
use developments in relation to the Iron Horse Trail study area.
Figure XX-X
Iron Horse Trail Connectivity Feasibility Study
Future Land Use Trends
City of Dublin, 2013, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
City of Dublin, 2014, Updated Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
City of Dublin, 2015, Annual Progress Report on the Dublin General Plan and Housing Element
^
^
OWENS DR
DO
U
G
H
E
R
T
Y
R
D
JOHNSO H
O
P
Y
A
R
D
R
D
SC
A
R
L
E
T
T
D
R
.
^^DOUGGHERRTY
RRD
Dublin Crossing
-1,995 Housing Units
-200k SF Commercial
-IHT Interface Policies
Valley
High
School
Wells
Middle
School
JOHNSON DR.
1
2
3
Transit Village Center
Sub-Area
-1,800 Housing Units
-2 million SF Campus Office
Future park,
30 acres
580
54 6
1/2 Mile Study Area
Study Intersection
BART Route
Dublin/Pleasanton
City Limit
Iron Horse Trail
Dublin Crossing
Future Dougherty
Road Widening:
4 to 6 Lanes plus
Bike Lane
Future Scarlett
Drive Extension
Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station
Future G St./IHT
Intersection
Transit Village Center Sub-Area
Land Use
Campus Office
High Density
Residential
Medium High Density
Residential
Public/Semi-Private
Park
Transit Village Center Projects:
Site A-1: 52 Units
Avalon II: 505 Units
Esprit: 105 Units
Camelia Pl: 112 Units
Elan: 257 Units
Avalon I: 305 Units
Vacant Parcel
1
2
3
4
5
6
DUBLIN BLVD
Figure XX-X
Iron Horse Trail Connectivity Feasibility Study
Future Land Use Trends
City of Dublin, 2013, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
City of Dublin, 2014, Updated Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
City of Dublin, 2015, Annual Progress Report on the Dublin General Plan and Housing Element
^
^
OWENS DR
DO
U
G
H
E
R
T
Y
R
D
JOHNSO H
O
P
Y
A
R
D
R
D
SC
A
R
L
E
T
T
D
R
.
^^DOUGGHERRTY
RRD
Dublin Crossing
-1,995 Housing Units
-200k SF Commercial
-IHT Interface Policies
Valley
High
School
Wells
Middle
School
JOHNSON DR.
1
2
3
Transit Village Center
Sub-Area
-1,800 Housing Units
-2 million SF Campus Office
Future park,
30 acres
580
54 6
1/2 Mile Study Area
Study Intersection
BART Route
Dublin/Pleasanton
City Limit
Iron Horse Trail
Dublin Crossing
Future Dougherty
Road Widening:
4 to 6 Lanes plus
Bike Lane
Future Scarlett
Drive Extension
Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station
Future G St./IHT
Intersection
Transit Village Center Sub-Area
Land Use
Campus Office
High Density
Residential
Medium High Density
Residential
Public/Semi-Private
Park
Transit Village Center Projects:
Site A-1: 52 Units
Avalon II: 505 Units
Esprit: 105 Units
Camelia Pl: 112 Units
Elan: 257 Units
Avalon I: 305 Units
Vacant Parcel
1
2
3
4
5
6
DUBLIN BLVD
Figure 8: Future Land Use Trends Near the Iron Horse Trail
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 106
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
38 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
EXISTING CONDITIONS
05
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Demand
and Future Forecasts
Existing peak commuting period trail user counts were taken
in June 2015 at the Dublin Boulevard and Iron Horse Trail
intersection crossing at Scarlett Drive. The counts took place on
a weekday in the morning between 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and
in the afternoon between 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM. Additionally,
Saturday counts were conducted between 7:00 AM to 11:00 AM
to analyze the difference between commuters and recreational
trail users.
During the weekday morning commute period, there were
approximately 140 bicyclists and pedestrians that used Dublin
Boulevard and Iron Horse Trail intersection at Scarlett Drive. Of
those 140 users, approximately 50 percent of the observed trail
users traveled from the northern part of the Iron Horse Trail
through the intersection and then continued southbound on
the Iron Horse Trail toward BART. During the evening commute
period, there were approximately 260 total bicyclists and
pedestrians utilizing the intersection. Roughly 40 percent of
those users came from the Transit Zone area to the south of
the intersection using the trail. However, almost 50 percent of
evening those accessing the intersection headed northbound
on the Iron Horse Trail from the intersection.
During the Saturday morning peak recreation period there
was a total of 284 bicyclists and pedestrians utilizing the trail.
While the majority of users had origins and destinations from
the trail, the number of users connecting from the east leg of
Dublin Boulevard was much higher than during the weekday
commute periods. Additionally, there were 67 trail users who
utilized this intersection crossing to help them continue
traveling along the Iron Horse Trail during the Saturday
recreation period. Figure 9 highlights the existing trail user
volume movements at the Dublin Boulevard and Iron Horse
Trail crossing at Scarlett Drive.
Existing daily trail users were projected using the peak hour
counts and data provided by East Bay Regional Parks District
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Ad
a
m
s
A
v
e
Ad
a
m
s
A
v
e
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
5th St5th St
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Dublin BlvdDublin Blvd
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Ad
a
m
s
A
v
e
Ad
a
m
s
A
v
e
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
5th St5th St
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Dublin BlvdDublin Blvd
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
WC
1
4
-
3
1
7
8
_
1
_
I
H
T
-
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Preliminary Intersection Improvements
Iron Horse Trail Preliminary Improvement Plan
Figure 1
LEGEND
Iron Horse Trail
General Preliminary Improvement Areas
Specic Preliminary Improvement Locations
N:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
_
W
C
1
4
\
W
C
1
4
-
3
1
7
8
.
0
0
_
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
_
S
t
u
d
y
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
4
.
2
_
T
r
a
v
e
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Counts at the Iron Horse Trail Crossing
Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive Intersection
LEGEND
Iron Horse Trail
XX (YY) [ZZ] - Morning Peak Period (Evening Peak Period) [Saturday Peak Period]
Peak Period Pedestrian Volume Counts Peak Period Bicycle Volume Counts
3 (
3
)
[
1
4
]
20
(
7
)
[
1
3
]
0 (
1
)
[
2
]
3 (
5
)
[
2
]
0 (
1
)
[
2
]
3 (
6
)
[
3
]
0 (
2
6
)
[
8
]
6 (
1
6
)
[
1
4
]
5 (8) [2]
5 (6) [25]
0 (6) [4]
0 (0) [1]
3 (5) [1]
0 (1) [13]
5 (8) [17]
9 (
2
0
)
[
1
0
]
46
(
1
8
)
[
2
7
]
0 (
1
)
[
1
]
0 (
0
)
1
2 (
0
)
0
2 (
4
)
[
2
]
1 (
5
1
)
[
3
6
]
0 (
7
)
[
4
]
2 (6) [6]
2 (3) [6]
3 (1) [2]
2 (3) [1]
4 (2) [12]
13 (25) [28]
Figure 9: Peak Period Trail User Volumes at the Iron Horse Trail Crossing with Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Ad
a
m
s
A
v
e
Ad
a
m
s
A
v
e
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
5th St5th St
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Dublin BlvdDublin Blvd
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Ad
a
m
s
A
v
e
Ad
a
m
s
A
v
e
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
5th St5th St
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Dublin BlvdDublin Blvd
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
WC
1
4
-
3
1
7
8
_
1
_
I
H
T
-
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Preliminary Intersection Improvements
Iron Horse Trail Preliminary Improvement Plan
Figure 1
LEGEND
Iron Horse Trail
General Preliminary Improvement Areas
Specic Preliminary Improvement Locations
N:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
_
W
C
1
4
\
W
C
1
4
-
3
1
7
8
.
0
0
_
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
_
S
t
u
d
y
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
4
.
2
_
T
r
a
v
e
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Counts at the Iron Horse Trail Crossing
Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive Intersection
LEGEND
Iron Horse Trail
XX (YY) [ZZ] - Morning Peak Period (Evening Peak Period) [Saturday Peak Period]
Peak Period Pedestrian Volume Counts Peak Period Bicycle Volume Counts
3 (
3
)
[
1
4
]
20
(
7
)
[
1
3
]
0 (
1
)
[
2
]
3 (
5
)
[
2
]
0 (
1
)
[
2
]
3 (
6
)
[
3
]
0 (
2
6
)
[
8
]
6 (
1
6
)
[
1
4
]
5 (8) [2]
5 (6) [25]
0 (6) [4]
0 (0) [1]
3 (5) [1]
0 (1) [13]
5 (8) [17]
9 (
2
0
)
[
1
0
]
46
(
1
8
)
[
2
7
]
0 (
1
)
[
1
]
0 (
0
)
1
2 (
0
)
0
2 (
4
)
[
2
]
1 (
5
1
)
[
3
6
]
0 (
7
)
[
4
]
2 (6) [6]
2 (3) [6]
3 (1) [2]
2 (3) [1]
4 (2) [12]
13 (25) [28]
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 107
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 39
(Park District). The counts provided by the Park District did not provide data consistent with
the peak hour count numbers. However, the trail forecasting tool in the following section
assists with calculating daily users and provided a more reasonable daily user total. Based
on that tool and the local population, a total of approximately 680 daily bicyclists and
pedestrians utilize the Iron Horse Trail. Figure 10 shows the population totals near the Iron
Horse Trail from the 2010 US Census used to forecast future trail demand (Note that the
population bands displayed are not inclusive of the other bands shown).
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
Stoneridge Dr
And
r
e
w
s
D
r
W Las Po
s
i
t
a
s
B
l
Owens Dr
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
R
d
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
D
r
Id
l
e
w
o
o
d
S
t
Gleason Dr
Cr
o
m
w
e
l
l
A
v
Fr
a
n
k
l
i
n
D
r
Broder Bl
Ol
d
S
a
n
t
a
R
i
t
a
R
d
Dublin Bl
S
t
o
n
e
r
i
d
g
e
M
a
l
l
R
d
O
w
e
n
s
C
t
C
h
a
n
t
i
l
l
y
D
r
Sie
r
r
a
C
t
Ca
m
p
P
a
r
k
s
B
l
Martinelli Wy
Amad
o
r
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
G i b r altarDr
Ar
n
o
l
d
R
d
Central Pw
Se
b
i
l
l
e
R
d
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
P
k
w
y
Dublin
B
l
§¨¦580
§¨¦680
\\
F
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
C
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
C
1
4
-
3
1
7
8
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
f
i
g
0
x
_
b
u
f
f
e
r
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
Population within ¼ mile, ¼-½ mile, and
½-1 mile of the Iron Horse Trail
(Census 2010)
Figure 1
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Dublin/Pleasanton City Limit
¼ mile:
3,669qqq
¼-½ mile:
2,588qqq
½-1 mile:
12,581qqq
Figure 10: Existing Population Totals near the Iron Horse Trail
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 108
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
40 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
EXISTING CONDITIONS
05
Forecasted Trail User Demand
Understanding the potential for increased walking and biking trips on the Trail, it is
important to plan and design for future users as well as those already using the trail
today. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 552:
Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities was used to estimate the
potential for walking and biking. This methodology builds off the assumption that a
project will increase ridership proportional to residents’ distance from the improved
facility and is correlated with population density and regional mode share. However,
that methodology does not take into account the large amount of new residential
development planned within Dublin Crossing. As a result, a forecast with and
without Dublin Crossing was developed, as shown in Table 3. With Dublin Crossing,
1,319 trail users are expected in 2040, and 1,188 without Dublin Crossing in 2040.
Table 3: Forecasted Trail User Demand without and with Dublin Crossing
Future Conditions (2040) without
Dublin Crossing
Future Conditions (2040) with Dublin
Crossing
Existing Bike/Ped Users (Daily)686 686
New Bike/Ped User (Daily)503 634
Total Future Bike/Ped Users (Daily)1,188 1,319
Percent Increase in Bike/Ped Users (Daily)73%92%
Source: Based on the NCHRP Report 552, Fehr & Peers, 2015.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 109
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 41
Existing Auto Demand and Future Forecasts
The Iron Horse Regional Trail is bisected by two large arterial roadways within the
study area. The arterials - Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road - create barriers
to access and comfort for trail users. To assess the effect of these roadways on the
trail experience under current conditions and potential future scenarios, existing
auto volumes and future auto demand forecasts were examined.
Weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak period
intersection turning movement counts were collected at the study intersections
shown on Figure 8 in January and February 2015 for the Dublin Kaiser
Transportation Impact Report (Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2015).
For the study intersections, the single hour with the highest traffic volumes
during the count periods was identified. The AM peak hour in the study area
is generally from 7:30 to 8:30 AM and the PM peak hour is generally from 4:45
to 5:45 PM. The peak hour volumes are presented on Figure 11 along with the
existing lane configuration and traffic control.
Future Auto Forecasts
Future auto demand was derived using the City of Dublin Travel Demand Model
to produce intersection turning movement volumes for Existing, Near-Term
(2025), and Future (2040) conditions. The derived auto volumes were approved
for use in the Dublin Kaiser Transportation Impact Report (prepared by Fehr
& Peers, 2015) and take into account future shifts in auto travel within Dublin.
The Scarlett Drive extension, Dougherty Road widening, and other planned
infrastructure improvements contribute to these shifts near the Iron Horse Trail
crossings.
Both Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard will experience substantial increases
in automobile trips through 2040 due to the buildout of large land development
projects near the Iron Horse Trail. Increased automobile volumes along these
roadways may negatively affect trail user experiences when attempting to cross
at these locations. Additionally, the increase in automobile traffic highlights
the need to prioritize intersection upgrades to accommodate efficient and
safe bicycle and pedestrian travel. Figure 11 details the peak hour automobile
forecasts at the arterial intersections with the Iron Horse Trail at Scarlett Drive/
Dougherty Road, Scarlett Drive/Dublin Boulevard, and Dougherty Road/Dublin
Boulevard.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 110
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
42 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
EXISTING CONDITIONS
05
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Dublin BlvdDublin Blvd
5th St5th St
Owens DrOwens Dr
4th St4th St
6th St6th St
Ar
n
o
l
d
R
d
Ar
n
o
l
d
R
d
Ama
d
o
r
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
Ama
d
o
r
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Central PkwyCentral Pkwy
Ho
p
y
a
r
d
R
d
Ho
p
y
a
r
d
R
d
Wi
l
l
o
w
R
d
Wi
l
l
o
w
R
d
Da
v
i
s
A
v
e
Da
v
i
s
A
v
e
Ch
a
b
o
t
D
r
Ch
a
b
o
t
D
r
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
D
r
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
D
r
Gleason DrGleason Dr
Broder BlvdBroder Blvd
Sie
r
r
a
C
t
Sie
r
r
a
C
t
Gibraltar DrGibraltar Dr
Ke
p
p
l
e
r
A
v
e
Ke
p
p
l
e
r
A
v
e
Tamarack DrTamarack Dr
Scarlett CtScarlett Ct
Rosewood DrRosewood Dr
Br
y
a
n
t
A
v
e
Br
y
a
n
t
A
v
e
3r
d
S
t
3r
d
S
t
N
A
v
e
N
A
v
e
Ad
a
m
s
A
v
e
Ad
a
m
s
A
v
e
Y
o
r
k
D
r
Y
o
r
k
D
r
Mo
n
r
o
e
A
v
e
Mo
n
r
o
e
A
v
e
P
e
n
n
D
r
P
e
n
n
D
r
A
m
a
d
o
r
P
l
z
R
d
A
m
a
d
o
r
P
l
z
R
d
Lo
r
i
n
g
A
v
e
Lo
r
i
n
g
A
v
e
7th St7th St
As
p
e
n
S
t
As
p
e
n
S
t
Franklin DrFranklin Dr
Fl
o
r
i
a
n
S
t
Fl
o
r
i
a
n
S
t
A
p
p
i
a
n
S
t
A
p
p
i
a
n
S
t
Ev
a
n
s
A
v
e
Ev
a
n
s
A
v
e
Sierra L
n
Sierra L
n
And
r
e
w
s
D
r
And
r
e
w
s
D
r
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
D
r
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
D
r
Hu
t
c
h
i
n
s
A
v
e
Hu
t
c
h
i
n
s
A
v
e
Madigan DrMadigan Dr
Summer Glen DrSummer Glen Dr
S
p
r
i
n
g
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
S
p
r
i
n
g
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Cla
r
k
A
v
e
Cla
r
k
A
v
e
Demarcus BlvdDemarcus Blvd
Maple
D
r
Maple
D
r
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
Jones StJones St
S
t
o
n
e
r
i
d
g
e
M
a
l
l
R
d
S
t
o
n
e
r
i
d
g
e
M
a
l
l
R
d
Ed
e
n
S
t
Ed
e
n
S
t
Pe
r
s
i
m
m
o
n
D
r
Pe
r
s
i
m
m
o
n
D
r
Lan
c
a
s
t
e
r
R
d
Lan
c
a
s
t
e
r
R
d
Si
e
n
a
S
t
Si
e
n
a
S
t
Powers StPowers St
Dublin
C
t
Dublin
C
t
P
r
i
n
c
e
D
r
P
r
i
n
c
e
D
r
E
m
e
r
a
l
d
A
v
e
E
m
e
r
a
l
d
A
v
e
G
i
b
r
a
l
t
a
r
D
r
S
G
i
b
r
a
l
t
a
r
D
r
S
Fe
r
n
a
n
d
e
z
A
v
e
Fe
r
n
a
n
d
e
z
A
v
e
Cedar L
n
Cedar L
n
Mangrove DrMangrove Dr
Winterbrook AveWinterbrook Ave
P
o
r
t
a
g
e
R
d
P
o
r
t
a
g
e
R
d
Bake
r
D
r
Bake
r
D
r
Spru
c
e
L
n
Spru
c
e
L
n
Warmsley StWarmsley StBurnham WayBurnham Way
King Wa
y
King Wa
y
My
r
t
l
e
D
r
My
r
t
l
e
D
r
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
Elba
W
a
y
Elba
W
a
y
Ebensb
u
r
g
L
n
Ebensb
u
r
g
L
n
G
o
l
d
e
n
G
a
t
e
D
r
G
o
l
d
e
n
G
a
t
e
D
r
Asterwood DrAsterwood Dr
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
D
r
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
D
r
Li
n
d
e
n
S
t
Li
n
d
e
n
S
t
Ha
w
k
W
a
y
Ha
w
k
W
a
y
Hic
k
o
r
y
L
n
Hic
k
o
r
y
L
n
Fawn WayFawn Way
Redwood AveRedwood Ave
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
L
n
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
L
n
Houston PlHouston Pl
Ventura DrVentura Dr
Bedford WayBedford Way
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
P
k
w
y
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
P
k
w
y
O
w
e
n
s
C
t
O
w
e
n
s
C
t
Stagecoach DrStagecoach Dr
Ha
v
e
n
P
l
Ha
v
e
n
P
l
Tory W
a
y
Tory W
a
y
Civ
i
c
P
l
z
Civ
i
c
P
l
z
Comme
r
c
e
C
i
r
Comme
r
c
e
C
i
r
Newcastle LnNewcastle Ln
Al
l
e
g
h
e
n
y
D
r
Al
l
e
g
h
e
n
y
D
r
Trinit
y
C
t
Trinit
y
C
t
P
o
s
t
R
d
P
o
s
t
R
d
B
u
r
t
o
n
S
t
B
u
r
t
o
n
S
t
Embarcadero CtEmbarcadero Ct
Ithac
a
W
a
y
Ithac
a
W
a
y
Id
l
e
w
o
o
d
S
t
Id
l
e
w
o
o
d
S
t
Am
a
n
d
a
S
t
Am
a
n
d
a
S
t
Gen
o
v
e
s
i
o
D
r
Gen
o
v
e
s
i
o
D
r
Doree
n
C
t
Doree
n
C
t
Am
b
e
r
g
l
e
n
S
t
Am
b
e
r
g
l
e
n
S
t
Allbrook CirAllbrook Cir
D
o
v
e
r
C
t
D
o
v
e
r
C
t
Riga
t
t
i
C
i
r
Riga
t
t
i
C
i
r
Frederiksen CtFrederiksen Ct
G
e
o
r
g
i
s
P
l
G
e
o
r
g
i
s
P
l
T
o
r
i
n
o
C
t
T
o
r
i
n
o
C
t
Sa
g
i
n
a
w
C
i
r
Sa
g
i
n
a
w
C
i
r
Ch
e
r
r
y
C
t
Ch
e
r
r
y
C
t
Comme
r
c
e
D
r
Comme
r
c
e
D
r
Pine
C
t
Pine
C
t
Ch
e
s
t
n
u
t
C
t
Ch
e
s
t
n
u
t
C
t
Ni
c
e
C
t
Ni
c
e
C
t
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
C
t
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
C
t
Comanche WayComanche Way
Birch CtBirch Ct
McWillia
m
s
L
n
McWillia
m
s
L
n
E
l
b
a
C
t
E
l
b
a
C
t
Stoneridge DrStoneridge Dr
3rd St3rd St
De
m
a
r
c
u
s
B
l
v
d
De
m
a
r
c
u
s
B
l
v
d
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
7th St7th St
Rose
w
o
o
d
D
r
Rose
w
o
o
d
D
r
3rd St3rd St
DUBLINDUBLIN
PLEASANTONPLEASANTON
680
580
WC
1
4
-
3
1
7
8
_
2
_
I
H
T
-
T
r
a
i
l
Preliminary Trail Segment Improvements
Iron Horse Trail Preliminary Improvement Plan
Figure 2
LEGEND
Iron Horse Trail
1
2
3
AAACCCFF
59
0
(
84
0
)
77
0
(
1
,
49
0
)
31
0
(
28
0
)
AA
CC
C
FF
30 (130)
360 (1,060)
400 (740)
AACCCE
11
0
(
80
)
1,
62
0
(
1
,
06
0
)
46
0
(
46
0
)
AA
A
C
C
C
F 310 (1,120)
1,200 (1,360)
260 (370)
3. Dougherty Rd./Dublin Blvd.
Dublin Blvd.
Do
u
g
h
er
t
y
Rd
.
AF
50
(
80
)
30
(
60
)
HC
C
C
F
0 (0)
980 (1,850)
110 (50)
AC
C
C 1,520 (2,750)
40 (30)
2. Scarlett Dr./Dublin Blvd.
Dublin Blvd.
Sc
a
r
l
e
tt
D
r
.
ACF
5
(
1
5
)
1,
8
0
4
(
1
,
2
0
0
)
5
(
5
)
ACF
20
(
3
5
)
96
0
(
2
,
0
4
1
)
5
(
1
0
)
AC
F
10 (20)
0 (0)
95 (100)
ACF 5 (5)
0 (0)
10 (5)
1. Scarlett Dr./Dougherty Rd.
Scarlett Dr.
Iron Horse Trail
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
.
ACF
5
(
1
5
)
2,
0
8
5
(
1
,
4
9
3
)
5
(
5
)
ACF
20
(
3
5
)
1,
0
8
5
(
2
,
6
9
5
)
5
(
1
0
)
AC
F
10 (20)
0 (0)
95 (100)
ACF 5 (5)
0 (0)
10 (5)
1. Scarlett Dr./Dougherty Rd.
Scarlett Dr.
Iron Horse Trail
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
.
ACF
5
(
1
5
)
2,
0
5
0
(
1
,
2
9
0
)
76
0
(
5
9
0
)
ACF
20
(
3
5
)
82
0
(
1
,
8
9
5
)
5
(
1
0
)
AC
F
10 (20)
15 (10)
80 (90)
ACF 300 (1,330)
10 (20)
10 (20)
1. Scarlett Dr./Dougherty Rd.
Scarlett Dr.
Iron Horse Trail
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
.
AAACCCFF
65
0
(
92
0
)
77
0
(
1
,
75
0
)
33
0
(
28
0
)
AA
CC
C
FF
30 (130)
710 (1,500)
490 (840)
AACCCE
11
0
(
80
)
1,
95
0
(
1
,
25
0
)
80
(
60
)
AA
A
C
C
C
F 50 (60)
1,470 (1,990)
260 (370)
3. Dougherty Rd./Dublin Blvd.
Dublin Blvd.
Do
u
g
h
er
t
y
Rd
.
AE
50
(
80
)
10
(
20
)
30
(
70
)
AC
C
C
F
10 (20)
960 (1,800)
110 (50)
AACCF
10
(
10
)
10
(
10
)
76
0
(
59
0
)
AC
C
C
F 300 (1,330)
1,660 (2,130)
40 (30)
2. Scarlett Dr./Dublin Blvd.
Dublin Blvd.
Sc
a
r
l
e
tt
D
r
.
AAACCCFF
55
1
(
82
4
)
66
2
(
1
,
51
4
)
32
5
(
30
8
)
AA
CC
C
FF
24 (120)
427 (825)
336 (639)
AACCCE
10
2
(
79
)
1,
44
0
(
89
8
)
57
1
(
45
5
)
IA
A
C
C
C
F 355 (724)
924 (860)
266 (432)
12 (30)
3. Dougherty Rd./Dublin Blvd.
Dublin Blvd.
Do
u
g
h
er
t
y
Rd
.
AF
47
(
79
)
21
(
57
)
HC
C
C
F
8 (15)
1,160 (1,544)
107 (49)
IC
C
C 1,580 (1,814)
35 (17)
4 (4)
2. Scarlett Dr./Dublin Blvd.
Dublin Blvd.
Sc
a
r
l
e
tt
D
r
.
Existing Conditions
Near-Term Conditions (2025)
Future Conditions (2040)
WC
1
4
-
3
1
7
8
_
X
_
A
u
t
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
Automobile Forecasts
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Trac VolumesXX (YY)
Study Intersection#
Signalized Intersection
Stop SignSTOP
LEGEND
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Dublin BlvdDublin Blvd
5th St5th St
Owens DrOwens Dr
4th St4th St
6th St6th St
Ar
n
o
l
d
R
d
Ar
n
o
l
d
R
d
Ama
d
o
r
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
Ama
d
o
r
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Central PkwyCentral Pkwy
Ho
p
y
a
r
d
R
d
Ho
p
y
a
r
d
R
d
Wi
l
l
o
w
R
d
Wi
l
l
o
w
R
d
Da
v
i
s
A
v
e
Da
v
i
s
A
v
e
Ch
a
b
o
t
D
r
Ch
a
b
o
t
D
r
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
D
r
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
D
r
Gleason DrGleason Dr
Broder BlvdBroder Blvd
Sie
r
r
a
C
t
Sie
r
r
a
C
t
Gibraltar DrGibraltar Dr
Ke
p
p
l
e
r
A
v
e
Ke
p
p
l
e
r
A
v
e
Tamarack DrTamarack Dr
Scarlett CtScarlett Ct
Rosewood DrRosewood Dr
Br
y
a
n
t
A
v
e
Br
y
a
n
t
A
v
e
3r
d
S
t
3r
d
S
t
N
A
v
e
N
A
v
e
Ad
a
m
s
A
v
e
Ad
a
m
s
A
v
e
Yo
r
k
D
r
Yo
r
k
D
r
Mo
n
r
o
e
A
v
e
Mo
n
r
o
e
A
v
e
P
e
n
n
D
r
P
e
n
n
D
r
A
m
a
d
o
r
P
l
z
R
d
A
m
a
d
o
r
P
l
z
R
d
Lo
r
i
n
g
A
v
e
Lo
r
i
n
g
A
v
e
7th St7th St
As
p
e
n
S
t
As
p
e
n
S
t
Franklin DrFranklin Dr
Fl
o
r
i
a
n
S
t
Fl
o
r
i
a
n
S
t
A
p
p
i
a
n
S
t
A
p
p
i
a
n
S
t
Ev
a
n
s
A
v
e
Ev
a
n
s
A
v
e
Sierra L
n
Sierra L
n
And
r
e
w
s
D
r
And
r
e
w
s
D
r
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
D
r
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
D
r
Hu
t
c
h
i
n
s
A
v
e
Hu
t
c
h
i
n
s
A
v
e
Ma
d
i
g
a
n
D
r
Ma
d
i
g
a
n
D
r
Summer Glen DrSummer Glen Dr
S
p
r
i
n
g
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
S
p
r
i
n
g
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Cla
r
k
A
v
e
Cla
r
k
A
v
e
Demarcus BlvdDemarcus Blvd
Maple
D
r
Maple
D
r
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
Jones StJones St
S
t
o
n
e
r
i
d
g
e
M
a
l
l
R
d
S
t
o
n
e
r
i
d
g
e
M
a
l
l
R
d
Ed
e
n
S
t
Ed
e
n
S
t
Pe
r
s
i
m
m
o
n
D
r
Pe
r
s
i
m
m
o
n
D
r
Lan
c
a
s
t
e
r
R
d
Lan
c
a
s
t
e
r
R
d
Si
e
n
a
S
t
Si
e
n
a
S
t
Powers StPowers St
Dublin
C
t
Dublin
C
t
P
r
i
n
c
e
D
r
P
r
i
n
c
e
D
r
E
m
e
r
a
l
d
A
v
e
E
m
e
r
a
l
d
A
v
e
G
i
b
r
a
l
t
a
r
D
r
S
G
i
b
r
a
l
t
a
r
D
r
S
Fe
r
n
a
n
d
e
z
A
v
e
Fe
r
n
a
n
d
e
z
A
v
e
Cedar L
n
Cedar L
n
Mangrove DrMangrove Dr
Winterbrook AveWinterbrook Ave
P
o
r
t
a
g
e
R
d
P
o
r
t
a
g
e
R
d
Bake
r
D
r
Bake
r
D
r
Spru
c
e
L
n
Spru
c
e
L
n
Warmsley StWarmsley StBurnham WayBurnham Way
King Wa
y
King Wa
y
My
r
t
l
e
D
r
My
r
t
l
e
D
r
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
Elba
W
a
y
Elba
W
a
y
Ebensb
u
r
g
L
n
Ebensb
u
r
g
L
n
G
o
l
d
e
n
G
a
t
e
D
r
G
o
l
d
e
n
G
a
t
e
D
r
Asterwood DrAsterwood Dr
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
D
r
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
D
r
Li
n
d
e
n
S
t
Li
n
d
e
n
S
t
Ha
w
k
W
a
y
Ha
w
k
W
a
y
Hic
k
o
r
y
L
n
Hic
k
o
r
y
L
n
Fawn WayFawn Way
Redwood AveRedwood Ave
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
L
n
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
L
n
Houston PlHouston Pl
Ventura DrVentura Dr
Bedford WayBedford Way
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
P
k
w
y
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
P
k
w
y
O
w
e
n
s
C
t
O
w
e
n
s
C
t
Stagecoa
c
h
D
r
Stagecoa
c
h
D
r
Ha
v
e
n
P
l
Ha
v
e
n
P
l
Tory W
a
y
Tory W
a
y
Civ
i
c
P
l
z
Civ
i
c
P
l
z
Comme
r
c
e
C
i
r
Comme
r
c
e
C
i
r
Newcastle LnNewcastle Ln
Al
l
e
g
h
e
n
y
D
r
Al
l
e
g
h
e
n
y
D
r
Trinity
C
t
Trinity
C
t
P
o
s
t
R
d
P
o
s
t
R
d
B
u
r
t
o
n
S
t
B
u
r
t
o
n
S
t
Embarcadero CtEmbarcadero Ct
Itha
c
a
W
a
y
Itha
c
a
W
a
y
Id
l
e
w
o
o
d
S
t
Id
l
e
w
o
o
d
S
t
Am
a
n
d
a
S
t
Am
a
n
d
a
S
t
Gen
o
v
e
s
i
o
D
r
Gen
o
v
e
s
i
o
D
r
Doree
n
C
t
Doree
n
C
t
Am
b
e
r
g
l
e
n
S
t
Am
b
e
r
g
l
e
n
S
t
Allbrook CirAllbrook Cir
D
o
v
e
r
C
t
D
o
v
e
r
C
t
Riga
t
t
i
C
i
r
Riga
t
t
i
C
i
r
Frederiksen CtFrederiksen Ct
G
e
o
r
g
i
s
P
l
G
e
o
r
g
i
s
P
l
T
o
r
i
n
o
C
t
T
o
r
i
n
o
C
t
Sa
g
i
n
a
w
C
i
r
Sa
g
i
n
a
w
C
i
r
Ch
e
r
r
y
C
t
Ch
e
r
r
y
C
t
Comme
r
c
e
D
r
Comme
r
c
e
D
r
Pine
C
t
Pine
C
t
Ch
e
s
t
n
u
t
C
t
Ch
e
s
t
n
u
t
C
t
Ni
c
e
C
t
Ni
c
e
C
t
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
C
t
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
C
t
Comanche WayComanche Way
Birch CtBirch Ct
McWillia
m
s
L
n
McWillia
m
s
L
n
E
l
b
a
C
t
E
l
b
a
C
t
Stoneridge DrStoneridge Dr
3rd St3rd St
De
m
a
r
c
u
s
B
l
v
d
De
m
a
r
c
u
s
B
l
v
d
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
7th St7th St
Rose
w
o
o
d
D
r
Rose
w
o
o
d
D
r
3rd St3rd St
DUBLINDUBLIN
PLEASANTONPLEASANTON
680
580
WC
1
4
-
3
1
7
8
_
2
_
I
H
T
-
T
r
a
i
l
Preliminary Trail Segment Improvements
Iron Horse Trail Preliminary Improvement Plan
Figure 2
LEGEND
Iron Horse Trail
1
2
3
AAACCCFF
59
0
(
84
0
)
77
0
(
1
,
49
0
)
31
0
(
28
0
)
AA
CC
C
FF
30 (130)
360 (1,060)
400 (740)
AACCCE
11
0
(
80
)
1,
62
0
(
1
,
06
0
)
46
0
(
46
0
)
AA
A
C
C
C
F 310 (1,120)
1,200 (1,360)
260 (370)
3. Dougherty Rd./Dublin Blvd.
Dublin Blvd.
Do
u
g
h
er
t
y
Rd
.
AF
50
(
80
)
30
(
60
)
HC
C
C
F
0 (0)
980 (1,850)
110 (50)
AC
C
C 1,520 (2,750)
40 (30)
2. Scarlett Dr./Dublin Blvd.
Dublin Blvd.
Sc
a
r
l
e
tt
D
r
.
ACF
5
(
1
5
)
1,
8
0
4
(
1
,
2
0
0
)
5
(
5
)
ACF
20
(
3
5
)
96
0
(
2
,
0
4
1
)
5
(
1
0
)
AC
F
10 (20)
0 (0)
95 (100)
ACF 5 (5)
0 (0)
10 (5)
1. Scarlett Dr./Dougherty Rd.
Scarlett Dr.
Iron Horse Trail
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
.
ACF
5
(
1
5
)
2,
0
8
5
(
1
,
4
9
3
)
5
(
5
)
ACF
20
(
3
5
)
1,
0
8
5
(
2
,
6
9
5
)
5
(
1
0
)
AC
F
10 (20)
0 (0)
95 (100)
ACF 5 (5)
0 (0)
10 (5)
1. Scarlett Dr./Dougherty Rd.
Scarlett Dr.
Iron Horse Trail
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
.
ACF
5
(
1
5
)
2,
0
5
0
(
1
,
2
9
0
)
76
0
(
5
9
0
)
ACF
20
(
3
5
)
82
0
(
1
,
8
9
5
)
5
(
1
0
)
AC
F
10 (20)
15 (10)
80 (90)
ACF 300 (1,330)
10 (20)
10 (20)
1. Scarlett Dr./Dougherty Rd.
Scarlett Dr.
Iron Horse Trail
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
.
AAACCCFF
65
0
(
92
0
)
77
0
(
1
,
75
0
)
33
0
(
28
0
)
AA
CC
C
FF
30 (130)
710 (1,500)
490 (840)
AACCCE
11
0
(
80
)
1,
95
0
(
1
,
25
0
)
80
(
60
)
AA
A
C
C
C
F 50 (60)
1,470 (1,990)
260 (370)
3. Dougherty Rd./Dublin Blvd.
Dublin Blvd.
Do
u
g
h
er
t
y
Rd
.
AE
50
(
80
)
10
(
20
)
30
(
70
)
AC
C
C
F
10 (20)
960 (1,800)
110 (50)
AACCF
10
(
10
)
10
(
10
)
76
0
(
59
0
)
AC
C
C
F 300 (1,330)
1,660 (2,130)
40 (30)
2. Scarlett Dr./Dublin Blvd.
Dublin Blvd.
Sc
a
r
l
e
tt
D
r
.
AAACCCFF
55
1
(
82
4
)
66
2
(
1
,
51
4
)
32
5
(
30
8
)
AA
CC
C
FF
24 (120)
427 (825)
336 (639)
AACCCE
10
2
(
79
)
1,
44
0
(
89
8
)
57
1
(
45
5
)
IA
A
C
C
C
F 355 (724)
924 (860)
266 (432)
12 (30)
3. Dougherty Rd./Dublin Blvd.
Dublin Blvd.
Do
u
g
h
er
t
y
Rd
.
AF
47
(
79
)
21
(
57
)
HC
C
C
F
8 (15)
1,160 (1,544)
107 (49)
IC
C
C 1,580 (1,814)
35 (17)
4 (4)
2. Scarlett Dr./Dublin Blvd.
Dublin Blvd.
Sc
a
r
l
e
tt
D
r
.
Existing Conditions
Near-Term Conditions (2025)
Future Conditions (2040)
WC
1
4
-
3
1
7
8
_
X
_
A
u
t
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
Automobile Forecasts
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Trac VolumesXX (YY)
Study Intersection#
Signalized Intersection
Stop SignSTOP
LEGEND
Figure 11: Existing, Near-term (2025), and Future (2040) Auto Volumes
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 111
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 43
Page intentionally left blank.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 112
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
44 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Alternative Analysis & Preferred Improvements
06
City of Dublin staff, project partners, Alameda CTC BPAC, and Dublin residents had the
opportunity to review and make recommendations on the alternative designs for trail
segment cross-sections and trail crossings. Their input was used to identify the final preferred
improvements. The preferred trail cross-section provides dedicated spaces for bicyclists
and pedestrians. At Dublin Boulevard, the preferred alternative includes the installation
of a grade-separated crossing to better align the trail and create a more comfortable user
experience. At Dougherty Road, at-grade crossing enhancements are preferred due to
potential land-use conflicts and feasibility concerns with relocating utilities.
The preferred alternatives were ultimately selected based on feedback from an online survey,
technical feasibility, cost, and BEF evaluation. A detailed list of proposed improvements
can be found in the following Implementation chapter with cost estimates and potential
funding sources.
alternative analysis & preferred improvements
A comprehensive public outreach process, review of relevant policies,
documentation of existing built environment, and a Preliminary
Improvement Plan were used to create potential alternatives for trail segments
and crossings. Improvements to individual segments, crossings, and the
Transit Zone are recommended to improve the Built Environment Factors (BEF)
described in the previous section.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Trail Segment Alternatives
Two primary trail segment alternatives were studied based on input received
during the first two public workshops. Both alternatives would feature trail
improvements to trail amenities, pavement quality, pedestrian-scale lighting,
wayfinding, the width of the trail (currently 10 feet wide), and landscaping. The
alternatives differ in how trail users are meant to share the trail facility:
• Alternative One: Single Shared-Use Path - Provides one lane in each
direction for pedestrians and cyclists to share.
• Alternative Two: Separated Users - Provides dedicated spaces for cyclists
and pedestrians.
Alternative One: Mixed-Flow Multi--Use Trail
The first trail segment alternative is a 12-foot wide asphalt path with two-foot
decomposed granite shoulders on both sides of the trail. This provides trail users
with a total usable width of 16 feet. The path itself would be separated by a
dashed centerline to separate trail users by direction. This option provides a wider
space for users to travel in each direction and allows cyclists to ride next to each
other. However, because people who walk and bike share the path, conflicts may
occur between bicyclists and pedestrians due to the speed differential between
them or cyclists having to circumvent pedestrians in the mixed-flow areas. The
two-foot decomposed granite shoulders offer a safe place for pedestrians to
avoid potential conflicts with cyclists and for joggers to utilize as a lower impact
surface than the asphalt portion. Figure 12 shows the cross-section for shared-
use path that could be accommodated in the available trail right-of-way.
2 ‘ DG Buer
Decomposed
Granite
5’ Shoulder 5’ Shoulder6’ Ped and Bike Lane
Black Asphalt
6’ Ped and Bike Lane
Black Asphalt
2 ‘ DG Buer
Decomposed
Granite
Figure 12: Mixed-Flow Trail Segment Cross-section
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 45
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 114
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
46 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Alternative Two: Multi-Use Trail with Separated Users
The second trail segment alternative provides separate areas for pedestrians and
cyclists. The trail consists of two parallel paths: a nine foot two-way bicycle path
and a six-foot two-way pedestrian path. In separating users, this design minimizes
conflicts between faster moving bicyclists and slower pedestrians. However, it also
makes it more difficult for groups of pedestrians or cyclists to walk or ride side-
by-side due to the more constrained spaces. While there are no shoulders in this
configuration, a two-foot clear zone should be maintained adjacent to the bicycle
zone near the landscaping to ensure bicycle handlebars do not clip any adjacent
amenities. Figure 13 shows the cross-section for a multi-use trail with separate
areas for bicyclists and pedestrians that could be accommodated in the available
trail right-of-way. The separation between the bicycle and pedestrian paths is
differentiated through materials: concrete sidewalk would be used to denote the
pedestrian zone and asphalt would be used to denote the bicycle path.
Alternative Analysis & Preferred Improvements
06
5’ Shoulder 6’ Pedestrian Zone
Gray Cement
9’ Two-Way Bicycle Zone
Black Asphalt
2’ Clear ZoneAmenity Zone Area
Figure 13: Multi-Use Trail Segment with Separated Users Cross-section
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 115
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 47
Built Environment Factor Comparison
Both trail segment alternatives have very high levels of comfort for trail users.
They both received a score of Excellent, with a neglible difference in total
score based on the overall usable width of the trail. Therefore, Alternative One
scored marginally higher than Alternative Two even though both trail segment
alternatives received “Excellent” BEF ratings. Table 4 summarizes the trail segment
BEF ratings.
Preferred Alternative
Alternative Two was identified as the preferred alternative. Alternative Two was
selected based on input from the online survey, feedback at local community
workshops and input from City staff and the Alameda CTC BPAC. Because the
proposed trail alignment is directly adjacent to Scarlett Drive and the path
takes the place of a typical sidewalk, many community comments focused on
the Alternative Two sidewalk and bicycle path configuration seeming more
appropriate as an urban trail configuration. Additionally, with the potential
for an increase in the number of trail users many survey respondents felt the
separate dedicated spaces would make the trail more inviting to more types
of pedestrians include children and seniors who may be moving at much
slower pace than fast moving cyclists near the future park. This sentiment was
also shared at the Alameda CTC BPAC meeting to provide a more dedicated
transportation facility for cyclists who are commuting to BART.
The Park District, which currently maintains the trail, does not normally install
centerline stripe or separate users on the Iron Horse Trail. However, the Park
District has indicated that changes to the standard unmarked configuration
should be coordinated and approved by the Park District. Upon consideration, a
maintenance and operations agreement for the customized configuration would
need to be formed between City of Dublin and the Park District.
Table 4: Trail Segment Alternatives BEF Comparison
BEF Ratings
Trail Segments Existing Alternative One Alternative Two
Demarcus Boulevard/Bus Frontage Road
to Dublin Boulevard Poor (-2)
Excellent (19)Excellent (18)
Dublin Boulevard to Dougherty Road Poor (1)
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 116
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
48 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Trail Crossing Alternatives
This section identifies site-specific trail improvements at
intersections to better connect the trail along the corridor.
Trail crossing improvements are recommended for both
at-grade crossings and for the potential to install grade
separated crossings at Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road.
At-grade crossing improvements generally only produced
one set of alternatives that should be implemented in the
near-term to address some of the trail user concerns at
the current crossings. Near-term improvements will still
be required to be maintained even with grade-separated
improvements. Longer-term investments will be needed to
fund and construct alternatives for grade separated crossings,
where recommended. Detailed guidance on crosswalk
treatments and bicycle/pedestrian detection can be found in
Appendix C.
Dublin Boulevard/Scarlett Drive
Intersection with the Iron Horse Trail
At-grade Improvements
While not the preferred alternative, at-grade trail crossing
improvements at Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive are
recommended as near-term improvements to. Figure 14
highlights the recommended at-grade improvements at
Dublin Boulevard. The existing intersection requires several
modifications that should remain even if a grade separate
crossing is installed at this location. Therefore, the proposed
improvements could be installed in conjunction with the
Scarlett Drive extension or through the use of alternative
funding sources such as City funds or grants.
Bicyclists attempting to cross Dublin Boulevard often have to
make sharp turns from where the trail meets Dublin Boulevard
to the east of the intersection in order to maneuver to the
signal. This movement should be improved by removing
bollards and adding asphalt to make the path approach to
the intersection easier for cyclists. At the intersection, user
experience can be improved through relocating pedestrian-
actuated push buttons to more convenient locations for
cyclists and pedestrians. This will help to prevent cyclists from
having to make unnecessarily sharp turns or dismount to be
able to reach push buttons. Passive detection could also be
installed in advance of the crossing to extend the crossing
time for trail users to be able to make the crossings to reduce
waiting time.
The crosswalk should be re-striped in a triple-four style trail
crossing with bicycle and pedestrian stencils to distinguish the
trail crossing from a typical crosswalk. Bicycle and pedestrian
stencils within the center of the crosswalk enforce the trail
crossing as a shared space where bicyclists can ride through
the crossing but should yield the right-of-way to pedestrians.
Consistent trail crossing treatments should be applied at
all trail crossings throughout the City. The median nose
extending into the trail crossing should be shortened as to not
protrude into the crosswalk.
Curb radii on the northeast and southeast corners will be
reduced and to slow vehicle turning speeds across the trail
crossing. Large 8-foot wide directional curb ramps should be
installed at the trail crossings. The additional sidewalk area will
help to accommodate wider turns for bicyclists and provide
better queueing space for bicyclists. Speed feedback signs
or trail crossing signs should be located ahead of the trail
crossing to control vehicle speeds and warn vehicles of the
upcoming trail crossing.
Directional signage should be installed from both trail
approaches to indicate the preferred path of travel for
navigating the Dublin Boulevard crossing. Wayfinding signage
at key decision points should be installed to guide users to
local destinations in Dublin such as BART, Downtown, and
other trails. Permanent art installations and gateway features
that highlight the Iron Horse Trail could be installed to create a
better sense of place and visual interest for trail users.
Alternative Analysis & Preferred Improvements
06
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 117
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 49
Remove
gate
Add asphalt to
smooth transition
to/from trail
Not Shown:
• Advanced bike detection
• Leading pedestrian interval
IRON HORSE TRAIL
IRON HORSE TRAIL
WC
1
4
-
3
1
7
8
\
F
i
e
l
d
w
o
r
k
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
\
I
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
F
i
l
e
s
\
B
P
A
C
_
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
_
6
_
I
H
T
-
D
u
b
l
i
n
Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study
Dublin Boulevard Trail Crossing
Figure 6
LEGEND
Triple-Four Crosswalk Directional Curb Ramps Directional Waynding Locations
NOTE:Trail design will be coordinated with on-going
planning and design of Scarlett Road extension
and Dublin Crossing park area.
Figure 14: Dublin Boulevard Conceptual Design (Full Buildout with or without Grade-separated Crossing Alignment)
Remove
gate
Add asphalt to
smooth transition
to/from trail
Not Shown:
• Advanced bike detection
• Leading pedestrian interval
IRON HORSE TRAIL
IRON HORSE TRAIL
WC
1
4
-
3
1
7
8
\
F
i
e
l
d
w
o
r
k
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
\
I
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
F
i
l
e
s
\
B
P
A
C
_
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
_
6
_
I
H
T
-
D
u
b
l
i
n
Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study
Dublin Boulevard Trail Crossing
Figure 6
LEGEND
Triple-Four Crosswalk Directional Curb Ramps Directional Waynding Locations
NOTE:Trail design will be coordinated with on-going
planning and design of Scarlett Road extension
and Dublin Crossing park area.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 118
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
50 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Grade Separated Alternatives
The Dublin Boulevard intersection with the Iron Horse Trail represents a major barrier
in connectivity due to high vehicle volumes, high speeds, the out of direction travel
required, and a long, potentially stressful at-grade crossing. While the at-grade
crossing should be enhanced in the near-term, long-term investment alternatives
for this crossing were analyzed to more efficiently and safely connect the natural
desire lines of the Iron Horse Trail. This will allow for easy passage to the BART station
as well as nearby land uses from the trail or adjacent approaches. Multiple grade
separation alternatives were evaluated including a tunnel undercrossing and bridge
overcrossing. Detailed cost estimates and bridge plans are provided in Appendix D.
Undercrossing Evaluation
A bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing for Dublin Boulevard was evaluated as a
potential solution to bypass the intersection. However, tunneling under public
right-of-way in this location is both complicated and expensive. The large number of
utilities that are underground on the northern side of the intersection including the
Kinder Morgan pipeline would have significant cost to relocate. In the case of tunnel
construction, excavating and re-locating gas, sewer/storm drains, electrical power
lines, and telecommunications infrastructure would be overly costly and time-
consuming. Additionally, there is typically a larger logistical cost for removing the soil
and debris associated with tunneling.
Bicycle and pedestrian underpasses also present community safety concerns, as
there are fewer ‘eyes on the street’ in a tunnel which could create the feeling of an
unsafe environment. The tunnel would need to be well lit but would need to stretch
a great length on either side of the intersection extending the amount of time users
would need to be underground. The future Dublin Crossing Park on the north side
of the intersection is also renovating the creek habitat and the underground tunnel
may conflict with parts of that project. Additionally, underpasses require additional
maintenance and drainage systems to ensure that the tunnel is not blocked by
debris or water. For these reasons, an undercrossing was eliminated as a feasible
alternative.
Overcrossing Evaluation
Three alternative conceptual overcrossing bridge designs were evaluated as part of
this planning process. Each option includes varying architectural styles that range
in cost, color options, and maintenance. All bridge overcrossing alternatives include
pedestrian scale lighting, path approaches that meet trail user desire lines, at-grade
crosswalks, gateway design features, wayfinding at key decision points, permeable
railings or fencing to maintain sight lines, and designs that provide visual interest.
The alternatives described below were presented at the third community workshop
and the online survey which allowed Dublin residents to vote on their preferred
designs.
Alternative Analysis & Preferred Improvements
06
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 119
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 51
Additionally, the Scarlett Drive Extension project and the Dublin Crossings
development will create heavy amounts of turning vehicles between Dublin
Boulevard and Scarlett Drive (see Figure 11). Near-term at-grade improvements
should be installed to enhance existing trail user comfort and accommodate
future Dublin Crossing Park access, removing trail users from the Dublin
Boulevard and Scarlett Drive intersection by installing a grade separated crossing
will help to maintain adequate signal operations at the intersection and maintain
a safer trail user environment. Additionally, should a grade-separated crossing
not be installed, the Dublin Crossing Environmental Impact Report states that the
eastern trail crosswalk at the intersection would need to be removed to maintain
turning operations.
Alternative One: Main Span Truss Bridge
Alternative One is a Steel Truss Bridge designed with soft, rolling architectural
features that are intended to reflect the surrounding rolling hills of the Tri-Valley
area. Two aesthetic options for Alternative One were presented to highlight
variations that can be included with this bridge design. Option 1A is designed
with concrete piers that support the bridge on the approach and descent, and
concrete corbels that feature the Dublin City logo. Option 1B has concrete arches,
instead of piers and corbels that support the path. It also features the Dublin City
logo. Both 1A and 1B can be painted with green, mustard, or gray accents.
Both Alternative One options are estimated to cost approximately $7.4 million
include planning, design, and construction. Figure 15 and Figure 16 on the next
page show the aesthetic variations for Alternative One.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 120
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Alternative Analysis & Preferred Improvements
06
52 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
5
:
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
O
v
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
O
n
e
O
p
t
i
o
n
1
A
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
6
:
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
O
v
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
O
n
e
O
p
t
i
o
n
1
B
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 121
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 53
Alternative Two: Main Span
Basket Handle Arch Bridge
Alternative Two is a Steel Basket Handled Tied Arch Bridge where the path
is supported by steel arches. Two aesthetic options for Alternative Two were
presented to highlight variations that can be included with this bridge design.
Option 2A features concrete corbels on each end with the emblematic Dublin
shamrock and hill design arch supports for the path approaches. Option 2B has
concrete piers supporting the path on the approaches and pointed concrete
corbels with the Dublin shamrock. Like the previous
option, the bridge can include painted green, mustard, or gray accents.
Both Alternative Two options are presented in Figure 17 and Figure 18 and each
has an estimated cost of approximately $10.9 million including planning, design,
and construction.
Alternative Three: Main
Span Cable Stayed Bridge
Alternative Three is a cable-stayed bridge that features a large central tower with
cables that support the main span of the bridge over Dublin Boulevard. Concrete
piers would support the path on the approaches. Like the previous option,
this bridge can have green, orange, or gray accents with the Dublin shamrock
embossed at the top of the tower. This design is intended to be a statement that
could be visible from both BART and the freeway while providing a focal point at
the future Dublin Crossings Park.
Alternative Three is the most expensive option and is presented in Figure 19
with an estimated cost of $16.1 million.
Table 5 compares the ranges in estimated costs associated with the grade
separation alternatives. With an estimated range between $7.4 million and
$16.1 million, cost variations were weighed heavily when selecting a preferred
alternative.
Table 5. Dublin Boulevard Grade Separation Cost Comparison
Crossing Alternative Style Cost
Undercrossing Tunnel N/A
Bridge Option 1 Main Span Truss Bridge $7.4 Million
Bridge Option 2 Main Span Tiered Arch Bridge $10.9 Million
Bridge Option 3 Main Span Cable Stay Bridge $16.1 Million
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 122
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
54 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Alternative Analysis & Preferred Improvements
06
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
7
:
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
O
v
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
T
w
o
O
p
t
i
o
n
2
A
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
8
:
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
O
v
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
T
w
o
O
p
t
i
o
n
2
B
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 123
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 55
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
9
:
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
O
v
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
T
h
r
e
e
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 124
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Alternative Analysis & Preferred Improvements
06
56 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Table 6. Dublin Boulevard Crossing BEF Ratings Comparison
Study Crossing Existing Proposed At-grade Improvements
(Full Buildout)Undercrossing Overcrossing
Dublin Boulevard -6 6 (Good)Not Feasible 14 (Excellent)
Built Environment Factors
Trail user comfort can be greatly increased at the at-grade crossing at Dublin Boulevard by enhancing approach comfort, reducing
turning conflicts, installing active and passive pedestrian and bicycle detection, and creating easy to understand wayfinding
signage. While the recommended at-grade improvements would increase the BEF rating to “Good,” major barriers would still
exist such as the long crossing distance, long traffic signal cycle lengths, and high volumes and speeds of automobiles on Dublin
Boulevard. Installing a grade-separate crossing over Dublin Boulevard would greatly reduce bicycle and pedestrian conflicts at the
intersection and alleviate issues that will ultimately remain at the intersection even with the near-term improvements. By installing
a bridge using the recommended improvements, the crossing would receive a rating of “Excellent.” Table 6 compares BEF ratings
for the proposed improvements at Dublin Boulevard.
Preferred Dublin Boulevard Crossing Alternative
The online community survey presented to the public indicated that Alternative Three design received the highest approval rating.
While this design was generally liked by the public, concerns were raised in the survey and at public workshops about the cost of
the structures. Costs were not included with the structures during the online survey to understand the preferred aesthetic desires
of Dublin residents.
Alternative One (Option 1B) received the second highest approval rating of all of the bridge types and has an estimated cost of less
than half of Alternative Three. Option 1B was only rated marginally behind Alternative Three. Therefore, based on the numerous
comments received from Dublin residents about selecting a functional bridge alternative that also weighs the importance of
reducing costs, Alternative One Option 1B is the preferred alternative for the Dublin Boulevard Iron Horse Trail overcrossing.
Preferred Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Alternative One (Option 1B) looking East on Dublin Boulevard.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 125
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 57
G Street/Scarlett Drive Intersection with the Iron Horse Trail
The future Dublin Crossing development will construct a large number of new
housing units, changing the volume of vehicles on the adjacent roadway network.
A new street structure within the development will connect with the existing street
network. Scarlett Drive will be widened to accommodate the increase in vehicles and
a new intersection will be created by extending a new roadway, G Street, from within
the Dublin Crossing development to Scarlett Drive.
The new intersection with G Street will create another signalized intersection crossing
for the Iron Horse Trail at this location. A Class I Multi-use trail will also be included on
the north side of G Street which should be directly tied in with the Iron Horse Trail on
the northeast corner of the intersection. This should be accomplished by providing a
larger queuing area on the northeast corner where cyclists and pedestrians can wait
for the signal or bypass the queuing area to continue on either trail.
The Iron Horse Trail crossing, on the east leg of the intersection across G Street, should
feature a triple-four crosswalk with bicycle and pedestrian stencils in the crosswalk.
This type of high visibility crossing is used to indicate that it is a space to be shared
by both pedestrians and bicyclists who can ride through the intersection. On-street
bicycle facilities will also be present along Scarlett Drive by extending the existing
Class II bicycle lanes. At the G Street intersection, the conflict zone with cars turning
right should be painted green skip striping to highlight the potential conflict area
between bicycles and vehicles. The bicycle lanes and turning movements should also
feature bicycle detection.
Preferred Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Alternative One (Option 1B) looking West on Dublin Boulevard.
G Street (Future Roadway) and
Scarlett Drive crossing with the Iron
Horse Trail should incorporate many of
the same treatments as the two major
signalized intersections at Dublin
Boulevard and Dougherty Road.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 126
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
58 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Alternative Analysis & Preferred Improvements
06
Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive Intersection with the Iron
Horse Trail
The existing at-grade trail crossing at Dougherty Road has a long crossing distance,
extended signal cycle lengths, large curb radii which allow for high speed turns, and
high speeds which create an uncomfortable atmosphere for trail users. Consequently,
this intersection garners a low score on the BEF rating methodology due to these
crossing barriers. The Dougherty Road widening project design plans were being
approved during the formation of this study to widen the roadway from four to six
lanes. Many of the recommendations provided in this section were incorporated in
the design of the Dougherty Road widening.
At-grade Improvements
The at-grade intersection improvements provided one set of recommendations rather
than multiple alternatives. The cost for these improvements are provided in Section 7.
The recommended improvements are intended to help enable easier, more efficient
crossings. Trail user desire lines and approaches are generally properly aligned for
the existing crossing. The Dougherty Road Widening project and the Scarlett Drive
extension project will shift the trail east which will reduce the crossing distance and
match trail user desire lines.
The crossing should be enhanced by including a number of design features which
are intended to provide a more welcoming and less stressful environment for trail
users compared to the existing condition. These improvements include modifying the
traffic signal to feature leading pedestrian intervals and overlapping the southbound
left-turns from Dougherty Road to Scarlett Drive with the northbound right turns
from Scarlett Drive to Dougherty Road. This will help to reduce conflicts between
vehicles and trail users and increase visibility between trail users and right-turning
vehicles if they are allowed to turn right during the trail crossing phase. Additionally,
an extinguishable no right-turn sign and separate right-turn signal phasing can
be introduced for the northbound right-turning movement direction that can be
activated when trail users activate the crossing.
At the intersection, user experience can be improved through relocating pedestrian-
actuated push buttons to more convenient locations for cyclists and pedestrians. This
will help to prevent cyclists from having to make 90-degree turns or dismount to be
able to reach push buttons. The push buttons should be located near the wide path
ramps to place bicyclists and pedestrian on the correct side of the crossing to reduce
conflicts in the crossing itself. Passive detection should also be installed in advance
of the crossing to extend the crossing time for trail users to be able to make the
crossings to reduce waiting time. Active pedestrian detection should remain at the
signals to account for users coming from other approaches. Vehicle speeds would be
more controlled with speed feedback signs, and advanced stop bars will help guide
motorists for proper placement in front of the trail crossing itself.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 127
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 59
The curb radius on the southeast corner should be reduced
as much as possible to slow turning vehicles. Oversized path
ramps and truncated dome should be installed on both sides
of the crossing. The northwest porkchop island is difficult to
navigate and does not provide adequate space for two cyclists
to pass each other. Therefore, the porkchop island should be
widened to provide better travel space and direct access to
the crossing. This will help place users in the proper position
to be able to enter the crosswalk and reduce conflicts within
the island. The crosswalk should feature triple-four striping
with bicycle and pedestrian stencils to establish consistency
throughout the corridor. This crossing treatment also makes
the crossing more visible to motorists to highlight the
potential for heavier volumes bicyclists and pedestrians using
this crossing.
Finally, wayfinding signs, gateway features, and public art
installations will help to cultivate a sense of place while
highlighting the trail as a desirable facility. Wayfinding will
promote the trail as a viable connection to local destinations
or nearby points of interest and direct users how to directly
access the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.
Grade Separated Alternatives
While at-grade improvements will help to make the
Dougherty Road crossing a more comfortable crossing for
trail users, grade separated improvements were evaluated
to understand the feasibility, cost, and necessity of such
an improvement. Detailed cost estimates can be found in
Appendix D.
Undercrossing Evaluation
A bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing for Dougherty Road
was evaluated to understand if such a facility would be cost
effective and provide a more comfortable environment
for trail users. While tunneling under public right-of-way is
complicated and expensive, feedback from local residents
during the public workshops indicated that many people
often feel unsafe using trail underpasses as there are fewer
“eyes on the street” in a tunnel. This presents a major concern
because the tunnel would need to be underground for
approximately 450 feet to clear both Dougherty Road and the
western access road to the northern apartment complex.
Additionally, there are a large number of utilities that would
need to be relocated. In the case of tunnel construction,
excavating and re-locating gas, sewer/storm drains, electrical
power lines, and telecommunications infrastructure would be
overly costly.
The estimated cost for an underpass at Dougherty Road
is $10.8 million dollars including planning, design, and
construction.
Overcrossing Evaluation
An overcrossing was evaluated for feasibility, cost
effectiveness, and need. A potential bridge would need to
span approximately 700 feet to cross both Dougherty Road
and the northern access road to the adjacent residential
developments. Additionally, the structure would need to
have a ‘touch down’ structure directly adjacent to apartments
which front the trail, which may not be compatible due to
privacy concerns. Power lines directly parallel the Iron Horse
Trail in this section and would need to be undergrounded or
relocated to accommodate the bridge. Based on discussion
with PG&E, this may prove to be very expensive and may not
be feasible due to other undergrounded utilities in the area.
The estimated cost for a main span truss bridge at Dougherty
Road is $9.6 million. Due to privacy concerns, land-use
incompatibility, and the potential difficulty of relocating
existing power lines, an overcrossing is not recommended as
a the preferred alternative at this location. The cost estimate
did not evaluate the cost of relocating utilities and the
feasibility of relocating utilities would require further study in
coordination with the utilities providers. When considering
the overcrossing as part of the entire study area with limited
resources, the Dublin Boulevard overcrossing ranks as a higher
priority. However, should additional funds become available
the Park District and/or the City of Dublin could construct the
overcrossing to separate trail users from the at-grade crossing.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 128
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
60 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Built Environment Factor Comparison
Upon buildout of the Dougherty Road Widening and Scarlett Drive Extension projects,
the at-grade crossing improvements will re-align the crossing and implement safety
features that will make the intersection much more comfortable for trail users. Table 7
summarizes the BEF ratings for applicable alternatives.
Not Shown:
• Advanced bike detection
• Protected left-turn
• Leading pedestrian interval
• Speed feedback signs
Camp Parks
fence
Add green skip
marking at
conict zone
Gateway or
art installation
Gateway or
art installation
Relocate push
button
Extinguishable
“No Right Turn on
Red” sign; requires
intersection operational
analysis
IRON HORSE TRAIL
IRON HORSE TRAIL
Recongure
island
WC
1
4
-
3
1
7
8
\
F
i
e
l
d
w
o
r
k
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
\
I
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
F
i
l
e
s
\
B
P
A
C
_
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
_
5
_
I
H
T
-
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study
Dougherty Road Trail Crossing
Figure 5
LEGENDLEGEND
Triple-Four Crosswalk Directional Curb Ramps Directional Waynding Locations
Alternative Analysis & Preferred Improvements
06
Table 7. Dougherty Road Crossing BEF Ratings Comparison
Study Crossing Existing At-grade
Crossing
Proposed At-grade Improvements
(Full Buildout)Undercrossing Overcrossing
Dougherty Road Poor (-8.5)Good (6)Not Feasible Requires further
utilities analysis
Preferred Dougherty Road Crossing Alternative
The preferred Dougherty Road alternative is to implement the recommended at-
grade crossing improvements (shown in Figure 20). While both an overcrossing and
undercrossing were evaluated at this location, trail alignment and desire lines were not
highlighted as major issues during the public outreach phases of the project (unlike
Dublin Boulevard). Improvements to the at-grade crossing can make the user experience
much more pleasant and the added benefit of a grade separated crossing is much
less than at Dublin Boulevard. Protected signal phases, active and passive trail user
detection, and shortened crossing distance improvements allow the crossing to receive
a “Good” BEF rating. While an overcrossing is technically feasible, it is not recommended
due to the high cost, difficulty of utility relocation, span of crossings, and land use
incompatibility with the span touching down directly next to existing residential uses.
Not Shown:
• Advanced bike detection
• Protected left-turn
• Leading pedestrian interval
• Speed feedback signs
Camp Parks
fence
Add green skip
marking at
conict zone
Gateway or
art installation
Gateway or
art installation
Relocate push
button
Extinguishable
“No Right Turn on
Red” sign; requires
intersection operational
analysis
IRON HORSE TRAIL
IRON HORSE TRAIL
Recongure
island
WC
1
4
-
3
1
7
8
\
F
i
e
l
d
w
o
r
k
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
\
I
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
F
i
l
e
s
\
B
P
A
C
_
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
_
5
_
I
H
T
-
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study
Dougherty Road Trail Crossing
Figure 5
LEGENDLEGEND
Triple-Four Crosswalk Directional Curb Ramps Directional Waynding Locations
Figure 20: Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive intersection crossing with the Iron Horse Trail recommended improvements.
Note: Gateway features & art installations are recommended but not required.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 129
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 61
Transit Zone
Recommendations
The Iron Horse Trail currently appears to terminate to the
north of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station near Demarcus
Boulevard where an informational sign and a dedicated trail
exist to the north. However, the trail technically is meant
to continue through the BART station and connect with
the extension of the trail to the south of Owens Drive in
Pleasanton. Improvements are recommended throughout
the Transit Zone to improve the user experience both
accessing transit facilities and traveling through to the
Pleasanton extension of the trail. Figure 21 provides an
overview of the preferred Iron Horse Trail alignment through
the Transit Zone.
Transit Zone North (Area North of the
Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station)
Where the trail currently appears to terminate in the north,
there is a large amount of unused asphalt pavement. At
its intersection with Demarcus Boulevard, a rough trail
continues toward the BART fare gate area with street
furniture inside the trail, such as light poles and chain link
fencing, creating a narrow 8-foot wide trail segment. Wheels
(LAVTA) buses operate two-way bus travel lanes adjacent
to the trail area in this section of the transit zone. With
buses constantly using the small access road, navigating
it is a challenge for bicyclists but many choose to ride
in the southbound bus lane to avoid pedestrians in this
constrained segment. This creates an area of conflict and
also creates a barrier for cyclists attempting to reach the
BART fare gates or who wish to continue through the transit
area.
A plaza with gateway features could be constructed at the
northern end of the transit area where the large amounts of
unused asphalt area currently exists. This small plaza could
feature benches, a fixed bicycle repair station, landscaping,
public art, and other amenities to create a gateway to the
Iron Horse Trail.
The trail should be widened in the northern Transit Zone
to accommodate better two-way bicycle and pedestrian
travel. Due to the constrained amount of available right-
of-way in this area, a two-way trail with a centerline should
be provided where cyclists and pedestrian share spaces.
The chain link fencing should be moved as far back away
from the trail as the Zone 7 Water Agency will permit to be
able to widen the trail to a minimum of 12 feet. A trail with
dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities is not feasible
through this area because the trail width necessary for this
type of facility cannot be obtained while maintaining proper
bus operations. A repaved two-way mixed-flow trail with a
wider width that is free of obstacles will encourage bicyclists
and pedestrians to use the trail instead of attempting to
travel in the bus lanes.
The existing light poles should be moved out of the trail
right-of-way and pedestrian-scale lighting should extend
from the I-580 overpass to Dublin Boulevard. Wayfinding
signs should be installed to properly direct cyclists and
pedestrian to the BART fare gates and through the station.
Transit Zone South (Near the Dublin/
Pleasanton BART Fare Gates to
Pleasanton Iron Horse Trail)
As the trail approaches the Interstate 580 overpass, the
existing trail currently continues on the sidewalk which is
shared between trail users and BART/Wheels passengers
entering and exiting the station area. Cyclists are meant
to dismount and walk through the station area under the
overpass. Many cyclists have indicated that this is often
ignored and was confirmed with multiple rounds of field
observations near the BART fare gates. For cyclists wishing
to continue on the trail on the Pleasanton side of the BART
station, there is no obvious way to accomplish this and no
signage to indicate where to reconnect with the trail on the
Pleasanton side of the station. High volumes of pedestrians
are often present near the BART fare gates which makes it
difficult for cyclists to navigate this area.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 130
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
62 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Alternative Analysis & Preferred Improvements
06
N:\PROJECTS\_WC14\WC14-3178.00_Iron Horse Trail Feasibility_Study\Graphics\4.3_Transit Needs
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Z
o
n
e
P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
YI
E
L
D
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Z
o
n
e
N
o
r
t
h
:
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
1
2
f
o
o
t
t
r
a
i
l
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
l
a
z
a
ac
r
o
s
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
b
u
s
b
a
y
s
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
t
i
e
i
n
w
i
t
h
th
e
c
y
c
l
e
t
r
a
c
k
s
j
u
s
t
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
f
r
e
e
w
a
y
ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
w
o
u
l
d
n
e
e
d
t
o
be
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
u
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
tr
a
v
e
l
a
r
e
a
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
-
s
c
a
l
e
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
l
a
z
a
a
r
e
a
w
i
t
h
ga
t
e
w
a
y
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
si
g
n
a
g
e
.
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Z
o
n
e
S
o
u
t
h
-
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
t
r
a
v
e
l
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
k
i
o
s
k
a
r
e
a
al
o
n
g
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
a
t
h
.
S
t
r
e
e
t
f
u
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
s
u
c
h
a
s
t
h
e
li
g
h
t
p
o
l
e
i
m
p
e
d
i
n
g
a
n
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
n
e
e
d
t
o
be
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
t
r
a
i
l
w
a
y
n
d
i
n
g
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
.
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Z
o
n
e
S
o
u
t
h
-
C
y
c
l
e
t
r
a
c
k
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
h
e
c
y
c
l
e
t
r
a
c
k
a
t
-
g
r
a
d
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
I
-
5
8
0
ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
B
A
R
T
f
a
r
e
g
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
n
lo
c
a
t
e
d
b
e
h
i
n
d
t
h
e
h
e
a
v
y
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
r
e
a
s
an
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
.
T
h
e
c
y
c
l
e
t
r
a
c
k
w
o
u
l
d
te
r
m
i
n
a
t
e
o
n
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
1
:
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
Z
o
n
e
P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 131
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 63
To reduce the amount of bicycle and pedestrian conflicts near the BART fare gates,
Wheels bus operations should be shifted to the east side of the median under the
Interstate 580 overpass. This can be accomplished by reducing some of the curb
area near the median and along the eastern side of the roadway while maintaining
a northbound bus drop-off area (approximately 165 feet in length) and dedicated
BART Police parking as shown in Figure 22. Southbound bus drop-offs in the
current location are much less frequent and LAVTA is considering plans to move
all bus operations to the northern side of I-580 to improve connectivity between
routes. Therefore, the southbound drop-off area may not be need in the future. In
the interim, passengers could be dropped off to the south of Interstate 580 where
passengers currently board those routes. However, should LAVTA’s plans change,
a southbound bus pad could be accomodate to the north of Interstate 580 by
shifting the separate bikeway slightly to the west. Southbound buses would dropoff
passengers from the travel lane and a pedestrian crossing could be striped across
the cycletrack.
With bus operations shifted to the east, there would be sufficient area to the west
of the median under the overpass to create a separated bikeway (cycletrack) at
roadway level through the station area and widen the pedestrian sidewalk area.
Additional long-term bicycle parking could be installed in the expanded areas
or a future bike station could be built in coordination with BART. The separated
bikeway should then continue through the parking lot on the south side of the
BART station to connect with the signalized Iron Horse Trail crossing at Owens Drive.
The remaining two-way parking aisle in the southern BART parking lot should be
converted to one-way and the planted median should be widened to incorporate
N:
\
I
n
s
e
r
t
F
i
l
e
P
a
t
h
Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study
Transit Zone Alternative Concept Under I-580 Overcrossing
Figure 3
PEDS
TO
YIELD
PEDS
TO
YIELD
PED
S
TOYIELD
PEDSTO
YIELD
“Yield to pedestrian” signage
and striping to be installed.
High-visibility striping and a
raised crosswalk should also
be installed.
Create a two-way cycletrack and expand the
pedestrian zone under the I-580 overcrossing.
The cycletrack should be 3” lower than the
curb and 3” higher than the street when
running next to the bus lanes and through
the plaza areas to create a physical separation.
Re-align bus travel to the east of the
median. (Approx. 44’ available)
SB/NB bus lanes: 12 feet each way
NB Bus Unloading Zone: 10 feet
Minimum ped space adjacent
to Bus Zone: 10 feet
Maintain northbound curb line
and 24 foot bus space to allow
for easy bus passage.
Maintain an 8.5 foot pullout
for two BART Police vehicles
near the fare gates.
High visibility pedestrian
crossing to transit bays.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
B
i
k
e
L
o
c
k
e
r
s
Ne
w
B
i
k
e
L
o
c
k
e
r
S
p
a
c
e
Provide a bus pad for
southbound LAVTA buses
to drop-o passengers
before entering the
undercrossing.
Figure 22: Transit Zone Improvements Under the I-580 Overpass
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 132
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
64 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
the cycle and trees or landscaping, where possible. Raised crosswalks through the
parking lot connecting the bikeway and additional signage will alert drivers to expect
higher volumes of cyclists in these locations within the BART parking lot. This will
close the existing gap between the Dublin and Pleasanton sides of the Iron Horse Trail
(shown in Figure 21).
Near-term improvements to the transit zone include installing a trail-oriented
wayfinding program to indicate how the trail continues through the transit zone
into the City of Pleasanton. A customized transit zone wayfinding program could be
created in coordination with BART and the City of Pleasanton, to create a consistent
experience. Iron Horse Trail information should also be included in 511.org station
area guides. Additionally, a partnership between BART and BikeLink can help add
or convert existing standard lockers to e-lockers that facilitate rentals by the hour.
Additionally, short-term bicycle parking such as bike racks are highly utilized when
they are placed near the station entrance. However, auxiliary bicycle racks placed
farther away from the entrance are not as well-used. The scarcity of bicycle parking
at the station entrance leads some people to lock their bicycles to a fence located on
the center median, presenting a potential conflict with busses and other vehicles on
the road. Therefore, additional short-term bicycle parking should be installed near the
fare gates where there are more eyes on the bicycles and BART Police are often seen
patrolling the area. Table 8 below summarizes the Transit Zone BEF ratings with the
recommended improvements.
2. G Street name subject to change with changes to the Dublin Crossing development.
Alternative Analysis & Preferred Improvements
06
Table 8. Transit Zone BEF Ratings Comparison
Trail Segment Existing Segments Transit Zone North Transit Zone South
Transit Zone Poor (-3)Good (9) Excellent (14)
These recommendations improve regional connectivity to BART as well as the City of
Pleasanton. Given that these recommended improvements are not with the City of
Dublin’s jurisdiction, they would need to be implemented by BART.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 133
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 65
Page intentionally left blank.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 134
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
66 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Table 9 provides potential funding sources for trail improvements. Table 10
summarizes when the proposed improvements for trail segments and crossings
within the study area should be implemented and provide cost estimates for the
near-term and long-term recommendations. Cost estimates include Planning
Application and Environmental Design (PAED), Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
(PS&E), and construction costs. Near-term improvements should be implemented
within five years and be included with existing planned projects such as the
Dougherty Road Widening, Scarlett Drive Extension, Dublin Crossing Park, or through
coordination with the adjacent Dublin Crossing development. Funding for long-
term improvements should be explored in the near-term. Design and environmental
clearance for long-term projects could occur in the near-term if funding becomes
available. This enables a project to become “shovel ready” and can make the project
more competitive for grant funding.
phasing & implementation plan
Phasing & Implementation Plan
07
The preferred alternatives selected in the previous chapter are the result
of an extensive public engagement process and were discussed in great
detail by the City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Advisory Committee. The
recommended improvements listed in Table 10 summarizes how the Built
Environment Factors are specifically addressed by the selected preferred
alternatives for both near-term and long-term recommendations.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 135
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 67
Table 9: Possible Funding Sources for Proposed Iron Horse Trail Related Projects
Scope Responsible
Agency Name Possible Funding
Sources Type
Funds Available
(if known)Frequency
County
Alameda County
Transportation
Commission
(Alameda CTC)
Alameda CTC
Measure B & BB Allocation
$264 million earmarked for bike
path gap closure county-wide
(including IHT).
Pleasanton is allocated approx $1.1
million annually.
Annual
County
Alameda County
Transportation
Commission
(Alameda CTC)
Transportation Fund
for Clean Air Allocation FY16-17 balance: $55,000 Annual
County
Alameda County
Transportation
Commission
(Alameda CTC)
Alameda
Transportation
Improvement Plan
Allocation Unknown Unknown
Federal
US Department of
Transportation
(USDOT)
Safe Routes to
Schools (now
part of Surface
Transportation
Block Grant
program under the
2016 FAST Act)
Competitive Grant Approx $830 million annually until
FY20 Annual
Federal
US Department of
Transportation
(USDOT)
Transportation
Investment
Generating
Economic Recovery
(TIGER) Grant
Competitive Grant Approx $500 million Annual
Regional
Metropolitan
Transportation
Commission
(MTC)
Safe Routes 2
Transit (SF Bay Area
Regional Measure 2)
Competitive Grant Approx $4 Million per year from
2005-2014
Every 2 years (last
cycle in 2014)
Regional
Metropolitan
Transportation
Commission
(MTC)
One Bay Area Grant
(OBAG) Program Competitive Grant Approx $300 million Every 2-3 years
State
California Department
of Transportation
(Caltrans)
Safe Routes 2
Schools Competitive Grant $24.25 million annually Annual
Federal
US Department of
Transportation
(USDOT)
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program (HSIP)
Competitive Grant Approximately $2.5 billion Annual
Federal Federal Transit
Administration (FTA)
Small Starts
Program Capital
Investments Grant
Competitive Grant Approximately $3.5 billion Annual
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 136
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
68 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Phasing & Implementation Plan
07
Table 10: Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study Phasing and Implementation Plan
Area Location BEF
Criteria Issue/ Opportunity Near-Term Preliminary Improvement Near-Term
Cost Long-term Preliminary Improvement Long-Term
Cost
Agencies/Partners
Involved Total Cost
S1
Iron Horse Trail
Segment north of
Dougherty Road
Trail
Pavement in poor quality S1.NT 1.1: Resurface existing asphalt.
$160,000
LT 1.1: Work with the Park District to maintain trail over time.
-
East Bay Regional Park
District, City of Dublin,
and Nearby Apartment
Complexes
$160,000Opportunity for a speed table to elevate trail users at
residential roadway and to make drivers more aware of the
trail crossing.
S1.NT 1.2: Consider working with private property owners to install
a raised crossing (speed table) across Park Sierra, which intersects the
Iron Horse Trail to the north of the Dougherty Road.
-
S2
Dougherty Road
between Iron Horse
Trail and 250' north of
5th Street
Trail/Gap
Closure
Existing gap for bicyclists and pedestrian between Dougherty
Road path and the Iron Horse Trail. Current guidance requires
southbound bikes to cross six lanes of traffic to continue
south. Limited guidance for pedestrians.
S2.NT 2.1: Connect both directions of the Dougherty Road Path to
the Iron Horse Trail along the east side of Dougherty Road. Provide in-
roadway two-way cycletrack and designated walkway through striping
and low-cost materials.N/A
S2.LT 2.1: Formalize the path connection to the Iron Horse Trail
with the Dougherty Road widening project.
Part of
Dougherty
Road
Improvement
Project
City of Dublin
Part of
Dougherty
Road
Improvement
ProjectNo signage is provided to indicate the Dougherty Road Path
connection with the Iron Horse Trail.
S2.NT 2.2: Provide bicycle and pedestrian destination wayfinding on
Dougherty Road Path to the Iron Horse Trail.
S2.LT 2.2: Maintain and update wayfinding signage over time,
as needed.
I3
Dougherty Road/Iron
Horse Trail Intersection
at Scarlett Drive
Crossing
The crossing distance is long (130') .
I3.NT 3.1: Install a curb extension on the southern side of the
intersection to reduce the crossing distance.
$1,000,000
I3.LT 3.1: Periodic monitoring of trail users for safety and comfort
at this location should occur. While not the preferred alternative
in the context of this study, future conditions could support the
installation of an overcrossing. Land-use conflicts, utility relocation,
trail user volumes, and safety should be evaluated.
$750,000 City of Dublin and East Bay
Regional Park District $1,750,000
I3.NT 3.2: Stripe a modified Triple-four trail crossing with bike stencils
to distinguish the trail crossing from a typical crosswalk. Consistent
designs should be applied at all trail crossings in Dublin. Consider
color or decorate paving, if desired.
I3.NT 3.3: Modify the signal to include leading pedestrian interval for
Trail crossing with extinguishable "No Right Turn" signs for southbound
and eastbound traffic during the LPI.
The large intersection features a greater than 120 second cycle
length which creates trail user delay.
I3.NT 3.5: Add advanced passive detection for trail users approaching
intersection to reduce delay once arrived at intersection.
Permitted northbound right-turns, westbound right-turns, and
southbound left-turns are frequently made when trail users
are crossing. Westbound left-turns are protected and do not
conflict with trail crossings.
I3.NT 3.6: Modify the signal to incorporate protected left-turns to
eliminate the conflict with trail users.
Curb Ramps
The trail crossing aligns with the north-south desire line of Trail
users, but the diagonal ramp needs to align better with the
crosswalk.
I3.NT 3.7: Install an oversized ramp on the southern side of the trail
crossing.
Pork Chop
Island
The southbound approach allows trail user to navigate a pork
chop island with space and turns that do not meet current
guidelines.
I3.NT 3.8: Widen the pork chop paths at the northern side of the
intersection to allow for easier bicycle navigation and two-way
trail traffic. I3.LT 3.2: Consider removing the pork chop island.
I3.NT 3.9: Stripe triple-four trail crossing across slip lane.
Curb Radii Large curb radii limit the ability to provide directional curb
ramps and have radii greater than 25 feet.
I3.NT 3.10: In conjunction with the curb extension on the south side
of the intersection, reduce the curb radii to less than 25 feet if possible.
I3.LT 3.3: As redevelopment occurs, consider realigning the
intersection to meet at 90 degrees.
Detection
The push button on the southern side of the crossing is
located on the opposite side of path, requiring cyclists to
dismount to access. The placement also puts cyclists and
pedestrians on the opposite side of trail against oncoming trail
users.
I3.NT 3.11: Relocate the push-button on the southern side of the
intersection to the eastern side of the crossing in order to provide
easier access for trail users or add passive detection for bicyclists.
-
Gateway/
Wayfinding
Gateway treatments are not provided at this intersection to
identify the Iron Horse Trail.
I3.NT 3.12: Install art installations, banners, and other temporary
features to highlight the trail presence.
I3.LT 3.4: Consider permanent art installations highlighting Dublin
and the Iron Horse Trail. If grade separation is considered, utilize
bridge design to highlight the Trail, the City of Dublin, and BART.
Trail-user destination wayfinding is not provided.
I3.NT 3.13: Install trail-user destination wayfinding in Dublin right-
of-way to identify preferred routes to key destinations, such as BART,
Downtown, and other trails.
-
Vehicular
Speeds Dougherty Road has a 40 mile per hour posted speed limit.I3.NT 3.14: Consider speed feedback signs -
I3.NT 3.15: Install advance stop bars.-
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 137
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 69
Page intentionally left blank.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 138
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
70 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Phasing & Implementation Plan
07
Table 10: Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study Phasing and Implementation Plan
Area Location BEF
Criteria Issue/ Opportunity Near-Term Preliminary Improvement Near-Term
Cost Long-term Preliminary Improvement Long-Term
Cost
Agencies/Partners
Involved Total Cost
S4
Iron Horse Trail
Segment between
Dougherty Road and
Dublin Boulevard
Trail Width
The trail is 10 feet wide throughout the entire segment.
-
$1,075,000
S4.LT 4.1: When the Scarlett Drive extension to Dublin Boulevard
occurs, widen path and include shoulders and a landscaped buffer
between the roadway and the trail.
$1,123,000
East Bay Regional Park District,
City of Dublin, and Zone 7
Water District
$2,198,000
-
-S4.LT 4.2: Identify consistent pavement materials and treatment
through corridor.
There are soft-shoulders in many places, but this frequently
has overgrown vegetation, including thorny weeds in some
seasons.
S4.NT 4.1: Create shoulders on each side with decomposed granite.S4.LT 4.3: Identify consistent pavement materials and treatment
through corridor.
The asphalt was resurfaced along this segment but there are
still some sections with poor quality and cracks.-S4.LT 4.4: Maintain the pavement quality overtime and repair
cracked pavement.
Landscaping
No trees or shade structures are present in this segment. S4.NT 4.2: Plant street trees near Scarlett Drive that would provide at
shade.S4.LT 4.5: Plant street trees and landscaping in buffer between
Scarlett Drive travel way and the Trail, as redevelopment occurs.
Fence, vegetation, and drainage ditch do not provide
welcoming environment
S4.NT 4.3: Plant drought-tolerant landscaping along both sides
of the trail to provide visual interest and create a more welcoming
environment.
Vegetation maintenance problem with burrs that often get
imbed in bike tires and cause flat tires.S4.NT 4.4: Replace vegetation with burrs.-
Placemaking
and Amenities
No amenities are present creating an opportunity to add
resting places and new landscaping.
S4.NT 4.5: Add benches, rest area with shade structure, and
interpretative signage along the trail.-
Wayfinding
There is one sign that highlights how to access the Tassajara
Creek Trail near Dublin Boulevard. No other wayfinding to local
destinations and transit is present.
S4.NT 4.4: Install Park District wayfinding signs. Install trail-user
destination wayfinding to identify preferred routes to key destinations,
such as BART, Downtown, and other trails.
S4.LT 4.6: Maintain and update wayfinding signage over time,
as needed.
Connectivity
There is mid-block connection at Houston Place, but a
continuous fence otherwise prevents access to the Trail from
side streets.
S4.NT 4.7: Consider formalizing another connection point at Kerry
Court to improve connectivity along Scarlett Drive.-
Opportunity to provide connections to the future Dublin
Crossing development to the east of the trail.-
S4.LT 4.7: Provide connections to Dublin Crossing and the
future park near the Dublin Boulevard intersection with the trail.
Minimize driveway/intersection frequency. Treat such conflicts as
"trail crossings" to define priority for trail users.
Maintenance Vegetation has not been maintained. Weeds were
overgrowing the shoulder and parts of the trail.
S4.NT 4.8: Work with the Park District, BART, and property owners to
memorialize landscaping maintenance.
S4.LT 4.8: Work with the Park District, BART, and property owners
to maintain trail and adjacent land over time.
Lighting
No lighting is provided along this portion of the trail. Some
indirect lighting is provided near the existing residential uses
to the west of the trail but the lighting is directed at trail.
-
S4.LT 4.9: Provide pedestrian scale lighting along the trail to
enhance the pedestrian experience and encourage people to
commute by walking or bicycling.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 139
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 71
Page intentionally left blank.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 140
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
72 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Phasing & Implementation Plan
07
Table 10: Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study Phasing and Implementation Plan
Area Location BEF
Criteria Issue/ Opportunity Near-Term Preliminary Improvement Near-Term
Cost Long-term Preliminary Improvement Long-Term
Cost
Agencies/Partners
Involved Total Cost
I5
Future G Street/Scarlett
Drive Intersection with
the Iron Horse Trail
N/A N/A - Incorporate recommendations when the new roadway
is constructed.
I5.NT 5.1: Stripe a modified Triple-four trail crossing with bike stencils
to distinguish the trail crossing from a typical crosswalk. Consistent
designs should be applied at all trail crossings in Dublin. Consider
color or decorate paving, if desired.
Part of Dublin
Crossing
Development
--City of Dublin and Dublin
Crossing Developer -
I5.NT 5.1: Modify the signal to include leading pedestrian interval for
Trail crossing with extinguishable “No Right Turn” signs for southbound
and eastbound traffic during the LPI.
I5.NT 5.1: Add advanced passive detection for trail users approaching
intersection to reduce delay once arrived at intersection.
I5.NT 5.1: Install an oversized ramps on either side of the trail crossing.
I5.NT 5.1: Install trail-user destination wayfinding in Dublin right-
of-way to identify preferred routes to key destinations, such as BART,
Downtown, and other trails.
I6
Houston Place/Scarlett
Drive Intersection
(Current Unsignalized
Connection to IHT with
future signalization)
Crossing Standard two-line striping is provided to cross Scarlett Drive to
access the trail.
I6.NT 6.1: Stripe a high visibility crosswalk across Scarlett Drive to
highlight where higher volumes of pedestrians may access the trail.
$48,000
-
-Dublin Crossing Developer $48,000TrailPath connection to the Trail from Houston Place/Scarlett Drive
is narrow.
I6.NT 6.2: Widen path connection to allow two-way bicycle/
pedestrian traffic. -
Gateway/
Wayfinding Directional signage and wayfinding is not provided. I6.NT 6.3: Trail-user destination wayfinding and trail identification
signage should be installed to highlight access to the trail. -
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 141
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 73
Page intentionally left blank.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 142
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
74 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Phasing & Implementation Plan
07
Table 10: Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study Phasing and Implementation Plan
Area Location BEF
Criteria Issue/ Opportunity Near-Term Preliminary Improvement Near-Term
Cost Long-term Preliminary Improvement Long-Term
Cost
Agencies/Partners
Involved Total Cost
I7
Dublin Boulevard/Iron
Horse Trail Intersection
at Scarlett Drive
(Signalized)
Crossing
The existing crossing distance is long (115'). Diagonal curb
ramps do not meet new guidelines to orient the ramps with
the crosswalk.
I7.NT 7.1: Reduce curb radii on the northeast and southeast corners
to provide oversized directional ramps for two-way trail traffic and to
reduce the crossing distance to the roadway width.
$741,000
I7.LT 7.1: Construct the preferred alternative grade-separated
structure to meet trail user desire lines, reduce vehicular conflicts,
and provide a comfortable crossing for all ages and abilities. Near-
term improvements are assumed to have been installed in order
to enhance the at-grade crossing and to should be integrated with
the structure.
$7,400,000
City of Dublin, Pacific Gas
& Electric, Zone 7 Water
District, and Dublin Crossing
Developer
$8,141,000
Curb radii are large. This allows autos to make higher-speed
right-turn movements, and makes providing directional curb
ramps difficult.
The large intersection features a greater than 120 second cycle
length which creates trail user delay.
Permitted right-turns (Northbound from Scarlett) are
frequently made across the trail crossing.
Median protrudes into crosswalk and does not provide a
pedestrian refuge amenity.
I7.NT 7.2: Remove median protruding into crosswalk or shift the
crosswalk to the west upon construction of the reduced curb radii.
The crosswalk is striped using standard double lines that do
not distinguish the Trail crossing from a typical crosswalk.
I7.NT 7.3: Stripe a modified Triple-four trail crossing with bike stencils
to distinguish the trail crossing from a typical crosswalk. Consistent
designs should be applied at all trail crossings in Dublin. Consider color
or decorate paving, if desired.
Path
Approach/
Detection
Bicyclists need to make turns to actuate push buttons on both
trail approaches.
I7.NT 7.4: Adjust push button placement to reduce sharp-turns for
bicyclists. Add passive detection for cyclists on trail.-
Trail alignment does not meet current guidelines or user desire
lines on both approaches.
I7.NT 7.5: Provide wider turns for bicyclists from the Iron Horse Trail
to the sidewalk on the northern side of Dublin Boulevard and provide
queueing space for bicyclists.
-
Some trail users use the adjacent driveways (and parking lot)
to bypass the turn required of bicyclists at the south approach
of the crosswalk
I7.NT 7.6: Install direction signage to detail the preferred method for
crossing Dublin Boulevard. -
Gateway/
Wayfinding
Gateway signage and treatments needed to highlight the Iron
Horse Trail.
I7.NT 7.7: Install art installations, banners, and other temporary
features to highlight the trail presence.
I7.LT 7.2: Consider permanent art installations highlighting Dublin
and the Iron Horse Trail. If grade separation is considered, utilize
bridge design to highlight the Trail, the City of Dublin, and BART.
Trail-user destination wayfinding needed to detail connections
with local amenities and transit options.
I7.NT 7.8: Install trail-user destination wayfinding in Dublin right-
of-way to identify preferred routes to key destinations, such as BART,
Downtown, and other trails.
-
Vehicular
Speeds
Dublin Boulevard has a 35 mile per hour speed posted speed
limit west of Scarlett Drive and 45 mile per hour posted speed
limit to the east of Scarlett Drive.
I7.NT 7.9: Consider installing speed feedback signs in the block ahead
of the Trail crossing.-
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 143
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 75
Page intentionally left blank.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 144
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
76 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Phasing & Implementation Plan
07
Table 10: Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study Phasing and Implementation Plan
Area Location BEF
Criteria Issue/ Opportunity Near-Term Preliminary Improvement Near-Term
Cost Long-term Preliminary Improvement Long-Term
Cost
Agencies/Partners
Involved Total Cost
S8
Iron Horse Trail
Segment between
Dublin Boulevard and
Demarcus Boulevard/
BART Access Road
Trail
The trail is 10 feet wide throughout the entire segment.S8.NT 8.1: Widen trail opportunistically and as feasible.
$420,000
S8.LT 8.1: Widen trail and include shoulders.
$1,025,000
City of Dublin, East Bay
Regional Park District, and Bay
Area Rapid Transit (BART)
$1,445,000
Most of the trail segment features a grassy shoulder which
is generally unmaintained. Some portions of the trail feature
sloped gravel shoulders
-
The pavement is average quality asphalt with a generally
smooth riding/walking surface.-
S8.LT 8.2: Identify consistent pavement materials and treatment
through corridor. Work with the Park District and BART to maintain
the trail over time.
Landscaping
Smaller, immature trees are located near the trail but do not
provide shade/visual interest.
S7.NT 8.2: Plant trees alongside the trail to provide shade and visual
interest.
S8.LT 8.3: Maintain trees and vegetation over time.The vegetation near the trail is generally unmaintained and
provides minimal visual interest. Burrs from the vegetation
result in flat tires.
S8.NT 8.3: Consider adding drought-tolerant landscaping along
both sides of the trail to provide visual interest and create a more
welcoming environment. Keep vegetation away from paved portion
of trail.
Placemaking
and Amenities
There are no gateway features or amenities to identify the Iron
Horse Trail.
S8.NT 8.4: Add benches and interpretative signage near gateways at
Dublin Boulevard and DeMarcus Boulevard.
S8.LT 8.4: Add benches and interpretative signage near possible
future connection to Campell Lane.
Wayfinding
Trailhead signage is located at the entrances to this segment
but there is no Park District wayfinding signage or destination
wayfinding to local amenities.
S8.NT 8.5: Install Park District wayfinding signs. Install trail-user
destination wayfinding to identify preferred routes to key destinations,
such as BART, Downtown, and other trails.
S8.LT 8.5: Maintain and update wayfinding signage over time,
as needed.
Connectivity
No connections are provided but there is an opportunity to
connect to the future development to the east in the Dublin
Transit Village along Campbell Lane.
-S8.LT 8.6: Incorporate a connection between Campell Lane and
the Iron Horse Trail.
Maintenance Vegetation is generally not well maintained and some of the
trees are in need of maintenance.
S8.NT 8.6: Work with the Park District, BART, and property owners to
formalize landscaping.
S8.LT 8.7: Work with the Park District, BART, and property owners
to maintain trail and adjacent land over time.
Lighting There is no lighting present along this segment of the trail. S8.NT 8.7: Provide lighting at gateway locations to the trail segment
near Dublin Boulevard and Demarcus Boulevard.
S8.LT 8.8: Provide pedestrian scale lighting along the trail to
enhance the pedestrian experience and encourage people to
commute by walking or bicycling.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 145
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 77
Page intentionally left blank.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 146
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
78 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Phasing & Implementation Plan
07
Table 10: Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study Phasing and Implementation Plan
Area Location BEF
Criteria Issue/ Opportunity Near-Term Preliminary Improvement Near-Term
Cost Long-term Preliminary Improvement Long-Term
Cost
Agencies/Partners
Involved Total Cost
S9
Iron Horse Trail
Segment From
Demarcus Boulevard
Intersection along the
BART Access Road
(North of I-580)
Trail
The trail is generally 10 feet wide parallel to the BART Access
Road but a small portion near the I-580 overcrossing expands
to 13 feet.
S9.NT 9.1: Stripe a cycle track from the Demarcus Boulevard/Trail
connection intersection along the BART Access Roadway connecting
to the fare gates. Work with Pleasanton to continue this facility to the
south. Direct bicyclists to use this facility instead of the Trail through
this segment.
$475,000
S9.LT 9.1: Widen and redesign the trail to a minimum of 11 feet
with 2 foot shoulders on both sides. This can be accomplished by
reducing the bus travel lane widths in the BART Access roadway or
by expanding to the east and removing the chainlink fence, which
may require working with private property owners.
$1,183,000
Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART), Livermore-Amador
Valley Transit Authority
(Wheels), Central Contra
Costa Transit Authority
(County Connection), East Bay
Regional Park District
$1,658,000
-S9.LT 9.2: Identify consistent pavement materials and treatment
through corridor.
There are no shoulders provided along the portion of the
trail and there is a chainlink fence directly along the trail on
one-side and an asphalt curb on the other. The chainlink fence
minimizes the effective width of the trail.
-S9.LT 9.3: As the trail is widened, provided DG shoulders on each
side of the trail.
The asphalt surface is in need of repair and creates a rougher
ride through this segment on a bicycle.
S9.NT 9.2: Repave the asphalt surface to provide a smoother riding
surface.
S9.LT 9.6: Work with the Park District and BART to maintain the
trail over time.
Street lamp poles are located within the ten feet effective
width of the pathway.-S9.LT 9.5: Relocate light poles into a landscaped buffer or out of
the effective ten foot minimum walkway.
Landscaping
Some trees are provided near the I-580 overcrossing but are
located behind the chain link fence and do not provide any
shade for the trail.
--
This portion of the trail has minimal landscaping and the
existing vegetation is located behind the chainlink fence on
the eastern side of the trail. The landscaping appears minimally
maintained and provides little to no visual interest for trail or
transit users.
S9.NT 9.3: Consider adding landscaping along the trail.-
Placemaking,
Amenities
Long- and short-term bicycle parking options are located near
the BART station.
S9.NT 9.6: Add places to rest along the trail and pair with shading
elements and landscaping.
S9.LT 9.6: Construct a trail plaza in the existing cul-de-sac
space just north of the Demarcus Boulevard/Bart Access Road
intersection. Install benches, wayfinding, and interpretative
signage to act as a gateway to the Iron Horse Trail in Dublin.
Wayfinding
Only East Bay Regional Parks District trailhead signage is
located along the trail. Regional transit maps are provided near
the BART station for transit users but are not located directly
along trail.
S9.NT 9.5: Install Park District wayfinding signs. Install trail-user
destination wayfinding to identify preferred routes to key destinations,
such as BART, Downtown, and other trails.
S9.LT 9.7: Maintain and update wayfinding signage over time, as
needed.
Connectivity
Transit amenities/services and adjacent multi-family residential
developments are accessible but require trail users to travel
through the BART Access Road at unmarked location.
S9.NT 9.6: Install a high visibility crosswalk to connect the trail to the
bus depots to the west.
S9.LT 9.8: Improve connections between development along
DeMarcus Boulevard the trail crossing, including through the bus
plaza.
Maintenance Some vegetation is located along the west side of the path;
however, it is not well-maintained
S9.NT 9.7: Work with the Park District, BART, and property owners to
formalize landscaping.
S9.LT 9.9: Work with the Park District, BART, and property owners
to maintain trail and adjacent land over time.
Lighting Minimal lighting is available from the BART Access Road lights
along trail which face the street toward the transit facility.
S9.NT 9.8: Retrofit existing light poles to provide lighting toward the
BART Access Road and the Trail.
S9.LT 9.10: Provide additional pedestrian scale lighting along the
trail to enhance the pedestrian experience and encourage people
to commute by walking or bicycling. Enhance lighting at trail
crossings, as feasible.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 147
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 79
Page intentionally left blank.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 148
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
80 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Phasing & Implementation Plan
07
Table 10: Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study Phasing and Implementation Plan
Area Location BEF
Criteria Issue/ Opportunity Near-Term Preliminary Improvement Near-Term
Cost Long-term Preliminary Improvement Long-Term
Cost
Agencies/Partners
Involved Total Cost
S10
BART Fare Gates Area
along the BART Access
Roadway
Transit Zone
Signage requires bicyclists to dismount, which is inconvenient
and a barrier to biking through the Transit Zone. However, they
are not provided an alternative alignment through the BART
station area.
S10.NT 10.1: Work with BART and City of Pleasanton to provide an
attractive alternative for bicyclists that creates a continuous dedicated
bikeway through the BART area, such as a cycle track. Remove
dismount zone signs with the installation of the bikeway.
$960,000 --
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)$960,000
Wayfinding Limited wayfinding or guidance on the Trail alignment though
the Transit Zone.
S10.NT 10.2: Work with BART, City of Pleasanton, and the Park District
to install destination wayfinding and Park District signs along the Trail
through the BART area.
N/A
(BART cost)
S10.LT 10.1: Maintain and update wayfinding signage over time,
as needed.
N/A
Bike Parking
Not all lockers allow BikeLink cards.S10.NT 10.3: Work with BART to convert all lockers to BikeLink
technology.-
Bike racks nearest to the station area are full on weekdays and
the bike racks further from the BART gates are not utilized due
to a lack of visibility from the BART fare gates.
S10.NT 10.4: Work with BART and City of Pleasanton to relocate
underutilized bicycle racks to more convenient and
secure locations.
S10.LT 10.2: Work with BART to encourage the installation of a
Bike Station at the East/Dublin Pleasanton BART station.
Lighting Lighting is provided underneath I-580 and under the bus bay
shelters.--
Crossings Few pedestrians coming from bus station use the marked
crosswalk.
S10.NT 10.5: Restripe and sign the new crosswalk across the BART
Access Roadway, just north of I-580 to high-visibility ladder striping
and remove stop bars. Add crosswalk signs and ensure the crosswalk is
sufficiently lit by adjacent roadway lighting.
-
TOTAL NEAR-TERM COST: $4,879,000 TOTAL LONG-TERM COST: $16,360,000
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 149
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 81
Page intentionally left blank.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 150
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
82 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Preliminary Environmental Review
08
Preliminary Environmental Review
The 2016 CEQA Guidelines Environmental Checklist and applicable
sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) were used to guide
this screening analysis. Appendix E provides the complete table of
environmental impacts with the results of the CEQA screening analysis in
a matrix, organized by topic area. As significance determinations under
NEPA differ from those of CEQA and are generally broader, a summary
of the NEPA analysis is included separately in Appendix E. Figure 23
provides a map of identified environmental issues that will need to be
considered during CEQA and NEPA review for the project.
A preliminary, screening-level analysis of potential environmental issues
related to the Iron Horse Trail Feasibility (“project”) was conducted and
provides a summary of recommendations that may avoid or reduce
potential project-related impacts. The screening-level evaluation represents
the first step in understanding whether the project is likely to result in
environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 151
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 83
A series of prior CEQA documents completed for projects
within or adjacent to the IHTC project area were screened. This
screening provided an overview of existing environmental
issues in and around the project area, and has served as a basis
for evaluation of CEQA topic areas for the project.
Environmental Issues by Topic Area
A series of major projects adjacent to the project have
completed environmental review under CEQA over the last
several years. In some cases, the project area(s) overlapped a
portion of the project area for this study. The environmental
conditions and project-related impacts identified by the
prior EIRs reviewed provide a background for environmental
issues that maybe encountered on the project. A summary
of environmental issues identified by these analyses and
their relationship to the project is included in Appendix E. In
addition, a high-level evaluation was completed regarding
topics that did not present major issues in prior EIRs, to
evaluate whether the project is likely to result in significant
impacts for these topics.
The preliminary environmental screening indicates the project
is likely to have the following CEQA effects:
Less than significant (mitigation not likely
needed)
• Agriculture and forest resources,
• Greenhouse gas emissions, hazards,
• Land use and planning,
• Mineral resources,
• Population and housing,
• Public services, or
• Utilities and services systems
DUBLIN BL
DO
U
G
H
E
R
T
Y
R
D
HA
C
I
E
N
D
A
D
R
OWENS DR
JOHNSON DR
H
O
P
Y
A
R
D
R
D
n
n
n
Valley
High
School
Wells
Middle
School
N
§¨¦I680 SB TO I580 EB C
O
N
N
§¨¦I580 WB TO I680 NB CON
§¨¦ 580
^5
^5
1/2 Mile Study Area
Study Intersection
BART Route
Dublin/Pleasanton City Limit
Iron Horse Trail
Chabot Canal
Floodway
500-Year FEMA Flood Zone
100-Year FEMA Flood Zone
Liquefaction Hazard Areap
General Plan Ridgeline
Enhancement
Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station
Potential LOS Impact
Seasonal Wetland
5
Figure XX-X
Iron Horse Trail Connectivity Feasibility Study
Potential Environmental and Policy Constraints
California Geologic Survey, Seismic Hazards Zoning Program, 2008
Alameda County Registrar of Voters, Mapping Section, ROV_Flood, 2011
Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Hazard Layer, 2014
City of Dublin, 2014, General Plan Amendment
City of Dublin, 2013, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
DUBLIN BL
DO
U
G
H
E
R
T
Y
R
D
HA
C
I
E
N
D
A
D
R
OWENS DR
JOHNSON DR
H
O
P
Y
A
R
D
R
D
n
n
n
Valley
High
School
Wells
Middle
School
N
§¨¦I680 SB TO I580 EB C
O
N
N
§¨¦I580 WB TO I680 NB CON
§¨¦ 580
^5
^5
1/2 Mile Study Area
Study Intersection
BART Route
Dublin/Pleasanton City Limit
Iron Horse Trail
Chabot Canal
Floodway
500-Year FEMA Flood Zone
100-Year FEMA Flood Zone
Liquefaction Hazard Areap
General Plan Ridgeline
Enhancement
Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station
Potential LOS Impact
Seasonal Wetland
5
Figure XX-X
Iron Horse Trail Connectivity Feasibility Study
Potential Environmental and Policy Constraints
California Geologic Survey, Seismic Hazards Zoning Program, 2008
Alameda County Registrar of Voters, Mapping Section, ROV_Flood, 2011
Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Hazard Layer, 2014
City of Dublin, 2014, General Plan Amendment
City of Dublin, 2013, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
Figure 23: Potential Environmental Issues
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 152
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
84 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
Significant impacts (likely reduced to
less-than-significant level with mitigation
measures)
• Air quality,
• Cultural resources,
• Geology and soils,
• Hydrology and Water quality, and
• Noise
Potentially significant impacts1:
• Aesthetics,
• Biological resources, and
• Transportation and traffic
These assumptions are based on analysis of the project against
the criteria found in the 2016 CEQA Guidelines Environmental
Checklist (Attachment B) and the review of prior EIRs.
Anticipated Level of CEQA Review
Based on the screening-level findings described above, an
Initial Study with a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is
likely to provide an adequate level of CEQA review. However,
it is possible that the project CEQA analysis may determine
the project would result in significant impacts that cannot
be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Possibly, air
quality analysis and the exposure of cyclists and pedestrians
to air quality that exceeds BAAQMD thresholds may result in
significant and unavoidable impacts2. Once an initial study is
complete a final determination can be made. If no significant
and unavoidable impacts are found, no further analysis would
be required. If significant impacts are found and cannot be
mitigated to less-than-significant levels, an EIR would be
prepared.
However, completing an EIR would reduce risk, as the
standard of review if challenged in court would be “substantial
evidence”3, and preparation of an EIR could provide a more
thorough environmental analysis. Given the size, public
visibility, and potential funding sources of the project, it may be
advisable and efficient to prepare an EIR without a prior initial
study5.
Anticipated Level of NEPA Review
It is anticipated that the project may have a federal nexus,
and would therefore be required to complete NEPA review.
Depending on the agency with federal delegation to complete
this review, a set of significance thresholds may or may not be
used4. Significant determinations under NEPA review differ
from CEQA; under NEPA, significance is determined based on
the impact of a project as a whole, rather than by topic areas
individually. This, in addition to separate significance criteria,
means impacts that are determined to be significant under
CEQA may not be determined significant under NEPA. Based
on a screening of the project, it is considered to be unlikely
that the project as a whole would have a significant impact
on the environment, and therefore an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is not likely to be required.
A review of NEPA categorical exclusions (23 CFR 771.117)
found that the project may qualify as a categorical exclusion
under criteria (c)(3), which covers construction of bicycle and
pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities. However, it is important
to note that categorical exclusions may only be used if a project
will not have a significant environmental impact or substantial
controversy on environmental grounds.
Ultimately, the lead federal agency will determine the level of
NEPA review required for the project; however, this screening-
level review indicates that a categorical exclusion may be
sufficient6. If further analysis determines that the project
could potentially result in significant impacts under NEPA, an
Environmental Assessment may be prepared to determine if an
EIS is necessary.
Appendix
09
3. The screening indicated further analysis and information will be required to assess the likelihood of project-related CEQA impacts to these topic
areas. <?> The screening indicated further analysis and information will be required to assess the likelihood of project-related CEQA impacts to
these topic areas.
4. Per CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369, CEQA may require analysis and mitigation of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future
users if the project may “exacerbate” an existing environmental condition
5. Initial studies are held to the “fair argument” standard, which places a greater burden of proof on the project proponent. Conversely, the
“substantial evidence” standard places the burden of proof largely on the plaintiff.
6. While NEPA delegates the responsibility of developing thresholds of significance to federal agencies, many have not formally adopted
thresholds. In particular, Caltrans does not currently have adopted thresholds for NEPA review.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 153
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report 85
appendix
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 154
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
A. Relevant Plans & Policies (Urban Planning Partners)
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 155
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
B. Existing Conditions & BEF Methodology
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 156
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
C. Crosswalk & Non-motorized User Detection Guidance
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 157
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
D. Grade Separation Cost Estimates & Designs
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 158
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
E. Detail Near-term & Long-term Cost Estimates
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 159
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
F. Preliminary Environmental Review Memorandum
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 160
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 161
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 162
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Prepared for:
March 2017
WC14-3178
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 163
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
n:\projects\_wc14\wc14‐3178.00_iron horse trail feasibility_study\deliverables\3_policies\task 3 memo_ggrevised1_figure_text.docx
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 19, 2015
TO: FROM:
Martha Aja
City of Dublin
Greg Goodfellow
P. 510.251.8210
E. ggoodfellow@up‐partners.com
RE: Task 3, Policy and Environmental Constraints: Iron Horse Trail Connectivity Feasibility Study
This memo contains the results of a review of existing planning documents relevant to the Iron Horse Trail
Connectivity Feasibility Study. Policies and conditions that may influence the Iron Horse Trail improvement
process are summarized. Documents reviewed include City of Dublin policy planning documents, as well
as relevant bicycle, pedestrian and transit‐related policy documents prepared by outside agencies:
City of Dublin 2014 General Plan
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (2013)
City of Dublin Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 2014 Update
City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2014)
City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Guidelines (2014)
BART Bicycle Plan (2012)
Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan (2012)
Alameda Countywide Pedestrian Plan (2012)
City of Pleasanton Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study and Master Plan (2011)
City of San Ramon San Ramon Valley Iron Horse Trail Bicycle Pedestrian Corridor Concept Plan
(2009)
As part of this task, a series of CEQA documents were also screened, in order to identify environmental
and/or physical conditions with the potential to impact the feasibility of Iron Horse Trail improvements.
Environmental documents reviewed include:
City of Dublin General Plan (2014 amendment) Draft EIR
City of Dublin General Plan (2014 amendment) Final EIR
City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration (2014)
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR (2013)
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Final EIR (2013)
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Draft EIR (1992)
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 164
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Martha Aja
DATE: May 18, 2015
PAGE: 2
n:\projects\_wc14\wc14‐3178.00_iron horse trail feasibility_study\deliverables\3_policies\task 3 memo_ggrevised1_figure_text.docx
The Village @ Dublin Draft EIR (2013)
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Extension Project Draft EIR (1989)
Dublin Transit Center Draft EIR (2001)
Dublin Transit Center Final EIR (2002)
A. Review of Existing Policies and Programs
Improving the connectivity of the Iron Horse Trail to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is generally
consistent with existing planning policy. As the following analysis demonstrates, numerous City policies
related to land use, circulation, alternative transportation and civic identity target increased cyclist and
pedestrian safety, and improved access to transit. Because the Iron Horse Trail is identified as a regional
asset by the City of Dublin and other agencies, it is also prioritized for both physical improvements and
associated funding.
1. City of Dublin General Plan
As noted above, City of Dublin policy generally supports Iron Horse Trail improvements that result in
more people using the Trail, specifically to access the BART Station. An important consideration is that the
Trail is labeled a “route of regional significance” in the General Plan. As a result, all physical improvements
will be subject to design review. Relevant policies are listed in Table 1 and a brief description of each
policy’s relationship to the current project is provided.
Table 1: City of Dublin General Plan Policies
Section/Topic Policy IHT Connectivity Project Notes
Open Space 3.4.1.B.4 Use…design review process to preserve or
enhance the ridgelines that form the skyline as viewed
from freeways (I‐580 or I‐680) or major arterial streets
(Dublin Boulevard…Dougherty Road…).
Design of grade‐separated
overpasses at Dublin Blvd and
Dougherty Road will be subject to
the City’s formal site design
review process, including
Community Development
Department staff and Planning
Commission review.
Improvements should enhance
views of the ridgelines as viewed
from Dublin Blvd. and/or
Dougherty Road.
Positive Regional
Identity
10.5: Iron Horse Trail listed as one of 10 regional
corridors, or "routes of regional significance."
Positive design, image and
promotion of civic identity must
be considered in all Iron Horse
Trail improvements (see below).
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 165
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Martha Aja
DATE: May 18, 2015
PAGE: 3
n:\projects\_wc14\wc14‐3178.00_iron horse trail feasibility_study\deliverables\3_policies\task 3 memo_ggrevised1_figure_text.docx
Positive Regional
Identity
10.5.3 A: Incorporate distinctive design features along
regional corridors that reinforce a positive image of
Dublin. Both within the right‐of‐way and on adjacent
private development, utilize features such as gateway
elements, street trees, median planting, special
lighting, separated and ample sidewalks, crosswalks,
seating, special signs, street names, landscape,
decorative paving patterns, and public art . Consider
undergrounding utilities along these roadways.
The design of IHT connectivity
improvements should consider
unique design strategies and
incorporate design details that
contribute to larger Trail
aesthetic/identity.
Positive Regional
Identity
10.5.3 B: Maintain views through development to
distant vistas (i.e. foothills) and view corridors along
regional corridors, wherever feasible.
Potential vertical elements such
as grade‐separated overpasses
should not impede views from
along Iron Horse Trail.
Pedestrian Routes
and Bikeways
Guiding Policies: 1. Provide safe, continuous,
comfortable and convenient bikeways...
Intersection crossings that carry
the flow if Iron Horse Trail users
most smoothly and safely will be
deemed most appropriate.
Pedestrian Routes
and Bikeways
Guiding Policies: 2. Improve and maintain bikeways
and pedestrian facilities... in conformance with
the...Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
See Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan, below.
Pedestrian Routes
and Bikeways
Guiding Policies: 3. Enhance the multi‐modal
circulation network to better accommodate
alternative transportation choices including BART, bus,
bicycle, and pedestrian transportation.
Connecting a multi‐use path such
as the IHT to BART fully supports
this policy. One focus of Trail
improvement should be
highlighting this transit access, via
wayfinding and informational
signage.
Pedestrian Routes
and Bikeways
Guiding Policies: 4. Provide comfortable, safe, and
convenient walking routes...to key destinations such
as...the BART Stations...
Iron Horse Trail connectivity
improvements directly support
City pedestrian & bicycle policies.
Alternative
Transportation
5.3.1 B.5: Encourage the use of regional and local trail
systems and consider infrastructure enhancements
that could improve the operation and functionality of
the most widely used trail corridors.
The IHT improvement process
should be approached with broad
view Trail functionality, including
consideration of a range of
infrastructure enhancements.
2. Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan establishes the policy foundation for a transit‐oriented community of
nearly 2,000 units adjacent the Iron Horse Trail. The Plan specifies that direct access to the Iron Horse
Regional Trail should be provided, and contains numerous policies to establish a successful interface
between elements of the development and Trail itself. Many of these policies will require that the design
and strategy of Iron Horse Trail improvements be coordinated with future adjacent development.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 166
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Martha Aja
DATE: May 18, 2015
PAGE: 4
n:\projects\_wc14\wc14‐3178.00_iron horse trail feasibility_study\deliverables\3_policies\task 3 memo_ggrevised1_figure_text.docx
Relevant policies are listed in Table 2 and a brief description of the policy’s relationship to the Iron Horse
Trail Connectivity Study is provided.
The location of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Area, as well as a summary of future growth and Iron
Horse Trail‐related policies associated with the Plan, are depicted in Figure x, Future Land Use Trends.
Table 2: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Policies
Section/Topic Policy IHT Connectivity Project Notes
Land Use LU Policy 2.5: Locate the Central Park near the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard, Scarlett Drive and
the Iron Horse Regional Trail to provide physical and
visual access to the Dublin Community and to enable a
strong connection between the parks in the Specific
Plan area and the Iron Horse Regional Trail.
Key Iron Horse Trail
improvements, including potential
connections, widening strategies
and buffers must consider the
future Dublin Crossing Central
Park.
Design Guidelines DG 3.1.1: Overall Building Design: Buildings shall be
sited and designed to have a strong street
presence…along the Iron Horse Regional Trail, parks,
and public streets within the Specific Plan area.
Iron Horse Trail widening,
shoulder improvements, fencing
and lighting‐related
improvements should be planned
to harmonize with future adjacent
frontages.
Circulation and
Streetscape Design
CIR 4.1: Provide a new east‐west connection between
Scarlett Drive and Arnold Road to provide a more
direct route through the Specific Plan area for new
development.
Iron Horse Trail connectivity
improvements must consider a
new collector street that will
intersect the Iron Horse Trail,
which may constitute a barrier to
future connectivity.
Circulation and
Streetscape Design
CIR 4.16: Provide pedestrian and bikeways connecting
the Specific Plan’s parks to the Iron Horse Regional
Trail.
Iron Horse Trail improvements
will have to consider new
connections with, and increased
traffic to and from, future parks.
Circulation and
Streetscape Design
CIR 4.9: Establish an interconnected network of
sidewalks and bicycle lanes, and multi‐use paths that
provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle
access between the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station,
Iron Horse Trail…
Iron Horse Trail improvements
will have to consider a series of
future connection/access points
from the east.
Circulation and
Streetscape Design
CIR 4.11: Work with the East Bay Regional Park
District on the concept and final design of the Iron
Horse Regional Trail realignment along Scarlett Drive
and the potential creation of a secondary trail
pathway through Central Park, if appropriate.
EBRPD and the Dublin Crossing
team should be consulted on
potential Iron Horse Trail
realignment, and the potential
impacts of Iron Horse Trail
improvements.
Circulation and
Streetscape Design
CIR 4.3.5: Perimeter Roadway/Intersection
Improvements: Scarlett Drive will be widened to four
lanes and extended from Houston Place south to
Dublin Boulevard along the western edge of the
The extension of Scarlett Drive
may impact design of Dublin Blvd
crossing and parallel Trail
improvements, and needs to be
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 167
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Martha Aja
DATE: May 18, 2015
PAGE: 5
n:\projects\_wc14\wc14‐3178.00_iron horse trail feasibility_study\deliverables\3_policies\task 3 memo_ggrevised1_figure_text.docx
Specific Plan area. considered in Trail improvement
process.
3. City of Dublin Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 2014 Update
The City’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains policy establishing a mixed‐use, high density Transit Village
Center subarea just south of Dublin Boulevard and east of the Iron Horse Trail. The location, land uses and
potential and approved future development associated with the subarea are depicted in Figure x. As
shown in Figure x, while all of the residential areas of the Transit Village are either occupied, under
construction, or the location of approved projects, the majority of the areas designated Campus Office are
vacant, and with high future development potential.
Subarea policy highlighted in Table 3 calls for a bikeways system that will directly impact use the Iron
Horse Trail just north of the BART station.
Table 3: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Policies
Section/Topic Policy IHT Connectivity Project Notes
Transit Village
Center
Create a logical, well‐marked bicycle lane system that
provides access to the BART station, the Iron Horse
Trail, the East‐West Trail located along the north side
of Dublin Boulevard, and development within the
subarea.
Future bike lanes providing
immediate access to the Iron
Horse Trail will impact future Trail
use and connections south of
Dublin Boulevard.
4. City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
The City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan contains a series of proposed bicycle networks that will feed
into the Iron Horse Trail and potentially increase bicycle and pedestrian traffic on the Trail. The Plan also
outlines a series of goals and policies that would be directly supported by improvements to Trail safety,
increased connectivity to regional transit, and overall usability of the Trail (Table 4).
Table 4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Policies
Section/Topic Policy IHT Connectivity Project Notes
Proposed Bicycle
Networks
Includes new and upgraded bikeways on Dougherty
Road, Sierra Lane, Dublin Boulevard, and Dublin
Crossing internal roadways, including a shared‐use
path on future G Street that will connect to the Iron
Horse Trail. The Plan also details proposals for
improvements to the Dougherty Road/Iron Horse Trail
intersection.
Future bikeways will increase Iron
Horse Trail bicycle usage and add
connections to/intersections with
key roads.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 168
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Martha Aja
DATE: May 18, 2015
PAGE: 6
n:\projects\_wc14\wc14‐3178.00_iron horse trail feasibility_study\deliverables\3_policies\task 3 memo_ggrevised1_figure_text.docx
Goals and Policies Goal 1: Support Bicycling and walking as practical,
healthy, and convenient alternatives to automobile use
in Dublin.
Improving IHT connectivity to
BART fulfills each element of this
goal: convenience, safety and
transit‐friendliness.
Goals and Policies Policy 2‐1: Implement and maintain an integrated
transportation network that allows safe and
convenient travel along and across streets for all users,
including pedestrian and bicyclists’ needs and access at
key destinations, such as...transit stations…
Improved Dougherty and Dublin
crossings and BART access
directly target goal of a well‐
connected, accessible
transportation system.
Goals and Policies Policy 2‐5: Plan and implement a citywide wayfinding
program for bicyclists and pedestrians to provide route
guidance to key destinations, with initial focus on the
Downtown Area and transit centers.
IHT connectivity should include a
wayfinding and informational
component that highlights access
to BART.
Goals and Policies Goal 5: Maximize multi‐modal connections in the
transportation network.
Improving the connection
between a multi‐use regional trail
and the BART system is
inherently multi‐modal, and thus
supports a key goal of this Plan.
Goals and Policies Policy 5‐1: Aim to ensure that the bicycle system serves
transit stops and stations; that pedestrian crossing
needs are met at transit stops; and that continuous,
accessible pedestrian routes are provided.
Improving this segment of the
IHT will result in direct increases
in continuity and transit
accessibility.
Goals and Policies Policy 6‐1: Work to reduce bicycle and pedestrian
crashes, injuries and fatalities on all roadways.
New IHT crossings at Dougherty
Road and Dublin Blvd will
respond to, and improve, existing
crossing safety issues and
associated risk to pedestrians and
cyclists.
5. City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines
This document is intended to “guide the installation and design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities
citywide.” As such, it contains guidelines that should be consulted in the current assessment of the
feasibility of various physical improvements to the Iron Horse Trail. These are introduced in Table 5,
below.
Table 5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Design Guidelines
Section/Topic Policy IHT Connectivity Project Notes
Pedestrian
Wayfinding
A pedestrian wayfinding system provides consistent
and user‐friendly information about distances and
routes to and from major transit centers…making
these places easier to connect to, and encouraging
people to make short trips on foot. Wayfinding is an
essential aspect of street infrastructure…
IHT connectivity improvements
should include a wayfinding
program that includes basic
information described here:
Distance, direction, and route.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 169
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Martha Aja
DATE: May 18, 2015
PAGE: 7
n:\projects\_wc14\wc14‐3178.00_iron horse trail feasibility_study\deliverables\3_policies\task 3 memo_ggrevised1_figure_text.docx
Pedestrian‐scale
lighting
Pedestrian scale lighting improves pedestrian visibility
and the perception of safety and comfort while
walking. Well‐lit pedestrian facilities are more inviting,
and function well for pedestrians after sunset.
Lighting guidelines also apply to
the IHT. Users’ perceptions of
safety and comfort will
determine Trail use by diverse
groups such as commuters,
students, BART riders and the
elderly.
Intersection
Design Guidelines
The Guidelines include guidance related to crosswalk
striping, general crosswalk design, crossings pavement
treatments, median islands, pedestrian crossing
signage, and beacons.
All potential components of a
safe, functional pedestrian
intersection crossing should be
considered in an assessment of
IHT connectivity improvements.
Grade Separated
Crossings
Grade separations are a tool to help overcome barriers
and help pedestrians connect to sidewalks, off‐road
trails and paths. They should be used where
topography is supportive and no other pedestrian
facility is available.
This guideline reiterates the value
of grade separated crossings, but
also that all other options for
safe, pedestrian flow should be
exhausted before determining
the necessity of a bridge or
tunnel.
Class I Shared Use
Paths
The Guidelines include standards for the design of
shared use bicycle/pedestrian paths, included those
related to basic dimensions, grade separation, fencing,
curb ramps, crossing treatment, signalization, staging,
lighting, rest areas and seating.
The IHT functions in the same
manner as a Class I bike path.
Therefore, these standards
should be applied, wherever
relevant, to potential Trail
improvements and crossings.
6. BART Bicycle Plan
This Plan finds that non‐auto access to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is limited. It follows that a
connected, regional Trail that facilitates non‐auto commuting directly to the station is of high value. The
Plan also contains policy establishing support for specific types of projects outside BART jurisdiction.
Improving the connectivity of Iron Horse Trail is likely one of those projects.
Table 6 BART Bicycle Plan Findings and Policies
Section/Topic Finding/Policy IHT Connectivity Project Notes
BART Station
Typologies
Of the five modal typologies used in this Plan to assess
the auto‐centricity of BART stations, the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station is placed in the “Auto
Dependent” group, those with the highest auto share
and least modal diversity.
This assessment is an indication
of the need for improved IHT
connectivity to the station, as
well as BART’s internal awareness
that multi‐modal access to the
station is in need of
improvement.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 170
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Martha Aja
DATE: May 18, 2015
PAGE: 8
n:\projects\_wc14\wc14‐3178.00_iron horse trail feasibility_study\deliverables\3_policies\task 3 memo_ggrevised1_figure_text.docx
Bike Parking At the Dublin/Pleasanton Station [bike] racks classified
as ‘close’ to the fare gates are 90% occupied, while
‘medium’ and ‘far’ rack spaces are only 60% and 3%
occupied, respectively.
One component of connecting
the IHT to the BART station
should be a bicycle parking
strategy that increases the
perception of security by locating
bike racks in high‐activity areas of
the station.
Beyond BART
Boundaries
3.2: Support local efforts to improve bicycle access
to stations. Where BART does not have jurisdiction to
make changes—such as on local streets and
pathways— supporting local efforts to fund and
implement bicycle facilities that serve BART stations
would help make these improvements happen. BART
assistance could take the form of letters of support and
participation in local meetings.
Iron Horse Trail connectivity
improvements will directly serve
BART. Thus project support and
feasibility may be increased by
leveraging BART resources.
7. Alameda Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans
The countywide bicycle and pedestrian plans adopted by the County of Alameda contain policies that
significantly increase the financial feasibility of Iron Horse Trail improvements. Both documents prioritize
the Iron Horse Trail in the Countywide Transportation Expenditure Plan. Relevant policies are identified in
Table 7.
Table 7: Alameda County Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans Policies
Section/Topic Policy IHT Connectivity Project Notes
Bicycle Plan:
Countywide
Transportation
Plan (CWTP) and
Transportation
Expenditure Plan
(TEP)
The TEP would fund, or contribute towards funding:
"Completion and maintenance of the three major trails
in Alameda County—the Iron Horse Trail, Bay Trail and
East Bay Greenway—and of local connectors and
access routes."
Significant funding may be
available for Iron Horse Trail
connectivity improvements, as
well as Dougherty Road and
Dublin Blvd crossings.
Pedestrian Plan:
Countywide
Transportation
Plan (CWTP) and
Transportation
Expenditure Plan
(TEP)
The TEP would fund, or contribute towards funding:
" Completion and maintenance of the three major
trails in Alameda County—the Iron Horse Trail, Bay
Trail and East Bay Greenway—and of local connectors
and access routes."
Significant funding may be
available for Iron Horse Trail
connectivity improvements, as
well as Dougherty Road and
Dublin Blvd crossings.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 171
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Martha Aja
DATE: May 18, 2015
PAGE: 9
n:\projects\_wc14\wc14‐3178.00_iron horse trail feasibility_study\deliverables\3_policies\task 3 memo_ggrevised1_figure_text.docx
Pedestrian Plan:
Priority System
Inter‐jurisdictional trails, including Iron Horse Trail, are
one of three areas prioritized for funding. "The
purpose of the priority system is to focus Alameda
CTC’s funding efforts over the next several years—until
the Pedestrian Plan is updated again—on those
improvements that are anticipated to be most
effective at accomplishing the goals of the plan."
Improving Iron Horse Trail
connectivity is consistent with
goals of the Countywide
Pedestrian Plan. Thus, potential
funding may be available for Iron
Horse Trail improvements.
8. City of Pleasanton Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study and Master Plan
In 2011, the City of Pleasanton studied the feasibility of closing a 1.6 mile gap in the Iron Horse Trail
between the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Santa Rita Road, in Pleasanton. That segment is the
immediate southerly link to the section of Trail currently under study. As a result of that continuity and
proximity, certain constraints identified in the Pleasanton study may also impact the feasibility of Iron
Horse Trail improvements in Dublin.
Table 8: Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study and Master Plan
Section/Topic Finding IHT Connectivity Project Notes
Opportunities and
Constraints
The Iron Horse Trail corridor also serves as a utility
corridor, containing a Kinder Morgan high pressure gas
line, PG&E high voltage overhead power lines, a fiber
optic cable, and a Zone 7 water main line.
Construction with heavy
equipment may require
additional safety measures, to be
identified by specialists during
preparation of construction
documents, and/or more detailed
site design. Undercrossings will
demand special considerations.
Inter‐agency coordination will be
required during project planning.
Opportunities and
Constraints
The site is located within 3 miles of both the Mt.
Diablo and Calaveras faults, therefore the soils are
subject to liquefaction.
Potential construction of major
structures, in the form of grade‐
separated crossings at Dublin
Blvd and Dougherty Road, will
need to consider seismic safety
and adhere to acceptable design
standards.
Opportunities and
Constraints
The site is located in a 500 year flood plain – the Del
Valle Dam inundation area.
Low‐lying Trail improvements
may be subject to damage from
flooding and flood events.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 172
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Martha Aja
DATE: May 18, 2015
PAGE: 10
n:\projects\_wc14\wc14‐3178.00_iron horse trail feasibility_study\deliverables\3_policies\task 3 memo_ggrevised1_figure_text.docx
9. City of San Ramon San Ramon Valley Iron Horse Trail Bicycle Pedestrian Corridor Concept Plan
In 2009, the City of San Ramon studied the feasibility of integrating a series of bicycle/pedestrian
overcrossings along the Iron Horse Trail, at Sycamore Valley Road (Danville), Crow Canyon Road and
Bollinger Canyon Road. Due to the common focus on grade‐separated crossings, certain findings made in
this study are relevant to the Iron Horse Trail improvements in Dublin.
Table 9: San Ramon Valley Iron Horse Trail Bicycle Pedestrian Corridor Concept Plan
Section/Topic Finding IHT Connectivity Project Notes
Project
Considerations
“The Barrier Effect:” The Study found that many trail
users (as much as 25 percent) treat the existing at‐
grade crossings as turn‐around points, and that grade
separated overcrossings would reduce this barrier
effect.
Similar perceived “barriers” of
difficult crossings in Dublin could
also be removed with safe,
functional grade‐separations. This
would be key to overall Trail
connectivity.
Project
Considerations
The Study found that “Bicycle utility is further
enhanced by the relationship of the trail to transit
facilities. Busses serving the transit facilities have
bicycle racks, further facilitating intermodal
transportation.”
Connecting the Trail to the BART
station in Dublin would similarly
promote bicycle use, intermodal
transportation and non‐auto
commuting.
Project
Considerations
The Study identified key opportunities for overpasses
at target intersections, including: future housing and
development near Trail, existing heavy traffic, and
proximity to Interstate 680.
Target IHT crossings in Dublin
present similar opportunities for
grade separations: Adjacent
future development, freeway
proximity and heavy existing
traffic.
B. Review of Environmental Documents
A series of major projects in the City Dublin were recently subject to environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The study areas of these projects intersect, are adjacent to,
or are sufficiently proximate to the current project area that environmental impacts affecting them may
also affect the feasibility of Iron Horse Trail upgrades. A cursory review of the current Iron Horse Trail
site/study area, followed by brief descriptions of relevant project sites, and the nature of relevant
environmental findings, demonstrates this.
Major findings from this review of environmental documents are shown on Figure xx, Potential
Environmental and Policy Constraints.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 173
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Martha Aja
DATE: May 18, 2015
PAGE: 11
n:\projects\_wc14\wc14‐3178.00_iron horse trail feasibility_study\deliverables\3_policies\task 3 memo_ggrevised1_figure_text.docx
1. Iron Horse Trail Connectivity Study Area
The goal of the Iron Horse Trail Connectivity Feasibility Study is to create a plan for a safe, functional “last
mile” bicycle and pedestrian connection to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The Trail segment under
study is just over 1 mile long, capped by Dougherty Road to the north and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
station to the south. This Trail segment intersects Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Boulevard, and future
Dublin Crossings driveways and roadways, all of which are focus areas of the study. Dublin Boulevard and
Dougherty Road are wide, busy regional corridors with multiple lanes of traffic, and the Trail crosses both
at awkward, acute angles at signalized intersections. An additional signalized roadway will be provided
with the development of Dublin Crossing at G Street. The ½‐mile segment of the Trail between Dougherty
Road and Dublin Boulevard is also a focus area. This approximately 8‐foot wide Trail segment is
characterized by what is often described as an unimproved, “back‐door” facility, with poor quality
surfacing and edges. Improvements to the segment must consider new standards and best practices for
path design. The path parallels Scarlett Drive, similar to a side path. Driveways and side‐streets will
intersect the Trail as the Dublin Crossing development is built out.
The ½ mile area surrounding this segment of the Trail contains multiple land uses. Land to the east is
dominated by the flat, partially‐developed Camp Parks area, which contains former cattle grazing
grassland and a series of structures used for U.S. Army operations. This grassy area is also contains a
series of natural and man‐made swales that carry the majority of runoff from the Camp Parks watershed
to Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) drainage facilities. These
swales are concentrated near the intersection of the proposed Scarlett Drive extension and Dublin
Boulevard. The area east of the Trail is the future site of the transit‐oriented, mixed use development
outlined in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and described above. The corner of the Parks Reserve Force
Training Area lies just northeast of the Dougherty Road crossing. The area adjacent the Trail to the west,
contains a pocket of medium density housing at the northern end, as well as business park/industrial uses
further south and office and automotive uses just north of the freeway. South of Dublin Boulevard to the
east of Trail, the partially‐developed Transit Village subarea described in Section A.3 contains multi‐family
housing, as well as a series of large parking lots and undeveloped properties.
2. Relevant Environmental Studies
As demonstrated in Section A, above, policies and programs adopted in a series of major plans will
influence the built landscape of the study area described above. These projects were subject to
environmental review, and as noted, are close enough to the current study area that findings and
conclusions may be relevant to the current study. The following environmental documents contained
impacts, insights and information that may affect the feasibility of future Iron Horse Trail improvements in
Dublin:
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 174
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Martha Aja
DATE: May 18, 2015
PAGE: 12
n:\projects\_wc14\wc14‐3178.00_iron horse trail feasibility_study\deliverables\3_policies\task 3 memo_ggrevised1_figure_text.docx
City of Dublin General Plan Draft & Final EIR. The current study area is nearly fully contained
within the City of Dublin’s General Plan planning area, with the exception of the portion south of
I‐580, which is in the City of Pleasanton. As such, constraints to, and impacts of, surrounding
development identified in the General Plan EIR, may also impact the feasibility of future Trail
improvements.
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Draft EIR. The southern portion of
the segment of the Iron Horse Trail under study lies along the western boundary of the Eastern
Extended Planning Area. Although that Planning Area spans 4,300 acres to the east and northeast
of that boundary, the EIR contains relevant insights into local biology and geology.
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft & Final EIR. The Dublin Crossing project is critical to the
future environment of the area immediately east of the Iron Horse Trail. The 2,000‐unit, transit‐
oriented community was planned to provide residents with direct access to the Iron Horse Trail.
The Dublin Crossing EIR identifies both environmental constraints to development, as well as
project‐related impacts that may impact the feasibility of Trail improvements.
City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration. As
demonstrated by the policies presented above, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will
influence multi‐modal accessibility throughout Dublin. The Plan includes specific
recommendations and policies that will influence access to the Iron Horse Trail. As such,
associated environmental considerations are likely relevant to Trail connectivity improvements.
The Village @ Dublin Draft EIR. This 2013 document analyses a proposed 167,200 square‐foot
retail commercial center in the City’s Eastern Planning Area. The 14.3‐acre site is located just
south of Dublin Boulevard, between Hacienda Drive and Arnold Road. The EIR was reviewed for
insights into possible traffic‐related impacts to the Dublin Boulevard corridor.
Dublin Transit Center Draft & Final EIR. As conceived of the in the 2001 EIR, the Dublin Transit
Center project is a high‐density mixed‐use, transit and pedestrian‐oriented development
adjacent the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, to the east. In addition to its proximity to the Iron
Horse Trail study area, the Transit Center Plan contains bicycle and pedestrian elements designed
to promote connection to the Iron Horse Trail itself.
3. Overview of Environmental Findings
A screening of the above documents revealed five types of environmental constraints that may also
impact the feasibility of connectivity improvements to the Iron Horse Trail:
Air quality‐related impacts related to the construction and operation of nearby projects;
Existing geological and seismicity‐related constraints;
Existing biological constraints;
Existing flood‐related hazard areas; and
Future traffic impacts of planned development
a. Air Quality Impacts
Numerous existing environmental documents identify potentially significant air quality impacts from the
construction and operation of planned development. The immediate proximity of these large
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 175
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Martha Aja
DATE: May 18, 2015
PAGE: 13
n:\projects\_wc14\wc14‐3178.00_iron horse trail feasibility_study\deliverables\3_policies\task 3 memo_ggrevised1_figure_text.docx
development projects to the Trail, combined with the unrestricted nature of airborne contaminants,
means that these conditions may also affect Trail users. These findings demand special consideration,
given that the goal of improving the connectivity of the Iron Horse Trail is increased use and diversity of
users. Successful improvements will result in more people on the Trail, including commuters, school
children, active recreational cyclists and passive users such as the elderly. These are sensitive
populations, vulnerable the impacts of low air quality that exceeds Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) significance thresholds.
b. Geological Conditions
A series of potentially significant geology and seismicity related impacts were identified in numerous
relevant environmental documents. The location of Alquist‐Priolo fault zone for the Pleasanton fault was
identified as resulting in numerous findings of potential groundshaking, liquefaction, and expansive soils
in areas that intersect the current study area. It follows that future Iron Horse Trail improvements,
including the potential construction of above‐grade or below‐grade crossings, must adhere to current
seismic‐safety design standards and review.
c. Biological Constraints
The above analyses identified a series of potentially significant impacts to special status plant and animal
species, including, but not limited to, Congdon’s tarplant, California Burrowing Owl, California Red Legged
Frog and Tiger Salamander, and protected species of Vernal Pool invertebrates such as Tadpole Shrimp
and Fairy Shrimp. Populations of these species are located in the less developed areas of immediately
east of the Iron Horse Trail. The limited range and lack of major construction on the Trail itself is unlikely
to impact the above species to the degree that nearby major development projects may. However,
potential construction of an above‐grade crossing at either Dougherty Road or Dublin Boulevard may
warrant a survey of bird or other populations, and the future biological impacts of a significant increase in
Trail use should be considered.
d. Traffic Constraints
Traffic analyses completed as part of the above EIRs conclude that the traffic conditions in the immediate
Iron Horse Trail study are subject to significant degradation, the result of planned development. Traffic
impacts identified include Level of Service (LOS) impacts to various segments and intersections of Dublin
Boulevard and Dougherty Road. For example, one EIR concluded that the Dougherty Road and Scarlett
Drive intersection would degrade from LOS D under 2035 ‘no project’ conditions to an unacceptable LOS E
under 2035 cumulative project conditions. Mitigating this significant impact would require the conversion
of the Dougherty Road eastbound all‐movement lane to a shared through‐right lane, and the addition of a
new 60‐foot eastbound left turn lane. In two of the documents, the recommended measure to mitigate
the potentially significant impact to the intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard is a grade
separated pedestrian crossing. Similarly, the analyses predict increased use of local rail and bus transit
due to increased development. One study estimated the generation of 1,228 new weekday daily bus and
BART trips. Not only should this increase be considered in Trail connectivity strategies, but it should be
leveraged for funding and political support. In assessing strategies for improving the Trail and Trail
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 176
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Martha Aja
DATE: May 18, 2015
PAGE: 14
n:\projects\_wc14\wc14‐3178.00_iron horse trail feasibility_study\deliverables\3_policies\task 3 memo_ggrevised1_figure_text.docx
crossings, all future traffic conditions and potential mitigation measures will need to be considered, both
as potential leverage for Trail improvements and possible conflicts with connectivity strategies.
e. Flooding
Past environmental documents reveal that a large portion of the segment of the Iron Horse Trail under
study lies within mapped 100‐year and 500‐year FEMA floodplains. In addition, as explained above, the
area immediately east of the Trail contains numerous swales that drain that Camp Parks watershed,
concentrating runoff near the future Dublin Boulevard/Scarlett Drive intersection. In and of themselves,
these conditions are unlikely to decrease the feasibility of various Trail improvement strategies. However,
the effect of future flooding on low‐lying Trail improvements may be exacerbated by the increase in
impervious surfaces that will accompany future development near the Trail. As Trail connectivity
strategies are developed, drainage and floodplain impacts, as well as mitigation strategies developed in
conjunction with future development, should be consulted, and Zone 7 staff kept appraised of potential
Iron Horse Trail improvements.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 177
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
Date: May 7, 2015
To: Martha Aja, City of Dublin
From: Ryan McClain, Carrie Nielson, and Patrick Gilster, Fehr & Peers
Subject: DRAFT Task 4.4 Iron Horse Trail User Comfort Analysis
WC14-3178
This memorandum documents existing trail user comfort for the Iron Horse Trail (the Trail) in
Dublin between Dougherty Road and the Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station as part of the Iron
Horse Trail Connectivity Feasibility Study. The memorandum outlines a proposed approach
for evaluating comfort using Built Environment Factors (BEF), which looks at the presence
and quality of infrastructure to measure user comfort. The BEF assessment is then applied
to the project study area as well as other portions of the Trail in nearby jurisdictions,
including Pleasanton, Danville, San Ramon, and Pleasant Hill. Comparing results at various
locations helps situate trail user comfort in the Dublin study area in the context of other popular
areas of the Trail. This memorandum is divided into three sections:
·Built Environment Factors (BEF) Methodology: Summary of the criteria and scoring
system,
·Precedent Study BEF Evaluation: Evaluation of other popular areas of the Trail, and
·Dublin BEF Evaluation: Evaluation of the Dublin portion of the Trail in the project study
area.
This draft memorandum is submitted to the City to receive feedback on the proposed criteria and
their weighting prior to finalizing the existing conditions comfort analysis for the study area.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 178
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
&
B
u
i
l
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Martha Aja
5/7/15
Page 2 of 13
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
BUILT ENVIRONMENT FACTORS METHODOLOGY
The built environment is generally understood to have a strong influence on transportation
choices and the quality of service for different travel modes. Bicycle networks and pedestrian
networks must not just simply be available, but also be comfortable in order to encourage their
use. The Built Environment Factor approach to measuring comfort scores the presence, absence,
and quality of specific infrastructural elements that are important to bicyclists and pedestrians’
perception of trail comfort. This methodology allows for the identification of specific design
elements to be included in the proposed project and can be used as a sketch planning tool for
concept development, and provide a quantitative comparison between alternatives. The BEF
methodology has been used to evaluate complete streets projects in the Cites of San Pablo and
Richmond. The proposed BEF methodology for this study is contextualized for the City of Dublin
and adapted for a trail. It is also informed by the public’s feedback at Public Workshop #1, which
included a walking and biking audit.
Because the needs of trail users are distinct as they travel along the path compared to roadway
crossings, three BEF methodologies were developed:
· Trail Segment – evaluation of the trail user experience in the middle of a block without
motor vehicle conflicts. Sample criteria include path width, quality of trail, landscaping,
shade, and lighting.
· At-Grade Crossing – evaluation of the trail user experience at signalized intersections.
Sample criteria include accessibility and comfort of accessing push buttons, comfort of
path approach, gateway features, and roadway width and speeds.
· Grade-Separated Crossing – evaluation of the trail user experience at and leading
to/from overcrossings. Sample criteria include accessibility and comfort of accessing
push buttons, comfort of path approach, gateway features, and roadway width and
speeds.
In order to maintain consistency with existing adopted City of Dublin plans and guidelines, the
BEF methodology was adjusted to give credit for features and amenities prescribed in the City of
Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Design Guidelines (October 2014). The Design Guidelines
present current best practices related to the design of shared-use paths and were integrated into
the BEF methodology for consistency. Appendix A details the design elements relevant to this
Study.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 179
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
&
B
u
i
l
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Martha Aja
5/7/15
Page 3 of 13
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
The precedent study locations and existing Iron Horse Trail segments & crossings were then rated
using this methodology. Table 1 below shows the minimum and maximum possible ratings and
highlights the score ranges to receive a Poor, Good, and Excellent rating.
TABLE 1 BEF RATING METHODOLOGY
Facility Type Minimum
Possible Rating
Maximum
Possible Rating
Poor Rating
Range
Good Rating
Range
Excellent
Rating Range
Trail Segment -11 points 22 points
<0 points 1-9 points 10+ Points
At-Grade Trail
Crossing -12 points 21 points
Grade
Separated Trail
Crossing
-9 points16 points
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015..
Appendix B presents each criterion for the three methodologies, including the scoring associated
with each. Additionally, Appendix B highlights the recommended consistent features associated
with the Design Guidelines and additional best practices in the green +2 points columns on Table
B-1, B-2, and B-3.
PRECEDENT STUDY BEF EVALUATION
As a regional trail that serves the needs of many different Alameda and Contra Costa County
communities, understanding this portion of the Iron Horse Trail in the context of the whole trail is
important. To facilitate this, we selected portions of the Trail to study to provide a diverse
understanding of the Trail’s characteristics in other jurisdictions and to identify the design
elements that influence trail user comfort in that area. The following locations were selected for
analysis:
Trail Segments:
·Danville – between Del Amigo Road and Linda Mesa Avenue, north of Downtown
·Pleasant Hill – between Harvey Drive and Treat Boulevard, east of the Contra Costa
Centre BART Station
·Pleasanton – from Owens Drive to Hacienda Drive, south of Dublin/Pleasanton BART
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 180
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
&
B
u
i
l
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Martha Aja
5/7/15
Page 4 of 13
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
At-Grade Crossing:
·San Ramon – at Bollinger Canyon Road, where the City is proposing a grade-separated
crossing
·San Ramon – at Alcosta Boulevard
Grade-Separated Crossings:
·Pleasant Hill – at Treat Boulevard Overcrossing
·Walnut Creek – at Ygnacio Valley Boulevard
In addition to this, the Pandhandle Path in San Francisco was selected as a comparison for at-
grade crossing as it has both bicycle signals and heavy roadway volumes. These six study sites
are identified on Figure 1.
Based on the detailed methodology presented in Appendix A, the three precedent locations were
evaluated. The results are presented on Figure 2. The findings of the precedent study can be
used both to identify design elements to be incorporated into the proposed concept as well as to
better understand how these issues are dealt with in adjacent jurisdictions.
Precedent Segment BEF Analysis
The following observations were made based on the precedent segment BEF analysis:
·Trail Width & Shoulders: Trail width is consistently 10 feet throughout, but some areas
do not have consistent 2 foot shoulders.
·Trees/Shade: Mature trees are important for providing shade, but may not need to be
planted on both sides of the trail to provide comfort benefits.
·Landscaping: Many portions of the trail have spontaneous vegetation that is maintained.
·Lighting: Except at overcrossings or at connections to City paths, lighting is not typically
provided.
·Amenities: Benches, water fountains, and interpretative signage are limited on the trail.
The best opportunities include tying the Iron Horse Trail into local parks or other
destinations along the trail.
·Wayfinding: Except at Contra Costa Centre BART, almost no trail user destination
wayfinding is provided.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 181
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
&
B
u
i
l
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
_
W
C
1
4
\
W
C
1
4
-
3
1
7
8
.
0
0
_
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
_
S
t
u
d
y
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
_
1
_
S
t
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
a
n
d
P
r
e
c
e
d
e
n
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
a
i
Iron Horse Regional Trail Feasbility Study
Project Study Area and Precedent Locations
Figure 1
Walnut Creek
Dublin
Pleasant Hill
San Ramon
Danville
Alamo
Pleasanton
680
580
San Francisco
#
#
3
Precedent At-Grade Crossing Locations
Precedent Overcrossing Locations
#Precedent Segment Locations
2
1
1
2
1
2
3
Legend
Project Study Area
Iron Horse Regional Trail
Treat Boulevard Overcrossing
Ygnacio Valley Road Overcrossing
Bollinger Canyon Road Crossing
Alcosta Boulevard Crossing
Panhandle Path Crossing
at Masonic Avenue
Trail North of Downtown
Trail South of Dublin/Pleasanton BART
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 182
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
&
B
u
i
l
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Iron Horse Regional Trail Feasibility Study
Precedent Descriptions & BEF Ratings
Figure 2
Iron Horse Trail between
Owens Drive and Hacienda
Drive, Pleasanton
Features:
•Trail Width: 10’
•Shoulder: 2’ soft shoulders
•Trees/Shade: Trees typically
on one-side of trail
•Landscaping: Well-
maintained landscaping
•Amenities: Limited
•Wayfinding: EBRPD signage
only
•Pavement: New concrete
•Maintenance: Well-
maintained
•Lighting: Some adjacent to
trail on City streets or private
property
•Connectivity: Good paths/
connections to adjacent uses
Precedent Segments Precedent At-Grade Crossings
BEF RATING POORBEF RATING POORBEF RATING GOODBEF RATING GOODBEF RATING EXCELLENTBEF RATING EXCELLENT
Iron Horse Trail between
Harvey Drive and Treat
Boulevard, Pleasant Hill
Features:
•Trail Width: 10’
•Shoulder: None
•Trees/Shade: Trees typically
on one-side of trail
•Landscaping: Well-
maintained landscaping
•Amenities: Benches, picnic
tables, and doggie bags
•Wayfinding: Signage
provided to local retail,
office, and transit amenities.
•Pavement: Asphalt
•Maintenance: Well-
maintained
•Lighting: Some adjacent to
trail on City streets
•Connectivity: Good paths/
connections to adjacent uses
Iron Horse Trail between Del
Amigo Road and Linda Mesa
Avenue, Danville
Features:
•Trail Width: 10’
•Shoulder: Less than 2’
•Trees/Shade: Trees typically
provide full coverage
•Landscaping: Well-
maintained natural
landscaping
•Amenities: Limited
•Wayfinding: EBRPD signage
only
•Pavement: Asphalt
•Maintenance: Well-
maintained
•Lighting: None/Limited
•Connectivity: No path
connections, except at
crossings
Panhandle Path at Masonic
Avenue, San Francisco
Features:
•Speed: 30 mph
•Crossing Distance: 58’
•LPI: No
•Vehicular Turning
Movements: Protected turns
•Curb Radii: Small
•Slip Lane: No
•Detection: Poor push button
location on one approach
•Decorative Pavement or
Triple Four Trail Crossing: No
•Wayfinding: Minimal local
signage at one approach
•Approach Comfort:
Oversided directional curb
ramps provide easy access
to crossing
Iron Horse Trail at Bollinger
Canyon Road, San Ramon
Features:
•Speed: 40 mph
•Crossing Distance: 94’
•LPI: No
•Vehicular Turning
Movements: Permitted right
turns
•Curb Radii: Medium sized
•Slip Lane: No
•Detection: Push button
located so cyclists do not
need dismount
•Decorative Pavement or
Triple Four Trail Crossing: No
•Wayfinding: No
•Approach Comfort:
Diagonal ramp and sharp
turns create some difficult
movements
Iron Horse Trail at Alcosta
Boulevard, San Ramon
Features:
•Speed: 35 mph
•Crossing Distance: 89’
•LPI: No
•Vehicular Turning
Movements: Permitted right
turns
•Curb Radii: Medium sized
•Slip Lane: No
•Detection: Push button
located so cyclists do not
need dismountDecorative
Pavement or Triple Four Trail
Crossing: No
•Wayfinding: No
•Approach Comfort:
Diagonal ramp and sharp
turns create some difficult
movements
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 183
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
&
B
u
i
l
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Iron Horse Regional Trail Feasibility Study
Precedent Descriptions & BEF Ratings
Figure 2
Precedent Overcrossings
Iron Horse Trail at Treat
Boulevard, Pleasant Hill
Features:
•Trail Width: 10’
•At-grade crossing: Crosswalks
provided on all intersection
approaches
•Path Approach: Easily
navigable turns, no switch
backs and good desire lines
•Wayfinding: Signage
provided to local retail,
office, and transit amenities.
•Sight Distance: Good
•Bridge Lighting: At entrances
and along structure.
•Bridge Structure - Fencing:
Permeable railing
•Bridge Structure - Design:
Custom gateway with high
viusal interest
Iron Horse Trail at Ygnacio
Valley Road, Walnut Creek
Features:
•Trail Width: 10’
•At-grade crossing: No
crossing provided at-grade
or at nearest intersection
•Path Approach: Easily
navigable turns, no switch
backs and good desire lines
•Wayfinding: EBRPD signage
•Sight Distance: Bridge curve
makes it difficult to see users
on the bridge
•Bridge Lighting: None
•Bridge Structure - Fencing:
Semi-Permeable chain link
fencing
•Bridge Structure - Design:
Minimal visual interest with
no sense of place
BEF RATING GOODBEF RATING EXCELLENT
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 184
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
&
B
u
i
l
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Martha Aja
5/7/15
Page 5 of 13
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
·Connectivity: New or rebuilt portions of the trail in Pleasant Hill and Pleasanton
successfully demonstrate how to provide good connections to private development
Precedent At-Grade Crossing BEF Analysis
The following observations were made based on the at-grade crossing BEF analysis:
·Roadway Characteristics: Some portions of the Iron Horse Trail cross major roadways at
grade, such as in San Ramon, but these are typically uncomfortable and provide a high
level of traffic stress for trail users.
·Protected Turns and Leading Pedestrian Intervals: Many at-grade crossings allow
permitted turns across the trail. Best practice examples include protected turns across
the trail crossing, such as the Panhandle Path.
·Curb Radii: Curb radii are typically 20-25 feet or more despite the at-grade roadways
being multi-lane, limiting the need for such generous radii. Tightening the curb radii
would allow for wide, directional curb ramps to be installed and to help manage speeds
of turning vehicles across the crossings.
·Detection: There are a mix of examples of very convenient push buttons located in the
correct direction of traffic.
·Approach Comfort: Newer or rebuilt portions of the trail typically have wider areas for
trail users to queue and do not require bicyclists to make a 90-degree turn to actuate
the signal or enter the crosswalk.
·Connectivity: New or rebuilt portions of the trail in Pleasant Hill and Pleasanton
successfully demonstrate how to provide good connections to private development.
·Bridge Landings: Ease of use and access of slopes to cross bridge.
Precedent Grade-Separated Crossing BEF Analysis
The following observations were made based on the grade-separated crossing BEF analysis:
·At-Grade Crossings: In order for trail users to connect to the on-street bicycle network
and sidewalk network, at-grade crossings are important even with grade separation.
·Path Approach: Good sight lines between paths leading up to the crossing are needed.
·Bridge Lighting: Lighting is important on structures but is not present on older
overcrossings.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 185
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
&
B
u
i
l
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Martha Aja
5/7/15
Page 6 of 13
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
·Bridge Structure: Newer examples have designs and fencing that makes the bridge
structure feel open and maximizes usable trail width. In doing so, this may identify the
overcrossing as a gateway to the Trail.
DUBLIN IRON HORSE TRAIL BEF EVALUATION
Based on the methodology outlined above and detailed in Appendix B, the trail segment BEF and
at-grade crossing BEF within the study area were evaluated. The study area was divided into the
following segments:
·Dublin Boulevard to Dougherty Road
·Dougherty Road to Demarcus Boulevard/Frontage Road
·Demarcus Boulevard/Frontage Road to Dublin/Pleasanton BART
The segments were divided based on changes in the cross-section of the Trail. In addition, at-
grade crossings were evaluated at Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. The summary of that
analysis is presented on Figure 3. All segments and crossing received a score of “poor.”
Generally, the trail segments in the study area scored low for comfort. Key design elements that
negatively affect existing trail user comfort in the study area include:
·Lack of a maintained shoulder along both sides of the Trail
·Lack of shade elements and mature trees
·Quality of pavement
For the at-grade crossing trail user comfort, the following design elements had the strongest
effect on the score:
·Long crossing distance, high speed roadways, and long cycle lengths
·Uncomfortable maneuvers for bicyclists on most path approaches, such as sharp turns or
crossing into oncoming traffic to actuate the push button
·Presence of slip lane at Dougherty
SAMPLE CONCEPT EVALUATION
Using the proposed BEF methodology, sample concepts were tested to determine how the
proposed methodology would score the Study links and crossings with the implementation of
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 186
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
&
B
u
i
l
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Martha Aja
5/7/15
Page 7 of 13
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
comfort enhancements consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines. In order to understand how
the concept alternatives for this Study may be evaluated, sample scenario testing was done to
understand how the Study Area could move from a score of “Poor” to “Good.”
Iron Horse Trail Segments
Segments were evaluated by looking at feasible design features that would enhance comfort.
Note that for the Dublin Boulevard to Dougherty Road segment, the cross-section proposed in
the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, which indicates a 25 foot trail right-of-way (20 actual available
right-of-way), was evaluated as a sample. This discussion is intended to highlight
combinations of sample design features that would boost the comfort score and does not
represent a specific proposal associated with this Study. Under the proposed BEF
methodology, the following combinations of design features would improve the BEF score to
“Good” in the three segments:
·BART to Demarcus Boulevard/Bus Frontage Road: Wayfinding program to highlight
local bicycle and pedestrian destinations at key decision points in combination with
pavement resurfacing.g
·Demarcus Boulevard/Bus Frontage Road to Dublin Boulevard –Distinctive, well-
maintained landscape features and amenities such as benches.
·Dublin Boulevard to Dougherty Road – Five foot shoulders on both sides of the trail
with a ten foot wide path, street trees that would provide at least 50% coverage, new
pavement, indirect non-pedestrian scale lighting, and some connectivity to the new park
and local uses, all of which are proposed under the Plan. This would receive a score of
“excellent.”
Iron Horse Trail At-Grade Crossings
The existing at-grade crossings were evaluated by looking at potentially necessary features that
would be required to bring the crossings up to the minimum score necessary for a “Good” rating.
Under the proposed BEF methodology, the following combinations of design features would
improve the BEF score to “Good” at the two crossings:
·Dublin Boulevard – Install leading pedestrian intervals with extinguishable no right turn
signs, reduce the curb radii at the southern approach, fix the location of the southbound
approach push-button to make it easier for cyclists to use, upgrade the path approach to
reduce the amount of sharp turns, and install decorative pavement or a triple four trail
crossing.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 187
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
&
B
u
i
l
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Martha Aja
5/7/15
Page 8 of 13
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
· Dougherty Road –Install a bulbout at the southern side of the intersection, install leading
pedestrian intervals with extinguishable no right turn signs, change the signal to
incorporate protected left turns, fix the placement of the northbound approach
pushbutton, and widen the pork chop paths at the northern side of the intersection to
allow for easier bicycle navigation, install an oversized directional ramp at the southern
side of the trail crossing, and install decorative pavement or a triple four crossing.
Iron Horse Trail Grade Separated Crossings
No grade separated crossings currently exist within the project boundaries.
NEXT STEPS
Based on the methodology presented above, the immediate next step for the City is to review the
detailed scoring criteria and variables used in the assessment. We will finalize the methodology
and revise the analysis based on comments and incorporate the results into the Existing
Conditions Report and Preliminary Improvement Plan.
Additionally, the findings above outline the design elements that should be considered to provide
a high level of comfort for trail users of all ages and abilities. These design elements can be
incorporated as potential solutions into the Preliminary Improvement Plan.
Finally, as the concept alternatives are developed, it is anticipated that the methodology may be
revisited again to develop criteria for unsignalized crossings and/or driveway crossings, as
needed.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 188
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
&
B
u
i
l
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
APPENDIX A CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN
DESIGN GUIDELINES (2014) CONSISTENCY
The bulleted list below details the recommendations from the Design Guidelines that pertain to shared-
use paths and trails:
Trail Segments
· Trail Width – Shared-use paths should be a minimum of 8’ wide and can be up to 12’. Paths with
significant pedestrian volumes should be wider.
· Shoulder – 2’ graded shoulders are recommended along both sides of the path and a 4-
decomposed granite jogging path should be included next to bicycle paths where possible. (The
California Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000 recommends 3’ shoulders where possible.)
· Landscaping – Viewpoints and distinctive landscaping are encouraged.
· Amenities - Furnishings along a shared-use path should be concentrated at specific points to
form gathering nodes. Shared-use path support facilities consist of stagin areas, seating and
tables, weather-protected structures, drinking fountains, waste receptacles, fencing, bicycle racks,
interpretive and directional signage and restrooms.
· Wayfinding – This is generally recommended through the use of various types of signage that is
encouraged along bikeways including confirmation signage along routes, turning indicators, and
decision point signage.
Signalized At-Grade Crossings
· Crossing Comfort - Median refuge width should be minimum of 6' for facilities that bicycles are
expected to use. Curb extensions/bulbouts are also encouraged.
· Leading Pedestrian Interval - One instance of implementation within the City is noted in the
guidelines but the guidelines state that the City is open to this treatment, where appropriate.
Pedestrians should receive 2-4 seconds of signal time before permissive turns. However, no
language about including extinguishable right-turn signage.
· Vehicular Turning Movements - Where right-turn conflicts are expected, protecting the right-
turn phase, separating out the pedestrian phase, and/or adding a separate bicycle signal phase
may be appropriate.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 189
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
&
B
u
i
l
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Ca
m
p
P
a
r
k
s
B
l
D
a
v
i
s
A
v
Dubli
n
B
l
Mart
i
n
e
l
l
i
W
y
A
d
a
m
s
A
v
Hous
t
o
n
P
l
Scarlett Dr
D
e
m
a
r
c
u
s
B
l
Powd
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
R
u
n
S
B
r
y
a
n
t
A
v
5th S
t
6th S
t
4th S
t
Sier
r
a
L
n
3rd St
Fe
r
n
a
n
d
e
z
S
t
D
e
a
n
D
r
Ir
o
n
h
o
r
s
e
P
k
w
y
Trinity C
t
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Scarlett Ct
E
v
a
n
s
A
v
Camp
b
e
l
l
G
r
e
e
n
Ow
e
n
s
D
r
O
w
e
n
s
C
t
3rd S
t
3rd S
t
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
Futu
r
e
G
S
t
\\
F
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
C
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
C
1
4
-
3
1
7
8
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
f
i
g
0
1
_
b
a
s
e
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
Dublin Iron Horse Trail BEF Evaluation
Figure 3
Iron Horse Trail
BART Route
Dublin/Pleasanton City Limit
580
Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station
Camp Parks
(Future Dublin
Crossing Site)
Future Scarlett Dr Extension
Excellent
Trail User Comfort
Segments
Trail User Comfort
At-Grade Crossings
Good
Poor
Excellent
Good
Poor
Dougherty to Dublin = 1
Dublin Crossing = -6
Dublin to Demarcus = -2Dougherty Crossing = -8
Demarcus to BART = -3
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 190
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
&
B
u
i
l
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
· Curb Radii - The design guidelines recommend that where there is no curbside parking, the curb
radii can be as low as 10'. When there is curbside parking a 20' radius is recommended. Therefore,
the difference was split to create the two point standard. There is a table with recommended curb
radii by street type, however there is no standard for addressing trail crossing near intersections.
· Detection - Pedestrian pushbuttons should be located with easy reach of both pedestrians and
bicyclists, who should not have to dismount to reach the pushbutton. In-path bicycle loop
detectors or other detection should be used up to 100 feet from the intersection, so bicyclists can
approach the intersection slowly but without having to stop.
· Path Approach Comfort - The safe and convenient passage of all modes through the
intersection is the primary design objective. When shared use paths parallel roadways at
intersections, the path should generally be assigned the same traffic control as the parallel
roadway (ie. if the adjacent roadway has a green signal, the path should also have a green/walk
signal; if the parallel roadway is assigned the right-of-way with a stop or yield sign for the
intersecting street, the path should also be given priority).
· Cycle Length - In the pedestrian facilities section, the preferred crossing treatment details that
best practices include minimizing cycle lengths. However, there is no discussion of what
constitutes good cycle lengths or the application to shared-use paths and trails.
· Slip Lanes – If slip lanes are present, they are encouraged to include advanced yield markings
such as shark’s teeth.
Grade Separated Trail Crossings
· Trail Width – Similar to the segment widths of the trail, Bridges should be a minimum of 8' wide
(between handrails) and preferably as wide as the approaching trail. Paths with significant
pedestrian volumes should also be wider than 10'.
· Bridge Structure: Fencing - Railing should be a minimum of 42” high. Openings between railings
should be a 4" maximum. Fencing material types are only discussed in terms of use for preventing
trespassing along segments, not along grade-separate structures.
· Bridge Structure: Design - Crossing can utilize pre-fabricated bridges made from self-
weathering steel with wood decks.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 191
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
&
B
u
i
l
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
APPENDIX B BEF SCORING MATRICES
TABLE B-1: TRAIL SEGMENT BEF RATING
Criteria -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
Trail Width <8' 8' 8-10' - 11-13' 14 + Up
Shoulder
No Shoulder
present
(-1 point per side)
OR fence/barrier
directly against the
trail
(-1 per side)
Unmaintained
Shoulder
(-0.5 points per
side)
Maintained
shoulder - 2' DG shoulders
(1 point per side)
>3'
(1.5 points per side)
Shade* - No trees present Trail has immature
trees -
Trail has trees
and/or shade
structures
(50% trail coverage)
Trail is shaded by
trees or structure
with little gaps in
coverage
(75% or more
coverage)
Landscaping - No vegetation Unmaintained
landscaping -
Yes, distinctive
landscaped
plantings alongside
of trail
-
Amenities - - None present -
Bench OR Water
fountain OR
Restrooms OR
Interpretative
Signage
(1 point each, up to
3 points)
-
Wayfinding - -
None present.
EBRPD trail head
signs only.
EB Park Signage or
limited local
wayfinding
Local bicycle and
pedestrian
destination
wayfinding at all
key decision points
-
Pavement Quality*
Failed or Unpaved
trail
(PCI: 0-24)
Poor or At-risk
pavement quality
(PCI: 25-59)
Average quality-
occasional buckling
or paving issues
(PCI: 60-69)
Good quality-
smooth riding
surface
(PCI: 70-79)
Excellent quality-
smooth riding
surface, newly
repaved
(PCI: 80-100)
-
Connectivity*
Barriers along trail
that prevent access
(eg. fences or
topography)
No path
connections
Some path
connections to
adjacent streets or
uses
Good path
connections to
adjacent streets or
uses
-
Maintenance* -
Debris or
vegetation
protruding into trail
OR Trees may need
some additional
maintenance (-1
point for each)
Yes - - -
Lighting* - - No lighting present
Minimal lighting
provided by
adjacent land uses
or streets
-
Pedestrian-scale
lighting present
along trail
*Note: The City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines does not provide specific guidance on these topics for Shared-Use Paths, but
this does not imply that these categories are inconsistent with the intent of the guidelines.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 192
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
&
B
u
i
l
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
TABLE B-2: SIGNALIZED TRAIL AT-GRADE CROSSING BEF RATING
Criteria -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
Crossing Distance >=100' crossing
distance
60-100' crossing
distance <60' - - -
Crossing Comfort - - - -
Median refuge
present with push
button regardless
of crossing distance
(1 point)
OR curb extensions
/ bulbout
(0.5 point per side
of street) (Can
include points for
both)
-
Leading
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Interval
LPI with No
Extinguishable No
Right-Turn Sign
- No -
Yes with
Extinguishable No
Right-Turn Sign
-
Vehicular Turning
Movements -
Permitted turns
across the trail
crossing with >=
50 turning vehicles
during the peak
hour
(-1 point per
turning movement)
Permitted turns
across the trail
crossing with <=
49 turning vehicles
during the peak
hour
-
Protected turns
(1 point per turning
movement)
-
Curb Radii
>25'
(0 points per side
of the street)
16-25'
(0.5 point per side
of the street)
<= 15'
(1 point per side of
the street)
Detection
Bicyclists must
dismount to use
push button
(-1 point per
approach)
-
Accessible push
button located in
difficult position
but does not
require
dismounting
(0 points per
approach)
-
Accessible push
button located on
the correct side of
trail (i.e. directional
with two-way
traffic) (1 point per
approach)
Passive detection
Path Approach
Comfort
Bicyclists must
make sharp turns
to use crossing
and/or access push
button
(-1 point per
approach)
Diagonal ramps
(-0.5 point for each
ramp)
-
Path approach is of
appropriate size for
trail users to make
comfortable
turning movements
to use crossing
with standard size
directional ramp &
reach push button
(0.5 point per
approach)
Oversized
directional ramps
(1 point per each)
OR Path approach
meets trail user
desire lines
(1 point per
approach)
-
Gateway /
Wayfinding* - - No
Local bicycle and
pedestrian
wayfinding
provided at key
decision points
(0.5 points per
location)
Yes, banners,
signage, structure,
art, and/or
landscaping defines
gateway
-
Decorative Paving or
Triple Four Trail
Crossing*
- - None
1 point for
decorative
pavement OR 1
point for Triple
Four Crossing
- -
Cycle Length* - >120 seconds 90-120 seconds <90 seconds - -
Speed* - >30 MPH <=30 MPH - - -
Slip Lane* - Yes No - - -
*Note: The City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines does not provide specific guidance on these topics for Shared-Use Paths, but
this does not imply that these categories are inconsistent with the intent of the guidelines. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 193
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
&
B
u
i
l
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
TABLE B-3: GRADE SEPARATED TRAIL CROSSING BEF RATING
Criteria -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
Trail Width - <8' 8' 8-10' 11-13' 14 + Up
At Grade Crosswalk*
No At-Grade
Crosswalk or
Nearest Crosswalk
does not facilitate
trail access to/from
adjacent amenities
- -
Nearest
intersection
incorporates a
crosswalk that
provides easy
access for trail
users to/from
farther amenities
Good at-grade
crosswalk with curb
radii <=15', no
obstructions,
oversized
directional ramps,
and audible/
accessible push
buttons
-
Path Approach
Comfort to / from
Adjacent Networks*
Bicyclists must
make sharp turns
to navigate
between bridge
and bicycle
network
(-1 point per
approach)
Connection
between bridge
approach and
bicycle network is
inconvenient and
doesn't meet bike
desire line
(-1 point per
approach)
-
Path approach is
generally of
appropriate size for
trail users but
require bikes to
slow down to make
occasional sharp
turns in order to
use bridge and
connect to
bike/ped networks
in limited areas
(0.5 point per
approach)
Bridge approach
meets trail user
desire lines and
requires little to no
sharp
movements/turns
and connects to
bike/ped network
(1 point per
approach)
-
Gateway /
Wayfinding* - - None present
Local bicycle and
pedestrian
wayfinding
provided at key
decision points and
highlights
connection
between bridge,
IHT, and bike/ped
networks
(0.5 points per
location)
Yes, banners,
signage, structure,
art, bridge design,
and/or landscaping
defines gateway
-
Bridge Lighting* No lighting is
provided - - Indirect lighting
from other sources
Trail-user scaled
lighting at bridge
entry/exit and
along path
-
Bridge Structure:
Fencing -
Chain-link fencing
provides a "caged"
feel and is
uninviting with
minimum visibility
of surroundings
-
Fencing is
permeable and
secure but does
not create an
attractive
environment for
trail users
Bridge allows for
good trail user
visibility and has
permeable features
that make the
bridge feel open
and inviting
-
Bridge Structure:
Design - -
Grade separation
has minimal or no
visual interest and
does not highlight
Trail
-
Design has some
visual interest and
provides but
minimal sense of
gateway/entry to
the trail
Custom bridge
design that
provides an
important visual
gateway and
strong sense of
place
Sight Distance /
Visibility on Path* -
Sight distance
obstructed
(-.5 per approach)
Clear lines of sight
along path - - -
*Note: The City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines does not provide specific guidance on these topics for Shared-Use Paths, but
this does not imply that these categories are inconsistent with the intent of the guidelines.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015 .
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 194
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
&
B
u
i
l
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 11, 2015
To: Obaid Kahn, City of Dublin
From: Ryan McClain and Patrick Glister, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Task 4.5 – Iron Horse Trail Intersection Treatments
WC15-3178
The Iron Horse Regional Trail Feasibility Study will provide recommendations for improvements at
two signalized intersections within the City of Dublin. Trail crossings often have higher volumes of
users which necessitate the use multiple treatments to enhance the crossings. This could be
achieved through a combination of high-visibility striping, signage, signal phasing, and other
enhancements. Specialized branding and pavement textures can also create a unique landmark
feeling that highlights the trail as a local destination and regional corridor. The following memo
discusses the main concerns regarding the signalized intersections including the legality of riding
a bicycle through a marked trail crossing and best practices for striping the marked crosswalks.
TRAIL CROSSING MARKINGS AT INTERSECTIONS
TRAIL CROSSING USER APPLICABILITY
In most jurisdictions a crosswalk is understood to function as an extension of the sidewalk; it is
designed to safely guide people across the street in a direct path. Therefore, most laws that apply
to pedestrians also apply when they are utilizing the crosswalk. The City of Dublin does not
currently have an ordinance that would restrict bicyclists from riding on the sidewalk. Bicyclists
would therefore be treated the same as pedestrians within crosswalks.
Using this same nexus, trail crossings should function as an extension of the path by directing trail
users across while also notifying roadway users to expect a larger volume of bicyclists and
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 195
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
C
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
&
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Obaid Kahn
December 11, 2015
Page 2 of 14
pedestrians than in an average crosswalk. Trail crossings would likewise operate the same as other
marked crossings and allow both bicyclists and pedestrians within the crosswalk.
CITY OF DUBLIN DESIGN GUIDANCE
Standard & High Visibility Crosswalk Striping
The existing City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines (Design Guidelines) specify
the preferred design features for crosswalks. All treatments in the guidelines are MUTCD
compliant and represent best practices for unsignalized, signalized, midblock, and uncontrolled
crosswalks. Adhering to these guidelines ensures that crosswalks are consistent citywide and
ensure roadway users properly expect where bicyclists and pedestrians are supposed to be.
Figure 1 shows the five types of crosswalk striping patterns that are approved by the FHWA and
included in the Design Guidelines.
FIGURE 1 – FHWA APPROVED CROSSWALK TYPES
The City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines recommend standard crosswalk
striping on all approaches of a signalized or stop-controlled intersection. The Design Guidelines
specify that high-visibility striping should be used at roadways with more than four lanes or
speeds greater than 40 mph, mid-block, and uncontrolled crossings. High-visibility crosswalks
include continental, zebra, ladder, and triple-four striping. Continental-style striping is thought to
have the most effective compliance rate from drivers.1 The Design Guidelines also discuss
1 http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/PBIC_WhitePaper_Crosswalks.pdf
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 196
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
C
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
&
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Obaid Kahn
December 11, 2015
Page 3 of 14
additional treatments that are encouraged in conjunction with the use of high-visibility crosswalks
to increase safety and bring attention to the presence of pedestrians or bicyclists.
Special Paving Treatments
The Design Guidelines encourage the use of colored pavement in crosswalks to distinguish and
enhance the character of the overall pedestrian environment. Similar to high-visibility striping,
using special paving treatments can both incorporate enhanced safety for users by increasing the
visibility of the crosswalk and draw attention to a more specific area. These treatments typically
include colored concrete, stamped asphalt or concrete to resemble bricks, and pavement stencils.
Currently, the FHWA allows the use of color treatments in crosswalks so long as they do not have
retro-reflective properties and that the color does not diminish the contrasting quality of required
transverse white lines. Designers must also ensure that visual design enhancements do not
confuse the visually impaired or cause other problems for people with disabilities. The crosswalk
surface must also be able to accommodate wheelchairs.
Examples of special paving treatments are provided below:
Pavers or stamped concrete in Dublin, CA
near Dougherty Road along the Iron Horse
Trail were used to simulate bricks and other
materials other than roadway asphalt.
Speed humps also serve to slow vehicle
traffic.
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 197
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
C
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
&
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Obaid Kahn
December 11, 2015
Page 4 of 14
Colored pavers in Danville, CA along the
Iron Horse Trail utilized special pavers to
add coloring and texture to a continental
crosswalk with double white transverse
lines. The signal provides a crossing phase
for trail users and is actuated by a push
button and inductive loops. A median
refuge allows trail users to wait for another
phase if they cannot cross in time.
ADDITIONAL CROSSWALK MARKING ENHANCEMENTS
While the Design Guidelines provide recommendations for most crossings, it does not specify a
preferred treatment for trail crossings. There is little best practice guidance on which treatments
are preferable for these types of crossings. Some jurisdictions default to the standard FHWA
approved striping presented earlier in this memo, while others have begun to customize the
crossings to better highlight the presence of a trail.
The following examples show alternative trail crossing markings:
Triple-four striping with bicycle stencils or
sharrows have been used in Albany, CA to
demarcate the crosswalk as a shared-use
crossing. This requires conditional approval from
the FHWA.
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 198
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
C
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
&
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Obaid Kahn
December 11, 2015
Page 5 of 14
Stamped concrete with multiple user
symbols in Indianapolis, IN along the
Indianapolis Cultural Heritage Trail were
utilized to create a customized colorful
stamped concrete with branding to both
delineate a space for walking, biking, and
the disabled and draw attention to a local
destination.
PROPOSED CROSSING TREATMENTS FOR THE IRON HORSE TRAIL
The existing City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines outline a range of safety
treatments for intersection and mid-block crossings. A combination of preferred treatments from
the guideline can be used to create a comfortable environment at crossings as well as develop a
sense of place around the Iron Horse Trail.
Based on input from the public workshops and Alameda CTC Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee, the Iron Horse Trail intersection crossings should more visible than standard
intersection crossings to reinforce the higher expected volume of users that are likely to be using
the crossings. Additionally, bicycle and pedestrian symbols were requested during the Advisory
Committee meeting to encourage all trail users to share the crossing. This could be done similar
to Triple-Four crossing marking with bicycle stencils (shown previously) by adding the pedestrian
symbol alongside the bicycle stencil. Figure 2 shows a Triple Four crossing marking with bicycle
and pedestrian symbols to reinforce the shared crossing that could be adapted to incorporate at
the Iron Horse Trail crossings in Dublin.
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 199
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
C
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
&
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Obaid Kahn
December 11, 2015
Page 6 of 14
FIGURE 2 – TRIPLE FOUR CROSSWALK STRIPING WITH BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN STENCILS
TRAIL CROSSING DETECTION & SIGNAL TIMING/PHASING AT
INTERSECTIONS
EXISTING DETECTION ALONG THE IRON HORSE TRAIL
Detection at Mid-block Crossings
A majority of the crossings along the Iron Horse are uncontrolled mid-block crossings. There is
currently no standard detection treatment utilized along the Iron Horse Trail which creates
varying user expectations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as users travel along the trail. The most
common method for actuation is the standard pedestrian push buttons which are ubiquitous at
most signalized intersections. For mid-block trail crossings, it is common to see rectangular rapid
flashing beacons (RRFBs) which require users to either actively push a button at the crossing or
push a button in advance of the crossing to activate the beacons.
A smaller amount of mid-block crossings along the Iron Horse Trail offer passive detection for
trail users through microwave or infrared detection. Microwave detection sensors can sense bikes
or pedestrians approaching the crossing within a given location to trigger the RRFBs. Infrared
bollard detectors sense user passing through a set of bollards near the crossing to trigger the
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 200
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
C
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
&
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Obaid Kahn
December 11, 2015
Page 7 of 14
RRFBs. A combination of the two can also be used to provide advanced passive detection to allow
bicyclists to continue riding through the crossing by starting the RRFBs ahead of the bicyclist
arriving at the crossing. This minimizes the crossing time and level of effort for the bicyclist to
come to a complete stop at crossings along low volume roadways. On the Iron Horse Trail,
buttons on mid-block crossings activate a flashing beacon that alerts drivers to the presence of
trail users in the crosswalk, but does not require them to stop as shown on Figure 3.
In limited instances, a mid-block crossing is furnished with a traffic signal that requires vehicles to
stop, usually at very wide roads or when the trail crossing is shared with a route for maintenance
vehicles. At such a crossing, the push button calls for a bicycle or pedestrian signal phase which
forces vehicles to stop similar to a fully signalized intersection. Only in one instance were bicycle
loop detectors used in Danville, CA at a signalized mid-block crossing.
FIGURE 2 - PUSH BUTTON ACTUATED CROSSING BEACON AT A MID-BLOCK CROSSING
Detection at Signalized Intersection Crossings
The Iron Horse Trail has limited crossings at fully signalized intersections. There is currently no
standard treatment used at these locations and the final design is ultimately up to each
jurisdiction. The primarily detection used at these locations were standard push buttons placed
directly at the intersection. Many of the signalized intersection crossings had long signal cycle
lengths with no advanced bicycle or pedestrian detection to reduce the amount of delay
experienced by those users. With heavy traffic volumes in these locations, many jurisdictions have
or are currently converting to grade-separated crossings such as Treat Boulevard near Pleasant
Hill or Bollinger Canyon Road in San Ramon.
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 201
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
C
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
&
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Obaid Kahn
December 11, 2015
Page 8 of 14
NATIONAL BEST PRACTICES FOR DETECTION TREATMENTS
Newer technologies for signal actuation do not require active input from trail users, instead
detecting their presence passively before or at the entrance to a crosswalk. A summary of these
technologies, along with the estimated cost per intersection is shown in Table 1. A literature
review of best practices indicates that there is little agreed upon consensus for applying certain
detection technologies outside of the standard push button. However, the use of more advanced
detection technologies is encouraged by planning and design documents from the National
Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)2, Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT)3, and the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC)4 due to
improved convenience and safety for bicycles and pedestrians.
As noted previously, many jurisdictions
along the Iron Horse Trail have installed
radar-actuated crossing beacons at mid-
block crossings as shown in Figure 4.
However, a combination of inductive loops
or radar/microwave technologies with push
buttons directly at the intersection can be
adapted to be applied at signalized
intersections to provide convenient access to
multiple user types. The inductive loops or
radar/microwave technology can provide
advanced detections of bicycles to call the
trail crossing signal phase prior to their
arrival at the intersection and reduce the
amount delay experienced by trail users. The ADA-accessible, audible pedestrian push buttons
directly at the intersection allows users not approaching from the trail to actively call the signal.
2 http://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/bicycle-signals/signal-detection-and-actuation/
3 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/1515.pdf
4 http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/10088/ACTC_Bike_Plan_Final_10-25-12_011013.pdf
FIGURE 3. RADAR-ACTUATED CROSSING AND
RRFP AT A MID-BLOCK CROSSING
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 202
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
C
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
&
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Obaid Kahn
December 11, 2015
Page 9 of 14
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF BICYCLE DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES
Technology Description
Bicycle or
Person
Detection?
Accuracy Mounting
Configuration
Calibration
Difficulty
Maintenance
Difficulty
Power
Supply
Cost ‐
Intersection
(per
approach)
Inductive Loop
Wires
embedded in
the pavement
detect the
presence of
metal objects.
Bicycle only Excellent Roadway Low Moderate to
High DC power $8,000 ‐
$10,00
Video
Computer
analyzes video
input to detect
trail users
(bikes and
peds).
Bicycle only Good Overhead or
Side Fire Moderate Moderate to
High AC power $8,000 ‐
$15,000
Magnetometers
Detects
changes in the
ambient
magnetic field.
Typically
wireless
communication
to signal
controller.
Bicycle only Very
Good
Sensors in
roadway
surface; Access
Point and
Repeaters
mounted
Low Low
DC Power
for Access
Point,
Batter
Sensors
for
Repeaters
$10,000 ‐
$12,000
Radar/Microwave
Reflects
electromagnetic
waves off of a
moving target.
Can detect a
trail user in
advance of
them arriving at
crossing.
Both Very
good
Overhead or
side fire Moderate Low DC Power
or Solar
$13,000 ‐
$15,000
Infrared
An infrared
beam is sent
from a scanner
to a receiver
across the trail.
Trail users are
counted when
they break the
beam.
Both Good Overhead or
Side Fire Low Low DC Power
or Solar $15,000
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 203
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
C
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
&
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Obaid Kahn
December 11, 2015
Page 10 of 14
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF BICYCLE DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES
Technology Description
Bicycle or
Person
Detection?
Accuracy Mounting
Configuration
Calibration
Difficulty
Maintenance
Difficulty
Power
Supply
Cost ‐
Intersection
(per
approach)
Push Button
User‐operated
device to call
for signal phase
or activate
crossing
beacon.
Both
(requires
user input)
Good
ADA‐compliant
pole at
crosswalk
entrance.
‐
Similar to
those at
intersections.
DC Power $350 per unit.
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission
ADVANCED SIGNAL TIMING AND PHASING METHODS
In combination with the above mentioned detection treatments, signal timing and phasing
changes can be made once both the pedestrian push buttons and inductive loops or other
advanced detection method for bicycles is installed. Some intersection delay can potentially be
reduced by providing variable green times for bicyclists and pedestrians.
This would be accomplished by associating different green times and clearance times to each
detection method that is used to call the signal. The push buttons at the intersection would
provide a longer green time and clearance time to account for pedestrian users while loop
detectors or other advanced detection method could provide shorter green times and clearance
times for bicycles if no pedestrian call occurs.
This timing and phasing strategy would require the use of both pedestrian walk signal heads and
bicycle signal heads to ensure that pedestrians would not attempt to cross large intersections
during the shorter bicycle-only signal phase if they did not activate the push button. The National
Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide encourages the
use of both types of signal heads to reinforce that both bicycles and pedestrians can cross
through the intersection. The bicycle signal head bicycle work to protect cyclists since clearance
times are longer than automobile clearance times but shorter than pedestrian clearance times.
The inclusion of specific green times and clearance times by mode helps to ensure adequate time
for all users to safely clear the intersection. Figure 5 shows an example of the use of both types
of signal heads.
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 204
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
C
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
&
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Obaid Kahn
December 11, 2015
Page 11 of 14
FIGURE 4 – BICYCLE SIGNAL HEAD AND PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL5
Along with variable green times and clearance times associated with pedestrian or bicycle phases,
the trail crossing should restrict turning movements across the trail at high volume locations
whenever possible to. This is preferable to reduce to number of conflict points with users in the
trail crossing by assigning the crossing to signal phase that does have turning conflicts. However,
turn restrictions may not need to be implemented where turning volumes are low and the
potential for conflicts would be reduced.
Therefore, multiple options exist to address this including the following:
Restrict right-turns where turning movements conflict with the trail when the crossing by
overlapping the turning movements with corresponding left-turns from the adjacent
street. This is generally used where U-turns are not necessitated or where nearby
intersections would accommodate those movements.
Provide protected left-turns and have the trail cross with the through movements to
separate trail users from turning vehicles.
Provide an extinguishable no right-turn sign that only activates when a trail user activates
the trail crossing (either passively or actively). This would allow vehicles right-turning
vehicles to turn when no trail user are present during the green phase and minimizes the
potential for delay at medium to high turning volume intersections. Figure 6 shows an
5 Image from National Association of City Transportation Officials Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2nd Edition)
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 205
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
C
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
&
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Obaid Kahn
December 11, 2015
Page 12 of 14
example of the extinguishable no right-turn signs uses in Pleasanton, CA at a crossing
with the Iron Horse Trail.
If left- or right-turn conflicts cannot be separated from trail crossing, then Leading
Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) should be incorporated. LPIs provide bicyclists and pedestrians
with a few seconds head-start to enter the crossing before the turning movements are
allowed to go. This helps to make both bicyclists and pedestrians better visible to turning
vehicles.
FIGURE 5 – EXTINGUISHABLE NO RIGHT-TURN SIGN6
PROPOSED SIGNAL TIMING AND PHASING TREATMENTS
Two projects that will be constructed and directly impact trail operations include the widening of
Dougherty Road and the extension of Scarlett Drive to Dublin Boulevard. Signal phasing changes
were applied to the following scenarios to test whether trail user safety improvements will impact
intersection Level of Service. An existing conditions scenario was not tested since the near-term
scenario that includes the Dougherty Widening is already funded and set to start construction in
early 2016. The “No Project” scenarios use the given lane configuration, volumes, and signal
timings provided in the Dublin Kaiser Environmental Impact Report. The “With Project” scenario
6 Extinguishable no right-turn sign at the Iron Horse Trail crossing with Owens Drive in Pleasanton, CA near
the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 206
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
C
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
&
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Obaid Kahn
December 11, 2015
Page 13 of 14
represents the signal phasing changes made to the study intersections. (For detail intersection
geometry, see Figure 8 in the City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Preliminary Improvement Plan, 2015).
The following intersection improvements were tested using industry standard traffic analysis
Synchro 8:
Near-term AM and PM with Project (Dougherty Widening Only)
1. Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive – The northbound approach lane configuration
was changed to a left/thru lane and a dedicated right-turn lane. The right-turn
movement was overlapped with the westbound left-turn to separate the trail crossing
from the turn movement. This improvement may not be necessary due to the low
volume of right-turning vehicles; however, this represents the least amount of turning
conflicts possible.
2. Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive – Split phasing for left-turns from Scarlett Drive to
Dougherty Road were incorporated to prevent southbound turning movement conflicts
with trail users. Due to the low volume of right-turning vehicles, the southbound right-
turn movement from Scarlett Drive to Dougherty road was not prohibited.
Future AM and PM With Project (Dougherty Widening and Scarlett Extension)
1. Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive – The northbound approach lane configuration
was changed to a left/thru lane and a dedicated right-turn lane. The right-turn movement
was then overlapped with the westbound left-turn to separate the trail crossing from the
turn movement. This improvement may not be necessary due to the low volume of right-
turning vehicles; however, this represents the least amount of turning conflicts possible.
Additionally, the westbound right-turn from Dublin Boulevard to Scarlett Drive was
changed to prohibit right-turns on red to protect users that may be in the trail crossing.
The westbound right-turn lanes were then overlapped with the southbound left-turns to
reduce the amount of automobile delay. The southbound double left-turn lanes were also
changed to split phase to allow the trail crossings after the left-turns are completed.
2. Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive – Split phasing for left-turns from Scarlett Drive to
Dougherty Road were incorporated to prevent eastbound turning movement conflicts
with trail users. Due to higher volumes of westbound right-turning vehicles from Scarlett
Drive to Dougherty Road in the future scenario, the double right-turn lanes were changed
to protected and then overlapped with the southbound left-turning movement from
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 207
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
C
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
&
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Obaid Kahn
December 11, 2015
Page 14 of 14
Dougherty Road to Scarlett Drive to reduce potential automobile delay. This scenario
represents the least amount of turning conflicts possible.
Table 2 below shows the intersection Level of Service results without and with the changes
described above. It should be noted that the extinguishable right-turn signs and LPI cannot be
tested using Synchro 8. However, the results would fall within the range of the change in delay
shown below in Table 2.
TABLE 2: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Intersection Peak
Hour
Avg. Delay
(seconds) LOS Avg. Delay
(seconds) LOS
∆ in Avg.
Delay
(seconds)
Near-Term Scenario
1. Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive AM
PM
10.2
16.6
B
B
10.3
17.1
B
B
+0.1
-0.5
2. Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive AM
PM
14.1
18.7
B
B
14.4
15.9
B
B
+0.3
-2.8
Future Scenario
1. Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive AM
PM
129.9
128.3
F
F
129.4
130.3
F
F
-0.5
+2.0
2. Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive AM
PM
130.2
128.7
F
F
128.8
155.4
F
F
-1.4
+26.7
Source: Fehr & Peers (2015) using Synchro 8 HCM 2000 results.
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 208
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
C
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
&
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
February 4, 2016
Job No.: AL-14107
No.DescriptionQuantityUnitAmount
1Mobilization (10%)1LS397,678$
2Traffic Control Allowance1LS25,000$
3Import Borrow900CY45,000$
4Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)150TON22,500$
5Class 2 Aggregate Base100CY7,500$
6Signage Allowance1LS50,000$
7Lighting Allowance1LS100,000$
8 West Slab and Retaining Wall 1,950SF292,500$
9 West Flat Slab 2,190SF438,000$
10 Main Span Truss Bridge 3,525SF1,586,250$
11 East Flat Slab 2,700SF540,000$
12East Slab and Retaining Wall3,390SF508,500$
13Minor Items (10% of Construction Cost)1LS 361,525$
Construction Subtotal 4,374,453$
Contingency 30%1,312,336$
Construction Total 5,687,000$
Design Fees 15%854,000$
Construction Engineering/Construction Management 15%854,000$
7,400,000$
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
CITY OF DUBLIN - IRON HORSE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Main Span Truss Bridge Option 1
Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Unit Price
397,678$
25,000$
50$
150$
75$
200$
150$
361,525$
50,000$
100,000$
150$
200$
450$
1 Dublin Overcrossing
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 209
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
February 4, 2016
Job No.: AL-14107
No.DescriptionQuantityUnitAmount
1Mobilization (10%)1LS584,045$
2Traffic Control Allowance1LS25,000$
3Import Borrow900CY45,000$
4Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)150TON22,500$
5Class 2 Aggregate Base100CY7,500$
6Signage Allowance1LS50,000$
7Lighting Allowance1LS100,000$
8 West Slab and Retaining Wall 1,950SF292,500$
9 West Flat Slab 2,190SF438,000$
10 Main Span Tied Arch Bridge 3,645SF3,280,500$
11 East Flat Slab 2,700SF540,000$
12East Slab and Retaining Wall3,390SF508,500$
13Minor Items (10% of Construction Cost)1LS 530,950$
Construction Subtotal 6,424,495$
Contingency 30%1,927,349$
Construction Total 8,352,000$
Design Fees 15%1,253,000$
Construction Engineering/Construction Management 15%1,253,000$
10,900,000$
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
CITY OF DUBLIN - IRON HORSE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Main Span Tied Arch Bridge Option 2
Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Unit Price
584,045$
25,000$
50$
150$
75$
200$
150$
530,950$
50,000$
100,000$
150$
200$
900$
2 Dublin Overcrossing
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 210
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
April 19, 2016
Job No.: AL-14107
No.DescriptionQuantityUnitAmount
1Mobilization (10%)1LS861,410$
2Traffic Control Allowance1LS25,000$
3Import Borrow900CY45,000$
4Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)150TON22,500$
5Class 2 Aggregate Base100CY7,500$
6Signage Allowance1LS50,000$
7Lighting Allowance1LS100,000$
8 West Slab and Retaining Wall 1,950SF292,500$
9 West Flat Slab 690SF138,000$
10 Main Span Cable Stay Bridge 5,085SF6,102,000$
11 East Flat Slab 2,700SF540,000$
12East Slab and Retaining Wall3,390SF508,500$
13Minor Items (10% of Construction Cost)1LS 783,100$
Construction Subtotal 9,475,510$
Contingency 30%2,842,653$
Construction Total 12,319,000$
Design Fees 15%1,848,000$
Construction Engineering/Construction Management 15%1,848,000$
16,100,000$
200$
150$
783,100$
50,000$
100,000$
150$
200$
1,200$
861,410$
25,000$
50$
150$
75$
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
CITY OF DUBLIN - IRON HORSE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Main Span Cable Stay Bridge Option 3 (curved option)
Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Unit Price
3 Dublin Overcrossing
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 211
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
February 4, 2016
Job No.: AL-14107
No.DescriptionQuantityUnitAmount
1Mobilization (10%)1LS515,611$
2Traffic Control Allowance1LS25,000$
3Import Borrow600CY30,000$
4Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)300TON45,000$
5Class 2 Aggregate Base225CY16,875$
6Signage Allowance1LS50,000$
7Lighting Allowance1LS100,000$
8 West Slab and Retaining Wall 3,000SF450,000$
9 West Flat Slab 5,250SF1,050,000$
10 Main Span Truss Bridge 3,750SF1,687,500$
11 East Flat Slab 3,285SF657,000$
12East Slab and Retaining Wall3,840SF576,000$
13Minor Items (10% of Construction Cost)1LS 468,738$
Construction Subtotal 5,671,724$
Contingency 30%1,701,517$
Construction Total 7,374,000$
Design Fees 15%1,107,000$
Construction Engineering/Construction Management 15%1,107,000$
9,600,000$
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
CITY OF DUBLIN - IRON HORSE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Dougherty Road Overcrossing
Unit Price
515,611$
25,000$
50$
150$
75$
200$
150$
468,738$
50,000$
100,000$
150$
200$
450$
4 Dougherty Overcrossing
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 212
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
February 4, 2016
Job No.: AL-14107
No.DescriptionQuantityUnitAmount
1Mobilization (10%)1LS580,676$
2Traffic Control Allowance1LS250,000$
3Roadway Excavation675CY101,250$
4Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)525TON78,750$
5Class 2 Aggregate Base425CY31,875$
6Signage Allowance1LS50,000$
7Pump Station and Storm Drain Modifications1LS250,000$
8Lighting Allowance1LS100,000$
9 West Approach 2,100SF315,000$
10 West Slab and Retaining Wall 2,240SF448,000$
11 Full Tunnel Section 8,260SF2,891,000$
12 East Slab and Retaining Wall 2,240SF448,000$
13East Approach2,100SF315,000$
14Minor Items (10% of Construction Costs)1LS527,888$
Construction Subtotal6,387,439$
Contingency 30%1,916,232$
Construction Total8,304,000$
Design Fees 15%1,246,000$
Construction Engineering/Construction Management 15%1,246,000$
10,800,000$
350$
200$
527,888$
50,000$
250,000$
100,000$
150$
200$
150$
580,676$
250,000$
150$
150$
75$
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
CITY OF DUBLIN - IRON HORSE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Dougherty Road Underpass
Unit Price
5 Dougherty Underpass
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 213
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
IRON
H
O
R
S
E
T
R
A
I
L
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
T
R
A
I
L
AS SHOWNFEBRUARY 2016DATE:SCALE:FILE:
S
T
E
E
L
T
R
U
S
S
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
AL-14107-004
30
0
0
O
A
K
R
O
A
D
,
S
U
I
T
E
6
5
0
WA
L
N
U
T
C
R
E
E
K
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
4
5
9
7
TE
L
:
(
9
2
5
)
9
3
8
-
0
3
8
3
F
A
X
:
(
9
2
5
)
9
3
8
-
0
3
8
9
DU
B
L
I
N
B
L
V
D
O
V
E
R
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
8.
1
.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
1
4
Attachment: 5. Appendix D to the Study - Grade Separation Cost Estimates and Designs (Receive Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study)
IRON
H
O
R
S
E
T
R
A
I
L
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
T
R
A
I
L
AS SHOWNFEBRUARY 2016DATE:SCALE:FILE:BASKET
H
A
N
D
L
E
T
I
E
D
-
A
R
C
H
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
AL-14107-004
30
0
0
O
A
K
R
O
A
D
,
S
U
I
T
E
6
5
0
WA
L
N
U
T
C
R
E
E
K
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
4
5
9
7
TE
L
:
(
9
2
5
)
9
3
8
-
0
3
8
3
F
A
X
:
(
9
2
5
)
9
3
8
-
0
3
8
9
DU
B
L
I
N
B
L
V
D
O
V
E
R
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
8.
1
.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
1
5
Attachment: 5. Appendix D to the Study - Grade Separation Cost Estimates and Designs (Receive Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study)
IRON
H
O
R
S
E
T
R
A
I
L
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
T
R
A
I
L
AS SHOWNMARCH 2016DATE:SCALE:FILE:CA
B
L
E
S
T
A
Y
E
D
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
AL-14107-004
30
0
0
O
A
K
R
O
A
D
,
S
U
I
T
E
6
5
0
WA
L
N
U
T
C
R
E
E
K
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
4
5
9
7
TE
L
:
(
9
2
5
)
9
3
8
-
0
3
8
3
F
A
X
:
(
9
2
5
)
9
3
8
-
0
3
8
9
DU
B
L
I
N
B
L
V
D
O
V
E
R
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
8.
1
.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
1
6
Attachment: 5. Appendix D to the Study - Grade Separation Cost Estimates and Designs (Receive Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study)
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 217
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 218
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 219
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 220
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 221
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 222
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 223
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 224
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 225
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 226
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 227
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 228
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 229
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 230
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 231
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 232
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Project Location:S1: Iron Horse Trail Segment north of Dougherty Road - Neart Term
Work Description:
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITYUNITSUNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 Resurface Trail 22500 SF $3 $68,000
2 Raised Crosswalk 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal $78,000
Miscellaneous Items (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$8,000
Mobilization (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$8,000
Traffic Control (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$8,000
Contigencies (25% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$20,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $122,000
Planning & Design (20% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$25,000
Construction Administration (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$13,000
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL $38,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:$160,000
Resurface trail, raised crossing at Park Sierra driveway
Active Transprotation Plannning Level Estimate
IronHorse Trail Feasibility Study
8.1.f
Packet Pg. 233
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
6
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Project Location:I3: Dougherty Road/Iron Horse Trail Intersection - Near Term
Work Description:
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITYUNITSUNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 Concrete Curb and Gutter 150 LF $40 $6,000
2 Median Curb 100 LF $25 $3,000
3 Concrete Sidealk 500 SF $12 $6,000
4 Curb Ramps 2 EA $4,500 $9,000
5 Pavement Delineation 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
6 Wayfinding Signs 3 EA $1,800 $6,000
7 Gateway or Art Installation 1 LS $75,000 $75,000
8 Speed Feedback Signs 2 EA $10,000 $20,000
9 Traffic Signals Modifications 1 EA $350,000 $350,000
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal $495,000
Miscellaneous Items (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$50,000
Mobilization (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$50,000
Traffic Control (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$50,000
Contigencies (25% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$124,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $769,000
Planning & Design (20% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$154,000
Construction Administration (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$77,000
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL $231,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:$1,000,000
Reconstruct passageways through islands, enhance crosswalk, passive detection for trail users, modifiy
signal to eliminate vehicle-trail user conflicts, reconstruct ramps, wayfinding signs
Active Transprotation Plannning Level Estimate
IronHorse Trail Feasibility Study
8.1.f
Packet Pg. 234
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
6
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Project Location:S4: Iron Horse Trail Segment between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard - Near Term
Work Description:
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITYUNITSUNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 Decomposed Granite Shoulders9600 SF $4 $39,000
2 Street Trees 47 EA $4,000 $187,000
3 Landscaping 24000 SF $12 $288,000
4 Wayfinding Signs 4 EA $1,800 $8,000
5 Benches 5 EA $1,800 $9,000
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal $531,000
Miscellaneous Items (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$54,000
Mobilization (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$54,000
Traffic Control (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$54,000
Contigencies (25% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$133,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $826,000
Planning & Design (20% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$166,000
Construction Administration (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$83,000
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL $249,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:$1,075,000
Provide decomposed granite soulders on each side of trail, street trees adjacent to Scarlett Drive (north of
Houston Place), drought-tolerant/native landscaping adjacent to trail, bences, rest area, wayfinding signs,
Active Transprotation Plannning Level Estimate
IronHorse Trail Feasibility Study
8.1.f
Packet Pg. 235
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
6
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Project Location:S4: Iron Horse Trail Segment between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard - Long Term
Work Description:
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITYUNITSUNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 Decomposed Granite Shoulders9600 SF $5 $48,000
2 Asphalt Trail 28800 SF $8 $231,000
2 Street Trees 33 EA $4,000 $134,000
3 Landscaping 10000 SF $12 $120,000
4 Wayfinding Signs 8 EA $1,800 $15,000
5 Benches 4 EA $1,800 $8,000
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal $556,000
Miscellaneous Items (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$56,000
Mobilization (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$56,000
Traffic Control (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$56,000
Contigencies (25% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$139,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $863,000
Planning & Design (20% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$173,000
Construction Administration (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$87,000
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL $260,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:$1,123,000
Reconstruct trail with soulders (including base repair), landscaping and trees south of Houston Place,
update wayfinding signs
Active Transprotation Plannning Level Estimate
IronHorse Trail Feasibility Study
8.1.f
Packet Pg. 236
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
6
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Project Location:I6: Houston Place/Scarlett Drive Intersection - Near Term
Work Description:
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITYUNITSUNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 Concrete Curb and Gutter 10 LF $40 $1,000
2 Modify Fence 1 LS $1,000 $1,000
3 Curb Ramps 2 EA $4,500 $9,000
4 Pavement Delineation 1 LS $4,000 $4,000
5 Wayfinding Signs 3 EA $1,800 $6,000
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal $21,000
Miscellaneous Items (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$3,000
Mobilization (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$3,000
Traffic Control (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$3,000
Contigencies (25% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$6,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $36,000
Planning & Design (20% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$8,000
Construction Administration (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$4,000
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL $12,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:$48,000
Enhance crosswalk across Scarlett Drive to Trail, widen path connection and provide ADA compliant curb
ramps, wayfinding signs
Active Transprotation Plannning Level Estimate
IronHorse Trail Feasibility Study
8.1.f
Packet Pg. 237
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
6
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Project Location:I7: Dublin Boulevard/Iron Horse Trail Intersection - Near Term
Work Description:
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITYUNITSUNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 Concrete Curb and Gutter 160 LF $40 $7,000
2 Median Curb 20 LF $25 $1,000
3 Concrete Sidealk 200 SF $12 $3,000
4 Curb Ramps 4 EA $4,500 $18,000
5 Pavement Delineation 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
6 Wayfinding Signs 4 EA $1,800 $8,000
7 Gateway or Art Installation 1 LS $75,000 $75,000
8 Speed Feedback Signs 2 EA $10,000 $20,000
9 Drainage Allowance 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
10 Traffic Signals Modifications 1 EA $200,000 $200,000
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal $367,000
Miscellaneous Items (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$37,000
Mobilization (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$37,000
Traffic Control (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$37,000
Contigencies (25% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$92,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $570,000
Planning & Design (20% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$114,000
Construction Administration (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$57,000
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL $171,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:$741,000
Reduce curb radii, install wide directional ramps, enhance crosswalk, adjust push button placement, provide
passive detection for cyclists, install wayfinding signs, speed feedback signs, gateway or art installation
Active Transprotation Plannning Level Estimate
IronHorse Trail Feasibility Study
8.1.f
Packet Pg. 238
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
6
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Project Location:S8: Iron Horse Trail Segment between Dublin Boulevard and BART Access Road - Near Term
Work Description:
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITYUNITSUNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 Landscaping 12000 SF $12 $144,000
2 Wayfinding Signs 8 EA $1,800 $15,000
3 Pedestrian Scale Lighting 4 EA $10,000 $40,000
4 Benches 4 EA $1,800 $8,000
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal $207,000
Miscellaneous Items (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$21,000
Mobilization (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$21,000
Traffic Control (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$21,000
Contigencies (25% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$52,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $322,000
Planning & Design (20% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$65,000
Construction Administration (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$33,000
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL $98,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:$420,000
Pedestrian-scale lighting at gateway locations, landscaping, wayfinding signs
Active Transprotation Plannning Level Estimate
IronHorse Trail Feasibility Study
8.1.f
Packet Pg. 239
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
6
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Project Location:S8: Iron Horse Trail Segment between Dublin Boulevard and BART Access Road - Long Term
Work Description:
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITYUNITSUNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 Decomposed Granite Shoulders4800 SF $5 $24,000
2 Asphalt Trail 14400 SF $8 $116,000
3 Landscaping 10000 SF $12 $120,000
4 Pedestrian Scale Lighting 24 EA $10,000 $240,000
5 Benches 4 EA $1,800 $8,000
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal $508,000
Miscellaneous Items (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$51,000
Mobilization (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$51,000
Traffic Control (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$51,000
Contigencies (25% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$127,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $788,000
Planning & Design (20% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$158,000
Construction Administration (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$79,000
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL $237,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:$1,025,000
Pedestrian-scale lighting, reconsruct trail with decomposed granite shoulders, landscaping
Active Transprotation Plannning Level Estimate
IronHorse Trail Feasibility Study
8.1.f
Packet Pg. 240
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
6
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Project Location:S9: Iron Horse Trail Segment adjcent to BART Access Road - Near Term
Work Description:
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITYUNITSUNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 Landscaping 6000 SF $12 $72,000
2 Resurface Trail 4800 SF $3 $15,000
3 Wayfinding Signs 4 EA $1,800 $8,000
4 Cycle track (striping/channelizers)1000 LF $10 $10,000
5 Pavement Delineation 1 LS $5,000 $5,000
6 Pedestrian Scale Lighting 12 EA $10,000 $120,000
7 Benches 2 EA $1,800 $4,000
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal $234,000
Miscellaneous Items (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$24,000
Mobilization (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$24,000
Traffic Control (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$24,000
Contigencies (25% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$59,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $365,000
Planning & Design (20% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$73,000
Construction Administration (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$37,000
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL $110,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:$475,000
Two-way cycle track, resurface trail, high-vibisbily crosswalk connecting trail to bus bays, pedestrian-scale
lighting, landscaping, wayfinding signs
Active Transprotation Plannning Level Estimate
IronHorse Trail Feasibility Study
8.1.f
Packet Pg. 241
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
6
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Project Location:S9: Iron Horse Trail Segment adjcent to BART Access Road - Long Term
Work Description:
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITYUNITSUNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 Decomposed Granite Shoulders2400 SF $5 $12,000
2 Asphalt Trail 7200 SF $8 $58,000
3 Landscaping 6000 SF $12 $72,000
4 Concrete Curb & Gutter 200 LF $40 $8,000
5 Plaza Paving 2700 SF $15 $41,000
6 Trees (for Plaza)8 EA $4,000 $32,000
7 Wayfinding Signs 4 EA $1,800 $8,000
8 Pavement Delineation 1 LS $5,000 $5,000
9 Pedestrian Scale Lighting 12 EA $10,000 $120,000
10 Relocate Lighting 12 EA $2,000 $24,000
11 Relocate Chain-link Fence 600 LF $10 $6,000
12 Plaza Amenities 1 LS $150,000 $150,000
13 Drainage Allowance 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal $586,000
Miscellaneous Items (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$59,000
Mobilization (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$59,000
Traffic Control (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$59,000
Contigencies (25% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$147,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $910,000
Planning & Design (20% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$182,000
Construction Administration (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$91,000
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL $273,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:$1,183,000
Relocate lighting, reconsruct trail with decomposed granite shoulders, landscaping, trail plaza area, enhance
connections between Trail and DeMarcus Boulevard
Active Transprotation Plannning Level Estimate
IronHorse Trail Feasibility Study
8.1.f
Packet Pg. 242
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
6
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Project Location:S10: Iron Horse Trail Segment through BART Station (under I-580) - Near Term
Work Description:
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITYUNITSUNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 Remove Curb & Gutter 600 LF $5 $3,000
2 Roadway Paving 15900 SF $12 $191,000
3 Reconstruct Sidewalk 1000 SF $15 $15,000
4 Raised Crosswalk 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
5 Curb Ramps 4 EA $4,500 $18,000
6 Concrete Curb & Gutter 650 LF $40 $26,000
7 Median Curb 400 LF $25 $10,000
8 Median Paving 800 SF $8 $7,000
9 Wayfinding Signs 8 EA $1,800 $15,000
10 Pavement Delineation 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
11 Adjust Utilities 1 LS $75,000 $75,000
12 Drainage Allowance 1 LS $75,000 $75,000
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal $475,000
Miscellaneous Items (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$48,000
Mobilization (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$48,000
Traffic Control (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$48,000
Contigencies (25% of Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal)$119,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $738,000
Planning & Design (20% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$148,000
Construction Administration (10% of Estimated Construction Cost Total)$74,000
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL $222,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:$960,000
Create two-way bikeway through BART station area on the BART Access Road
Active Transprotation Plannning Level Estimate
IronHorse Trail Feasibility Study
8.1.f
Packet Pg. 243
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
6
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
p:\14-015 iron\products\task 7\task 7 memo_revised draft_16_0608.docx
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 8, 2016
TO: FROM:
Ryan McClain
r.mcclain@fehrandpeers.com
Patrick Gilster
p.gilster@fehrandpeers.com
Brianna C. Bohonok, AICP
P. 510.251.8210
E. bbohonok@up-partners.com
CC: ldias@up-partners.com
RE: Task 7, Environmental Screening: Iron Horse Trail Connectivity Feasibility Study
This memo contains a preliminary, screening-level analysis of potential environmental issues related to
the Iron Horse Trail Connectivity Feasibility Study (IHTC project), and provides a summary of
recommendations that may avoid or reduce potential impacts. This screening-level evaluation is a first
step in understanding whether the IHTC project is likely to result in environmental impacts under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The 2016 CEQA Guidelines Environmental Checklist and applicable sections of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) were used to guide this screening analysis. Table 1 provides the results of the CEQA
screening analysis in a matrix, organized by topic area. As significance determinations under NEPA differ
from those of CEQA and are generally broader, a summary of the NEPA analysis is included separately
from Table 1, under section 4, Anticipated Level of NEPA Review. Figure 1 provides a map of identified
environmental issues that will need to be considered during CEQA and NEPA review for the IHTC project.
As part of Task 3 of the IHTC project, a series of prior CEQA documents completed for projects within or
adjacent to the IHTC project area were screened. This screening provided an overview of existing
environmental issues in and around the IHTC project area, and has served as a basis for evaluation of
CEQA topic areas for the IHTC project. This memo builds upon the review completed under Task 3 and
provides guidance on what level of CEQA and/or NEPA review may be required for the IHTC project.
Environmental Documents reviewed under Task 3 and used to inform this analysis include:
City of Dublin General Plan Draft EIR and Final EIR (1984 and 2014 amendment)
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Draft EIR (1992)
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR and Final EIR (2013)
City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration (2014)
The Village at Dublin Supplemental EIR (2013)
Dublin Transit Center Draft EIR (2001) and Final EIR (2002)
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Extension Project Draft EIR (1989)
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 244
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Ryan McClain
DATE: June 8, 2016
PAGE: 2
p:\14-015 iron\products\task 7\task 7 memo_revised draft_16_0608.docx
A descriptive list of these projects and the associated environmental documents is contained in
Attachment A.
The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR identified a potentially significant traffic-related impact to the
Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection. A mitigation measure requiring a fair-share contribution
towards a future bike and pedestrian overcrossing at this intersection was found to mitigate the impact to
a less-than-significant level. The impact and related mitigation measure state that the impact is
cumulative, as a result of future land use growth in the region. This mitigation measure specified that the
design and environmental analysis for the overcrossing had not yet been completed. Additionally, the
mitigation measure allowed that if an overcrossing could not be constructed by 2025, alternative at-grade
crosswalk reconfigurations would also be sufficient to mitigate this impact, however an overcrossing was
preferred. For reference, this mitigation measure is provided as an attachment.
1. Project Understanding
The goal of the Iron Horse Trail Connectivity Feasibility Study is to create a plan for a safe, functional “last
mile” bicycle and pedestrian connection to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The Trail segment under
study is just over 1 mile long, capped by Dougherty Road to the north and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
station to the south. This Trail segment intersects Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Boulevard, and future
Dublin Crossings driveways and roadways, all of which are focus areas of the feasibility study.
Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road are wide, busy regional corridors with multiple lanes of traffic, and
the Trail crossing at these signalized intersections is not bike or pedestrian-friendly. An additional
signalized intersection will be constructed with the development of Dublin Crossing at G Street. The ½-
mile segment of the Trail between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard is approximately 8 feet wide
and is characterized by what is often described as an unimproved, “back-door” facility, with poor quality
surfacing and edges. Improvements to this segment will include new standards and best practices for path
design.
The ½ mile area surrounding the IHTC project segment of the Trail contains multiple land uses:
Northeast of the IHTC project, adjacent to the Dougherty Road crossing, is the Parks Reserve
Force Training Area.
The area east of the Trail is largely undeveloped, but is planned for transit-oriented, mixed use
development outlined in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as
amended for the Dublin Transit Center project.
South of Dublin Boulevard and east of the Trail is the partially-developed Transit Village subarea
of the Dublin Transit Center, which contains multi-family housing, as well as a series of large
parking lots and undeveloped properties. Immediately south of the IHTC project area is a mix of
campus-style office uses and undeveloped land. A large amount of the area is dedicated to
surface parking.
The area west of the Trail contains a pocket of medium-density housing at the northern end, as
well as business park/industrial uses further to the south and office and automotive uses just
north of the I-580 freeway.
Land to the east is dominated by the flat, partially-developed Camp Parks area, which contains former
cattle grazing grassland and a series of structures used for U.S. Army operations. This area contains a
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 245
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Ryan McClain
DATE: June 8, 2016
PAGE: 3
p:\14-015 iron\products\task 7\task 7 memo_revised draft_16_0608.docx
series of natural and man-made swales that carry the majority of stormwater runoff to Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) drainage facilities. These swales are concentrated
near the intersection of the proposed Scarlett Drive extension and Dublin Boulevard.
2. Environmental Issues by Topic Area
A series of major projects adjacent to the IHTC project have completed environmental review under CEQA
over the last several years. In some cases the project area(s) overlapped a portion of the IHTC project
area. The environmental conditions and project-related impacts identified by the prior EIRs reviewed
under Task 3 provide a background for environmental issues that maybe encountered on the IHTC
project. A summary of environmental issues identified by these analyses and their relationship to the IHTC
project is included in Table 1. In addition, Urban Planning Partners has completed a high-level evaluation
of topics that did not present major issues in prior EIRs, to evaluate whether the project is likely to result
in significant impacts for these topics.
As shown in Table 1, this screening indicates the IHTC project is likely to have the following CEQA effects:
Less than significant (mitigation not likely needed)
Agriculture and forest resources,
Greenhouse gas emissions, hazards,
Land use and planning,
Mineral resources,
Population and housing,
Public services, or
Utilities and services systems
Significant impacts (likely reduced to less-than-significant level with mitigation measures):
Air quality,
Cultural resources,
Geology and soils,
Hydrology and Water quality, and
Noise
Potentially significant impacts:1
Aesthetics,
Biological resources, and
Transportation and traffic
These assumptions are based on analysis of the IHTC project against the criteria found in the 2016 CEQA
Guidelines Environmental Checklist (Attachment B) and the review of prior EIRs.
1 The screening indicated further analysis and information will be required to assess the likelihood of project-related CEQA impacts
to these topic areas.
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 246
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Ryan McClain
DATE: June 8, 2016
PAGE: 4
p:\14-015 iron\products\task 7\task 7 memo_revised draft_16_0608.docx
3. Anticipated Level of CEQA Review
Based on the screening-level findings described above, Urban Planning Partners believes that an Initial
Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is likely to provide an adequate level of CEQA review.
However, it is possible that the IHTC project CEQA analysis may determine the IHTC project would result
in significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Possibly, air quality analysis
and the exposure of cyclists and pedestrians to air quality that exceeds BAAQMD thresholds may result in
significant and unavoidable impacts2. Once an initial study is complete a final determination can be made.
If no significant and unavoidable impacts are found, no further analysis would be required. If significant
impacts are found and cannot be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, an EIR would be prepared.
However, completing an EIR would reduce risk, as the standard of review if challenged in court would be
“substantial evidence”3, and preparation of an EIR could provide a more thorough environmental analysis.
Given the size, public visibility, and funding sources of the IHTC project, it may be advisable and efficient
to prepare an EIR without a prior initial study.
4. Anticipated Level of NEPA Review
It is anticipated that the IHTC project may have a federal nexus, and would therefore be required to
complete NEPA review. Depending on the agency with federal delegation to complete this review, a set of
significance thresholds may or may not be used4. Significant determinations under NEPA review differ
from CEQA; under NEPA, significance is determined based on the impact of a project as a whole, rather
than by topic areas individually. This, in addition to separate significance criteria, means impacts that are
determined to be significant under CEQA may not be determined significant under NEPA. Based on a
screening of the IHTC project, it is considered to be unlikely that the IHTC project as a whole would have a
significant impact on the environment, and therefore an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not
likely to be required.
A review of NEPA categorical exclusions (23 CFR 771.117) found that the IHTC project may qualify as a
categorical exclusion under criteria (c)(3), which covers construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes,
paths, and facilities. However, it is important to note that categorical exclusions may only be used if a
project will not have a significant environmental impact or substantial controversy on environmental
grounds.
Ultimately, the lead federal agency will determine the level of NEPA review required for the IHTC project;
however this screening-level review indicates that a categorical exclusion may be sufficient. If further
analysis determines that the IHTC project could potentially result in significant impacts under NEPA, an
Environmental Assessment may be prepared to determine if an EIS is necessary.
2 Per CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369, CEQA may require analysis and mitigation of existing environmental conditions on a
project’s future users if the project may “exacerbate” an existing environmental condition 3 Initial studies are held to the “fair argument” standard, which places a greater burden of proof on the project proponent.
Conversely, the “substantial evidence” standard places the burden of proof largely on the plaintiff.
4 While NEPA delegates the responsibility of developing thresholds of significance to federal agencies, many have not formally
adopted thresholds. In particular, Caltrans does not currently have adopted thresholds for NEPA review.
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 247
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Ryan McClain
DATE: May 18, 2016
PAGE: 5
p:\14-015 iron\products\task 7\task 7 memo_revised draft_16_0608.docx
TABLE 1: IDENTIFIED ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Topic Area Prior CEQA documents Potential project-related impacts Anticipated
potentially
significant
impact
(denoted with
“X”)
Recommendations/Notes
Aesthetics Finding of Significant or
Potentially Significant Impact:
The Village at Dublin EIR, Dublin
Transit Center EIR
The EIRs listed above found
impacts relating to new sources of
light, and impacts to scenic views
and vistas.
The project would construct a new bike
and pedestrian overcrossing at the
Dublin Boulevard intersection.
Potential Impacts:
Impacts to scenic views or vistas as
identified in the General Plan.
Assess effects of the overcrossing on scenic vistas
in the project area will need to be completed,
including views of the ridgeline enhancement
areas identified in the General Plan. If potential
impacts to scenic vistas are identified, design
features such as materials and color choice may
reduce or eliminate this impact.
Agriculture and
Forest
Resources
Finding of Significant or
Potentially Significant Impact:
General Plan EIR
The General Plan identified
impacts relating to the conversion
of agricultural and grazing land.
None This topic area is not likely to be an issue, as the
project will not effect an agriculture or forest
resources.
Air Quality Finding of Significant or
Potentially Significant Impact:
The Village at Dublin EIR,
Dublin Transit Center EIR, General
Plan EIR
The EIRs listed above identified
potentially significant air quality
impacts from the construction and
operation of planned
development in the vicinity of the
Successful improvements will result in
more people on the Trail, including
commuters, school children, active
recreational cyclists and passive users
such as the elderly. These are sensitive
populations, vulnerable to the impacts of
poor air quality in excess of Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
significance thresholds.
Potential Impacts:
X Conduct a Health Risk Assessment.
Consider cumulative impacts of existing and
proposed sources of air pollution in the vicinity of
the trail.
Construction-related emissions can generally be
reduced with standard conditions of approval
and/or BMPs such as engine tier requirements,
restrictions on idling times, etc.
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 248
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
TO: Ryan McClain
DATE: June 8, 2016
PAGE: 6
p:\14-015 iron\products\task 7\task 7 memo_revised draft_16_0608.docx
project. Due to the immediate
proximity of these large
development projects to the Trail,
as shown in Figure 2, and the
unrestricted nature of airborne
contaminants, trail users could be
exposed to elevated levels of air
pollution. These findings demand
special consideration, given the
goals of the project include
increasing the use of the Trail.
[Fehr & Peers: Please provide
projected increase in trail use, if
known (e.g. % increase or # of
users per day)]
Exposure of sensitive receptors to
air quality that does not meet
BAAQMD thresholds.
Emissions during construction.
Biological
Resources
Finding of Significant or
Potentially Significant Impact:
Dublin Crossing EIR,
The Village at Dublin EIR, Dublin
Transit Center EIR, General Plan
EIR
The EIRs listed above identified a
series of potentially significant
impacts to special status plant and
animal species, including, but not
limited to, Congdon’s tarplant,
California Burrowing Owl,
California Red Legged Frog and
Tiger Salamander, and protected
Populations of listed species are located
in the less developed areas immediately
east of the Iron Horse Trail. The limited
range and lack of major construction on
the Trail itself is unlikely to impact the
listed species to the degree of nearby
major development projects. However,
potential construction of the Dublin
Boulevard overcrossing may warrant a
survey of nesting birds and a database
search for listed species.
Potential Impacts:
Impacts to listed species,
Conduct an updated database search. Once it is
determined which species are likely to occur in
the project area, impacts to species can likely be
reduced to less-than-significant levels through
implementation of mitigation measures such as
work windows, designated work areas, or
possibly a biological monitor.
Consider the future biological impacts of a
significant increase in Trail use.
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 249
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
TO: Ryan McClain
DATE: June 8, 2016
PAGE: 7
p:\14-015 iron\products\task 7\task 7 memo_revised draft_16_0608.docx
species of Vernal Pool
invertebrates such as Tadpole
Shrimp and Fairy Shrimp.
nesting/migratory birds, or sensitive
plant communities.
Cultural
Resources
Finding of Significant or
Potentially Significant Impact:
Dublin Crossing EIR,
Dublin Transit Center EIR
The EIRs listed above identified
potentially significant impacts
relating to the accidental discovery
of unrecorded historical artifacts,
archeological resources, or human
remains.
Additionally, the Dublin Crossing
EIR identified historic resources
that are eligible for inclusion in the
NRHP. One of these resources is
the Camp Parks entrance sign.
The Camp Parks entrance sign is in
proximity to the project area. Although
somewhat unlikely, there is a potential
for accidental discovery of archeological
resources, human remains, or
paleontological resources.
Potential Impacts:
Impacts to historic resources.
Discovery of archeological
resources, human remains, or
paleontological resources during
construction.
X Determine whether the Trail is adjacent to any
properties that are historic resources for the
purposes of CEQA. If structures exist, potential
construction-related vibratory impacts will need
to be evaluated. Additionally, if historic structures
are found to be in the vicinity of the Dublin
Boulevard overcrossing, the design will need to
be evaluated for potential impacts.
Standard conditions of approval and/or BMPs
that include protocols for accidental discovery of
archeological resources, human remains, or
paleontological resources would likely be
sufficient to reduce impacts to less-than-
significant levels.
Geology and
Soils
Finding of Significant or
Potentially Significant Impact:
Dublin Crossing EIR,
Dublin Transit Center EIR
A series of potentially significant
geology and seismicity-related
impacts were identified in the
environmental documents listed
above. The location of an Alquist-
Priolo fault zone for the
Pleasanton fault was identified,
Future Iron Horse Trail improvements,
including the potential construction of
the Dublin Boulevard overcrossing, will
place new structures and encourage a
higher frequency of users in an area at
risk for potential groundshaking,
liquefaction, and expansive soils.
Potential Impacts:
Exposure of users to seismic risk
including groundshaking and
X Examine the specific geologic conditions that
underlay the trail in order to determine potential
impacts of the project.
Adhere to current seismic-safety design
standards and review for future Iron Horse Trail
improvements, including the potential
construction of the Dublin Boulevard
overcrossing.
Adherence to current seismic-safety design
standards and review will likely be sufficient to
reduce this potential impact.
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 250
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
TO: Ryan McClain
DATE: June 8, 2016
PAGE: 8
p:\14-015 iron\products\task 7\task 7 memo_revised draft_16_0608.docx
and resulted in findings of
potential groundshaking,
liquefaction, and expansive soils in
areas that intersect the current
study area.
liquefaction.
Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
[no prior EIRs reviewed for this
analysis identified significant or
potentially significant impacts]
None This topic area is not likely to be an issue, as the
project will not increase greenhouse gas emissions or
create new sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
Hazards Finding of Significant or
Potentially Significant Impact:
Dublin Crossing EIR,
The Village at Dublin EIR
The EIRs listed above found
impacts relating to encountering
previously identified hazardous
materials on-site during
construction.
None This topic area is not likely to be an issue, as the
project area is currently used for public recreation and
is unlikely to contain hazardous materials on-site.
Hydrology and
Water Quality
Finding of Significant or
Potentially Significant Impact:
Dublin Crossing EIR,
General Plan EIR
A large portion of the project
segment of the Iron Horse Trail lies
within mapped 100-year and 500-
year FEMA floodplains. In addition,
the area immediately east of the
Trail contains numerous swales
which drain the Camp Parks
watershed, concentrating runoff
near the future Dublin
Independently, the conditions identified
under prior EIRs are unlikely to result in a
significant impact under CEQA for this
project. However, the effect of future
flooding on low-lying Trail improvements
may be exacerbated by anticipated new
development near the Trail, which will
increase the amount of impervious
surfaces in the project vicinity.
Potential Impacts:
Increase in stormwater runoff as a
result of construction and a net
increase in paved area/impervious
X Review drainage and floodplain impacts as well as
mitigation strategies developed under previous
CEQA documents, and identify opportunities for
cooperative mitigation measures.
Conduct a cumulative analysis to accurately
characterizing potential flood-related impacts.
Design and engineering solutions may reduce this
potential impact.
Preparation of a SWPPP and standard conditions
of approval and/or BMPs will likely be sufficient
to reduce potential construction-related impacts
associated with the Dublin Boulevard
Overcrossing and on-trail improvements.
Communicate with Zone 7 staff on Iron Horse
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 251
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
TO: Ryan McClain
DATE: June 8, 2016
PAGE: 9
p:\14-015 iron\products\task 7\task 7 memo_revised draft_16_0608.docx
Boulevard/Scarlett Drive
intersection.
areas.
Exposure of users to potential risk
due to flooding.
Construction of the Dublin
Boulevard Overcrossing and on-trail
improvements could result in
impacts to water quality.
Trail improvements and progress.
Land Use and
Planning
[no prior EIRs reviewed for this
analysis identified significant or
potentially significant impacts]
None This topic area is not likely to be an issue, as the
project area is currently used for public recreation and
no change in land use is proposed.
Mineral
Resources
[no prior EIRs reviewed for this
analysis identified significant or
potentially significant impacts]
None This topic area is not likely to be an issue, as the
project will not effect mineral resources.
Noise Finding of Significant or
Potentially Significant Impact:
Dublin Crossing EIR,
Dublin Transit Center EIR
The EIRs listed above identified
impacts to sensitive receptors as a
result of short-term increases in
noise during construction and
exposure of new sensitive
receptors (residents) to
unacceptable levels of noise from
the I-580 freeway and the BART
line.
Construction of on-trail improvements
and the Dublin Boulevard overcrossing is
likely to create noise in excess of normal
levels within the project area. It is not
anticipated that the project would result
in permanent noise impacts.
Potential Impacts:
Construction-related noise impacts.
X Standard conditions of approval and/or BMPs,
which may include daytime work windows, will
likely be sufficient to reduce this potential
impact.
Population and
Housing
[no prior EIRs reviewed for this
analysis identified significant or
potentially significant impacts]
None This topic area is not likely to be an issue, as the
project will not induce substantial population growth
or result in displacement.
Public Services [no prior EIRs reviewed for this
analysis identified significant or
potentially significant impacts]
None This topic area is not likely to be an issue, as the
project will not increase demand for public services.
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 252
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
TO: Ryan McClain
DATE: June 8, 2016
PAGE: 10
p:\14-015 iron\products\task 7\task 7 memo_revised draft_16_0608.docx
Recreation [no prior EIRs reviewed for this
analysis identified significant or
potentially significant impacts]
The express purpose of the project is to
increase the use of the project segment
of the Iron Horse Trail.
Potential Impacts:
Increased use of existing
recreational facilities.
Increased use of the Iron Horse Trail does not
necessarily indicate a significant or potentially
significant impact will result.
Assess long-term impacts of increased trail use
and the associated need for increased
maintenance.
Transportation
and Traffic
Finding of Significant or
Potentially Significant Impact:
Dublin Crossing EIR,
The Village at Dublin EIR, Dublin
Transit Center EIR, General Plan
EIR
Traffic analyses completed for the
CEQA documents reviewed
concluded that the traffic
conditions in the immediate Iron
Horse Trail study are subject to
significant degradation as the
result of planned development,
but also anticipated an increase in
transit use as a result of these
projects. As these analyses were
completed using the Level of
Service (LOS) methodology, rather
than the more current VMT
approach, increased intersection
waiting times were considered to
be impacts under CEQA.
Traffic impacts identified include
LOS impacts to various segments
Trail improvements are likely to result in
VMT reductions as a result of increased
bicycle and pedestrian trips, and
significant impacts relating to traffic or
transportation are considered to be
unlikely. It is likely that the project would
result in increased transit trips.
Potential Impacts:
Construction-related traffic impacts.
Cumulative impacts to transit
system ridership/capacity.
Operation of the project is likely to
result in an overall reduction in
VMT, and significant traffic impacts
are considered to be unlikely.
Standard conditions of approval and/or BMPs will
likely be sufficient to reduce potential
construction-related impacts.
VMT analysis is recommended, in compliance
with Senate Bill 743, to accurately capture the
project’s reduction in vehicle trips as a result of
enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access to
transit.
Compare any anticipated increase in transit trips
as a result of the project against existing ridership
projections and consider this increase
cumulatively with surrounding transit-oriented
development projects that are anticipated or
currently underway.
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 253
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
TO: Ryan McClain
DATE: June 8, 2016
PAGE: 11
p:\14-015 iron\products\task 7\task 7 memo_revised draft_16_0608.docx
and intersections of Dublin
Boulevard and Dougherty Road,
including the Scarlett Drive
intersection.
Utilities and
Service
Systems
Finding of Significant or
Potentially Significant Impact:
Dublin Transit Center EIR
The EIR identified impacts relating
to increased demand electric
power.
None This topic area is not likely to be an issue, as the
project will not increase demand for utilities.
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 254
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
DUBLIN BL
DO
U
G
H
E
R
T
Y
R
D
HA
C
I
E
N
D
A
D
R
OWENS DR
JOHNSON DR
H
O
P
Y
A
R
D
R
D
n
n
n
Valley
High
School
Wells
Middle
School
N
§¨¦I680 SB TO I580 EB C
O
N
N
§¨¦I580 WB TO I680 NB CON
§¨¦ 580
^5
^5
1/2 Mile Study Area
Study Intersection
BART Route
Dublin/Pleasanton City Limit
Iron Horse Trail
Chabot Canal
Floodway
500-Year FEMA Flood Zone
100-Year FEMA Flood Zone
Liquefaction Hazard Areap
General Plan Ridgeline
Enhancement
Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station
Potential LOS Impact
Seasonal Wetland
5
Figure XX-X
Iron Horse Trail Connectivity Feasibility Study
Potential Environmental and Policy Constraints
California Geologic Survey, Seismic Hazards Zoning Program, 2008
Alameda County Registrar of Voters, Mapping Section, ROV_Flood, 2011
Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Hazard Layer, 2014
City of Dublin, 2014, General Plan Amendment
City of Dublin, 2013, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 255
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Figure XX-X
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Future Land Use Trends
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
,
2
0
1
3
,
D
u
b
l
i
n
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
,
2
0
1
4
,
U
p
d
a
t
e
d
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
D
u
b
l
i
n
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
,
2
0
1
5
,
An
n
u
a
l
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
o
n
t
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
^
^
OW
EN
S
D
R
DOUGHERTY RD
J
O
H
N
S
O
HO P YARD
R
D
SCARLETT DR.
^^DOUGGHERRTYRRD
Du
b
l
i
n
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
-1
,
9
9
5
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
-2
0
0
k
S
F
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
-I
H
T
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
Va
l
l
e
y
Hi
g
h
Sc
h
o
o
l
We
l
l
s
Mi
d
d
l
e
Sc
h
o
o
l
JO
H
N
S
O
N
D
R
.
1
2
3
Transit Village Center Sub-Area -1,800 Housing Units -2 million SF Campus Office
Fu
t
u
r
e
p
a
r
k
,
3
0
a
c
r
e
s
580
5
4
6
1/
2
M
i
l
e
S
t
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
St
u
d
y
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
BA
R
T
R
o
u
t
e
Du
b
l
i
n
/
P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
o
n
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Du
b
l
i
n
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Fu
t
u
r
e
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
Ro
a
d
W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
:
4
t
o
6
L
a
n
e
s
p
l
u
s
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
Fu
t
u
r
e
S
c
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
Du
b
l
i
n
/
P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
o
n
BA
R
T
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
Fu
t
u
r
e
G
S
t
.
/
I
H
T
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
u
b
-
A
r
e
a
La
n
d
U
s
e
C
a
m
p
u
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
M
e
d
i
u
m
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
/
S
e
m
i
-
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
:
S
i
t
e
A
-
1
:
5
2
U
n
i
t
s
A
v
a
l
o
n
I
I
:
5
0
5
U
n
i
t
s
E
s
p
r
i
t
:
1
0
5
U
n
i
t
s
C
a
m
e
l
i
a
P
l
:
1
1
2
U
n
i
t
s
E
l
a
n
:
2
5
7
U
n
i
t
s
A
v
a
l
o
n
I
:
3
0
5
U
n
i
t
s
Va
c
a
n
t
P
a
r
c
e
l
1 2 3 4 5 6
DU
B
L
I
N
B
L
V
D
8.1.g Packet Pg. 256Attachment: 7. Appendix F to the Study - Preliminary Environmental Review (Receive Iron Horse Trail
TO: Ryan McClain
DATE: May 18, 2016
PAGE: 12
p:\14-015 iron\products\task 7\task 7 memo_revised draft_16_0608.docx
ATTACHMENT A:
RELEVANT CEQA ANALYSIS REVIEWED FOR IRON HORSE TRAIL
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 257
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Ryan McClain
DATE: June 8, 2016
PAGE: 13
p:\14-015 iron\products\task 7\task 7 memo_revised draft_16_0608.docx
As described above, several recent projects in the Iron Horse Trail vicinity have competed CEQA review,
and the findings and conclusions from these analyses may be relevant to the current study.
Environmental documents reviewed include:
City of Dublin General Plan (2014 amendment) Draft EIR and Final EIR
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Draft EIR (1992)
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR and Final EIR (2013)
City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration (2014)
The Village at Dublin Draft EIR (2013)
Dublin Transit Center Draft EIR (2001) and Final EIR (2002)
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Extension Project Draft EIR (1989)
The following environmental documents contain impacts, insights and information that can shed light on
potential environmental issues for the current project:
City of Dublin General Plan Draft & Final EIR, 1984. The project study area is nearly fully
contained within the City of Dublin’s General Plan planning area, with the exception of the
portion south of I-580, which is in the City of Pleasanton. As such, constraints and impacts
identified in the General Plan EIR may apply to the current project.
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Draft EIR, 1993. The southern
portion of the project area lies along the western boundary of the Eastern Extended Planning
Area. Although that Planning Area spans 4,300 acres to the east and northeast of that boundary,
the EIR contains relevant insights into local biology and geology.
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft & Final EIR, 2013. The Dublin Crossing project will play a
critical role in the future land use environment of the area immediately east of the Iron Horse
Trail. The 2,000-unit, transit-oriented community was planned to provide residents with direct
access to the Iron Horse Trail. The Dublin Crossing EIR identifies environmental constraints to
development and project-related impacts that may also be issues for the current project.
City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2014. The
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will influence multi-modal accessibility throughout Dublin.
The Plan includes specific recommendations and policies that will influence access to the Iron
Horse Trail. As such, associated environmental considerations are likely relevant to the current
project.
The Village at Dublin Draft EIR, 2013. This document analyses a proposed 167,200 square-foot
retail commercial center in the City’s Eastern Planning Area. The 14.3-acre site is located just
south of Dublin Boulevard, between Hacienda Drive and Arnold Road. The EIR was reviewed for
insights into possible traffic-related impacts to the Dublin Boulevard corridor.
Dublin Transit Center Draft & Final EIR, 2001. The Dublin Transit Center project is a high-density
mixed-use, transit and pedestrian-oriented development adjacent the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station, to the east. In addition to its proximity to the Iron Horse Trail study area, the Transit
Center Plan contains bicycle and pedestrian elements designed to promote connection to the
Iron Horse Trail itself.
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 258
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
TO: Ryan McClain
DATE: June 8, 2016
PAGE: 14
p:\14-015 iron\products\task 7\task 7 memo_revised draft_16_0608.docx
ATTACHMENT B:
2016 CEQA GUIDELINES ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 259
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 CEQA Guidelines Appendices
278
APPENDIX G: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM NOTE: The following is a sample form and may be tailored to satisfy individual agencies’ needs and project circumstances. It may be used to meet the requirements for an initial study when the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines have been met. Substantial evidence of potential impacts that
are not listed on this form must also be considered. The sample questions in this form are intended
to encourage thoughtful assessment of impacts, and do not necessarily represent thresholds of
significance.
1. Project title:
2. Lead agency name and address:
3. Contact person and phone number:
4. Project location:
5. Project sponsor’s name and address:
6. General plan designation: _______________________ 7. Zoning:
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project’s surroundings:
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 260
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 CEQA Guidelines Appendices
279
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 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because 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 impact” 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.
Signature Date
Signature Date
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 261
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 CEQA Guidelines Appendices
280
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one
or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant
Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 262
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 CEQA Guidelines Appendices
281
9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance SAMPLE QUESTION Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer
to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by
the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the
state’s inventory of forest land, including the
Forest and Range Assessment Project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest
carbon measurement methodology provided in
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 263
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 CEQA Guidelines Appendices
282
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to
make the following determinations. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 264
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 CEQA Guidelines Appendices
283
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 265
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 CEQA Guidelines Appendices
284
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the
project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 266
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 CEQA Guidelines Appendices
285
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of waste water?
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
VIII. 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 materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely 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 compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 267
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 CEQA Guidelines Appendices
286
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an 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?
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 268
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 CEQA Guidelines Appendices
287
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING.Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 269
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 CEQA Guidelines Appendices
288
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
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?
XII. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or 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 levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 270
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 CEQA Guidelines Appendices
289
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered 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?
XV. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 271
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 CEQA Guidelines Appendices
290
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.Would
the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not limited
to level of service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 272
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 CEQA Guidelines Appendices
291
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. 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 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
provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 273
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 CEQA Guidelines Appendices
292
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
65088.4, Gov. Code; Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21083, 21083.05, 21083.3, 21093, 21094,
21095, and 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino,(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d
296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible
Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water
Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of
San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.
Revised 2009
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 274
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
TO: Ryan McClain
DATE: June 8, 2016
PAGE: 16
p:\14-015 iron\products\task 7\task 7 memo_revised draft_16_0608.docx
ATTACHMENT C:
DUBLIN CROSSING MMRP EXCERPT
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 275
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
)
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Page ES-47
Project Impacts Level of Significance
Without Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of
Significance
2035 cumulative no project
conditions to an unacceptable LOS
E under 2035 cumulative plus
project conditions. The City of
Dublin level of service standard for
this intersection is LOS D.
impact at the intersection of Dougherty Road and
Scarlett Drive would require converting the
eastbound all-movement lane to a shared through-
right lane and adding a new 60-foot eastbound left
turn lane. In addition, the eastbound and
westbound legs should be converted from split
phasing to protected phasing. This improvement
would require widening the west approach of the
intersection by approximately 12 feet into the
existing pork chop island. Further improvements at
this intersection have already been identified by the
City’s Traffic Impact Fee Program as part of the
Scarlett Drive extension to Dublin Boulevard.
Implementation of the identified mitigation at this
location should be coordinated with the City’s
planned TIF improvements. Because the impact is
caused by both the proposed project and future
land use growth, the mitigation for this impact is for
the project to make a fair share monetary
contribution toward these improvements. The
timing of these improvements will be determined in
the project’s mitigation monitoring program.
Impact 3.12-3: Scarlett Drive and
Dublin Boulevard. During the PM
peak hour, the study intersection of
Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard
would operate at an unacceptable
LOS F under both 2035 cumulative
no project conditions and 2035
cumulative plus project conditions.
The City of Dublin level of service
standard for this intersection is LOS
Potentially Significant MM 3.12-3: Construction of a Grade Separated
Crossing at the Intersection of Scarlett Drive and
Dublin Boulevard. To mitigate the impacts at the
intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard
due to higher rate of pedestrians/bicyclists crossings
at Dublin Boulevard, a grade separated crossing shall
be utilized. The grade separated crossing would
eliminate the need for at-grade pedestrian
actuations at the traffic signal, which would allow
more green time to be allocated to through traffic
Less than Significant
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 276
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Page ES-48
Project Impacts Level of Significance
Without Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of
Significance
D. on Dublin Boulevard. Although this project has not
been environmentally cleared, nor has engineering
or right of way analysis been completed with regards
to the feasibility of this improvement, the City is
aggressively pursuing this project to improve
pedestrian and bicycle mobility along the Iron Horse
Trail. The City also plans to include a grade
separated crossing at this location in its update to
the TIF program to secure project funding.
Because the impact is caused by future land use
growth in the region as well as this proposed
project, the mitigation for this impact is for the
project to make a fair share monetary contribution
toward these improvements. The timing of these
improvements will be determined in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and developer
obligations will be outlined in the Developer
Agreement. In the event that the grade separated
crossing project cannot be constructed by year
2035, an alternative mitigation would be to eliminate
the crosswalk on the east leg of the Scarlett Drive
and Dublin Boulevard intersection. This would
require pedestrians and bikes from the Iron Horse
Trail to cross three crosswalks rather than one.
Because of the effects of the alternative mitigation
on pedestrian and bike mobility, the grade separated
crossing is the City’s preferred mitigation at this
location.
Impact 3.12-4: During the PM peak
hour, the study intersection of Iron
Horse Parkway and Dublin
Boulevard would degrade from LOS
Potentially Significant MM 3.12-4: Addition of a Northbound Left-turn
lane on Iron Horse Parkway at the Intersection of
Iron Horse Parkway and Dublin Boulevard. To
mitigate the impact at the intersection of Iron Horse
Less than Significant
8.1.g
Packet Pg. 277
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
7
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
(
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: November 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Approval of a Hotel (Transient Occupancy Tax) Incentive Program
Prepared by: Hazel L. Wetherford, Assistant to the City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider approving a Hotel (Transient Occupancy Tax) Incentive
Program to aid in attracting investment and assisting in the development of hotels in the
City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving the creation of a Hotel (Transient Occupancy Tax)
Incentive Program.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
If the City Council approves the Program, there would be legal fees associated with the
development and review of the Hotel Incentive Program agreement.
DESCRIPTION:
At the August 10, 2015 Economic Development Committee meeting, City Staff
presented the Committee with an overview of trends for establishing transient
occupancy tax incentive programs designed to encourage the development of new
hotels, as well as promote reinvestment in existing hotels. The Committee received the
presentation and requested for a future update after additional research was completed
by Staff.
At the August 8, 2016 Economic Development Committee meeting, Staff presented a
conceptual hotel incentive program for the Committee’s consideration. The Economic
Development Committee provided feedback on features of the proposed incentive
program, favoring language for 4-star hotels and high-quality finishes, and requested
that Staff bring a refined version of the program back to the Committee for
consideration.
8.2
Packet Pg. 278
Page 2 of 3
At the October 3, 2017 Economic Development Committee meeting, Staff presented a
more defined hotel incentive program proposal that outlined the program’s purpose,
eligibility and financial need requirements, program limits and application process. The
Committee supported the program proposal and is requesting that the full City Council
consider approving the program.
Following is a summary of the proposed Program's purpose, eligibility, limitations, and
process.
Program Purpose:
To establish a financial incentive program which encourages the development of new
hotels, as well as promote reinvestment in existing hotels in the City of Dublin.
Program Eligibility:
1. Hotel must be of a quality that it meets a four (first class) / three star (comfort
new hotel) or four (first class) / three diamond (comfort new hotel) hotel rating or
higher under the rating criteria established by the American Automobile
Association (AAA), JD Power and Associates, or comparable hotel rating entity
which includes hotel operations on a 24-hour per day, 7 days a week basis with
housekeeping services, food and beverage services, high-quality finishes, room
services, banquet and meeting services, including at least 10,000 square feet of
meeting/banquet space, concierge and bell services, and parking services.
2. Hotel must provide independent, third-party, certification acceptable to the City of
the level of the quality of the new hotel as a four (first class) / three-star (comfort
new hotel) or four (first class) / three diamond (comfort new hotel) hotel as
defined above.
3. Hotel must have 125 or more rooms.
4. Existing hotels seeking funds for redevelopment must measurably and
demonstrably improve the quality of the hotel through either increased capacity
or ability to charge higher room rates, and/or enhancements to the hotel’s ratings
by AAA, JD Power, etc.
Program Financial Need:
As part of the application, a feasibility analysis shall be completed by the applicant to
demonstrate a funding gap between operating performance and project development or
improvement cost. The analysis will be independently reviewed by a City consultant,
and must prove that, but for this program, the development or improvement would not
occur.
Program Limits:
1. The Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rebate will be no more than 70% for a 4-
star hotel and no more than 50% for a 3-star hotel. Renovated hotels are eligible
to receive a TOT rebate of 50% of the increment above existing TOT levels for
up to 10 years.
2. The term of the rebate shall be no longer than 20 years for a 4-star hotel, and no
longer than 15 years for a 3-star hotel. Any change in star rating below 3 stars for
8.2
Packet Pg. 279
Page 3 of 3
the applicant throughout the lifetime of the agreement will result in termination of
the agreement. A reduction from a 4-star hotel rating to a 3-star hotel rating will
result in a reduction of the term of the TOT rebate, consistent with that of a 3-star
hotel.
3. The amount of the TOT rebate shall be no greater than the funding gap.
4. The Applicant must enter into a binding agreement with the City.
Program Documentation:
Requests to participate in the program must include the following:
1. A letter of request;
2. Third party certification of the development’s rating status;
3. A feasibility analysis; and
4. An executed binding agreement.
Determination of the applicant’s TOT revenues will be based on revenues received, as
documented by the City’s Administrative Services (Finance) Department.
Program Request Process:
Program applicants will follow all procedures required by Assembly Bill 562 (2013),
including prevailing wage, public hearings and reporting requirements.
Upon receipt of a complete request to participate in the City’s Hotel Incentive Program,
the request packet will be presented to the Economic Development Committee for
review and recommendation to the City Council.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution - Approving a Hotel (Transit Oriented Tax) Incentive Program
2. Exhibit A to Resolution - Hotel Incentive Program
8.2
Packet Pg. 280
RESOLUTION NO. XX-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
APPROVING A HOTEL (TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX) INCENTIVE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council has made economic development a high priority and has
asked Staff to evaluate possible incentives to renovate or update commercial areas in Dublin;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to develop the Hotel (Transient Occupancy Tax)
incentive program; and
WHEREAS, the Program is designed to encourage the development of new high-quality
hotels, as well as promote reinvestment in existing hotels in the City of Dublin.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby approve a Hotel (Transient Occupancy Tax) Incentive Program attached hereto as
Exhibit A to this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to undertake such
further actions, much as minor amendments to the Program, as may be necessary and
desirable to carry out the intent of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of November, 2017, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 281
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
a
H
o
t
e
l
(
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
O
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
T
a
x
)
I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
H
o
t
e
l
I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
)
Hotel (Transient Occupancy Tax)
Incentive Program
PURPOSE:
To establish a financial incentive program which encourages the development of new hotels, as well as
promote reinvestment in existing hotels in the City of Dublin.
ELIGIBILTY:
1. Hotel must be of a quality that it meets a four (first class) / three star (comfort new hotel) or four
(first class) / three diamond (comfort new hotel) hotel rating or higher under the rating criteria
established by the American Automobile Association (AAA), JD Power and Associates, or
comparable hotel rating entity which includes hotel operations on a 24-hour per day, 7 days a
week basis with housekeeping services, food and beverage services, high-quality finishes, room
services, banquet and meeting services, including at least 10,000 square feet of
meeting/banquet space, concierge and bell services, and parking services.
2. Hotel must provide independent, third-party, certification acceptable to the City of the level of
the quality of the new hotel as a four (first class)/three-star (comfort new hotel) or four (first
class)/three diamond (comfort new hotel) hotel as defined above.
3. Hotel must have 125 or more rooms.
4. Existing hotels seeking funds for redevelopment must measurably and demonstrably improve
the quality of the hotel through either increased capacity or ability to charge higher room rates,
and/or enhancements to the hotel’s ratings by AAA, JD Power, etc.
FINANCIAL NEED:
As part of the application, a feasibility analysis shall be completed by the applicant to demonstrate a
funding gap between operating performance and project development or improvement cost. The
analysis will be independently reviewed by a City consultant, and must prove that, but for this program,
the development or improvement would not occur.
LIMITS:
1. The Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rebate will be no more than 70% for a 4-star hotel and no
more than 50% for a 3-star hotel. Renovated hotels are eligible to receive a TOT rebate of 50% of
the increment above existing TOT levels for up to 10 years.
2. The term of the TOT rebate shall be no longer than 20 years for a 4-star hotel, and no longer
than 15 years for a 3-star hotel. Any change in star rating below 3 stars for the applicant
throughout the lifetime of the agreement will result in termination of the agreement. A
reduction from a 4-star hotel rating to a 3-star hotel rating will result in a reduction of the term
of the TOT rebate, consistent with that of a 3-star hotel.
3. The amount of the TOT rebate shall be no greater than the funding gap.
Exhibit A to Resolution
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 282
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
H
o
t
e
l
I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
H
o
t
e
l
I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
)
Hotel (Transient Occupancy Tax)
Incentive Program
4. The Applicant must enter into a binding agreement with the City.
DOCUMENTATION:
Requests to participate in the program must include the following:
1. A letter of request;
2. Third party certification of the development’s rating status;
3. A feasibility analysis; and
4. An executed binding agreement.
Determination of the applicant’s TOT revenues will be based on revenues received, as documented by
the City’s Administrative Services (Finance) Department.
APPLICATION PROCESS:
Program applicants will follow all procedures required by Assembly Bill 562 (2013), including prevailing
wage, public hearings and reporting requirements.
Upon receipt of a complete request to participate in the City’s Hotel Incentive Program, the request
packet will be presented to the Economic Development Committee for review and recommendation.
Requests approved by the Economic Development Committee will then be presented to City Council for
final approval.
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 283
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
H
o
t
e
l
I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
H
o
t
e
l
I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
)