4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
a. Members of the public have an opportunity to bring up topics not on the agenda.
b. Beginning at the April 16th, 2024 BPAC meeting, the City of Union City will allow virtual public comments for BPAC meetings going forward. i. Members of the public participating by Zoom wishing to speak should use the "raise hand" feature or dial *9. When called upon, unmute yourself or dial *6.
c. When making a public comment, please state your name and address; if possible, please have your video on; chat will be disabled. d. Members of the public can email [email protected] if they have any questions or comments related to the Quarry Lakes Parkway project. Please visit here for more information on Quarry Lakes Parkway.
There were no public comments.
5. COMMISSION MATTERS
a. Committee members have an opportunity to bring up topics not on the agenda.
Chair Swenson shared an update regarding submitting video evidence to the Union City Police Department (PD). Chair Swenson relayed a message from Chief Jared Rinetti: Union City PD will not accept video evidence for minor infractions, but they will accept video evidence for a misdemeanor or felony.
6. PROJECT PRESENTATIONS & DISCUSSION
a. ANR Part-Time Transit Lanes Study Pilot - Traffic Analysis Results Marilou Ayupan introduced Laurence Lewis from Kittelson & Associates, Inc. He previously presented to BPAC on the Part-Time Bus Lane project which aims to reduce transit times along Alvarado-Niles Road during peak hours. This will benefit students who ride buses to school and address congestion issues for commuters.
Mr. Lewis presented findings from their analysis conducted in October. The study recommends implementing part-time bus lanes in both directions on Alvarado-Niles Road during weekday peak periods from 7-9 a.m. and 2-6 p.m. Community engagement and design concepts are expected to be completed around Summer 2026. Further details will be presented in a future meeting.
BPAC Comments:
• Member Vanessa McDonnell: One of the goals of the project is to increase the speed of the buses to 19 mph along the route. But if bikes go 10-15 mph, will the buses be constrained by the speed of bikes?
DRAFT
268 of 303
o Mr. Lewis: Buses can choose to stay behind the bicyclists, or they are able to navigate around and pass bicyclists. With the number of bicyclists we are counting, sometimes during the day there are more buses than bicyclists in the lane. We also have Arizona Street as a bike boulevard, and we hope to encourage bicyclists to use that as well. o Member Jo Ann Lew: Arizona Street is parallel and doesn’t start or finish at the same spot, it only goes from Hop Ranch Road to Royal Ann Drive.
You mentioned possibly using the Alameda Creek Trail, which is significantly longer to Decoto Road.
o Mr. Lewis: Alameda Creek Trail is another option. There are a couple factors; one is how far people are traveling. We didn’t collect data on how far bicyclists are traveling through the corridor, but we know that there are others, such as students, who are using it, and those trips may not be the entire length. Another factor is the comfort of the facility. Alameda Creek Trail and Arizona Street have less traffic. The approach is to have options for people. People can still bike on Alvarado-Niles Road if they wish. But there are other options that may have other trade-offs and benefits like the length of trail, comfort, and traffic stress.
• Member Lew: Can you confirm that the temporary bus lanes will run in the morning and afternoon on both sides of Alvarado-Niles Road, and only between Almaden Boulevard and Decoto Road? Were the data collection dates in October selected because they were typical work and school days without holidays? o Mr. Lewis: Yes. We selected those dates because we wanted to start with a period between Labor Day and Veterans Day, and the dates did not include holidays or school days off. We collected across the full week because Wednesdays can have a different school schedule. • Member Lew: Does New Haven School District not have Columbus Day? o Mr. Lewis: Testing did not fall on this day.
• Member Lew: When recording the bus times, did you count stops for people boarding and deboarding the bus?
o Mr. Lewis: We recorded how long the bus stopped, how long it took people to board, and how long it took the bus to re-enter traffic. • Member Lew: Did people get on at every stop? The number of stops would impact the speed of the bus. Drivers need to be careful that riders are seated before the bus starts driving, especially seniors.
o Mr. Lewis: Each stop was used over the course of the day, but I’m not sure if they were used each time. When we looked at sources of delay, boarding was included, but the biggest delay was buses waiting at traffic signals and at queues leading up to the red lights.
• Member Lew: Do buses get signal priority?
o Mr. Lewis: They get shorter queues than cars.
• Member Lew: Do the times that you are recommending for the part-time bus lanes coincide with school start times? Why does the afternoon bus priority lane start at 2 p.m.?
o Mr. Lewis: Yes. The afternoon lane starts at 2 p.m. because local employment generates traffic between 2-3 p.m. that affects the bus.
DRAFT
269 of 303
• Member Lew: Vehicles wouldn’t be using the bus lanes, even outside of the time that the buses are running in those lanes, right?
o Mr. Lewis: If the bus is not in the lane, it would not be open to vehicles. It would go back to being a bike lane. If it’s an area with parking, then it would go back to parking. There is never a condition where there would be general drivers in it. It's either buses with bikes, or it's bikes and parking. • Member Glenn Kirby: Buses going 19 mph is an average. We are looking to increase bus and bike ridership. It’s important to ensure there is proper signage of the alternative bicycle lanes. Your analysis shows bike, bus, and parking data.
I hope you will not have to work around parked cars if they are there during “no parking” times in the morning and afternoon. In Hayward, it is helpful that the shared lanes are marked with green paint. Buffered bike lanes typically have painted buffers. How will this be designated during the bus priority hours? o Mr. Lewis: We are looking at striping options. Some lanes have striping and no paint, and others are painted the entire lane. We are creating an intuitive approach that will make it clear for drivers and bicyclists. • Member Steve Nichols: Is there a Plan B in place if the residents at assisted living and residents at the new condominiums fight against parking limitations? Or if church goers have events?
o Mr. Lewis: We are still in the planning phase. This is a pilot program, so we will collect and evaluate data again. We are targeting these areas for community outreach before the pilot is implemented. We are also looking into other streets where people can park.
• Member Swenson: I am concerned about enforcement and about cars using the bike lane as a right-turn lane.
Public Comments:
• Andreas Kadavanich: I support this project. With 15,000 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) in each direction, we do not need two vehicle lanes. This project is precluding a Class IV separated bike lane. Once we get past a quick build, we need to go back to the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) with a Class IV in it. You have ample margin to remove a vehicle lane and make a Class IV happen. Arizona Street was called a parallel bike route – it’s a big detour. Is there anything stopping us from turning Arizona Street into a bike boulevard sooner so people can get used to it before the bus lane pilot begins? Is there data showing how the bus lane will affect pedestrian yielding? I prefer we don’t revert to parking in off-hours due to enforcement. I recommend implementing a permanent red curb and not allowing parking at any time.
o Chair Swenson: Can the bike boulevard be implemented early? o Mr. Trieu Tran: We had an RFP (request for proposal) for the Arizona Bike Boulevard project, and we are in the selection phase for that now. We intend to have a bike boulevard implemented before the pilot begins. • Member Lew: Where will the Arizona Street bike lane start and end? DRAFT
270 of 303
o Mr. Tran: It begins on Hop Ranch Road, goes all the way to Royal Ann Road, and then you can take a left to get back onto Alvarado-Niles Road or take a right to get to Decoto Road.
o Ms. Lew: It is a nice bikeable and walkable trail. Can you go through Cesar Chavez Middle School to get to Arizona Street?
o Mr. Tran: That property belongs to the school district. It would require a use agreement. They would have to open and close the gates. o Member Swenson: On weekdays it’s usually closed, and sometimes on weekends one gate is open.
o Member McDonnell: It's a hit or miss whether the gates are open. It’s not ideal for commuting on your bike.
o Member Kirby: You can get around the school closer to the park under the freeway, which is a nice alternative. The trail connections could be more accessible in the future.
b. Complete Streets Update for Public Transit Corridors: NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) & Caltrans DIB (Design Information Bulletin)
Pete Ruscitti of Parametrix gave an update on Union City’s Complete Streets project, focusing on how the City is working to improve walking, biking, transit, and overall safety along major public transit corridors. He acknowledged how this presentation ties in nicely with the discussion on the Alvarado-Niles Road project, which is an opportunity to advance multimodal goals today. Ruscitti talked about the challenge of balancing all these needs, especially on busy streets used by cars, buses, bikes, and pedestrians. He also shared new guidance from Caltrans and NACTO with ideas for tackling these conflicts in tight urban spaces. Union City is aiming for phased improvements that support all travel modes while keeping the city’s suburban character and future growth in mind.
BPAC Comments:
• Member McDonnell: Great presentation. I have no questions. • Member Lew: Great presentation. Is Parametrix contracted and paid by Union City? How much is the contract?
o Mr. Ruscitti: Yes, our task is to help the City work through some of this guidance, and to help them understand how to apply the latest state of the practice to the City's existing plans. The next phase will be to develop the interim guidance that you saw in the last bullet on the last slide. o Ms. Ayupan: Their contract is $74,000. Parametrix is evaluating the latest bicycle guidelines from the Caltrans DIB and NACTO. They are also evaluating our recent projects. They are experts at bicycle, pedestrian, design, and transit guidelines. This is an opportunity to implement Class IV bike lanes and build the first part-time bus lane in the whole Bay Area. o Ms. Lew: How long is the contract for?
DRAFT
271 of 303
o Ms. Ayupan: A few months. The City does not have a full-time bicycle or multimodal engineer, so we asked somebody to look at this from a different standpoint. They collected data, did evaluations, and put together this presentation in the past two months.
o Ms. Lew: Are they paid by measure B or BB funds? Or the General Fund? o Ms. Ayupan: We use transportation funds; we never use General Funds for our projects.
• Member Lew: How did you develop standards for the third edition of the NACTO published booklet?
o Mr. Ruscitti: NACTO creates the modern bikeway design guidelines in urban streets. All of their guidelines are free and accessible online. The guidelines include feedback from transportation officials throughout the country. The third edition includes a compilation of input from city transportation officials around the country about what's working and what's not working. This third edition is the most helpful and balanced, especially with real compromise-based solutions for constrained urban corridors. o Ms. Lew: How are they standards? Standards mean it’s a proven solution. o Mr. Ruscitti: These are best practices in the state of the industry. They are not legally binding standards, but they are widely accepted best practices. o Ms. Ayupan: If a design element is included in the Caltrans standard plans or the California MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices), we follow those standards because they offer legal protection for the City.
NACTO is a policy–we use it as a guideline. It provides Complete Streets goals and has been widely adopted by major urban cities. While Union City isn’t a dense urban core, we can still use both NACTO and Caltrans to guide our efforts in designing streets for all modes. o Ms. Lew: It’s a good thing. I am just cautious calling it a “standard.” Best practices and standards are different.
o Mr. Ruscitti: Yes, it is a best practice and not an engineering design standard–though people colloquially refer to it as the NACTO standard. • Member Kirby: I like your recommendation to look at guidance for multimodal implementation. The evolution of complete streets has been a bumpy road. We must find compromises with the various modes of transit. I'd rather go through a more deliberate process that you're suggesting than to put things on the ground that don't work and then have to redesign later. I’m pleased with this approach.
Public Comments:
• Mr. Kadavanich: This area is considered mostly suburban. I would add “still” mostly suburban. The population density of 3,600 per square mile is high and would have qualified as urban 10 years ago. The Station District—with 1,700 housing units and a million square feet of office space—is evidence that we are not going to be suburban majority for much longer. We should plan to be a more urban city. According to Caltrans’ DIB-94 guidance, even in suburban settings, roadways like Alvarado-Niles Road should include Class 1 or Class IV bike facilities. We should look at how to make this happen. We don’t have a street grid DRAFT
272 of 303
with parallel roads; there are only a few streets to cross. Those corridors have to be multimodal for everybody. We should focus on transitioning to urban settings. • Ms. Liz Ames: I like the idea of alternative routes, maybe bicycle boulevards. I want safer routes for slower traffic like pedestrians and bicyclists. I am happy the City is pursuing this and trying to de-conflict traffic. I’ve always looked at Quarry Lakes Parkway as an alternative route for slower traffic because Decoto Road is very congested, and going through the BART Station is going through an urban core. I appreciate Union City and Parametrix for working on ideas and alternative routes throughout the city. I applaud this effort. Thank you. c. Quarry Lakes Parkway – Funding Update & MTC Complete Streets Checklist Ms. Ayupan shared on update on the funding of Quarry Lakes Parkway (QLP) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Complete Streets Checklist.
Union City secured $25 million in regional funding for QLP and $3 million for a new BART East Entrance and At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing, both aimed at improving transportation and safety in the Dumbarton Bridge and rail corridor. These projects were included in the MTC’s Regional Plan, which requires a Complete Streets Checklist to ensure streets serve all users, whether they walk, bike, drive, or use public transit. The funding comes from Regional Measure 3, a Bay Area toll measure that sets aside money for major transportation improvements. This marks the first time Union City has received significant funding from a regional toll measure. The BART crossing project is fully funded and ready to go out to bid.
BPAC Comments:
• Member Lew: Does this mean Union City received the money? Congratulations! o Ms. Ayupan: Yes, MTC approved it in June, and now it just needs to be allocated.
Public Comments:
• Mr. Kadavanich: QLP will be expensive and require a lot of digging. If you want to save money and make it better, everything I said about Alvarado-Niles Road applies to QLP. You do not need 2 vehicle lanes. There is a lot of space and concrete, and right now, during the early stages, is the time to look at the design.
When will we see an update on the design?
• Ms. Liz Ames: I think the $211 million for this project is underestimated. One grade crossing is $300 million on the peninsula. Regarding the Dumbarton Corridor, I met with the City of Fremont and asked them to look at creating a safe bike crossing, and they received funding for it. I want a trail from Ardenwood to the BART Station, to Niles Canyon. The Dumbarton Corridor is a Highway 84 connection, and it’s at capacity. Let’s look at QLP with a focus on pedestrians and bicyclists. I applaud the City for funding the BART pedestrian crossing.
DRAFT
273 of 303
d. Block 5 Mobility Hub – New Project Information & MTC Complete Streets Checklist
Ms. Ayupan presented on the Block 5 Mobility Hub. Union City was awarded $2.2 million from MTC to develop a Mobility Hub on the Union City side (the east side) of the BART station, known as Block 5. A Mobility Hub is a public space that connects various transportation options, like transit, bike share, and car share, and improves access and signage for users. This project will include upgrades such as new regional-standard signs for wayfinding and transit information, lighting improvements, and bike lockers. Block 5 complements the nearby at-grade BART crossing project and aims to make the east side of the station more accessible, informative, and transit-friendly. Construction funds will be available in 2027, and planning is underway. The City is required to complete the MTC Complete Streets Checklist and share the information about the project with the public.
BPAC Comments:
• Member Lew: This is a great idea, I hope you get the money quickly. • Member Kirby: Block 5 was originally slated for private development, but now it will be used for public benefit?
o Ms. Ayupan: Correct. Many years ago, it was going to be an office, but we kept it for city use as combined parking. There was a little parking area to support housing around it, and it was available for public use. o Member Kirby: Public use is a great idea.
e. Report on Pedestrian Collisions
Trieu Tran of Union City reported on four vehicle collisions that involved pedestrians over the past few months—three of which resulted in fatalities. The collisions happened at four locations across the city and primarily involved elderly pedestrians.
Three incidents occurred during the day and one at night. Distracted driving was identified as a contributing factor in at least three cases, while jaywalking was a factor in the other. The City is working closely with PD to analyze the causes and identify potential safety improvements and prevention measures, including enhanced public outreach and infrastructure changes. Regional agencies are also prioritizing pedestrian safety in response to similar unfortunate incidents in nearby cities.
BPAC Comments:
• Member McDonnell: This is disturbing news. There are way too many distracted drivers. I have almost been hit many times in recent years. • Member Lew: What is the period when these occurred?
o Mr. Tran: These accidents happened within the last four months. o Member Swenson: I see the dates when some of the accidents happened, but where is the information on the second one?
DRAFT
274 of 303
o Ms. Ayupan: I believe the accident at Royal Ann Drive and Perry Drive happened on a Monday around school time. An elderly man was hit in the crosswalk by a distracted driver in late January or early February. o Member Lew: Was the driver hurried to get to work? I am bothered as an elderly pedestrian. I only cross if I don’t see cars when I walk around the west side of Union City. Pedestrians of all ages should be very careful.
Drivers often do not face consequences.
• Member Kirby: I am near 80 years old and am noticing that there are more distracted drivers and elderly residents with mobility challenges who take longer to cross the street. They could benefit from more information and programs. • Member Swenson: The TIMS (Transportation Injury Mapping System) database has information up to 2022. This is the highest numbers we have had in years. I assume that “pedestrian in crosswalk” under the “Cause of accident” column is a note rather than cause. Could we receive updates on these incidents to know if drivers were prosecuted?
o Mr. Tran: We can follow up with results once information is released publicly. Some information takes years to be released due to lawsuits. You are correct that “pedestrian in crosswalk” under the “Cause of accident” column is a note to put more weight on the distraction factor. • Member Swenson: We should focus on incidents that result in fatalities. • Member Kirby: There is usually little consequence for drivers hitting a cyclist or pedestrian.
• Member Swenson: The City could put out a press release about the end result of drivers who cause these accidents. If people understand that there are steep consequences, it might influence more people.
• Member Lew: Do you look at pedestrian accident data in Union City compared to other cities? Are we considered low, medium, or high?
o Mr. Tran: I don’t know. Three fatalities in the last few years sounds low. o Member Lew: Our numbers are low, but it is still unacceptable. f. Union City Decoto Road Rehab Project, Phase 1
Mr. Tran provided an update on Phase 1 of this project. Union City recently completed a $2.9 million improvement project on Decoto Road, aimed at enhancing bicycle and pedestrian safety. Funded primarily through local and regional sources, the project upgraded the corridor’s bike lanes with buffered bike lanes, vertical delineators at intersections, and high-visibility crosswalks. These changes were designed to reduce vehicle speeds and protect bicyclists and pedestrians, particularly at conflict zones like intersections. Lighting improvements were not included in this project but are being studied for future implementation. Additional safety markings were also added to improve visibility and safety for all road users.
BPAC Comments:
• Member Lew: I want to see this. It looks great. I would feel safe riding it. Will this prevent drivers and bicyclists from hitting each other? DRAFT
275 of 303
o Mr. Tran: Yes, as cyclists approach intersections, there should be vertical delineators unless there is a bus stop or another conflict. • Member Lew: Are cars making right turns required to yield? o Mr. Tran: Yes, they should slow down and let you cross. They also have to make a wider turn, so they can’t go as quickly.
• Member Kirby: I like that the bike lane continues straight through the intersection, whereas some designs push the bike lane closer to the pedestrian crossing, making the bike lane less visible to cars. I’m glad to see more improvements made for all ages and abilities. Though it's not part of our ultimate goal in the BPMP, I feel very comfortable riding this section. I hope there will be more safety improvements along that corridor in the long term.
• Member Swenson: In the slide showing a dashed line turning into a solid line, what is the significance of the dashed line versus the solid line? o Mr. Tran: Two solid parallel lines means you should not cross. The dashed line means drivers can cross, usually at driveways.
o Member Kirby: Lines are also dashed lines before intersections to indicate shared facilities.
• Mr. Tran: Last time we presented on this project, there was a public comment about not taking this up to the full Class IV bicycle facility mentioned in the BPMP. We had to strike a balance between the transit priority corridor, businesses, and buses. We focused on where accidents may occur the most, which is near intersections. Wherever possible, we put up vertical delineators at intersections to provide safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. • Member Swenson: I concur about the straight-through intersections because why would you want a chicane on a bike path to slow down bikes? In Fremont at Washington Boulevard, a bike lane shoots off to the right and I have to brake. It is a conflict zone when I have to make a left turn to go straight, but another bicyclist has to turn right. I hope QLP can avoid this design conflict. Cars should be slowed down, not bikes. Straight through is the best way to do it. Lanes should be designed for bicyclists’ speed limit.
o Member Kirby: Yes, thank you for saying this. It provides conflicting messages to bicyclists and drivers turning right.
o Mr. Tran: We don’t have designs that include chicanes.
Public Comments:
• Mr. Kadavanich: When you reviewed this project about a year ago, the project had Class IV vertical delineators along the entire length of Decoto Road. There was no mention that there were not going to be vertical delineators along the entire length. This is a breach of MTC conditions for TDA 3 (Transportation Development Act Article 3) funding and breach of trust to the public. Staff didn’t bring it back to these conditions. I know of two instances in the last six years where drivers fell asleep at the wheel, drove into a bike lane, and killed somebody. You need vertical delineators if you want traffic calming and to keep people from driving in the buffer. Paint does not work to slow down drivers.
DRAFT
276 of 303
o Mr. Tran: When the project was presented last time, we went through the MTC Complete Streets Checklist. There was confusion about what was shown and what was interpreted. In the RFP and in the plans, there were dots which could have been interpreted as vertical delineators. The notes in the detail sheet described reflectors in between two stripes. o Member Swenson: In the last response, there were multiple classes shown. I couldn’t define from that presentation which bike lane it was going to be. Can we go back to the public to offer clarity? o Mr. Ayupan: We have answered this question clearly with the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Let’s talk about this further offline. We focused on pedestrians and balanced multiple transportation modes.
Buffered bike lanes meet our current public safety needs, which we coordinate with the police and fire departments.
g. Union City Blvd Bike Lanes Construction Status
Ms. Ayupan shared an update on the Union City Boulevard (UCB) Bike Lanes construction. Construction on the UCB bike lane project is well underway, with recent work focused on heavy construction, enhanced lighting, and median reconstruction to improve safety and drainage. A new multi-use Class I trail has been completed between Eastin Drive and Rocklin Drive, designed primarily for students walking or biking to school. Final work on the bike lanes, including striping, signage, and traffic signal upgrades, is scheduled for completion this summer. A community ribbon cutting ceremony is planned for this fall. The project incorporates Complete Streets elements such as buffered bike lanes, improved pedestrian lighting, and safety features at intersections.
BPAC Comments:
• Member McDonnell: I grew up going down UCB, and I was looking forward to the end of construction. The City has done a really good job at managing traffic. • Member Lew: I drove on the south end of UCB, and it was very smooth. It is very smooth around manhole covers. It is beautiful, I am very happy with it, and I am looking forward to the ribbon cutting. Good job!
• Member Kirby: I drove through the area once and the progress looked great. I am looking forward to riding it on my bike.
• Member Swenson: I rode the whole length today, and it was great.
7. GOOD OF THE ORDER
a. Bike to Anywhere Day on May 15, 2025 – Energy Stations Mr. Tran shared that with the construction on UCB, there will be one Energizer Station instead of two. Energy Stations are hosted in the morning.
DRAFT
277 of 303
8. UPCOMING BPAC MEETINGS
Please visit here to find past BPAC meeting information. a. May 20, 2025 – CANCEL
b. June 17, 2025
c. July 15, 2025
d. August 19, 2025
e. September 16, 2025 – CANCEL
f. September/October – UCB Bike Lanes Ribbon Cutting Celebration Event g. Oct. 21, 2025
h. Nov. 18, 2025
i. Dec. 16, 2025 – CANCEL
Ms. Ayupan shared that there will not be a meeting in May. The next meeting will be in June or July depending on project updates. Ms. Ayupan requested BPAC members to share any date conflicts.
Member Kirby confirmed that the September meeting will be cancelled.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:38pm. DRAFT
278 of 303
Receive a Report on the Revised Funding
Allocation Request to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) from
Regional Measure 3 Dumbarton Corridor
Improvement Program for the Quarry Lakes
Parkway Project, City Project No. 18-04
Marilou R. Ayupan, Public Works Director
City Manager Report- Item 6.2
September 23, 2025 - City Council Meeting
279 of 303
2 MTC’s Regional Measure 3 (RM 3) Program ($4.45 Billion) (Approved by Voters in 2018)
RM 3 Expenditure Plan (Projects and Programs)
(17) Dumbarton Corridor Improvements. ($130,000,000).
Funds planning, environmental review, design, and construction of capital improvements within the Dumbarton Bridge and rail corridor in the Counties of Alameda and San Mateo to relieve congestion, increase person throughput, and offer reliable travel times. Eligible projects recommended in the Dumbarton Corridor Transportation Study and improvements to facilitate rail and transit connectivity among ACE, Capitol Corridor, and BART, including rail connection at the Shinn Station. The project sponsors are BATA, Alameda CTC, San Mateo Transit District and San Mateo County Transportation Authority.
280 of 303
3 RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program Funds
MTC Approved RM 3 List of Projects in June 2024
281 of 303
4 RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program
MTC RM 3 Approval Process for Quarry Lakes Parkway
At July 8,2025 City Council approved the submittal of RM3 DB Corridor Funding Allocation Request to Alameda CTC and MTC Request of $25 Million of Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Funds for Quarry Lakes Parkway Project, City Project No. 18-04 will be for construction of:
§ Environmental Off-Site Mitigation $20.0 million
§ Quarry Lakes Parkway, Phase 1 $ 1.5 million
§ Quarry Lakes Parkway, Phase 2 $ 3.5 million
$ 25.0 million
Major Cost Reduction of the Environmental Mitigation
282 of 303
5 QUARRY LAKES PARKWAY, PHASES 1-4
Old Alameda
Creek
Alameda Creek
Flood Control
Channel
Line M
Line M
283 of 303
6 RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program
New Basin (Line M Detention Basin) –CEQA EIR
Is New Basin a “Season Pond”?
Temporary Stores Stormwater Runoff
February 2022 (Winter) July 2022 (Summer)
284 of 303
7 RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program
New Basin (Line M Detention Basin) –Mitigation Costs
• RM3 Request, $20 million
• RWQCB defined the
existing Line M Detention
Basin as Seasonal Pond
(“Waters of the State)
• Requires 3:1 Mitigation
Ratio
• Union City did not agree
• Held meetings with
RWQCB to discuss
Environmental Mitigation Option 2- $30 million
285 of 303
8 RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program
New Basin (Line M Detention Basin) –History
- DTSC/PSSC Clean Up Site
(2000-2006)
- Caltrans Route 84 EIS/EIR
(2003-2005)
- New KB Homes Temporary
Drainage (2003-2005)
- Est. Cost $900,000
Detention Basin always
intended to be temporary
basin until the roadway is
constructed.
286 of 303
9 RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program
New Basin (Line M Detention Basin) –History
§ The Line M Detention Basin/Pump Station, City Project No. 03-25 was designed to provide interim stormwater runoff basin to allow the development of the housing on the former PSSC sites. After a storm event, Public Works operates the pump station to drain the basin into the Line M Channel to avoid the creation of a wetland.
§ The future Route 84 excavation area was used as an interim detention pond. Intended to be temporary until SR 84 construction in 2009 (by Caltrans).
§ Authorized by RWQCB (File No. 21-51004, 2004) to construct basin and pumping facility at the future 84 site and the bypass and outfall pipes connecting detention basin and Line M Channel. 287 of 303
10 RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program
New Basin (Line M Detention Basin) –History
• City constructed the Line M
Detention Basin in 2006 and
expected Route 84
construction by 2009
• Discussed Line M Overflow
pipeline will add this
stormwater to Old Alameda
Creel (Relocating basin)
• Submitted RWQCB with
Project History and
Maintenance Memo
• RWQCB concurrence on
August 4, 2025
Environmental Mitigation Option 1 - $13 Million $17.0 million SAVINGS 288 of 303
11 §
Environmental Off-Site Mitigation
(Construction& Permits)
Line M
• Sites Approved by RWQCB (Regional
Water Quality Control Board)
• Meets Mitigation requirements for
Wetland, Riparian, Species and Waters
and other Alameda CTC projects
• Developers also want these sites
Proposed Location (Livermore)
1) Manning Ranch (part of Eagle Ridge)
2) Livermore Valley Preserve
Revised RM3 Request- Mitigation
Cost: $13 million
289 of 303
12 RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program
Met with Alameda CTC to provide QLP status and discuss
strategy to revise RM3 Funding Allocation Request.
Revised RM3 Funding Allocation Request
§ Mitigation (Per RWQCB concur) $13.000 million
§ QLP, Segment (Phase) 1 PS&E $ 2.578 million*
§ QLP, Segment (Phase) 1A CON $ 1.000 million
§ QLP, Segment (Phase) 2 CON $ 8.422 million
$25.000 Million
290 of 303
13 RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program
Environmental Mitigation (Spring 2026)
Off Site Mitigation (Oberling Environmental Site)
QLP, Segment (Phase) 1 Final PS&E (Dec. 2025- Jan 2027) Currently at 65%PS&E. Proceed with project coordination and completion of the Final Design (with 95%, 100% and Final PS&E) QLP, Segment (Phase) 1A CON (Spring 2026)
Construct Off-Site Location to relocate all transit fleet (UC and DBX) to accommodate QLP, Phase 1 Construction (before CY Wall Moves) QLP, Segment (Phase) 2 CON (Spring 2027)
On Caltrans Property, includes realign Quarry Lakes Drive, AlvaradoNiles Road improvements, new utilities, stormwater treatment basin and Line M Overflow Pipe into Old Alameda Creek
291 of 303
14 PHASE 1: 7TH STREET CONNECTION
(7TH Street to Mission Boulevard)
§ Realign 7th Street along Corp Yard to
connect to Chesapeake with new
Traffic Signal
§ Reconstruct the Line M Open
Channel and Box
§ Relocate & Reconstruct Corp Yard
Security Wall
§ Modify QLP/Mission Blvd
Intersection
§ New parking lot for CY & Dog Park
Construction Estimate-$41.3 million
Revised RM3 Request-
$2.578 million for Final
Design (Consultant)
292 of 303
15 PHASE 1: 7TH STREET CONNECTION
(7TH Street to Mission Boulevard)
Advance Improvements (Corp Yard Impacts)
§ Relocate entire transit fleet to during construction
§ Construct temporary transit fleet (UC Transit and
DBX) storage area at 11th Street parking lot
(Block 6)
§ Pave the southern portion of Corp Yard
Revised RM3 Request, QLP, Phase 1A is $1.0 million
for Construction (Partial Funding)
293 of 303
16 PHASE 2: GATEWAY CONNECTION
(Old Alameda Creek to Alvarado-Niles Road)
§ Construct storm water quality
treatment basin and outfall structures
in Old Alameda Creek
§ Realign existing Quarry Lakes Drive
between new QLP and Isherwood
next to creek
§ Install and modify utilities
§ Install new traffic signal and street
lighting
Construction Estimate - $42.1 million
Revised RM3 Request-
$8.422 million for CON
(Partial Funding)
294 of 303
17 Quarry Lakes Parkway, Phase 2
Multimodal Design Elements
• “Complete Streets” Design
• 20-foot Multi-Use Path
• Buffered Bike Lanes
• 35 MPH Speed Limit
• Landscaped Medians
• Connections to Parks and Trails
295 of 303
18 Quarry Lakes Parkway, Phase 2
Caltrans Property (LATIP Revenue $86 million)
Alvarado-Niles Road
Osprey
Quarry Lakes Drive
Caltrans
Parcel
Caltrans
Parcel
Approximate ROW Quarry Lakes Parkway / New Quarry Lakes Drive 296 of 303
19 Former Caltrans Gateway Site Status
• Caltrans Purchase Sale Agmt.(PSA) - 2019
• Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA)
§ Executed Dec. 14, 2021
§ 400 – 535 units
§ 25% affordable (Surplus Land Act)
§ Criteria for preservation of historic
resource area
§ Extended through June 7, 2026.
§ Negotiations pending final roadway
plans, permits and secured funding
Sale will fund LATIP projects ($86 million)
incl. Quarry Lakes Parkway ($41.8 million)
297 of 303
20 RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program
Submit $25.0 Million RM3 Allocation Request
* Updated Total Cost for QLP, Phase 1-3 is $221.3 million 298 of 303
21 Quarry Lakes Parkway-Decoto Complete Streets Funds
Dedicated Transportation Funds Regional
Sources
Amount
AlaCTC 1986 Measure B Funds* County $65,500,000
AlaCTC 2005 CMA-TIP County $14,300,000
Caltrans Route 84 LATIP Funds State $41,814,000
AlaCTC 2014 Measure BB (TEP
21-Dumbarton)
County $40,000,000
AlaCTC 2014 Measure BB (TEP
22- Intermodal Station)
County $75,000,000
MTC RM3, Dumbarton Corridor
Funds
Bay Area $25,000,000
Total Funds $261,614,000
299 of 303
22 RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program
300 of 303
23 RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program
MTC RM3 Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program:
Funding Allocation Request for Quarry Lakes Parkway.
Revised RM3 Funding Allocation Request
§ Environmental Mitigation $13.000 million
§ QLP, Segment (Phase) 1 PS&E $ 2.578 million
§ QLP, Segment (Phase) 1A CON $ 1.000 million
§ QLP, Segment (Phase) 2 CON $ 8.422 million
$25.000 Million
301 of 303
24 RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program
July 8,2025 City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-097, which allows CM to resubmit revisions to the RM3 funding allocation request forms (Attachment 5) in Staff Report. • Initial Project Report
• RM3 Funding Plan
• RM3 Allocation Request Information*
• Cash Flow Plan*
• MTC Complete Streets (Bike/Ped) Checklist Form
Forms are being reviewed by Alameda CTC and MTC staff for upcoming Commission approvals in next few months
302 of 303
25 RM 3, Dumbarton Corridor Improvement Program Funds
Receive a report on the Revised Funding Allocation
Request to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) from Regional Measure 3,
Dumbarton Corridor Improvements Program for the
Quarry Lakes Parkway, City Project No. 18-04
Questions?
303 of 303