Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout*August 16, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting PacketAugust 16, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 1 COUNCILMEMBERS City Council Chamber Melissa Hernandez, Mayor Dublin Civic Center Jean Josey, Vice Mayor 100 Civic Plaza Shawn Kumagai, Councilmember Dublin, CA 94568 Dr. Sherry Hu, Councilmember www.dublin.ca.gov Michael McCorriston, Councilmember Regular Meeting of the DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 16, 2022 Location: City Council Chamber 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 CLOSED SESSION 6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING 7:00 PM Pursuant to AB 361, the City is authorized to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public, without making available any physical location for the public. Additional Meeting Procedures Available During the COVID-19 Pandemic This City Council meeting will be broadcast live on Comcast T.V. channel 28 beginning at 7:00 p.m. This meeting will also be livestreamed at www.tv30.org and on the City’s website at: https://dublin.ca.gov/ccmeetings Members of the public who wish to participate in the meeting electronically have the option of giving public comment via Zoom, subject to the following procedures:  Fill out an online speaker slip available at www.dublin.ca.gov. The speaker slip will be made available at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 16, 2022. Upon submission, you will receive Zoom link information from the City Clerk. Speakers slips will be accepted until the public comment period ends, or until the public comment period on non-agenda items is closed.  Once connected to the Zoom platform using the Zoom link information from the City Clerk, the public speaker will be added to the Zoom webinar as an attendee and muted. The speaker will be able to observe the meeting from the Zoom platform.  When the agenda item upon which the individual would like to comment is addressed, the City Clerk will announce the speaker in the meeting when it is their time to give public comment. The speaker will then be unmuted to give public comment via Zoom. 1 August 16, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 2 CLOSED SESSION 6:00 PM I. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: 1 case. II. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: APN 985-27-2 and APN 905-1-6-3 Agency Negotiator: City Manager Negotiating Parties: GH PacVest LLC Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment III. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: APN 901-1-5-2 Agency Negotiator: City Manager Negotiating Parties: Milton Righetti and Gloria Righetti Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment IV. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: APN 905- 1-1-2 and APN 905-1-3-2 Agency Negotiator: City Manager Negotiating Parties: Livbor Manning LLC Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment V. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: APN 905-1-4-4 Agency Negotiator: City Manager Negotiating Parties: Bex Development LLC Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment VI. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: APN 905-1-4-3 Agency Negotiator: City Manager Negotiating Parties: Town and County H Fund LLC and CHMH Dublin LLC Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment REGULAR MEETING 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2 August 16, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 3 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 3.1 Presentation of a Resolution from Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan Recognizing the City of Dublin's 40th Anniversary The City Council will receive a resolution from Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan in recognition of the City of Dublin's 40th Anniversary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the resolution. 3.2 Employee Introduction New City of Dublin Staff member, Jason Earl, Senior Management Analyst in the Community Development Department, will be introduced. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Welcome the new City of Dublin Staff member. Staff Report 3.3 Presentation of American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month Proclamation The City Council will present the American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month proclamation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present the proclamation. Staff Report Attachment 1 - American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month Proclamation 3.4 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 agenda. 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). 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 July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the minutes of the July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting. Staff Report Attachment 1 - July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 3 August 16, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 4 4.2 Review of Two-Year Strategic Plan Accomplishments The City Council will receive the final status update for the City’s 2020-2022 Strategic Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report. Staff Report 4.3 City Proclamations for the Month of September The City Council will consider the following proclamations for the month of September in the City of Dublin: Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month, Wilderness Month, Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, Childhood Obesity Awareness Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, Preparedness Month, Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, and Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proclamations. Staff Report Attachment 1 - Alcohol Drug and Addiction Recovery Month Proclamation Attachment 2 - Wilderness Month Proclamation Attachment 3 - Childhood Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation Attachment 4 - Childhood Obesity Awareness Month Proclamation Attachment 5 - Hispanic Heritage Month Proclamation Attachment 6 - Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation Attachment 7 - Preparedness Month Proclamation Attachment 8 - Prostate Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation Attachment 9 - Suicide Prevention Awareness Month Proclamation 4.4 Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Outdoor Seating (PLPA-2022-00020) On July 19, 2022, the City Council considered City-initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to continue to facilitate outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments on a long-term temporary basis to aid in the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Amendments are proposed to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit). The City Council waived the first reading and introduced the Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council is now requested to hold a second reading of the proposed Ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive the second reading and adopt the Ordinance Approving Amendments to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit). Staff Report Attachment 1 - Ordinance Approving Amendments to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050, Section 8.76.080, and Section 8.108.020 Effective City-wide Attachment 2 - City Council Staff Report, Dated July 19, 2022, Without Attachments 4 August 16, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 5 4.5 Authorizing Remote Meetings of City Council and City Commissions Due to Increase in COVID-19 Cases From March 2020 through September 2021, the City conducted meetings of its legislative bodies remotely pursuant to various executive orders that suspended certain Brown Act provisions. In October 2021, the City returned to in-person meetings and the Brown Act was amended to allow for teleconferencing during a state of emergency. Under the new law, AB 361, the City can continue to conduct virtual meetings where the Governor has proclaimed a State of Emergency, or state or local health officials have imposed or recommended social distancing, if the City Council makes certain required findings. From January 11 – February 10, 2022, and since May 3, 2022, the City Council has operated under a resolution pursuant to AB 361 authorizing teleconferenced meetings for at least 30 days. The City Council will consider adopting a resolution that would allow for virtual attendance for the next 30 days. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution Finding That There is a Proclaimed State of Emergency; Finding That Meeting in Person Would Present Imminent Risks to the Health or Safety of Attendees as a Result of the State of Emergency; and Authorizing Remote Teleconferenced Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Dublin Pursuant to AB 361. Staff Report Attachment 1 - Resolution Finding That There is a Proclaimed State of Emergency; Finding That Meeting in Person Would Present Imminent Risks to the Health or Safety of Attendees as a Result of the State of Emergency; and Authorizing Remote Teleconferenced Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Dublin Pursuant to AB 361. 4.6 City Treasurer's Informational Report of Investments for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2022 The City Council will receive an informational report of the City’s investments through the quarter ending June 30, 2022 including a monthly transaction ledger. The City’s investment portfolio for this period totaled $378,308,853 (market value) with an average market yield of 2.48%. As required by the Policy, the City Treasurer (Administrative Services Director) affirms that the City is able to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report of investments for the quarter ending June 30, 2022. Staff Report Attachment 1 - City of Dublin Investment Report for Period Ending June 30, 2022 Attachment 2 - Transaction Ledger - April through June 2022 4.7 Dublin Transit Center Parking Garage Public Art Project The City Council will receive a report on the public art project planned for the Dublin Transit Center Parking Garage being constructed by Alameda County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report. Staff Report 5 August 16, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 6 4.8 First Amendment to the Agreement with All City Management Services Inc. The City Council will consider approving an amendment to the agreement with All City Management Inc. to pay for additional crossing guard services rendered in Fiscal Year 2021-22. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution Approving Amendment #1 to the Agreement with All City Management Services Inc. for Crossing Guard Services. Staff Report Attachment 1 - Resolution Approving Amendment #1 to the Agreement with All City Management Services Inc. for Crossing Guard Services Attachment 2 - Exhibit A to the Resolution - Amendment #1 to the Contractor Services Agreement Between the City of Dublin and All City Management Services Inc. Attachment 3 – Contractor Services Agreement with All City Management Services Inc. for Crossing Guard Services 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION – None. 6. PUBLIC HEARING 6.1 Dublin Districts—Public Hearing 5: Final Map Selection, Introduction of Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election System The City Council will hold a Public Hearing to give the community an opportunity to provide feedback regarding the boundaries and composition of the Final Map. The City Council will then review and select a Final Map, and introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election System. At the February 15, 2022 meeting, the City Council adopted a Resolution Declaring its Intention to Transition From an At-Large Election System to a District-Based Election System. Under California Elections Code, the City must hold a series of Public Hearings to allow the community to provide input on the composition of districts and communities of interest as well as the potential district boundaries, draft maps, and sequence of elections. Maps considered at this meeting must have been published at least seven days before the Public Hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the presentation, conduct the Public Hearing to receive input, review and select a Final Map, and waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election System. Staff Report Attachment 1 - Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election System Attachment 2 - Resolution Adopting the City of Dublin Official District Map Attachment 3 - Maps 112 and 112B 6 August 16, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 7 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update The City Council will receive an update on the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, which updates and replaces the City’s 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and will inform future infrastructure and program and policy recommendations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report on the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update and provide feedback. Staff Report Attachment 1 - Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Attachment 2 - Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Supplemental Design Guidance 7.2 Update on the Dublin Boulevard Extension Project The City Council will receive an update on the Dublin Boulevard Extension Project. The City of Dublin, in cooperation with the City of Livermore, Alameda County Transportation Commission, and Alameda County, proposes to extend Dublin Boulevard approximately 1.5 miles eastward through unincorporated Alameda County and connect to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore, from its current terminus at Fallon Road. The extension is planned to have four to six travel lanes, a Class I trail on the north side, buffered bike lanes, sidewalks, traffic signals, streetlights, utilities, and landscaping. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive report on the Dublin Boulevard Extension project and provide feedback. Staff Report Attachment 1 - Project Location and Alignment Attachment 2 - Right-of-Way Acquisition Properties in the City of Dublin 8. NEW BUSINESS 8.1 Review of Childcare in Downtown Dublin The City Council will receive a report reviewing childcare within the City and in the Downtown. This item is in response to an Item 9 request by the City Council for information regarding childcare, particularly for those families living in affordable units in the Downtown area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report. Staff Report 8.2 Designation of Voting Delegates for the 2022 National League of Cities City Summit The City Council will consider appointing a voting delegate, and up to two alternates, to attend and vote on the City’s behalf at the National League of Cities City Summit in November 2022. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discuss the item and appoint a voting delegate, and up to two alternates, to attend and vote, on the City’s behalf, at the National League of Cities City Summit in November 2022. Staff Report Attachment 1 - NLC By-Laws 7 August 16, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 8 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, fosters new opportunities, provides equity across all programs, and champions a culture of diversity and inclusion. 8 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Agenda Item 3.2 DATE:August 16, 2022 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT:Employee IntroductionPreparedby:Sarah Monnastes,Human Resources Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:New City of Dublin Staff member, Jason Earl, Senior Management Analyst in the Community Development Department, will be introduced. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Welcome the new City of Dublin Staff member. FINANCIAL IMPACT:None. DESCRIPTION:New City of Dublin Staff member, Jason Earl, Senior Administrative Analyst in the Community Development Department, will be introduced. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:The City Council Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS:None. 9 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item 3.3 DATE:August 16, 2022 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT:Presentation of American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month ProclamationPreparedby:Cierra Fabrigas,Executive Aide EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The City Council will present the American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Monthproclamation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Present the proclamation. FINANCIAL IMPACT:None. DESCRIPTION:At the July 19, 2022 meeting, as part of the Consent Calendar, the City Council approved the American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month Proclamation for the month of August 2022.The City Council will present the proclamation to representatives of the American Muslim community. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:The City Council Agenda was posted. 10 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENTS:1) American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month Proclamation 11 Attachment 1 A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA “American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month” WHEREAS,Freedom of religion holds distinction as a cherished right and a fundamental value upon which the law and ethics of the United States are based; and WHEREAS,the City of Dublin takes great pride in supporting individual religious freedoms and is strengthened by contributions of its diverse population, including those Americans who practice Islam, and WHEREAS,the earliest Muslim immigrants mostly worked on farms and made significant contributions to early agricultural efforts and approximately one million Muslim Americans currently reside in communities throughout California, the highest number in the United States, and WHEREAS,the citizens of the City of Dublin benefit from Muslim religious, charitable, educational and empowerment organizations that operate within the City, and WHEREAS,members of the Dublin Muslim community have been strong advocates for equity and inclusion at the municipal and state levels of education and social programs that support all Dubliners, and WHEREAS,it is appropriate to promote awareness of the many contributions of American Muslims in Dublin and across the nation and extend to them the respect every American deserves. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim August 2022 as “American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month” in the City of Dublin and encourages all citizens DATED: July 19, 2022 Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Jean Josey Councilmember Michael McCorriston 12 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Agenda Item 4.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Approve the minutes of the July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT:None. DESCRIPTION:The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:The City Council Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS:1)July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes DATE:August 16, 2022 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT:Approval of the July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting MinutesPreparedby:Marsha Moore,MMC,City Clerk 13 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN Regular Meeting: July 19, 2022 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING July 19, 2022 The following are minutes of the actions taken by the City of Dublin City Council. A full video recording of the meeting with the agenda items indexed and time stamped is available on the City’s website at:https://dublin.ca.gov/ccmeetings REGULAR MEETING 7:00 PM A Regular Meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, July 19, 2022, in the City Council Chamber. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM., by Mayor Hernandez. 1)CALL TO ORDER Attendee Name Status Melissa Hernandez, Mayor Present Jean Josey, Vice Mayor Present Shawn Kumagai, Councilmember Present - via Zoom Michael McCorriston, Councilmember Present Dr. Sherry Hu, Councilmember Present - via Zoom (arrived at 7:06 p.m.) 2)PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3)ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 3.1)Employee Introductions New City of Dublin Staff members, Sunmi Song with the Community Development Department, Maxwell Waechter and Debbie Bell with the Public Works Department, and Kevin Coffee with the Parks and Community Services Department, were introduced. Golden Shao provided public comment. 3.2)Public CommentGolden Shao provided public comment. 4)CONSENT CALENDAR 4.1)Approved the June 21, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes. 14 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING July 19, 2022 4.2)Confirmed the recommended appointments of Councilmembers Hu and McCorriston as the 2022 Ad-Hoc Audit Review Committee. 4.3)Adopted Resolution No. 90-22 titled, “Approving A Contract Extension with Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc. for the Provision of Toxicology Testing Services.” Item was pulled from the Consent Calendar. Golden Shao provided public comment. 4.4)Adopted Resolution No. 91-22 titled, “Approving Project Funding Agreements with Alameda County Transportation Commission for Crosswalk Improvement Projects.” 4.5)Adopted Resolution No. 92-22 titled, “Approving a Second Amendment to the Contract Instructor Services Agreement with Squad Estates dba Skyhawks Tri-Valley East Bay for Recreation Services.” 4.6)Adopted Resolution No. 93-22 titled, “Finding That There is a Proclaimed State of Emergency; Finding that Meeting in Person would Present Imminent Risks to the Health or Safety of Attendees as a Result of the State of Emergency; and Authorizing Remote Teleconferenced Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Dublin Pursuant to AB 361.” 4.7)Adopted Resolution No. 94-22 titled, “Approving the Contract for Transfer and Performance of Mitigation Services, the Agreement Regarding Acquisition of Off-Site Mitigation Property to Accommodate Drainage Ditch Maintenance Obligations, and the Perpetual Conservation Easement Endowment Agreement for Eagle Ridge Preserve – East Property Mitigation Area.” Item was pulled from the Consent Calendar. Jeanine Gillengerten provided public comment. 4.8)Received a report of payments issued from June 1, 2022 - June 30, 2022 totaling $6,682,962.04. 4.9)Adopted Resolution No. 95-22 titled, “Summarily Vacating Unused Right-Of-Way on Campus Drive.” 4.10) Approved the following proclamations for the month of August in the City of Dublin: National Night Out and American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month. Item was pulled from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Kumagai for comments. 4.11) Adopted Resolution No. 96-22 titled, “Approving the Third Amendment to Land Lease Between the City of Dublin and U.S. Bank National Association.” 15 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING July 19, 2022 4.12) Adopted Resolution No. 97-22 titled, “Approving a Public Art Installation and Maintenance Agreement with Dublin Crossing, LLC., for Public Art at The Boulevard Development.” 4.13) Adopted Resolution No. 98-22 titled, “Authorizing the City Manager to Approve Contract Change Orders with American Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Co., Inc. for the Fallon Sports Park Upper Terrace Parking Lot.” 4.14) Adopted Resolution No. 99-22 titled, “Approving an Amendment to the Agreement Between the City of Dublin and Wesco Graphics, Inc.” On motion by Vice Mayor Josey, seconded by Councilmember McCorriston, and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted the Consent Calendar items, except items 4.3, 4.7, and 4.10. RESULT:ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVED BY:Jean Josey, Vice Mayor SECOND:Michael McCorriston, Councilmember AYES:Hernandez, Josey, Kumagai, McCorriston, Hu On motion by Vice Mayor Josey, seconded by Councilmember McCorriston, and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted the remaining Consent Calendar items 4.3, 4.7, and 4.10. RESULT:ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVED BY:Jean Josey, Vice Mayor SECOND:Michael McCorriston, Councilmember AYES:Hernandez, Josey, Kumagai, McCorriston, Hu 5)WRITTEN COMMUNICATION -None. 6)PUBLIC HEARING 6.1)Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Outdoor Seating and Master Fee Schedule Amendments (PLPA-2022-00020) The City Council received a presentation on City-initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to continue to facilitate outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments on a long-term temporary basis to aid in the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Mayor Hernandez opened the public hearing. Upon receiving no public comment, Mayor Hernandez closed the public hearing. On motion by Vice Mayor Josey, seconded by Mayor Hernandez, and by unanimous vote, the City Council waived the reading and introduced the Ordinance Approving Amendments to Dublin 16 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING July 19, 2022 Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit); and adopted Resolution No. 100-22 titled, “Amending the Master Fee Schedule by Extending the Application Fee for Temporary Use Permit – Temporary Outdoor Seating and Site Development Review Waiver – Permanent Outdoor Seating until September 30, 2023.” RESULT:ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVED BY:Jean Josey, Vice Mayor SECOND:Melissa Hernandez, Mayor AYES:Hernandez, Josey, Kumagai, McCorriston, Hu 6.2)Dublin Districts—Public Hearing 4: Draft Final District Map Review and Community Feedback Opportunity The City Council held a Public Hearing to give the community an opportunity to provide feedback regarding the boundaries and composition of the Draft Final Maps. Mayor Hernandez opened the public hearing. Matthew Aini provided public comment. Jennifer Situ provided public comment. Jeanine Gillengerten provided public comment. Tom Evans provided public comment. Richard Li provided public comment. Mayor Hernandez closed the Public Hearing. Staff asked the City Council to identify their top three maps to start the conversation. The top three maps identified by the City Council were Map 112, the Green Map, and the Pink Map. Mayor Hernandez called for a break at 9:03 p.m. Mayor Hernandez reconvened the meeting at 9:12 p.m. The City Council directed Staff to bring modifications to Districts 1 and 2 on Map 112 to keep the area between Village Parkway and the Iron Horse Trail and north of Amador Valley Road in the same District. The City Council discussed the proposed and alternative election sequence for Map 112. By consensus, the City Council agreed on the proposed election sequence on Map 112 with Districts 1 and 3 on the ballot in 2024 and Districts 2 and 4 on the ballot in 2026. 17 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING July 19, 2022 7)UNFINISHED BUSINESS –None. 8)NEW BUSINESS -None. 9)OTHER BUSINESS The City Council and Staff provided brief information-only reports, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB1234). 10)ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hernandez adjourned the meeting at 9:39 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 18 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 10 Agenda Item 4.2 DATE:August 16, 2022 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT:Review of Two-Year Strategic Plan AccomplishmentsPreparedby:John Stefanski,Assistant to the City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The City Council will receive the final status update for the City’s 2020-2022 Strategic Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Receive the report. FINANCIAL IMPACT:None. DESCRIPTION:The City Council adopted the City’s Two-Year Strategic Plan on May 5, 2020. This Plan sets the overall direction for the City, guiding resources and setting specific objectives to drive City action. The Plan coincides with Fiscal Years 2020-21 and 2021-22. This report represents the last of eight quarterly updates, covering the period of July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2022. Updates are categorized as follows: -Complete—Staff was able to achieve the objective.-Ongoing—Staff was able to make progress on the objective, however work will continue as some objectives are multi-year projects or do not have a definitive end. -Stalled—Staff was unable to make progress on the objective due to a given circumstance. Updates for the strategies and objectives are provided below: 19 Page 2 of 10 Strategy 1: Implement the City’s Adopted Preferred Vision for Downtown Dublin.Objective UpdateAMake necessary land use changes.Complete.On July 21, 2020,the City Council adopted amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan land uses and maximum floor area ratio based on the Preferred Vision.B Work with private property owners on acquisitions that result in the creation of a future town square. Ongoing.City Council adopted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with American Realty Advisors (ARA) in 2019 for the Dublin Place shopping center. Per the MOU, ARA intends to acquire additional parcels of the shopping center in order to work with the City on the siting of the town square.During this time, ARA hired Hines to help them plan for future development, and they have selected Gensler as their design professional. ARA has submitted a purchase offer to acquire the two parcels and has developed preliminary concepts to align with the Downtown Preferred Vision.C Establish the proposed street grid network, including study of right-of-way acquisition and the appropriate funding mechanism for construction and maintenance. Ongoing. On July 21, 2020, the City Council adopted amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to incorporate the street grid contemplated in the Preferred Vision. The Downtown Action Team continues to evaluate the right-of-way acquisition, cross sections, and the appropriate funding mechanism for construction and maintenance. In fall 2020, the City launched an update to the Citywide Traffic Model to analyze the impacts of the new street grid. Staff has worked with the traffic consultant on 2040 model runs for the new street grid network and determined that additional information was needed at critical intersections. New counts were collected to adjust traffic forecasts at the study intersections. The traffic consultant is currently working on revising the traffic analysis at the study intersections based on the revised forecasts.In addition, progress has been made on the street cross section designs as part of the new street grid network looking at the Downtown Core area.D Conduct a parking analysis of the Transit Oriented District and the Retail District and proposed changes. Ongoing.CHS Consulting Group, through the City’s primary consultant Urban Field Studio, has started work on the parking analysis of the Retail and Transit Oriented Districts of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. E Create certainty and provide development rights that result in achieving the City Council’s Preferred Vision. Stalled. Staff will pursue this objective once Hines has been able to complete their master planning process. F Develop implementation measures for the adopted Downtown Streetscape Master Plan and updated Ongoing.On November 17, 2020, the City Council adopted the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan. Regional Street was resurfaced and restriped. 20 Page 3 of 10 Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan for the next Capital Improvement Program. An existing condition, demographics, bicycle level of stress analysis, and prioritization framework was completed for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Staff presented the Bicycle and Pedestrian Update project to various community groups, at the Farmers’ Market, and through the City’s Social Media channels. Staff is now working on identifying prioritized locations for projects and developing recommendations and an implementation plan while still soliciting public input via the City website, social media, and the project website (https://dublinbikeped.org). The City Council will review a draft Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan in August 2022 with the final version being adopted later in Fall 2022. G Market, in conjunction with property owners, the opportunity sites. Ongoing. Recent examples of working with property owners include the repurposing of the vacant Hooter’s parcel, the repurposing of the vacant retail strip center into an affordable housing project with Eden Housing, the re-tenanting of the former OSH site with H Mart, the repurposing of the vacant BART parcel into an affordable housing project with BRIDGE Housing, and the re-tenanting of the former Fitness 2000 with ACE Hardware.H Work with Downtown property owners on updating the CC&Rs to facilitate retail transition. Stalled. Staff has been working with the Dublin Plaza Retail Center property owners to amend their CC&Rs. A draft of the changes was shared with them for review. After further consideration by the property owners, they decided to pause on any amendments until they have more clarity on future development opportunities.I Work with Downtown property owners on building/site improvements. Ongoing. Staff is currently working with Kimco Realty on the re-tenanting of the OSH site with H-Mart.Staff continues to work with the Dublin Place Shopping Center property owners on an amendment to the Master Sign Program to rebrand and add new signage to the Center. Avalon Bay processed a Building Permit application to construct the 499-unit St. Patrick Way project and related public improvements including the extension of St. Patrick Way to Regional Street.BRIDGE Housing received Planning Commission approval on August 10, 2021, for a Site Development Review Permit to construct the 300-unit affordable project, known as Amador Station, on Golden Gate Drive adjacent to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. On September 7, 2021, the City Council approved the Community Benefit Agreement for the Amador Station project.EDEN housing received Planning Commission approval on November 23, 2021, for a Site Development Review Permit to construct a 113-unit senior affordable housing project on Regional Street adjacent to the Avalon Bay project. On December 7, 2021, the City Council approved the Community Benefit Agreement for this project.J Refine and provide specificity on City development goals in the Complete. A memorandum was delivered to the City Manager. 21 Page 4 of 10 Downtown Plan and East Transit Center Area Plan. Strategy 2: Explore New City Revenue Streams for Long Term Financial StabilityObjectiveUpdateAExplore the feasibility of increasing the City’s current Transient Occupancy Tax. Stalled.Currently infeasible with COVID-19 impacts. B Evaluate the establishment of other fees and/or taxes that could offset City costs in providing services to the community. Ongoing. Staff established fees for: -The new Adopt-A-Bench program, where a bench can be adopted in honor of a family member, friend, or organization. -Remote (online) programs and classes, outdoor fitness classes, and the L.I.V.E n’ Rec Program in response to COVID-19-related restrictions. -The Heritage Memorial Program, which is expected to generate over $100,000 in revenue. -The rental of outdoor basketball courts to allow for commercial use and private programming, as well as the rental of kitchens in City facilities.C Explore operational efficiencies in delivering services with other public agencies. Ongoing. The City worked with the County and the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton on the creation of AXIS Bridge –the Mental Health Urgent Care Center Pilot. The three cities submitted and received an $450,000 federal earmark for additional program funding. The City worked with the County, the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, and Stanford-Valley Care on the development of a Super POD COVID-19 Vaccination Site located at the Alameda County Fairgrounds. Parks and Community Services partnered with Livermore Area Parks and Recreation District to provide certification instruction to aquatics staff, which enables them to become certified lifeguard trainers to provide in-house certification classes.Staff is coordinating with neighboring cities to launch a regional, temporary public art project that will span the Tri-Valley. D Continue to maintain strong fiscal policies.Ongoing.Fiscal Year 2021 closed in a surplus position, and on October 19, 2021 the City Council approved additional special designations to provide funding for planned projects.In October 2021, the City issued the 2021 Lease Revenue Bonds (roughly $20M) to finance Energy Efficiency capital improvement projectsapproved by the City Council. Due to the City’s strong fiscal policies and budgetary performance, S&P Global Ratings assigned an ‘AAA’ issuer credit rating to the City and an ‘AA+’ bond rating on the Dublin Financing Authority’s bond issuance. The City Council adopted the budget for Fiscal Years 2022-23 and 2023-24 on June 7, 2022. The primary goals addressed in the budget cycle are: 1) to 22 Page 5 of 10 fully fund current City operations; 2) to fund future capital endeavors now through the setting aside of specific reserves; and 3) maintain adequate operating reserves over the long term. The General Fund Budget is balanced in both years and the 10-Year Forecast shows projected surpluses through Fiscal Year 2028-29.Strategy 3: Create More Affordable Housing OpportunitiesObjectiveUpdateAFacilitate production of affordable housing for lower income seniors, workforce, and special needs households by leveraging the Alameda County Measure A-1 Bond funds and the City’s Affordable Housing Fund. Ongoing.On July 17, 2020, Staff released a Notice of Funding Availability for the creation of affordable rental housing. The City received two proposals, both of which were presented to the City Council on November 17, 2020. The proposal by BRIDGE Housing was selected for a site located on Golden Gate Drive adjacent to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.On April 20, 2021, the City Council adopted a resolution appropriating $7.1M from the City’s Affordable Housing Fund and authorized the commitment of $2.9M of the Alameda County Measure A-1 Bond Fund. On August 10, 2021, the Planning Commission approved the Site Development Review Permit for the 300 affordable units. On September 7, 2021, the City Council approved the Community Benefit Agreement for the Amador Station project.Staff facilitated Eden Housing’s acquisition of a 1.3-acre site on Regional Street from Avalon Bay as required by the Community Benefit Agreement for the 499-unit St. Patrick Way development. Eden Housing proposes to construct a 113-unit senior affordable project on the site. The City Council reserved units from the Downtown Development Pool for the project and authorized the commitment of $5.0M in Alameda County Measure A-1 Bond funds for the project, as well as $3.3M from the Local Housing Trust Fund.On November 23, 2021, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review Permit for Eden Housing’s project. On December 7, 2021, the City Council approved a related Community Benefit Agreement.On January 25, 2022, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved the City’s request and adopted a resolution committing $2.9M to the Amador Station/BRIDGE Housing project and $5M to the Eden Housing Regional Street Senior Affordable Housing project, from Dublin’s Base City Allocation of Measure A-1 Bond Funds.The City submitted a Local Housing Trust Fund Program grant applicationfor $3,333,333 for Phase 1 of the BRIDGE Housing project to be located on the vacant lot adjacent to the West Dublin BART Station at 6501 Golden Gate Drive. 23 Page 6 of 10 B Look for additional opportunities to facilitate the acquisition of sites, at low or no cost, to build housing that is affordable to lower income households. Ongoing.The City received $3,333,333 in grant funds from the State of California’s Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) Program for the Eden Housing project.Staff coordinated with the developer of the St. Patrick Way project regarding the acquisition of the adjacent parcel on Regional Street for development of an affordable housing project by Eden Housing.Staff is working with Alameda County to sell a portion of the Transit Center D-1 parcel to Eden Housing for an affordable housing development.Staff worked with Trumark Homes to dedicate two acres for a future affordable housing project that would provide 77 units of very low/low-income affordable rental housing. Staff is working with the County on the purchase and sale of the remainder D-1 site at the Dublin Transit Center for an affordable project. C Facilitate the production of accessory dwelling units throughout the community. Ongoing.In November 2020, the City Council adopted Zoning Ordinance Amendments and approved related Impact Fee reductions to relax development standards and restrictions, and to address changes to state law to facilitate the production of accessory dwelling units. On December 7, 2021, the City Council adopted a waiver of certain permit fees for ADUs <750 sq. ft. and for deed restricted ADUs >750 sq. ft. for lower-income households.The City prepared eight different ADU prototype plans and an ADU Manual that serves as a how-to-guide for individuals looking to build an ADU. The City also launched an ADU webpage with this and additional information and resources. The webpage is a one-stop shop to facilitate the production of ADUs. D Seek opportunities to preserve the stock of housing that is affordable to moderate- and middle-income households. Ongoing. In September 2020, the City became a member of the California Community Housing Agency (CalCHA) Joint Powers Authority for the production, preservation, and protection of essential middle-income rental housing, and authorized the City Manager to enter into purchase option agreements with CalCHA for middle-income rental housing. Since that time, the City approved the purchase of Aster Apartments in the Downtown and the Fountains Apartments on Hacienda Drive.On June 1, 2021, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the actions necessary to similar acquire the Waterford Place Apartments through the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) to preserve the units as affordable to middle-income households.E Update the City’s General Plan Housing Element in accordance with state law and to ensure an adequate supply of sites to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Ongoing.Staff prepared the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element which was available for public review between April 15 and May 15, 2022. The City Council held a public meeting to review the Draft Housing Element on May 17, 2022. Subsequent to that meeting, Staff submitted the Draft Housing Element to the California Housing and Community Development Department for their state mandated review.The City Council will review the final Housing Element in fall 2022. 24 Page 7 of 10 Allocation for the period 2023-31. Strategy 4: Become a 24/7 City Hall to Enhance Resident and Business EngagementObjectiveUpdateAReduce/eliminate the need for paper transactions where feasible. Ongoing. The majority of external and internal City forms have been transitioned to electronic formats for completion, routing, and signature. This includes Building Permit, Planning, and Business License applications, Public Works permits, and Fire Prevention processes. The Parks and Community Services Department introduced ePACT to afterschool recreation and preschool programs in January 2022, which allows staff to collect data electronically and check participants in and out of programs using contactless methods. Staff continues to evaluate additional processes for transition to electronic formats. B Provide more opportunities for residents to complete transactions with the City online, with appropriate security measures. Ongoing. Parks and Recreation Staff began accepting online pre-registration for special events, limiting wait lines and reducing physical cash transactions. Staff worked with event partners/vendors to encourage them to utilize applications for ordering items. They implemented Epact software for camps, preschool, and afterschool programs. Parents will be able to complete necessary forms and check students in and out of programs securely online. The Senior Center has transitioned from cash to pre-paid passes and isnow utilizing electronic pre-registration and convenience passes for in-person programming. Staff enhanced The Wave webpages to allow customers to subscribe to Newsflashes and pertinent information. In addition, the online registration process for the popular Lap Swim program has been streamlined to result in a more user-friendly process to reserve lanes.Facility rental applications and Wave Waterpark Admission tickets have transitioned to electronic formats. Staff transitioned the Fireworks application process online. The Community Development Department launched the SolarApp+ which allows for the electronic application and automated issuance of building permits for residential solar panels 24 hours a day, seven days a week. C Enhance citizen online interaction via reporting of issues and transparent data. Ongoing.On September 1, 2020, the City Council approved an agreement with OpenGov for financial transparency, budgeting, and citizen engagement software.In May 2021, the City launched See, Click, Fix,a new citizen request and City work management software, which includes a City-branded app for mobile devices. 25 Page 8 of 10 The City added closed captioning to City Council and Planning Commission meeting recordings to enhance the accessibility of such videos while also allowing the public to search for terms in the captions. The City’s websites are equipped with Audio Eye, which scans the websites for issues related to accessibility. All pages are scanned, and accessibility issues are solved using the tool.D Continue to utilize all appropriate methods to share and exchange information with the public, including social media, at events and at the City’s website. Ongoing.Staff expanded the use of Facebook to share all news and business of the City. Additionally, the City is increasing the use of videos shared on all social media platforms and the City’s website. Examples include public service announcements (PSAs) from the City Council, a disaster preparedness video by the former Mayor,a replay of several “Community Conversations” that were held during the start of the Pandemic, and videos in remembrance of Ilene Misheloff. The City completed a redesign of the City’s website, following consultations with a focus group, which included City staff and active residents. While the elements of Dublin’s brand are still prominent, the website has been streamlined, making it easier for users to find key information. Staff continues to manage the Document Center to ensure the search function works properly. A Website Committee has been created to ensure that the site remains current.Staff continues to utilize existing programs and events to cross-promote other city events and activities. This also provides opportunities to target specific markets and demographics (i.e., promoting hiring and family events at the Senior Information Fair).The Planning Division instituted informational community meetings for major development projects. A new “notify me” list was created where interested parties can be notified of these meetings which are also published on our social media channels.A Dublin Police Annual Report was completed in Fall 2021. Parks and Community Services Staff are now utilizing the text message feature in the City’s recreation software (Active Network) to textprogram information to customers.The Wave utilized paid marketing to promote the Job Fair through Snapchat and Facebook. The advertisement included an apply-now button which takes them directly to the relevant webpage. Total reach was 225,000 individuals with 1,900 swipes.The Parks and Community Services Department began utilizing the “text” feature within the Active Net Registration system as an additional means of communication for activity changes and cancellations, in addition to traditional e-mail notifications. 26 Page 9 of 10 E Explore additional social media platforms and expanding use of Facebook to other departments. Complete. Staff has merged all the previous City Facebook accounts (other than The Wave) into one City of Dublin government account.Additionally, Staff transformed the former Parks and Community Services Instagram account into a City of Dublin account.F Explore more exciting and user-friendly presentation of information, and a periodic report from the City Manager’s Office. Complete. The City launched the Backyard Brief, the City Manager’s new monthly email newsletter. Strategy 5: Large Land Tract Development and Open SpaceObjectiveUpdateALook to establish an Economic Development Zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon Road. Complete.The City established the Economic Development Zone in 2021. B Work with the area property owners in conjunction with the Dublin Boulevard extension project on issues such as road and project mitigation, entitlements, as well as supporting infrastructure. Ongoing.Staff meets regularly with the property owners surrounding the Dublin Boulevard extension area to discuss issues of roadway alignment and mitigation.The City received National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) clearance from Caltrans in February 2021 for the project. Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) has initiated the 24-month design process. Staff continues to meet with ACTC, Livermore, the County, Zone 7, and other stakeholders in support of the design effort. Staff is reviewing applications submitted by the Branaugh and Righetti property owners, as well as has reviewed a pre-application from the Monte Vista property.C Begin discussions regarding required reporting under the Open Space Initiative of 2014 for the provisions of commercial and industrial development in the unincorporated area. Complete. City Council authorized the initiation of various studies necessary to meet the obligations under Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:The City Council Agenda was posted. 27 Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENTS:None. 28 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item 4.3 DATE:August 16, 2022 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT:City Proclamations for the Month of SeptemberPreparedby:Cierra Fabrigas,Executive Aide EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The City Council will consider the following proclamations for the month of September in the City of Dublin: Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month, Wilderness Month, Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, Childhood Obesity Awareness Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, Ovarian CancerAwareness Month, Preparedness Month, Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, and Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Approve the proclamations. FINANCIAL IMPACT:None. DESCRIPTION:The City Council will consider the following proclamations for the month of September in the City of Dublin:1.Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month2.Wilderness Month3.Childhood Cancer Awareness Month4.Childhood Obesity Awareness Month5.Hispanic Heritage Month6.Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month7.Preparedness Month8.Prostate Cancer Awareness Month 29 Page 2 of 2 9. Suicide Prevention Awareness Month STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:The City Council Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS:1) Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month Proclamation2) Wilderness Month Proclamation3) Childhood Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation4) Childhood Obesity Awareness Month Proclamation5) Hispanic Heritage Month Proclamation6) Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation7) Preparedness Month Proclamation8) Prostate Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation9) Suicide Prevention Awareness Month Proclamation 30 Attachment 1 A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA “Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month” WHEREAS, every September, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) sponsors Recovery Month to increase awareness and understanding of mental and substance use disorders and celebrates the gains made by those in recovery; and WHEREAS, treatment and recovery improve the community’s welfare and provide a renewed outlook on life for those who struggle with substance use disorders and for their family and friends; and WHEREAS, alcohol and drug prevention, intervention, and treatment service providers have a proud history of service, innovation, and dedication to the recovery process: and WHEREAS,over 20.7 million people age 12 or older in the United States need treatment every year for substance use disorder; and WHEREAS, National Recovery Month celebrates the achievements of those individuals who have undergone successful addiction treatment and recognizes the professionals in the field of addiction treatment; and WHEREAS,the National Recovery Month theme, “Recovery is For Everyone: Every Person, Every Family, Every Community,” reminds people in recovery and those who support them that no one is alone in the journey through recovery; and WHEREAS,to help achieve these goals, the Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse and other community providers invite all residents of Dublin to participate in National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month (September). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim September 2022 as Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month and call upon the residents of Dublin to observe this month with appropriate programs, activities, and ceremonies supporting recovery in our community. DATED: August 16, 2022 Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 31 Attachment 2 A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA “Wilderness Month” WHEREAS, nationally celebrated, Wilderness Month honors the American spirit of exploration and discovery that has led us to experience the majesty of the Nation’s wilderness; and WHEREAS,the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964, and 54 areas (9.1 million acres) in 13 states were designated as wilderness; and WHEREAS,this law established these areas as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Since 1964, the NWPS has grown almost every year and now includes 803 areas (111.7 million acres) in 44 states and Puerto Rico; and WHEREAS, in 1980, the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) added over 56 million acres of wilderness to the system, the largest addition in a single year; and WHEREAS,recent fires across California and the United States show us just how important wilderness is, and how precious it has become. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim September 2022 as Wilderness Month in the City of Dublin and encourage all citizens to become more aware of the significance of wilderness in our nation. DATED: August 16, 2022 Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 32 Attachment 3 A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA “Childhood Cancer Awareness Month” WHEREAS, according to the American Childhood Cancer Organization, one in 285 children in the United States will be diagnosed with cancer by their 20th birthday; and WHEREAS, each year, worldwide, more than 300,000 children and youth under the age of 19 are diagnosed with cancer; and WHEREAS,childhood cancer causes chronic health conditions from the toxic effects of cancer treatment, including secondary cancers and other life-threatening illnesses; and WHEREAS, the causes of childhood cancer are largely unknown, and more study is needed to understand which treatments work best for children; and WHEREAS, researchers and healthcare professionals work diligently, dedicating their expertise to treat and cure children with cancer; and WHEREAS, children who are diagnosed with cancer, battle cancer with fierce determination and bravery every day. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim September 2022 as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month in the City of Dublin and encourage all citizens to learn more about childhood cancers, vigorously support childhood cancer research, and do everything possible to support children with cancer and their families. DATED: August 16, 2022 Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 33 Attachment 4 A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA “Childhood Obesity Awareness Month” WHEREAS, with childhood obesity presenting a significant threat to child health, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is recognizing National Childhood Obesity Awareness Month during the month of September; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin, along with Dublin Unified School District, works to prioritize the health and wellbeing of Dublin’s children by supporting programs such as Healthy Dublin, Healthy Dublin Kids, and the Dublin Unified School District Health Center; and WHEREAS,the City of Dublin works in conjunction with youth sports leagues to provide space for physical activities and team sports in the community; and WHEREAS,the percentage of children with obesity in the United States has more than tripled since the 1970’s; today, about one in five school-age children (6-19) are considered obese; and WHEREAS, obese children have an 80% chance of being obese adults and are more at risk for associated adult chronic diseases, including high blood pressure, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and stroke; and WHEREAS, participating in physical activity is important for children and teens as it can have beneficial effects; and not only on body weight, but also on blood pressure, bone strength, and mental wellbeing; and WHEREAS, proper nutrition is important to youth as it impacts their physical and mental health, and is important in the prevention of chronic diseases; and WHEREAS, childhood obesity is preventable, yet does not appear to be declining. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim the month of September 2022 as Childhood Obesity Awareness Month and urge all residents to educate themselves and others of the programs and services that are available in Alameda County and in the City of Dublin. DATED: August 16, 2022 Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 34 Attachment 5 A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA “Hispanic Heritage Month” WHEREAS,each year, the federal and local governments observe Hispanic Heritage Month from September 15 to October 15 by recognizing and celebrating the histories, cultures, and contributions of American citizens whose ancestors came from Spain, Mexico, the Caribbean and Central and South America; and WHEREAS, September 15th is significant as a starting date for Latino Heritage month because it is the anniversary of independence for the Latin American countries of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. In addition, Mexico and Chile celebrate their independence on September 16 th and September 18th respectively, and Columbus Day or Dia de La Raza, which is October 12 th, falls within this 30-day period; and WHEREAS,Latinos are the largest ethnic group in the State of California and at 18.5% of the United States population, make up the largest ethnic or race minority group in America; and WHEREAS,the values expressed by labor leader and civil rights activist Cesar Chavez—a service to others, non-violence, acceptance of all people, respect for life and the environment, and celebrating community—are also America’s values; and WHEREAS, Hispanics and Latinos continue to enrich our nation’s character, shape our common future, and affirm the narrative of American unity and progress; and WHEREAS, during National Hispanic Heritage Month, we celebrate Hispanic culture, honor the invaluable ways Hispanics contribute to our common goals, and work toward a stronger, more inclusive, more prosperous society for all. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim September 2022 as Hispanic Heritage Month in the City of Dublin and encourage all citizens to recognize the significance of Hispanic Heritage and history in our nation and community. DATED: August 16, 2022 Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 35 Attachment 6 A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA “Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month” WHEREAS,according to the American Cancer Society, ovarian cancer causes more deaths than any cancer of the female reproductive system; and WHEREAS,in women ages 35-74, ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths; and WHEREAS,every woman is at risk for ovarian cancer, regardless of age, heritage, or medical history; and WHEREAS, diagnosis of ovarian cancer often does not occur until it has reached an advanced stage, making it the deadliest of all gynecological cancers; and WHEREAS, an estimated 21,410 women in the United States will be diagnosed this year with ovarian cancer and an estimated 13,770 women with the disease will die; and WHEREAS, ovarian cancer is treatable when detected early. More than 90% of women survive longer than five years if the disease is detected and treated properly before it has spread; and WHEREAS, women’s lives will be saved by raising public awareness about ovarian cancer and educating women about the symptoms of the disease. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim September 2022 as Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month in the City of Dublin and encourage all citizens to become more educated of the signs and symptoms of the disease. DATED: August 16, 2022 Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 36 Attachment 7 A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA “Preparedness Month” WHEREAS, National Preparedness Month, occurring annually in September since 9/11/2001, creates an opportunity for residents of the City of Dublin to join citizens across the United States in preparing their homes, businesses, and communities for any type of emergency, including natural, technological, and human-caused; and WHEREAS, as our nation continues to respond to COVID-19, there is no better time to be involved in preparing for any disaster; and WHEREAS, according to Alameda County emergency preparedness guidelines, citizens should have a plan, make a kit, be informed, and get involved in helping the community do the same; and WHEREAS,planning now, before a disaster, is the best way to improve community resiliency; and WHEREAS, each year, we face situations that could change our lives forever, and the best protection is knowing and practicing what to do in the event of an emergency; and WHEREAS, every eight minutes, the Red Cross responds to a disaster, and the vast majority of these are home fires. By having an emergency plan and kit, families can react quickly when a disaster strikes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim September 2022 as Preparedness Month in the City of Dublin and encourage all citizens to make a plan, build a kit, prepare for disasters, and talk to friends and family about preparedness. DATED: August 16, 2022 Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 37 Attachment 8 A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA “Prostate Cancer Awareness Month” WHEREAS, according to the American Cancer Society, prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in men and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in men; and WHEREAS, the American Cancer Society estimates there will be 268,490 men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States alone this year and roughly 34,500 will die this year from the disease –which is one man every 15 minutes; and WHEREAS,prostate cancer not only affects men, but also affects their family and friends; and WHEREAS, prostate cancer is usually treatable if detected early and early stage prostate cancer usually has no symptoms; and WHEREAS, education regarding prostate cancer and early detection strategies is critical to savings lives and preserving and protecting our families and friends; and WHEREAS, all men are at risk for prostate cancer and any treatment decisions should be based on clinician recommendations and patient values and preferences. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim September 2022 as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month in the City of Dublin and encourage all citizens to increase awareness about the importance for men to make an informed decision with their health care provider about early detection and testing for prostate cancer. DATED: August 16, 2022 Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 38 Attachment 9 A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA “Suicide Prevention Awareness Month” WHEREAS, National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month was created to raise the visibility of the mental health resources and suicide prevention services available in our community during the month of September. The goal is to start the conversation about mental health and the impact of suicide to help destigmatize the conversation and connect people with the appropriate support services; and WHEREAS, according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death among adults, and the 2nd leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 10 and 34 in the US; and WHEREAS, more than 48,000 people died by suicide across the United States in 2018, with an average of 132 suicides happening daily; and WHEREAS, each and every suicide directly impacts a minimum of 100 additional people, including family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and community members; and WHEREAS, global organizations like Hope For The Day and our local mental health partner, Axis Community Health, serve on the front lines in support of diffusing the stigma regarding suicide and mental health; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin publicly places its full support behind those who work in the fields of mental health, education, and law enforcement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim the month of September 2022 as Suicide Prevention Awareness Month and encourage residents to take the time to understand the importance of mental health education and recognize that taking care of ourselves and others includes taking care of mental health. DATED: August 16, 2022 Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 39 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item 4.4 DATE:August 16,2022 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT:Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Outdoor Seating (PLPA-2022-00020)Prepared by:Gaspare Annibale,Associate Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:On July 19, 2022, the City Council considered City-initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to continue to facilitate outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments on a long-term temporary basis to aid in the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Amendments are proposed to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit). The City Council waived the first reading and introduced the Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance.The City Council is now requested to hold a second reading of the proposed Ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Waive the second reading and adopt the Ordinance Approving Amendments to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit). FINANCIAL IMPACT:On April 20, 2021, the City Council approved the American Rescue Plans Act Budget and established a fund to track related expenditures. The approved budget includes grant funds for eating and drinking establishments to cover the costs of time and materials associated with processing applications for outdoor seating. DESCRIPTION:The City has initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to continue to facilitate outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments on a long-term temporary basis to aid in the 40 Page 2 of 2 economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Amendments are proposed to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit), as outlined in the Ordinance provided as Attachment 1. On July 19, 2022, the City Council waived the first reading and introduced the Ordinance approving the amendments, as further described in Attachment 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment and are not subject to CEQA review. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:The City Council Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS:1) Ordinance Approving Amendments to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit)2) City Council Staff Report, dated July 19, 2022, without attachments 41 Attachment 1 Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 1 of 5 ORDINANCE NO. XX-22 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 8.12.050 (PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED LAND USES), SECTION 8.76.080 (PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY USE TYPE), AND SECTION 8.108.020 (USES PERMITTED WITH A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT) EFFECTIVE CITY-WIDE PLPA-2022-00020 The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS A. The City occasionally initiates amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify, add, or amend certain provisions to ensure that the Zoning Ordinance remains current with federal and state law, internally consistent, simple to understand and implement, and relevant to changes occurring in the community. B. On June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-20, approving an amendment to Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) Chapter 8.128 (Authority to Administer Title 8) to provide the City Manager with authority to waive certain Zoning Ordinance requirements and/or standards to facilitate business operations affected by public health orders of the federal, state, or county government designed to slow transmission of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). C. Subsequently, the City established a COVID-19 Relief Temporary Use Permit (TUP) application for minor temporary land uses that facilitate business operations, but deviate from certain development standards, provided they are temporary in nature and do not increase the intensity of the use. D. The waiver of certain Zoning Ordinance requirements remained in effect for one year from adoption and expired on June 16, 2021. E. In April 2021, Staff held a roundtable meeting with restaurant owners to understand ways the City could assist with their recovery in a post COVID-19 environment. Based upon the success of the COVID-19 Relief TUP program and concerns about business operations and consumer preferences post COVID-19, the restaurant owners expressed an overwhelming desire for the City to continue to facilitate outdoor dining on both a long- term temporary and permanent basis through relaxed regulations. F. On August 17, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 07-21 approving amendments to DMC Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), Section 8.104.030 (Site 42 Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 2 of 5 Development Review Waiver), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit) to permit outdoor seating on a long-term temporary and permanent basis. G. During the spring of 2022, Staff performed additional outreach to restaurant owners, including a business survey, walking tour and another roundtable meeting to understand their evolving needs and how the City could assist them. The restaurant owners continue to express overwhelming support for the City to facilitate the ability to provide outdoor dining on a long-term temporary basis. H. The provision of Ordinance No. 07-21 permitting outdoor seating on a long-term temporary basis will expire on September 30, 2022. I. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve along with efforts to slow the spread of the virus, and concerns about business operations and consumer preferences persist. J. The City has initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to continue to facilitate outdoor seating on a long-term temporary basis. K. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments include modifications to DMC Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit). L. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 28, 2022, during which all interested persons were heard, and adopted Resolution No. 22-10 recommending City Council adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. M. A Staff Report was submitted to the Dublin City Council recommending approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. N. The City Council held a public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments on July 19, 2022, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. O. Proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law. P. The City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. SECTION 2. FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Section 8.120.050.B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council hereby finds that the Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan in that the amendments are necessary to facilitate temporary outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments to aid in economic recovery post- COVID-19. Specifically, General Plan Goal 11.6.1 calls for the City to maintain small- business-friendly development services and Implementation Measure 11.6.1.B.3 to “implement permit/inspection process refinements: improve City procedures, as appropriate.” 43 Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 3 of 5 SECTION 3. A. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. The City Council hereby finds the amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) are exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment and are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 4. A.The Dublin Municipal Code is amended as follows: Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to add the following row to the table of Commercial Use Types: COMMERCIAL USE TYPES COMMERCIAL USE TYPE A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2 Outdoor Seating – Temporary ----TUP TUP TUP TUP TUP TUP - Subsection D of Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to add the following in alphabetical order COMMERCIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Outdoor Seating – Temporary None Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended by adding provisions for “Outdoor Seating – Temporary” and the remainder of this subsection shall be re-lettered: N. Outdoor Seating - Temporary.Outdoor Seating - Temporary may be permitted, subject to the following conditions: 1. Temporary outdoor seating is permitted until September 30, 2023. The expiration date of all existing approved Temporary Use Permits for temporary outdoor seating are extended to September 30, 2023. 44 Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 4 of 5 2. Temporary outdoor seating may occupy up to 20 percent of the required parking for that Eating and Drinking Establishment or two parking spaces, whichever is greater. 3. Temporary outdoor seating that is not located in a parking space(s) is limited to a maximum area equivalent to the area of 20 percent of the required parking for that Eating and Drinking Establishment or the area of two parking spaces, whichever is greater. 4. No additional parking is required for the temporary outdoor seating. 5. Tents, canopies, and shade structures. a.Tents, canopies, and shade structures are subject to review and approval by the Planning Division, Building Division, and Fire Prevention. b. No advertising, logos, banners, or balloons are permitted on any tents, canopies, or shade structures, except with approval of a Temporary Sign. c. If a business utilizes more than one tent, canopy, or shade structure, they should be of uniform color and design. SECTION 5. Effective Date.This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days following its final adoption and shall remain in effect until September 30, 2023. SECTION 6. Severability.The provision of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereof is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any person or circumstance, such illegality, invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the ordinance or their applicability to other persons or circumstances. SECTION 7. Posting.The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. {Signatures on the following page} 45 Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 5 of 5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk 46 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 5 Agenda Item 6.1 Attachment 2 DATE:July 19, 2022 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT:Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Outdoor Seating and Master Fee Schedule Amendments (PLPA-2022-00020)Prepared by:Gaspare Annibale,Associate Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The City Council will consider City-initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to continue to facilitate outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments on a long-term temporary basis to aid in the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. The City Council will also consider adopting changes to the Master Fee Schedule pertaining to the application fees for Temporary Use Permits for temporary outdoor seating and Site Development Review Waivers for permanent outdoor seating.Additionally, the City Council will consider an exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and: 1) waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Approving Amendments to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit);and 2) adopt the Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule by Extending the Application Fee for Temporary Use Permit –Temporary Outdoor Seating and Site Development Review Waiver –Permanent Outdoor Seating Until September 30, 2023. FINANCIAL IMPACT:On April 20, 2021, the City Council approved the American Rescue Plans Act (ARPA) Budget and established a fund to track related expenditures. The approved budget includes grant funds for eating and drinking establishments to cover the costs of time and materials associated with processing Temporary Use Permit applications for outdoor seating and Site Development Review Waivers for permanent outdoor seating. The City Council will consider amending the Master Fee Schedule to extend the current application fees for Temporary Use Permit –Temporary Outdoor 47 Page 2 of 5 Seating and Site Development Review Waiver – Permanent Outdoor Seating until September 30, 2023. The application fees will continue to be based on time and materials to ensure the City recovers the actual costs associated with reviewing these applications utilizing ARPA funding. These fees will be valid until the City’s ARPA budget allocation is exhausted, or until September 30, 2023, whichever occurs first. Upon the ARPA budget allocation exhaustion, the TUP and SDR Waiver application fees would revert to the existing flat fee at that time. DESCRIPTION:BackgroundOn June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-20 approving an amendment to Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) Chapter 8.128 (Authority to Administer Title 8) to provide the City Manager with authority to waive certain Zoning Ordinance requirements and/or standards to facilitate business operations affected by public health orders of the federal, state, or county government designed to slow transmission of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). Subsequently, the City established a COVID-19 Relief Temporary Use Permit (TUP) application for minor temporary land uses that facilitate business operations, but deviate from certain development standards, provided they are temporary in nature and do not increase the intensity of the use.Ordinance No. 08-20 and the waiver of certain Zoning Ordinance requirements remained in effect for one year from adoption and expired on June 16, 2021.In April 2021, Staff held a roundtable meeting with restaurant owners to understand ways the City could assist with their recovery from the COVID-19 environment. Based upon the success of the COVID-19 Relief TUP program and concerns about business operations and consumer preferences related to COVID-19, the restaurant owners expressed an overwhelming desire for the City to continue to facilitate outdoor seating on both a long-term temporary and permanent basis through relaxed regulations. On August 17, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 07-21 approving amendments to DMC Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), Section 8.104.030 (Site Development Review Waiver), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit) to permit outdoor seating on a long-term temporary basis and on a permanent basis. The regulations for permitting outdoor seating on a long-term temporary basis are set to expire on September 30, 2022. The City Council also adopted a companion Resolution (No. 93-21) amending the Master Fee Schedule by establishing two new application fees, based on time and materials, for Temporary Use Permit – Outdoor Seating and Site Development Review Waiver – Outdoor Seating, which are valid until the City’s applicable American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) budget allocation is exhausted, or until September 30, 2022, whichever occurs first. Since the establishment of the COVID-19 Relief TUP program, the City has approved 47 TUP applications for eating and drinking establishments on a long-term temporary basis. During the spring of 2022, Staff performed additional outreach to the restaurant owners, including conducting a business survey, walking tour, and another roundtable meeting with the restaurant 48 Page 3 of 5 owners to understand their evolving needs. The restaurant owners continue to express overwhelming support for the City to facilitate the provision of outdoor dining on a long-term temporary basis. Some smaller users expressed concern about the size of the outdoor seating area allowed by the current regulations and requested that the City allow a certain minimum size for such areas.Proposed ProjectTo address the needs of the business community, the City has initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to continue to facilitate outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments on a long-term temporary basis to aid in economic recovery from the COVID-19pandemic. Amendments are proposed to DMC Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit). The proposed project also includes amending the Master Fee Schedule to extend the application fees for Temporary Use Permit – Temporary Outdoor Seating and Site Development Review (SDR) Waiver – Permanent Outdoor Seating, based on time and materials. AnalysisZoning Ordinance AmendmentsThe proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments would extend the current regulations and continueto permit outdoor seating on a long-term temporary basis with the approval of a Temporary Use Permit, until September 30, 2023. This would also extend the expiration date for all existing approved Temporary Use Permits for temporary outdoor seating until September 30, 2023.The existing regulations allow temporary outdoor seating to occupy up to 20% of the required parking for an eating and drinking establishment or an equivalent area without having to provide parking for the temporary outdoor seating. To provide greater flexibility to eating and drinking establishments, the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments include a minor modification to allow temporary outdoor seating to occupy 20% of the required parking or a minimum twoparking spaces, whichever is greater. The remainder of the existing regulations for outdoor seating would remain unchanged.The proposed amendments would continue to facilitate temporary outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments to aid in economic recovery as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve, and concerns about business operations and consumer preferences persist. The draft Ordinance is included as Attachment 1.Fee AmendmentsThe California Constitution authorizes local governments to recover the reasonable costs of providing services. Temporary outdoor seating requires approval of a Temporary Use Permit(TUP) and permanent outdoor seating requires approval of a Site Development Review Waiver (SDRW). The current TUP application fee is $286 and the current SDRW application fee is $401. However, those fees do not recover the full cost to process an application and instead require a General Fund subsidy. The actual cost of Staff from Planning, Building, Public Works, and Fire Prevention to review a TUP 49 Page 4 of 5 for outdoor seating is estimated to be approximately $1,631 and the cost to review an SDRW for permanent outdoor seating is estimated to range from $2,929 to $4,529. These costs are eligible for reimbursement through the American Rescue Plans Act (ARPA) Budget. In April 2021, the City established an ARPA funded grant program to pay these application fees on behalf of eating and drinking establishment owners. Staff recommends extending the existing application fees that aredue to expire on September 30, 2022, to recover the City’s full cost. The proposed fees would be valid until the City’s ARPA budget allocation is exhausted, or until September 30, 2023, whichever occurs first. Upon the ARPA budget allocation exhaustion, the TUP and SDR Waiver application fees would revert to the existing flat fee at that time. The draft Resolution, amending the Master Fee Schedule for outdoor seating is included as Attachment 2.Consistency with the General Plan, Specific Plans, and Zoning OrdinanceThe proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the General Plan and anyapplicable specific plan in that the amendments are necessary to facilitate outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments to facilitate business operations and aid in economic recovery post-COVID-19. Specifically, General Plan Goal 11.6.1 call for the City to maintain small-business-friendly development services and Implementation Measure 11.6.1.B.3 to “implement permit/inspection process refinements: improve City procedures, as appropriate.” ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. The City Council will consider finding the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment and are not subject to CEQA review. The City Council will also consider finding the proposed Master Fee Schedule Amendments exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because revising fees is not a project and, therefore, is exempt from the requirements of CEQA. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: On June 28, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments and unanimously adopted Resolution No. 22-10 (Attachment 3), recommending the City Council adopt amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to continue to facilitate outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments on a long-term temporary basis. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:In accordance with State law, a public notice was published in the East Bay Times on July 9, 2022, 50 Page 5 of 5 and July 14, 2022, and posted at several locations throughout the City. The City Council Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS:1) Ordinance Approving Amendments to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit)2) Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule by Extending the Application Fee for Temporary Use Permit – Temporary Outdoor Seating and Site Development Review Waiver –Permanent Outdoor Seating Until September 30, 20233) Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-10 51 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 3 Agenda Item 4.5 DATE:August 16, 2022 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT:Authorizing Remote Meetings of City Council and City Commissions Due to Increase in COVID-19 CasesPreparedby:John Bakker,City Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:From March 2020 through September 2021, the City conducted meetings of its legislative bodies remotely pursuant to various executive orders that suspended certain Brown Act provisions. In October 2021, the City returned to in-person meetings and the Brown Act was amended to allow for teleconferencing during a state of emergency. Under the new law, AB 361, the City can continue to conduct virtual meetings where the Governor has proclaimed a State of Emergency, or state or local health officials have imposed or recommended social distancing,if the City Council makes certain required findings. From January 11 –February 10, 2022, and since May 3, 2022, the City Council has operated under a resolution pursuant to AB 361 authorizing teleconferenced meetings for at least 30 days. The City Council will consider adopting a resolution that would allow for virtual attendance for the next 30 days. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Adopt the Resolution Finding That There is a Proclaimed State of Emergency; Finding That Meeting in Person Would Present Imminent Risks to the Health or Safety of Attendees as a Result of the State of Emergency; and Authorizing Remote Teleconferenced Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Dublin Pursuant to AB 361. FINANCIAL IMPACT:None. 52 Page 2 of 3 DESCRIPTION:On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State address the broader spread of COVID-19.On March 18, 2020, the City Council adopted a resolution ratifying the proclamation of a local state of emergency by the Director of Emergency Services due to COVID-19.On March 17, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20, which suspended certain provisions of the Brown Act in order to allow local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or by other means. Additionally, the State implemented a shelter-in-place order, requiring all non-essential personnel to work from home.At that time and through September 2021, the City’s legislative bodies met by teleconference. On June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21, which among other things, rescinded certain clauses of Executive Order N-29-20 after September 30, 2021, including clauses that suspended certain provisions of the Brown Act. Thus, effective October 1, 2021, agencies would have had to transition back to public meetings held in full compliance with the Brown Act.The City of Dublin began meeting in person beginning in October 2021.Since the Governor issued Executive Order N-08-21, the highly contagious Delta variant has emerged, causing a spike in cases throughout the state and within the Alameda County. Additionally, since then, the Omicron variants have emerged and been designed as a variant of concern by the United States, and the number of cases in the City have increased over the last month.On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361 (2021) which allows for local legislative and advisory bodies to continue to conduct meetings via teleconferencing under specified conditions and includes a requirement that the Council make specified findings. AB 361 took effect immediately.AB 361 allows local legislative bodies to continue to meet remotely after the expiration of the clauses of Executive Order N-29-20. Under AB 361, the City and its legislative bodies may meet remotely when:·The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency;·State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing;·Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.On January 11, 2022, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing remote teleconferenced meetings for a period of 30 days pursuant to AB 361. That resolution expired on February 10, 2022. 53 Page 3 of 3 At its April 19, 2022 meeting, the City Council directed Staff to bring a resolution to the May 3, 2022 meeting to allow the City Council and the City’s legislative bodies to meet virtually, including hybrid meetings, pursuant to AB 361. At its May 3, May 17, June 7, June 21, and July 19, 2022meetings, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 39-22, 48-22, 65-22, 84-22, and 92-22respectively, that included the necessary findings pursuant to AB 361 to allow the City Council and the City’s legislative bodies to meet remotely or in a hybrid format for 30 days. The City meets the requirements to hold meetings remotely in order to ensure the health and safety of the public:·The Governor has declared a State of Emergency, and the City Council has ratified the proclamation of a local emergency by the Director of Emergency Services;·The CDC recommends social distancing of at least six feet due to COVID-19;·There’s been an increase of COVID-19 cases within the state and throughout AlamedaCounty;·Meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, the legislative bodies, and staff.The proposed resolution includes the necessary findings pursuant to AB 361 to allow the City Council and the City’s legislative bodies to meet remotely or in a hybrid format for the next 30 days. The City Council would need to adopt a subsequent resolution declaring the need to continue to meet remotely to allow for such meetings after that 30-day period. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:The City Council Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS:1) Resolution Finding That There is a Proclaimed State of Emergency; Finding That Meeting in Person Would Present Imminent Risks to the Health or Safety of Attendees as a Result of the State of Emergency; and Authorizing Remote Teleconferenced Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Dublin Pursuant to AB 361 54 Attachment 1 Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. xx-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN FINDING THAT THERE IS A PROCLAIMED STATE OF EMERGENCY; FINDING THAT MEETING IN PERSON WOULD PRESENT IMMINENT RISKS TO THE HEALTH OR SAFETY OF ATTENDEES AS A RESULT OF THE STATE OF EMERGENCY; AND AUTHORIZING REMOTE TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN PURSUANT TO AB 361 WHEREAS, all meetings of the City of Dublin’s legislative bodies are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code sections 54950 – 54963), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City’s legislative bodies conduct their business; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State prepare for a broader spread of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (“COVID-19”); and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2020, the City Council adopted a resolution ratifying the proclamation of a local emergency by the Director of Emergency Services due to COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or by other means; and WHEREAS, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 and its successors, the City Council met primarily virtually through September 2021; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21, which, effective September 30, 2021, ended the provisions of Executive Order N-29-20 that allows local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or by other means; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 361 (2021) which allows for local legislative bodies and advisory bodies to conduct meetings via teleconferencing under specified conditions and includes a requirement that the City Council make specified findings. AB 361 (2021) took effect immediately; and WHEREAS, under AB 361 (2021), an agency meeting virtually requires that the Governor declare a State of Emergency pursuant to Government Code section 8625; and WHEREAS, AB 361 (2021) further requires that state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or, requires that the legislative body determines that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees; and WHEREAS, such conditions now exist in the City, specifically, Governor Newsom has 55 Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 2 of 3 declared a State of Emergency due to COVID-19; and WHEREAS, since the issuance of Executive Order N-08-21, the highly contagious Delta variant of COVID-19 has emerged, causing an increase in COVID-19 cases throughout the State and Alameda County; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 2021, the Omicron variant was designated as a variant of concern by the United States; and WHEREAS, cases of the highly contagious Omicron variant, including a subvariant called BA.2, have caused surges of COVID-19 and there has been an increase in cases during the last month in Alameda County; and WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) continues to recommend physical distancing of at least 6 feet from others outside of the household; and WHEREAS, because of the recent rise in COVID-19 cases due in part to the highly contagious Omicron variants of COVID-19, the City is concerned about the health and safety of all individuals who intend to attend City Council and meetings of the City’s other legislative bodies; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the imminent risks of the City’s legislative bodies holding in person meetings to the health or safety of attendees exists due in part to the Omicron variants of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, acting as a legislative body pursuant to Government Code section 54952(a) and for the benefit of all legislative bodies created by the City Council pursuant to Government Code section 54952(b), that the presence of COVID-19 and the Delta and Omicron variants would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, staff, and members; and WHEREAS, teleconference meetings may include hybrid meetings, in which all or some members of the legislative body meet in person while others attend by teleconference, and members of the public are either allowed to participate only by teleconference or both in person and by teleconference (“hybrid meetings”). The purpose of hybrid meetings is to allow for multiple modes of attending meetings while reducing the risks of COVID-19, including the Delta and Omicron variants; and WHEREAS, the City shall ensure that its meetings comply with the provisions required by AB 361 (2021) for holding teleconferenced meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Dublin as follows: 1.The above recitals are true and correct, and incorporated into this Resolution. 2.In compliance with AB 361 (2021), and in order to continue to conduct teleconference meetings without complying with the usual teleconference meeting requirements of the Brown Act, the City Council makes the following findings: a) The City Council has considered the circumstances of the state of emergency; and b) The state of emergency, as declared by the Governor and City Council, and as specifically related to the current increase in cases apparently resulting from the 56 Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 3 of 3 Omicron variant, directly impacts the ability of the City Council and the City’s legislative bodies, as well as staff and members of the public, to meet safely in person; and c) The CDC continues to recommend physical distancing of at least six feet due to COVID-19 and as a result of the presence of COVID-19 and the increase of cases due to the Omicron variant, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, the legislative bodies and staff. 3.City staff is directed to facilitate any teleconference meetings, including hybrid meetings, of the City Council and City’s legislative bodies in compliance with AB 361, in order to better ensure the health and safety of the public for a period of thirty days following the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of August 2022 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 57 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 4 Agenda Item 4.6 DATE:August 16, 2022 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT:City Treasurer's Informational Report of Investments for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2022Preparedby:Chris Rhoades,Financial Analyst EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The City Council will receive an informational report of the City’s investments through the quarter ending June 30, 2022 including a monthly transaction ledger. The City’s investment portfolio for this period totaled $378,308,853 (market value) with an average market yield of 2.48%. As required by the Policy, the City Treasurer (Administrative Services Director) affirms that the City is able to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Receive the report of investments for the quarter ending June 30, 2022. FINANCIAL IMPACT:There is no financial impact resulting from this report. Investments are made in accordance with the City Investment Policy and State Law. Interest earned is apportioned between funds (i.e., General Fund, Gas Tax Fund, etc.) based upon their proportionate share of the total cash balance. Based on the financial needs of the City including the timing of revenues and expenditures, the quarterly cash balance can vary from quarter to quarter. DESCRIPTION:The total investment portfolio (market value) consists of $238,517,564 managed by Chandler Asset Management, and $139,791,289 invested by the City in local government pools, the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and the California Asset Management Program (CAMP). The average market yield of the Chandler portfolio and the local pools was 3.20% and 1.23% respectively. The total investment portfolio balance fluctuates throughout the year due to normal cash flow 58 Page 2 of 4 needs and includes both discretionary and restricted funds. Economic Update HighlightsThe following are some highlights from the Economic Update included in the Investment Report prepared by Chandler (Attachment 1).Financial markets are experiencing heightened volatility and tighter conditions as central banks employ more restrictive monetary policies to combat persistent inflation. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has exacerbated inflationary pressures, particularly with energy and commodities, and strict COVID lockdowns in China are intensifying distressed supply chains. Inflation is weighing heavily on consumer sentiment and beginning to impact discretionary spending. Labor markets remain strong, but wage gains are not keeping up with inflation. While Chandler expects the Fed to continue to tighten monetary policy, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has very little margin for error as it attempts to combat inflation without pushing the economy into a recession. Chandler continues to believe the risk of an economic slowdown later this year has increased. Over the near term, Chandler expects financial market volatility to remain intensified and conditions to remain tighter with persistent inflation, geopolitical risk, supply chain bottlenecks, and the Fed's shift to a more hawkish monetary policy.City of Dublin PortfolioThe City's aggregate portfolio has maintained a healthy balance of investment types with minimal change from the prior quarter as shown below in Chart 1. Chart 1: Investments by TypeJune 30, 2022 and March 31,2022 The market value of the City's portfolio increased by $7,402,752 from the March 31, 2022 quarter. The quarterly change results from the normal fluctuations in the timing of incoming revenue, 59 Page 3 of 4 predominantly the receipt of property tax allocations, and sales tax revenue; and expenditures on Capital Projects; as well as payments to Alameda County for Police and Fire Services. The City’s portfolio increased $46 million from the same quarter the prior year due to the excess of revenues over expenditures trending on an annual basis (see Table 1 below). Overall market yield-to-maturity stays has increased to 2.48% over the prior quarter’s 1.62% (shown in Table 2) due to the factors discussed in the Economic Update Highlights. For detailed monthly transactions, see Attachment 2. Table 1: Portfolio Values and Yield to Maturity Table 2: Quarterly Holdings (Market Value) by Type, and YTM, 5 Quarters June 30, 2021 March 31, 2022 Holdings Market Value Market Value Par Value Book Value Market Value % of Subtotal % of Total Portfolio Book Yield Market Yield Managed by City LAIF 50,323,677 50,424,445 50,464,181 50,464,181 50,464,181 36.1%13.0%0.94%0.94% CAMP 47,323,490 79,661,872 89,240,308 89,240,308 89,240,308 63.9%23.1%1.40%1.40% SUBTOTAL 97,647,167 130,086,317 139,704,489 139,704,489 139,704,489 100.00%36.09%1.23%1.23% Accrued Interest 38,855 36,519 86,800 97,686,022 130,122,836 139,791,289 Managed by Chandler ABS 9,835,052 22,814,841 27,436,052 27,433,321 26,693,153 11.2%7.1%1.46%3.66% Agency 75,581,659 57,293,846 58,320,000 58,550,080 56,641,842 23.8%15.1%1.60%2.97% CMO - 4,052,552 4,000,000 4,184,455 3,966,300 1.7%1.0%1.35%3.36% Money Market 756,163 632,736 3,039,481 3,039,481 3,039,481 1.3%0.8%0.97%0.97% Negotiable CD 2,499,825 4,978,673 2,500,000 2,500,036 2,486,275 1.0%0.6%0.25%2.13% Supranational 19,043,767 19,609,525 20,740,000 20,710,489 19,403,787 8.2%5.4%0.85%2.97% Corporate 54,161,172 66,644,264 65,640,000 66,100,638 62,892,216 26.5%17.0%1.96%3.64% US Treasury 71,745,729 63,976,891 65,750,000 65,431,585 62,468,441 26.3%17.0%1.52%2.99% SUBTOTAL 233,623,366 240,003,327 247,425,533 247,950,085 237,591,496 100.00%63.91%1.57%3.20% Accrued Interest 949,741 779,938 926,068 234,573,108 240,783,265 238,517,564 TOTAL PORTFOLIO 332,259,129 370,906,101 387,130,022 387,654,574 378,308,853 100.00%2.48% 49,045,334 46,049,724 (11,616,776) 7,402,752 June 30, 2022 Change from Prior Year Change from Prior Quarter Holdings (Market Value)6/30/21 9/30/21 12/31/21 3/31/22 6/30/22 LAIF/CAMP 97,647,167 93,494,034 149,433,475 130,086,317 139,704,489 ABS 9,835,052 13,665,558 14,715,444 22,814,841 26,693,153 Agency 75,581,659 65,306,279 64,567,126 57,293,846 56,641,842 CMO - 2,138,464 2,102,544 4,052,552 3,966,300 Money Market 756,163 809,873 287,150 632,736 3,039,481 Negotiable CD 2,499,825 2,500,588 4,996,560 4,978,673 2,486,275 Supranational 19,043,767 22,656,506 22,424,573 19,609,525 19,403,787 Corporate 54,161,172 57,831,563 56,130,717 66,644,264 62,892,216 US Treasury 71,745,729 68,951,352 66,952,848 63,976,891 62,468,441 Accrued Interest 988,596 773,887 912,441 816,458 1,012,868 TOTAL 332,259,129 328,128,102 382,522,878 370,906,101 378,308,853 YIELD TO MATURITY 0.39%0.44%0.60%1.62%2.48% 60 Page 4 of 4 Funds Managed by the City The City participates in two local agency investment pools managed by government finance professionals and treasurers: the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and the California Asset Management Program (CAMP). Recent quarterly yields are shown below.Table 3: Quarterly Portfolio Yields, Recent 8 Quarters STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:The City Council Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS:1) City of Dublin Investment Report for Period Ending June 30, 20222) Transaction Ledger – April through June 2022 Market Yield LAIF CAMP Chandler 6/30/20 1.15%0.48%0.36% 9/30/20 0.66%0.25%0.30% 12/31/20 0.52%0.12%0.27% 3/31/21 0.35%0.07%0.46% 6/30/21 0.25%0.05%0.49% 9/30/21 0.21%0.05%0.56% 12/31/21 0.22%0.05%0.91% 3/31/22 0.42%0.07%2.38% 6/30/22 0.94%1.40%3.20% 61 CHANDLER ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC. | 800.317.4747 | www.chandlerasset.com INVESTMENT REPORT Period Ending June 30, 2022 City of Dublin Attachment 1 62 SECTION 1 Economic Update SECTION 2 Account Profile SECTION 3 Consolidated Information SECTION 4 Portfolio Holdings SECTION 5 Transactions Table of Contents As of June 30, 2022 1 63 SECTION |Section 1 |Economic Update 2 64 Economic Update    Financial markets are experiencing he ightened volatility and tighter conditions as central banks employ more restrictive monetary policies to combat persistent inflation.The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has exacerbated inflationary pressures,particularly with energy and commodities,and strict COVID lockdowns in China are intensifying distressed supply chains.Inflation is weighing heavily on consumer sentiment and beginning to impact discretionary spending.Labor markets remain strong,but wage gains are not keeping up with inflation. While we expect the Fed to continue to tighten monetary policy,the FOMC has very little margin for error as it attempts to combat inflation withoutpushing the economy into a recession.We continue to believe the risk of an economic slowdown later this year has increased.Over the near- term,we expect financial market volatility to remain intensified and conditions to remain tighterwith persistent inflation, geopolitical risk, supply chain bottlenecks, and the Fed's shift to a more hawkish monetary policy. At the June meeting,persistently high inflation led the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)to announce a 0.75% federal funds rate increase to 1.50%-1.75%.Federal Reserve Chair Powell indicated the committee may raise rates by 50 or 75 bps at the July meeting and continue to tighten as needed to dampen inflation.The Fed will continue shrinking its $9 trillion balance sheet by $47 billion per month as of June, increasing to $95 billionin September.We anticipate additional rates hikes as the Fed remains “committed” to the 2%long-term inflation target.In the second half of the year, monetary policy will be dependent on how the economy responds to tighter conditions. In June,yields rose,and the curve flattened.The 2-year Treasury yield soared 40 basis points to 2.96%,the 5-year Treasury yield increased 22 basis points to 3.04%,and the 10-year Treasury yield rose 17 basis points to 3.02%.The spread between the 2-year and 10-year Treasury yield fell to 6 basis points at June month-end, down from 29 basis points at May month-end, and down significantly from 122 basis points one yearago.The spread between 3-month and 10-year treasuries is wider at about 135 basis points but continues to compress with each Fed rate hike.The shape of the curve bears watching but does not indicate a high probability of an imminent recession. 3 65 Source: US Department of Labor Source: US Department of Labor Employment The U.S.economy added 372,000 jobs in June,and job gains in May were revised down to 384,000 from 390,000.Trends in employment remain strong,with the three-month moving average payrolls at 375,000 and the six-month moving average at 457,000.Hiring was led by education and health services,followed by professional and business services,and leisure and hospitality.The unemployment rate remained unchanged at 3.6%for the fourth month,and the U-6 underemployment rate,which includes those who are marginally attached to the labor force and employed part time for economic reasons,declined to a seasonally adjusted 6.7%rate. Average hourly earnings rose 5.1%year-over-year in June,easing from a revised 5.3%year-over-year gain in May,which reflects a continuing,slow deceleration in wage growth that could help ease broad cyclical price pressures.The labor participation rate decreased to 62.2%from 62.3%,suggesting a slower pace for workers returning to the labor market despite higher wages. -5,000 -4,000 -3,000 -2,000 -1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 M O M C h a n g e I n ( 0 0 0 ' s ) Nonfarm Payroll (000's) Non-farm Payroll (000's) 3 month average (000's) 0.0% 4.0% 8.0% 12.0% 16.0% 20.0% 24.0% Unemployment Rate Underemployment Rate (U6) Unemployment Rate (U3) Ra t e ( % ) 4 66 Source: US Department of Labor Source: US Department of Commerce Inflation The Consumer Price Index (CPI)hit a 40-year high in June with broad-based price increases for most goods and services.Headline CPI was up 9.1%year-over-year in June, surpassing expectations,up from 8.6%year-over-year in May.Core CPI (CPI less food and energy)was up 5.9%in June,down from 6.0%in May.Gasoline,shelter,and food were the largest contributors to the increase.The Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE)index was up 6.3%year-over-year in May,unchanged from April.Core PCE was up 4.7%year-over-year in May,versus up 4.9%year-over-year inApril.Persistently elevatedlevels of inflation are likely to keep the Federal Reserve on the path of tightening monetary policy as long as they continue to run well above the Fed’s longer-run target of around 2.0%. 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) PCE Price Deflator YOY % Change PCE Core Deflator YOY % Change YO Y ( % ) C h a n g e 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% Consumer Price Index (CPI) CPI YOY % Change Core CPI YOY % Change Y O Y ( % ) C h a n g e 5 67 Retail sales rose 1.0%in June from an upwardly revised -0.1%in May,led by a significant dollar value increase in gasoline sales.The higher- than-expected results indicate consumer demand is holding up more than expected despite inflation.Retail sales growth is at risk as consumers dip into savings and assume more debt.On a year-over-year basis,retail sales were up 8.4%in June versus up 8.2%revised in May. The Consumer Confidence index fell to 98.7 in June from a downwardly revised 103.2 in May. U.S. consumer savings rates are declining, and the wealth effect is waning from recent financial market declines.While the average consumer still has capacity to spend from accumulated savings,higher wages, and credit lines,consumer balance sheets and discretionary spending decisions are increasingly pressured by elevated gas, food, and shelter costs. Source: US Department of Commerce Source: The Conference Board 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Retail Sales YOY % Change Y O Y ( % ) C h a n g e 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 In d e x L e v e l Consumer Confidence Consumer 6 68 Source: The Conference Board Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Economic Activity The Conference Board’s Leading Economic Index (LEI)decreased more than expected to -0.8%month-over-month in June,following a decline to -0.6%in May.Although the index is still in positive territory at +1.4%year-over-year versus +2.8%in May,the Conference Board indicated that economic growth is slowing and recession risk is increasing due to elevated inflation and monetary policy tightening.The Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI)is unchanged at -0.19.On a 3-month moving average basis,the CFNAI decreased to -0.04 in June from +0.09 in May. -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI) 3 M o n t h A v e r a g e -1.0% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) M O M ( % ) C h a n g e 7 69 Source: US Department of Commerce Source: S&P Housing 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 M O M C h a n g e ( I n T h o u s a n d s o f U n i t s ) Housing Starts Multi Family Housing Starts Single Family Housing Starts 0.0% 3.0% 6.0% 9.0% 12.0% 15.0% 18.0% 21.0% 24.0% S&P/Case -Shiller 20 City Composite Home Price Index YO Y ( % ) C h a n g e Total housing starts declined 2.0%to an annual rate of 1,559,000 in June,from a revised 1,591,000 in units in May.Single-family home starts fell by 8.1%and multi-family increased 15.0%month-over-month.On a year-over-year basis,total housing starts decreased 6.3%,driven by a drop in construction of single-family houses as homebuyers struggle with a combination of elevated prices and higher mortgage rates.According to the Case-Shiller 20-City home price index,home prices were up 21.2%in April versus 21.1%year-over-year in March,setting another new record. While tight supply has continued to support prices, rising mortgage rates and affordability could be headwinds to further price growth. 8 70 Source: Institute for Supply Management Source: Federal Reserve Manufacturing The Institute for Suppl y Management (ISM)manufacturing index dropped sharply to a two-year low of 53.0 in June from 56.1 in May.Readings above 50.0 are indicative of expansion in the manufacturing sector.The decline was primarily driven by weakness in new orders due to softening consumer demand, supply constraints,and labor shortages.On a month-over-month basis,the Industrial Production index declined 0.2%in June,following a revised 0.0%change in May.Capacity utilization declined to 80.0%in June,from an upwardly revised 80.3%in May bringing it in line with its longer run average. 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 Institute of Supply Management Purchasing Manager Index EXPANDING CONTRACTING -20.0% -15.0% -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% Industrial Production YO Y ( % ) C h a n g e 9 71 Source: US Department of Commerce Source: US Department of Commerce 6/21 9/21 12/21 3/22 7.9% 1.4% 1.8% 1.2% -0.7% 2.1% 5.8% 0.9% -0.2% -1.3% -0.2% -3.2% -0.4% -0.4% -0.3% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5% -0.2% -0.1% 6.7% 2.3% 6.9% -1.6% Gross Private Domestic Investment Personal Consumption Expenditures Components of GDP Federal Government Expenditures State and Local (Consumption and Gross Investment) Net Exports and Imports Total -35.0% -30.0% -25.0% -20.0% -15.0% -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Gross Domestic Product (GDP) GDP QOQ % Change GDP YOY % Change Gross Domestic Product (GDP) According to the third estimate,first quarter 2022 GDP contracted at an annualized rate of 1.6%,revised down from the second estimate of a 1.5%decline,and following fourth quarter 2021 growth of 6.9%.The weaker estimate reflects personal consumption expenditures growing at a slower 1.2%rate,as consumers spent more in services offset by a shift away from nondurable goods spending.The widening trade deficit was the most significant contributor to the contraction.The consensus estimate calls for 2.2%growth in the second quarter of 2022 and 2.1% growth for full year 2022. 10 72 Federal Reserve Source: Federal Reserve Source: Bloomberg At the June meeting,persistently high inflation led the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)to announce a 0.75%federal funds rate increase to 1.50%-1.75%.Federal Reserve Chair Powell indicated the committee may raise rates by 50 or 75 bps at the July meeting and continue to tighten as needed to dampen inflation.Dot plotprojections rose significantly from March,with the median fed funds target rate at 3.4%by the end of this year and 3.8%in 2023.The Fed will continue shrinking its $9 trillion balance sheet by $47 billion per month beginning this month, increasing to $95 billion in September.We anticipate additional rates hikes as the Fed remains “committed” to the 2%long-term inflation target.Although the FOMC views the economy as strong,the committee downgraded their economic outlook as trends cool later this year from tightening conditions. 0.00% 0.25% 0.50% 0.75% 1.00% 1.25% 1.50% 1.75% 2.00% 2.25% 2.50% 2.75% Effective Federal Funds Rate Yi e l d ( % ) 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 9,000,000 10,000,000 Federal Reserve Balance Sheet Assets In $ m i l l i o n s 11 73 Source: Bloomberg Source: Bloomberg 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% US Treasury Note Yields 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year Y i e l d ( % ) 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% US Treasury Yield Curve Jun-22 Mar-22 Jun-21 Y i e l d ( % ) Bond Yields At the end of June,the 2-year Treasury yield was 271 basis points higher,and the 10-Year Treasury yield was about 155 basis points higher,year- over-year.The spread between the 2-year Treasury yield and 10-year Treasury yield fell to 6 basis points at June month-end,down from 29 basis points at May month-end,which is narrow compared to the average historical spread (since 2003)of about 130 basis points.The spread between 3-month and 10-year treasuries is wider at about 135 basis points but continues to compress with each Fed rate hike.The shape of the curve bears watching but does not indicate a high probability of an imminent recession. 12 74 Section 2|SECTION |Section 2 |Account Profile 13 75 Objectives Chandler Asset Management Performance Objective The performance objective of the City of Dublin is to earn a return that equals or exceeds the return on of the ICE BofA 1-5 Year Treasury and Agency Index. Investment Objectives The investment objectives of the City of Dublin are first,to provide safety of principal;second,to provide adequate liquidity to meet all requirements which might be reasonably anticipated;third,to attain a market average rate of return on its investments throughout economic cycles;and fourth,to be diversified to avoid incurring unreasonable and avoidable risks regarding specific security types or individual financial institutions. Strategy In order to achieve this objective,the portfolio invests in high quality fixed income instruments consistent with the City's investment policy and California Government Code. As of June 30, 2022 14 76 Compliance As of June 30, 2022 Category Standard Comment U.S. Treasury Issues No limitations; Full faith and credit of the U.S. are pledged for payment of principal and interest.Complies Federal Agencies 35% max per agency issuer; 25% max callables for agency securities; Federal Agencies or U.S. Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE), participations, or other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or U.S. GSEs.Complies Municipal Securities "A" rated or higher by a NRSRO; 5% max per issuer; Obligations of the State of California, any of the other 49 states, or any local agency within the state of California; Complies Supranational Securities "AA" rating category or better by a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization ("NRSRO"); 30% maximum; 10% max per issuer; U.S. dollar denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ("IBRD"), the International Finance Corporation ("IFC") or the Inter-American Development Bank ("IADB") Complies Asset-Backed Securities/Mortgage- Backed Securities/ Collateralized Mortgage Obligations "AA" rated or higher by a NRSRO; 20% maximum (combined); 5% max per issuer Complies Corporate Medium Term Notes "A" rated or higher by a NRSRO; 30% maximum; 5% max per issuer; Issued by corporations organized and operating within the U.S. or by depository institutions licensed by the U.S. or any state and operating within the U.S.Complies Negotiable Certificates of Deposit "A" long-term debt rated and/or "A-1" short-term rated or higher by a NRSRO; 30% maximum; 5% max per issuer; 20% max amount invested in NCDs with any one financial institution in combination with any other debt from that financial institution; Issued by a nationally or state-chartered bank, a savings association or a federal association, a state or federal credit union, or by a state-licensed branch of a foreign bank. Complies Time Deposits/ Certificates of Deposit 10% maximum; Collateralized/FDIC Insured; 1 year max maturity Complies Commercial Paper "A-1" rated or higher by a NRSRO; 25% maximum; 5% max per issuer; 10% max of the outstanding commercial paper of an issuing corporation; 20% max amount invested in CP of any one issuer in combination with any other debt from that issuer; 270 days max maturity; Issuer of the commercial paper shall meet all conditions in either A) (1) Organized and operating in the U.S. as a general corp, (2) Has AUM > $500 million, (3) "A" rated issuer debt (if any) or higher by a NRSRO; or B) (1) Organized in the U.S. as a special purpose corp, trust, LLC, (2) Has program wide credit enhancements including, but not limited to, over collateralization, LOC, or surety bond, (3) "A-1" rated or higher by a NRSRO Complies Banker’s Acceptances "A-1" short-term rated or higher by a NRSRO; 40% maximum; 5% max per issuer; 20% max amount invested in BA with any one financial institution in combination with any other debt from that financial institution; 180 days max maturity Complies Money Market Mutual Funds and Mutual Funds Highest rating or "AAA" rated by two NRSROs; SEC registered adviser with AUM >$500 million and experience > 5 years; 20% maximum in Mutual Funds and Money Market Mutual Funds; 20% max in Money Market Mutual Fund; 10% max per one Mutual Fund Complies Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Maximum permitted by LAIF; Not used by investment adviser Complies California Asset Management Program (CAMP)Issued by joint powers authority organized pursuant to California Government Code; Not used by investment adviser Complies Prohibited Securities Inverse floaters; Ranges notes, Mortgage-derived, Interest-only strips; Any investment in a security not specifically listed as an Authorized and Suitable Investment in the policy.Complies Max Per Issuer 5% max per issuer, except US Government, its Agencies and instrumentalities (including agency backed-mortgage pools), Supranational securities, or Money Market Mutual Funds Complies Maximum Maturity 5 years, unless otherwise stated in the policy Complies City of Dublin Assets managed by Chandler Asset Management are in full compliance with state law and with the City's investment policy. 15 77 Portfolio Characteristics City of Dublin 06/30/22 03/31/22 Benchmark*Portfolio Portfolio Average Maturity (yrs)2.61 2.69 2.71 Average Modified Duration 2.51 2.39 2.45 Average Purchase Yield n/a 1.57%1.52% Average Market Yield 2.98%3.20%2.38% Average Quality**AAA AA/Aa1 AA/Aa1 Total Market Value 238,517,564 240,783,265 *ICE BofA 1-5 Yr US Treasury & Agency Index **Benchmark is a blended rating of S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch. Portfolio is S&P and Moody’s respectively. As of June 30, 2022 16 78 City of Dublin Sector Distribution ABS 11.2% Agency 23.9% CMO 1.7%Corporate 26.5% Money Market Fund 1.3% Negotiable CD 1.0% Supranational 8.2% US Treasury 26.3% June 30, 2022 March 31, 2022 ABS 9.5% Agency 23.9% CMO 1.7% Corporate 27.8% Money Market Fund 0.3% Negotiable CD 2.1% Supranational 8.2% US Treasury 26.6% As of June 30, 2022 17 79 Issue Name Investment Type % Portfolio Government of United States US Treasury 26.28% Federal National Mortgage Association Agency 9.61% Federal Home Loan Bank Agency 7.31% Inter-American Dev Bank Supranational 4.95% Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp Agency 4.24% Intl Bank Recon and Development Supranational 3.20% Federal Farm Credit Bank Agency 2.70% Honda Motor Corporation Corporate 1.86% Hyundai Auto Receivables ABS 1.78% Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp CMO 1.67% JP Morgan Chase & Co Corporate 1.67% Bank of America Corp Corporate 1.51% Amazon.com Inc Corporate 1.47% Qualcomm Inc Corporate 1.47% Royal Bank of Canada Corporate 1.43% Toronto Dominion Holdings Corporate 1.35% Toyota Lease Owner Trust ABS 1.28% First American Govt Oblig Fund Money Market Fund 1.27% Apple Inc Corporate 1.25% John Deere ABS ABS 1.25% Honda ABS ABS 1.23% Metlife Inc Corporate 1.20% Morgan Stanley Corporate 1.19% GM Financial Automobile Leasing Trust ABS 1.11% US Bancorp Corporate 1.06% Svenska Handelsbanken NY Negotiable CD 1.04% Chubb Corporation Corporate 1.04% Honeywell Corp Corporate 0.99% Hyundai Auto Lease Securitization ABS 0.95% Toyota Motor Corp Corporate 0.94% Bank of Montreal Chicago Corporate 0.93% PNC Financial Services Group Corporate 0.93% American Express ABS ABS 0.92% Berkshire Hathaway Corporate 0.92% Deere & Company Corporate 0.83% United Health Group Inc Corporate 0.76% GM Financial Securitized Term Auto Trust ABS 0.76% Charles Schwab Corp/The Corporate 0.75% Issuers City of Dublin –Account #10198 As of June 30, 2022 18 80 Issue Name Investment Type % Portfolio BMW Vehicle Lease Trust ABS 0.59% Target Corp Corporate 0.53% Bank of New York Corporate 0.51% Caterpillar Inc Corporate 0.49% Mercedes-Benz Auto Lease Trust ABS 0.46% Dominion Resources Inc Corporate 0.42% BMW ABS ABS 0.35% Guardian Life Global Funding Corporate 0.31% Merck & Company Corporate 0.31% Toyota ABS ABS 0.28% Nissan ABS ABS 0.23% Wal-Mart Stores Corporate 0.22% Salesforce.com Inc Corporate 0.19% TOTAL 100.00% Issuers City of Dublin –Account #10198 As of June 30, 2022 19 81 AAA AA A <A NR 06/30/22 20.4%56.6%19.7%0.4%3.0% 03/31/22 17.6%59.1%19.0%1.2%3.0% Source: S&P Ratings June 30, 2022 vs. March 31, 2022 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% AAA AA A <A NR 06/30/22 03/31/22 Quality Distribution City of Dublin As of June 30, 2022 20 82 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 0 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.50 0.50 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 5 5+ City of Dublin ICE BofA 1-5 Yr US Treasury & Agency Index Portfolio Compared to the Benchmark 0 -0.25 0.25 -0.50 0.50 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 5 5+ Portfolio 2.3% 1.6% 6.8% 31.5% 28.1% 18.1% 11.6% 0.0% Benchmark*0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 36.1% 27.6% 20.0% 14.5% 0.0% *ICE BofA 1-5 Yr US Treasury & Agency Index Duration Distribution City of Dublin As of June 30, 2022 21 83 -5.00% -4.00% -3.00% -2.00% -1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 12 months 2 years 3 years 5 years 10 years Since Inception City of Dublin ICE BofA 1-5 Yr US Treasury & Agency Index* Total Rate of Return Annualized Since Inception October 31, 2013 Annualized TOTAL RATE OF RETURN 3 months 12 months 2 years 3 years 5 years 10 years Since Inception City of Dublin -0.93%-4.51%-2.18%0.23%1.08%N/A 1.09% ICE BofA 1-5 Yr US Treasury & Agency Index*-0.82%-4.60%-2.45%0.04%0.91%N/A 0.92% *ICE BofA 1-3 Yr US Treasury & Agency Index to 12/31/14 Total rate of return: A measure of a portfolio’s performance over time. It is the internal rate of return,which equates the beginning value of the portfolio with the ending value;it includes interest earnings,realized and unrealized gains and losses in the portfolio. Investment Performance City of Dublin As of June 30, 2022 22 84 Portfolio Characteristics City of Dublin Reporting Account 06/30/22 Portfolio 03/31/22 Portfolio Average Maturity (yrs)0.00 0.00 Modified Duration 0.00 0.00 Average Purchase Yield 1.23%0.32% Average Market Yield 1.23%0.32% Average Quality*AAA/NR AAA/NR Total Market Value 139,791,289 130,122,836 *Portfolio is S&P and Moody’s, respectively. As of June 30, 2022 23 85 City of Dublin Reporting Account Sector Distribution LAIF 36.2% Local Gov Investment Pool 63.8% June 30, 2022 March 31, 2022 LAIF 38.8% Local Gov Investment Pool 61.2% As of June 30, 2022 24 86 Issue Name Investment Type % Portfolio CAMP Local Gov Investment Pool 63.84% Local Agency Investment Fund LAIF 36.16% TOTAL 100.00% Issuers City of Dublin Reporting Account –Account #10219 As of June 30, 2022 25 87 SECTION |Section 3 |Consolidated Information 26 88 Portfolio Characteristics City of Dublin Consolidated 06/30/22 03/31/22 Portfolio Portfolio Average Maturity (yrs)1.70 1.76 Modified Duration 1.51 1.59 Average Purchase Yield 1.45%1.10% Average Market Yield 2.48%1.66% Average Quality*AA+/Aa1 AA+/Aa1 Total Market Value 378,308,853 370,906,101 * Portfolio is S&P and Moody’s respectively. As of June 30, 2022 27 89 City of Dublin Consolidated Sector Distribution ABS 7.1% Agency 15.0% CMO 1.1% Corporate 16.7% LAIF 13.4% Local Gov Investment Pool 23.6% Money Market Fund 0.8% Negotiable CD 0.7% Supranational 5.1% US Treasury 16.6% June 30, 2022 March 31, 2022 ABS 6.2% Agency 15.5% CMO 1.1% Corporate 18.1% LAIF 13.6% Local Gov Investment Pool 21.5% Money Market Fund 0.2% Negotiable CD 1.3% Supranational 5.3% US Treasury 17.3% As of June 30, 2022 28 90 SECTION |Section 4 |Portfolio Holdings 29 91 Holdings Report City of Dublin -Account #10198 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration ABS 44891VAC5 Hyundai Auto Lease Trust 2021-B A3 0.330% Due 06/17/2024 1,420,000.00 06/08/2021 0.34% 1,419,787.00 1,419,885.59 97.40 3.49% 1,383,106.98 208.27 0.58% (36,778.61) Aaa / AAA NR 1.97 0.83 65479JAD5 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2019-C A3 1.930% Due 07/15/2024 542,427.40 10/16/2019 1.94% 542,398.76 542,415.05 99.70 2.98% 540,808.25 465.28 0.23% (1,606.80) Aaa / AAA NR 2.04 0.29 89237VAB5 Toyota Auto Receivables Trust 2020-C A3 0.440% Due 10/15/2024 688,014.31 07/21/2020 0.44% 687,961.34 687,985.54 98.63 3.28% 678,613.28 134.55 0.28% (9,372.26) Aaa / AAA NR 2.30 0.48 43813KAC6 Honda Auto Receivables Trust 2020-3 A3 0.370% Due 10/18/2024 935,334.46 09/22/2020 0.38% 935,197.06 935,273.86 98.19 3.38% 918,395.55 124.97 0.39% (16,878.31) NR / AAA AAA 2.30 0.60 89239CAC3 Toyota Lease Owner Trust 2021-B A3 0.420% Due 10/21/2024 1,090,000.00 07/27/2021 0.40% 1,089,985.28 1,089,990.72 96.35 3.69% 1,050,260.78 139.88 0.44% (39,729.94) Aaa / NR AAA 2.31 1.13 47787NAC3 John Deere Owner Trust 2020-B A3 0.510% Due 11/15/2024 320,275.78 07/14/2020 0.52% 320,226.97 320,254.18 98.35 3.33% 314,996.67 72.60 0.13% (5,257.51) Aaa / NR AAA 2.38 0.58 58769KAD6 Mercedes-Benz Auto Lease Trust 2021-B A3 0.400% Due 11/15/2024 1,135,000.00 06/22/2021 0.40% 1,134,914.31 1,134,948.13 96.81 3.55% 1,098,819.61 201.78 0.46% (36,128.52) NR / AAA AAA 2.38 1.02 09690AAC7 BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2021-2 A3 0.330% Due 12/26/2024 710,000.00 09/08/2021 0.34% 709,926.73 709,952.21 97.07 3.49% 689,192.04 39.05 0.29% (20,760.17) Aaa / NR AAA 2.49 0.93 44891WAC3 Hyundai Auto Lease Trust 2022-A A3 1.160% Due 01/15/2025 910,000.00 01/11/2022 1.16% 909,979.89 909,983.90 96.61 3.66% 879,118.24 469.16 0.37% (30,865.66) Aaa / AAA NR 2.55 1.37 89238LAC4 Toyota Lease Owner Trust 2022-A A3 1.960% Due 02/20/2025 2,045,000.00 02/23/2022 1.98% 2,044,678.12 2,044,725.08 97.47 3.55% 1,993,189.93 1,224.73 0.84% (51,535.15) NR / AAA AAA 2.65 1.61 36265MAC9 GM Financial Auto Lease Trust 2022-1 A3 1.900% Due 03/20/2025 1,680,000.00 02/15/2022 1.91% 1,679,985.55 1,679,987.90 97.35 3.70% 1,635,417.84 975.33 0.69% (44,570.06) Aaa / NR AAA 2.72 1.50 05601XAC3 BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2022-1 A3 1.100% Due 03/25/2025 755,000.00 01/11/2022 1.05% 754,887.13 754,910.24 96.55 3.84% 728,948.73 138.42 0.31% (25,961.51) NR / AAA AAA 2.74 1.27 36266FAC3 GM Financial Auto Lease Trust 2022-2 A3 3.420% Due 06/20/2025 1,020,000.00 05/03/2022 3.45% 1,019,893.61 1,019,900.38 99.49 3.74% 1,014,790.86 1,065.90 0.43% (5,109.52) NR / AAA AAA 2.98 1.71 47788UAC6 John Deere Owner Trust 2021-A A3 0.360% Due 09/15/2025 800,000.00 03/02/2021 0.37% 799,846.24 799,902.13 96.15 3.93% 769,206.40 128.00 0.32% (30,695.73) Aaa / NR AAA 3.21 1.08 44933LAC7 Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2021-A A3 0.380% Due 09/15/2025 725,000.00 04/20/2021 0.38% 724,923.73 724,953.13 96.59 3.80% 700,271.70 122.44 0.29% (24,681.43) NR / AAA AAA 3.21 1.00 44934KAC8 Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2021-B A3 0.380% Due 01/15/2026 2,065,000.00 07/20/2021 0.39% 2,064,544.25 2,064,678.79 96.00 3.62% 1,982,402.07 348.76 0.83% (82,276.72) NR / AAA AAA 3.55 1.25 43815GAC3 Honda Auto Receivables Trust 2021-4 A3 0.880% Due 01/21/2026 765,000.00 11/16/2021 0.89% 764,838.74 764,868.54 95.37 3.78% 729,605.75 187.00 0.31% (35,262.79) Aaa / NR AAA 3.56 1.62 As of June 30, 2022 30 92 Holdings Report City of Dublin -Account #10198 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration 47789QAC4 John Deere Owner Trust 2021-B A3 0.520% Due 03/16/2026 965,000.00 07/13/2021 0.52% 964,913.92 964,936.20 94.89 3.90% 915,720.35 223.02 0.38% (49,215.85) Aaa / NR AAA 3.71 1.53 44935FAD6 Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2021-C A3 0.740% Due 05/15/2026 545,000.00 11/09/2021 0.75% 544,878.36 544,902.16 95.56 3.57% 520,775.84 179.24 0.22% (24,126.32) NR / AAA AAA 3.88 1.59 43815BAC4 Honda Auto Receivables Trust 2022-1 A3 1.880% Due 05/15/2026 1,315,000.00 02/15/2022 1.89% 1,314,802.22 1,314,823.73 96.81 3.55% 1,273,009.42 1,098.76 0.53% (41,814.31) Aaa / AAA NR 3.88 1.94 05602RAD3 BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2022-A A3 3.210% Due 08/25/2026 850,000.00 05/10/2022 3.23% 849,955.80 849,957.51 98.96 4.46% 841,147.25 454.75 0.35% (8,810.26) Aaa / AAA NR 4.16 0.85 362554AC1 GM Financial Securitized Term 2021-4 A3 0.680% Due 09/16/2026 585,000.00 10/13/2021 0.66% 584,985.08 584,988.12 94.95 4.17% 555,429.42 165.75 0.23% (29,558.70) Aaa / AAA NR 4.22 1.47 47787JAC2 John Deere Owner Trust 2022-A A3 2.320% Due 09/16/2026 1,005,000.00 03/10/2022 2.34% 1,004,777.69 1,004,796.29 97.45 3.74% 979,401.65 1,036.27 0.41% (25,394.64) Aaa / NR AAA 4.22 1.82 448977AD0 Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2022-A A3 2.220% Due 10/15/2026 1,080,000.00 03/09/2022 2.23% 1,079,958.42 1,079,962.17 96.92 3.83% 1,046,737.09 1,065.60 0.44% (33,225.08) NR / AAA AAA 4.30 1.95 380146AC4 GM Financial Auto Receivables 2022-1 A3 1.260% Due 11/16/2026 500,000.00 01/11/2022 1.23% 499,956.55 499,962.39 95.68 4.09% 478,385.00 262.50 0.20% (21,577.39) NR / AAA AAA 4.38 1.55 362585AC5 GM Financial Securitized ART 2022-2 A3 3.100% Due 02/16/2027 780,000.00 04/05/2022 3.13% 779,836.98 779,847.27 99.09 3.60% 772,935.54 1,007.50 0.32% (6,911.73) Aaa / AAA NR 4.64 1.90 02582JJT8 American Express Credit Trust 2022-2 A 3.390% Due 05/17/2027 2,205,000.00 05/17/2022 3.42% 2,204,512.25 2,204,529.30 99.89 3.46% 2,202,466.46 3,322.20 0.92% (2,062.84) NR / AAA AAA 4.88 2.68 TOTAL ABS 27,436,051.95 1.46% 27,432,551.98 27,433,320.51 3.66% 26,693,152.70 14,861.71 11.20% (740,167.81) Aaa / AAA Aaa 3.28 1.43 Agency 3135G0T94 FNMA Note 2.375% Due 01/19/2023 2,500,000.00 03/28/2018 2.70% 2,463,675.00 2,495,823.76 99.94 2.48% 2,498,550.00 26,718.75 1.06% 2,726.24 Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.56 0.54 313383QR5 FHLB Note 3.250% Due 06/09/2023 1,500,000.00 08/28/2018 2.87% 1,525,005.00 1,504,915.02 100.30 2.92% 1,504,512.00 2,979.17 0.63% (403.02) Aaa / AA+ NR 0.94 0.92 3137EAEN5 FHLMC Note 2.750% Due 06/19/2023 2,000,000.00 07/16/2018 2.88% 1,988,360.00 1,997,714.73 99.74 3.03% 1,994,700.00 1,833.33 0.84% (3,014.73) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.97 0.95 3135G05G4 FNMA Note 0.250% Due 07/10/2023 2,350,000.00 07/08/2020 0.32% 2,344,947.50 2,348,274.31 97.35 2.88% 2,287,769.65 2,790.63 0.96% (60,504.66) Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.03 1.01 3133EKZK5 FFCB Note 1.600% Due 08/14/2023 4,000,000.00 08/26/2019 1.54% 4,009,000.00 4,002,542.13 98.53 2.94% 3,941,212.00 24,355.56 1.66% (61,330.13) Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.12 1.09 313383YJ4 FHLB Note 3.375% Due 09/08/2023 5,000,000.00 Various 2.90% 5,102,615.00 5,025,954.17 100.51 2.93% 5,025,585.00 52,968.76 2.13% (369.17) Aaa / AA+ NR 1.19 1.15 As of June 30, 2022 31 93 Holdings Report City of Dublin -Account #10198 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration 3130A0F70 FHLB Note 3.375% Due 12/08/2023 5,000,000.00 Various 2.73% 5,147,870.00 5,043,218.79 100.57 2.97% 5,028,390.00 10,781.25 2.11% (14,828.79) Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.44 1.39 3135G0V34 FNMA Note 2.500% Due 02/05/2024 2,000,000.00 02/27/2019 2.58% 1,992,340.00 1,997,518.89 99.36 2.91% 1,987,122.00 20,277.78 0.84% (10,396.89) Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.60 1.54 3130A1XJ2 FHLB Note 2.875% Due 06/14/2024 3,795,000.00 Various 1.96% 3,958,639.85 3,859,091.59 99.72 3.02% 3,784,415.75 5,152.24 1.59% (74,675.84) Aaa / AA+ NR 1.96 1.88 3133EKWV4 FFCB Note 1.850% Due 07/26/2024 2,500,000.00 08/13/2019 1.65% 2,524,140.00 2,510,093.94 97.97 2.87% 2,449,265.00 19,913.19 1.04% (60,828.94) Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.07 2.00 3130A2UW4 FHLB Note 2.875% Due 09/13/2024 2,000,000.00 10/10/2019 1.58% 2,122,020.00 2,054,600.39 99.67 3.03% 1,993,472.00 17,250.00 0.84% (61,128.39) Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.21 2.10 3135G0W66 FNMA Note 1.625% Due 10/15/2024 2,000,000.00 11/08/2019 1.80% 1,983,400.00 1,992,276.71 97.00 2.99% 1,939,918.00 6,861.11 0.82% (52,358.71) Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.30 2.22 3135G0X24 FNMA Note 1.625% Due 01/07/2025 4,200,000.00 Various 1.18% 4,287,898.80 4,245,841.16 96.64 3.02% 4,058,766.60 32,987.50 1.72% (187,074.56) Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.53 2.42 3137EAEP0 FHLMC Note 1.500% Due 02/12/2025 4,200,000.00 Various 1.23% 4,254,786.30 4,229,057.72 96.21 3.02% 4,040,660.40 24,325.00 1.70% (188,397.32) Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.62 2.52 3135G03U5 FNMA Note 0.625% Due 04/22/2025 1,825,000.00 04/22/2020 0.67% 1,821,240.50 1,822,885.28 93.60 3.02% 1,708,132.48 2,186.20 0.72% (114,752.80) Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.81 2.75 3135G04Z3 FNMA Note 0.500% Due 06/17/2025 3,435,000.00 06/17/2020 0.54% 3,427,889.55 3,430,782.07 92.85 3.04% 3,189,431.85 667.92 1.34% (241,350.22) Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.97 2.90 3137EAEU9 FHLMC Note 0.375% Due 07/21/2025 1,745,000.00 07/21/2020 0.48% 1,736,309.90 1,739,683.03 92.34 3.02% 1,611,291.12 2,908.33 0.68% (128,391.91) Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.06 2.99 3135G05X7 FNMA Note 0.375% Due 08/25/2025 2,755,000.00 08/25/2020 0.47% 2,742,106.60 2,746,863.87 91.94 3.08% 2,532,869.86 3,615.94 1.06% (213,994.01) Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.16 3.08 3137EAEX3 FHLMC Note 0.375% Due 09/23/2025 2,655,000.00 09/23/2020 0.44% 2,647,008.45 2,649,830.03 91.79 3.06% 2,437,143.98 2,710.31 1.02% (212,686.05) Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.24 3.16 3135G06G3 FNMA Note 0.500% Due 11/07/2025 2,860,000.00 11/09/2020 0.57% 2,849,761.20 2,853,112.28 91.91 3.06% 2,628,634.58 2,145.00 1.10% (224,477.70) Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.36 3.28 TOTAL Agency 58,320,000.00 1.60% 58,929,013.65 58,550,079.87 2.97% 56,641,842.27 263,427.97 23.86% (1,908,237.60) Aaa / AA+ Aaa 2.01 1.95 CMO 3137BFE98 FHLMC K041 A2 3.171% Due 10/25/2024 2,000,000.00 07/01/2021 0.72% 2,151,406.25 2,105,420.76 99.53 3.32% 1,990,626.00 5,285.00 0.84% (114,794.76) Aaa / AAA AAA 2.32 2.11 As of June 30, 2022 32 94 Holdings Report City of Dublin -Account #10198 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration 3137BSRE5 FHLMC K059 A2 3.120% Due 09/25/2026 2,000,000.00 02/18/2022 1.98% 2,085,625.00 2,079,034.47 98.78 3.41% 1,975,674.00 5,200.00 0.83% (103,360.47) NR / AAA AAA 4.24 3.81 TOTAL CMO 4,000,000.00 1.35% 4,237,031.25 4,184,455.23 3.36% 3,966,300.00 10,485.00 1.67% (218,155.23) Aaa / AAA Aaa 3.28 2.96 Corporate 58933YAF2 Merck & Co Note 2.800% Due 05/18/2023 740,000.00 10/26/2018 3.41% 720,996.80 736,327.50 99.65 3.20% 737,423.32 2,474.89 0.31% 1,095.82 A1 / A+ A+ 0.88 0.86 46625HRL6 JP Morgan Chase Callable Note Cont 3/18/2023 2.700% Due 05/18/2023 500,000.00 12/20/2018 3.74% 479,055.00 495,813.61 99.55 3.22% 497,730.50 1,612.50 0.21% 1,916.89 A2 / A- AA- 0.88 0.86 69353RFL7 PNC Bank Callable Note Cont 5/9/2023 3.500% Due 06/08/2023 2,210,000.00 Various 3.53% 2,206,955.80 2,209,428.82 100.01 3.49% 2,210,179.01 4,941.80 0.93% 750.19 A2 / A A+ 0.94 0.91 02665WCJ8 American Honda Finance Note 3.450% Due 07/14/2023 1,000,000.00 Various 3.54% 996,275.00 999,165.90 100.06 3.39% 1,000,616.00 16,004.17 0.43% 1,450.10 A3 / A- A 1.04 1.00 06406RAJ6 Bank of NY Mellon Corp Note 3.450% Due 08/11/2023 1,200,000.00 08/24/2018 3.42% 1,201,836.00 1,200,412.06 100.30 3.17% 1,203,616.80 16,100.00 0.51% 3,204.74 A1 / A AA- 1.12 1.07 06051GHF9 Bank of America Corp Callable Note 1X 3/5/2023 3.550% Due 03/05/2024 2,400,000.00 Various 3.15% 2,434,650.00 2,407,821.63 99.71 3.55% 2,392,987.20 27,453.33 1.01% (14,834.43) A2 / A- AA- 1.68 1.60 89114QCB2 Toronto Dominion Bank Note 3.250% Due 03/11/2024 2,300,000.00 03/26/2019 2.95% 2,331,234.00 2,310,681.68 99.50 3.56% 2,288,403.40 22,840.28 0.97% (22,278.28) A1 / A AA- 1.70 1.62 037833CU2 Apple Inc Callable Note Cont 3/11/2024 2.850% Due 05/11/2024 3,000,000.00 Various 2.56% 3,038,334.00 3,014,021.07 99.37 3.20% 2,980,968.00 11,875.00 1.25% (33,053.07) Aaa / AA+ NR 1.87 1.79 023135BW5 Amazon.com Inc Note 0.450% Due 05/12/2024 1,865,000.00 05/10/2021 0.50% 1,862,277.10 1,863,308.13 95.16 3.14% 1,774,676.19 1,142.31 0.74% (88,631.94) A1 / AA AA- 1.87 1.83 24422ETT6 John Deere Capital Corp Note 2.650% Due 06/24/2024 2,000,000.00 Various 1.32% 2,093,680.00 2,051,264.55 98.80 3.28% 1,976,000.00 1,030.56 0.83% (75,264.55) A2 / A A 1.99 1.91 02665WCZ2 American Honda Finance Note 2.400% Due 06/27/2024 1,500,000.00 07/10/2019 2.49% 1,493,742.00 1,497,489.20 97.77 3.57% 1,466,601.00 400.00 0.62% (30,888.20) A3 / A- A 1.99 1.92 79466LAG9 Salesforce.com Inc Callable Note Cont 7/15/2022 0.625% Due 07/15/2024 465,000.00 06/29/2021 0.64% 464,762.85 464,839.24 94.71 3.33% 440,408.01 1,340.10 0.19% (24,431.23) A2 / A+ NR 2.04 1.99 78013XZU5 Royal Bank of Canada Note 2.550% Due 07/16/2024 2,500,000.00 09/10/2019 2.28% 2,531,325.00 2,513,209.98 97.73 3.71% 2,443,162.50 29,218.75 1.04% (70,047.48) A1 / A AA- 2.05 1.95 46647PAU0 JP Morgan Chase & Co Callable Note 1X 7/23/2023 3.797% Due 07/23/2024 2,500,000.00 09/12/2019 2.35% 2,632,175.00 2,536,381.03 99.67 3.67% 2,491,827.50 41,661.53 1.06% (44,553.53) A2 / A- AA- 2.07 1.93 02665WEA5 American Honda Finance Note 1.500% Due 01/13/2025 1,075,000.00 01/11/2022 1.53% 1,074,150.75 1,074,281.70 94.97 3.59% 1,020,941.48 7,525.00 0.43% (53,340.22) A3 / A- A 2.54 2.43 As of June 30, 2022 33 95 Holdings Report City of Dublin -Account #10198 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration 90331HPL1 US Bank NA Callable Note Cont 12/21/2024 2.050% Due 01/21/2025 2,610,000.00 01/16/2020 2.10% 2,604,440.70 2,607,154.93 96.14 3.64% 2,509,316.64 23,780.00 1.06% (97,838.29) A1 / AA- AA- 2.56 2.44 00440EAS6 Chubb INA Holdings Inc Note 3.150% Due 03/15/2025 2,500,000.00 Various 0.76% 2,753,600.00 2,658,756.07 98.33 3.80% 2,458,165.00 23,187.50 1.04% (200,591.07) A3 / A A 2.71 2.54 14913R2V8 Caterpillar Financial Service Note 3.400% Due 05/13/2025 1,165,000.00 05/10/2022 3.44% 1,163,520.45 1,163,586.60 99.83 3.46% 1,163,046.30 5,281.33 0.49% (540.30) A2 / A A 2.87 2.70 747525AF0 Qualcomm Inc Callable Note Cont 2/20/2025 3.450% Due 05/20/2025 3,500,000.00 Various 1.78% 3,686,490.00 3,662,722.95 99.58 3.60% 3,485,275.50 13,752.09 1.47% (177,447.45) A2 / A NR 2.89 2.72 61747YEA9 Morgan Stanley Callable Note Cont 5/30/2024 0.790% Due 05/30/2025 3,040,000.00 05/26/2021 0.77% 3,041,611.70 3,041,029.78 93.30 3.66% 2,836,368.64 2,068.05 1.19% (204,661.14) A1 / A- A 2.92 2.83 438516CB0 Honeywell Intl Callable Note Cont 5/1/2025 1.350% Due 06/01/2025 2,500,000.00 06/23/2020 0.85% 2,559,500.00 2,534,772.73 94.21 3.45% 2,355,240.00 2,812.50 0.99% (179,532.73) A2 / A A 2.92 2.82 78015K7H1 Royal Bank of Canada Note 1.150% Due 06/10/2025 1,000,000.00 02/22/2021 0.86% 1,012,240.00 1,008,396.94 92.60 3.83% 926,043.00 670.83 0.39% (82,353.94) A1 / A AA- 2.95 2.85 02665WDL2 American Honda Finance Note 1.200% Due 07/08/2025 1,000,000.00 08/10/2021 1.00% 1,007,640.00 1,005,909.48 92.37 3.90% 923,736.00 5,766.67 0.39% (82,173.48) A3 / A- A 3.02 2.90 89114QCK2 Toronto Dominion Bank Note 0.750% Due 09/11/2025 1,000,000.00 02/16/2021 0.81% 997,230.00 998,058.01 90.37 3.99% 903,730.00 2,291.67 0.38% (94,328.01) A1 / A AA- 3.20 3.09 06051GHY8 Bank of America Corp Callable Note Cont 2/13/2025 2.015% Due 02/13/2026 1,250,000.00 03/04/2021 1.14% 1,291,725.00 1,277,797.32 93.81 4.12% 1,172,585.00 9,655.21 0.50% (105,212.32) A2 / A- AA- 3.63 3.40 46647PBH8 JP Morgan Chase & Co Callable Note Mthly 3/13/2025 2.005% Due 03/13/2026 1,000,000.00 04/29/2021 1.20% 1,030,270.00 1,021,122.59 93.72 4.14% 937,248.00 6,015.00 0.40% (83,874.59) A2 / A- AA- 3.70 3.48 808513BR5 Charles Schwab Corp Callable Note Cont 4/13/2026 1.150% Due 05/13/2026 1,370,000.00 05/11/2021 1.20% 1,366,821.60 1,367,542.22 90.32 3.87% 1,237,401.81 2,100.67 0.52% (130,140.41) A2 / A A 3.87 3.71 91324PEC2 United Health Group Inc Callable Note Cont 4/15/2026 1.150% Due 05/15/2026 2,000,000.00 Various 1.90% 1,939,210.15 1,944,034.67 90.77 3.73% 1,815,304.00 2,938.90 0.76% (128,730.67) A3 / A+ A 3.88 3.72 89236TJK2 Toyota Motor Credit Corp Note 1.125% Due 06/18/2026 2,485,000.00 06/15/2021 1.13% 2,483,906.60 2,484,132.94 90.43 3.74% 2,247,073.68 1,009.53 0.94% (237,059.26) A1 / A+ A+ 3.97 3.81 58989V2D5 Met Tower Global Funding Note 1.250% Due 09/14/2026 1,285,000.00 09/07/2021 1.27% 1,283,817.80 1,284,005.55 88.88 4.16% 1,142,129.85 4,774.13 0.48% (141,875.70) Aa3 / AA- AA- 4.21 4.00 06368FAC3 Bank of Montreal Note 1.250% Due 09/15/2026 2,500,000.00 Various 1.29% 2,495,539.50 2,496,245.46 88.70 4.21% 2,217,577.50 9,201.39 0.93% (278,667.96) A2 / A- AA- 4.21 4.00 As of June 30, 2022 34 96 Holdings Report City of Dublin -Account #10198 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration 931142ER0 Wal-Mart Stores Callable Note Cont 08/17/2026 1.050% Due 09/17/2026 585,000.00 09/08/2021 1.09% 583,894.35 584,068.13 91.05 3.34% 532,670.00 1,774.50 0.22% (51,398.13) Aa2 / AA AA 4.22 4.05 59217GER6 Metlife Note 1.875% Due 01/11/2027 1,860,000.00 01/03/2022 1.90% 1,857,879.60 1,858,078.17 90.87 4.10% 1,690,215.48 16,468.75 0.72% (167,862.69) Aa3 / AA- AA- 4.54 4.23 87612EBM7 Target Corp Callable Note Cont 12/15/2026 1.950% Due 01/15/2027 1,340,000.00 01/19/2022 1.99% 1,337,722.00 1,337,920.09 92.89 3.66% 1,244,772.90 11,395.58 0.53% (93,147.19) A2 / A A 4.55 4.24 808513BY0 Charles Schwab Corp Callable Note Cont 2/3/2027 2.450% Due 03/03/2027 585,000.00 03/01/2022 2.47% 584,368.20 584,409.72 93.40 4.01% 546,361.34 4,697.88 0.23% (38,048.38) A2 / A A 4.68 4.31 084664CZ2 Berkshire Hathaway Callable Note Cont 2/15/2027 2.300% Due 03/15/2027 2,295,000.00 03/07/2022 2.30% 2,294,563.95 2,294,589.74 94.59 3.56% 2,170,888.69 15,542.25 0.92% (123,701.05) Aa2 / AA A+ 4.71 4.37 40139LBF9 Guardian Life Glob Fun Note 3.246% Due 03/29/2027 765,000.00 03/24/2022 3.25% 765,000.00 765,000.00 96.88 3.97% 741,105.23 6,345.93 0.31% (23,894.77) Aa2 / AA+ NR 4.75 4.31 023135CF1 Amazon.com Inc Callable Note Cont 3/13/2027 3.300% Due 04/13/2027 1,750,000.00 04/25/2022 3.34% 1,746,972.50 1,747,081.10 98.22 3.71% 1,718,913.00 12,512.50 0.73% (28,168.10) A1 / AA AA- 4.79 4.35 927804GH1 Virginia Electric Power Corp Callable Note Cont. 4/15/2027 3.750% Due 05/15/2027 1,000,000.00 Various 3.75% 999,773.40 999,776.75 99.15 3.94% 991,508.00 3,229.17 0.42% (8,268.75) A2 / BBB+ A 4.88 4.40 TOTAL Corporate 65,640,000.00 1.96% 66,449,186.80 66,100,638.04 3.64% 62,892,216.47 372,892.25 26.52% (3,208,421.57) A1 / A A+ 2.87 2.72 Money Market Fund 31846V203 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 3,039,481.06 Various 0.97% 3,039,481.06 3,039,481.06 1.00 0.97% 3,039,481.06 0.00 1.27% 0.00 Aaa / AAA AAA 0.00 0.00 TOTAL Money Market Fund 3,039,481.06 0.97% 3,039,481.06 3,039,481.06 0.97% 3,039,481.06 0.00 1.27% 0.00 Aaa / AAA Aaa 0.00 0.00 Negotiable CD 86959RTW0 Svenska Handelsbanken NY Yankee CD 0.255% Due 10/14/2022 2,500,000.00 10/15/2021 0.25% 2,500,126.08 2,500,036.37 99.45 2.13% 2,486,275.00 4,586.46 1.04% (13,761.37) P-1 / A-1+ F-1+ 0.29 0.29 TOTAL Negotiable CD 2,500,000.00 0.25% 2,500,126.08 2,500,036.37 2.13% 2,486,275.00 4,586.46 1.04% (13,761.37) Aaa / AAA Aaa 0.29 0.29 Supranational 4581X0CZ9 Inter-American Dev Bank Note 1.750% Due 09/14/2022 2,500,000.00 11/28/2017 2.18% 2,451,675.00 2,497,927.74 99.93 2.07% 2,498,330.00 13,003.47 1.05% 402.26 Aaa / AAA AAA 0.21 0.20 As of June 30, 2022 35 97 Holdings Report City of Dublin -Account #10198 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration 4581X0DZ8 Inter-American Dev Bank Note 0.500% Due 09/23/2024 3,680,000.00 09/15/2021 0.52% 3,677,276.80 3,677,974.99 94.58 3.03% 3,480,396.80 5,008.89 1.46% (197,578.19) Aaa / AAA NR 2.24 2.18 459058JB0 Intl. Bank Recon & Development Note 0.625% Due 04/22/2025 2,260,000.00 04/15/2020 0.70% 2,251,253.80 2,255,085.65 93.41 3.09% 2,111,038.88 2,707.29 0.89% (144,046.77) Aaa / AAA NR 2.81 2.74 4581X0DN5 Inter-American Dev Bank Note 0.625% Due 07/15/2025 1,685,000.00 01/13/2021 0.53% 1,692,329.75 1,689,954.95 92.70 3.16% 1,561,986.58 4,856.08 0.66% (127,968.37) Aaa / AAA NR 3.04 2.96 459058JL8 Intl. Bank Recon & Development Note 0.500% Due 10/28/2025 6,000,000.00 Various 0.55% 5,986,632.00 5,990,623.73 91.80 3.11% 5,507,772.00 5,250.00 2.31% (482,851.73) Aaa / AAA AAA 3.33 3.25 4581X0DV7 Inter-American Dev Bank Note 0.875% Due 04/20/2026 4,615,000.00 04/13/2021 0.97% 4,593,863.30 4,598,921.75 91.97 3.13% 4,244,263.21 7,964.08 1.78% (354,658.54) Aaa / AAA AAA 3.81 3.68 TOTAL Supranational 20,740,000.00 0.85% 20,653,030.65 20,710,488.81 2.97% 19,403,787.47 38,789.81 8.15% (1,306,701.34) Aaa / AAA Aaa 2.76 2.68 US Treasury 912828R69 US Treasury Note 1.625% Due 05/31/2023 1,500,000.00 05/30/2018 2.67% 1,427,167.97 1,486,678.04 98.85 2.91% 1,482,715.50 2,064.55 0.62% (3,962.54) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.92 0.90 912828U57 US Treasury Note 2.125% Due 11/30/2023 5,000,000.00 Various 2.53% 4,908,242.19 4,973,173.87 98.91 2.91% 4,945,705.00 8,999.32 2.08% (27,468.87) Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.42 1.38 912828V80 US Treasury Note 2.250% Due 01/31/2024 5,000,000.00 Various 2.32% 4,983,691.41 4,994,630.31 98.94 2.94% 4,946,875.00 46,926.80 2.09% (47,755.31) Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.59 1.53 912828WJ5 US Treasury Note 2.500% Due 05/15/2024 1,750,000.00 06/10/2019 1.91% 1,798,261.72 1,768,339.45 99.18 2.95% 1,735,713.00 5,587.64 0.73% (32,626.45) Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.88 1.81 9128282N9 US Treasury Note 2.125% Due 07/31/2024 2,000,000.00 08/30/2019 1.44% 2,064,531.25 2,027,327.93 98.33 2.95% 1,966,640.00 17,727.90 0.83% (60,687.93) Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.09 2.00 912828YH7 US Treasury Note 1.500% Due 09/30/2024 3,500,000.00 Various 1.65% 3,474,941.41 3,488,366.75 96.82 2.97% 3,388,847.00 13,196.72 1.43% (99,519.75) Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.25 2.18 9128283J7 US Treasury Note 2.125% Due 11/30/2024 3,000,000.00 Various 1.76% 3,051,650.40 3,025,180.13 98.02 2.98% 2,940,585.00 5,399.59 1.24% (84,595.13) Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.42 2.33 91282CDZ1 US Treasury Note 1.500% Due 02/15/2025 2,000,000.00 05/06/2022 2.92% 1,925,156.25 1,929,072.06 96.21 3.01% 1,924,296.00 11,270.72 0.81% (4,776.06) Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.63 2.53 912828ZC7 US Treasury Note 1.125% Due 02/28/2025 3,500,000.00 03/24/2020 0.52% 3,603,222.66 3,555,766.60 95.27 2.98% 3,334,569.00 13,160.67 1.40% (221,197.60) Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.67 2.59 91282CED9 US Treasury Note 1.750% Due 03/15/2025 2,000,000.00 03/15/2022 2.00% 1,985,312.50 1,986,747.72 96.78 3.00% 1,935,624.00 10,271.74 0.82% (51,123.72) Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.71 2.60 As of June 30, 2022 36 98 Holdings Report City of Dublin -Account #10198 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration 912828ZL7 US Treasury Note 0.375% Due 04/30/2025 4,000,000.00 Various 0.38% 3,998,593.75 3,999,183.11 92.91 3.00% 3,716,248.00 2,527.18 1.56% (282,935.11) Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.84 2.78 91282CAM3 US Treasury Note 0.250% Due 09/30/2025 2,500,000.00 10/16/2020 0.32% 2,491,406.25 2,494,354.85 91.46 3.03% 2,286,620.00 1,571.04 0.96% (207,734.85) Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.25 3.19 91282CBC4 US Treasury Note 0.375% Due 12/31/2025 1,000,000.00 12/29/2020 0.38% 999,921.88 999,945.28 91.25 3.03% 912,461.00 10.19 0.38% (87,484.28) Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.51 3.43 91282CBH3 US Treasury Note 0.375% Due 01/31/2026 4,000,000.00 02/23/2021 0.58% 3,960,625.00 3,971,375.55 91.04 3.03% 3,641,564.00 6,256.91 1.53% (329,811.55) Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.59 3.50 91282CBQ3 US Treasury Note 0.500% Due 02/28/2026 2,500,000.00 03/26/2021 0.83% 2,459,960.94 2,470,187.95 91.26 3.04% 2,281,445.00 4,177.99 0.96% (188,742.95) Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.67 3.58 91282CBT7 US Treasury Note 0.750% Due 03/31/2026 5,000,000.00 Various 0.85% 4,974,804.69 4,981,047.01 91.96 3.03% 4,598,240.00 9,426.23 1.93% (382,807.01) Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.75 3.64 91282CCF6 US Treasury Note 0.750% Due 05/31/2026 2,000,000.00 06/18/2021 0.91% 1,985,000.00 1,988,116.34 91.61 3.04% 1,832,266.00 1,270.49 0.77% (155,850.34) Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.92 3.81 91282CCW9 US Treasury Note 0.750% Due 08/31/2026 2,000,000.00 08/30/2021 0.77% 1,998,515.63 1,998,762.75 91.15 3.02% 1,823,046.00 5,013.59 0.77% (175,716.75) Aaa / AA+ AAA 4.17 4.04 91282CDG3 US Treasury Note 1.125% Due 10/31/2026 5,000,000.00 Various 1.25% 4,970,498.06 4,973,884.23 92.31 3.03% 4,615,430.00 9,476.91 1.94% (358,454.23) Aaa / AA+ AAA 4.34 4.17 912828Z78 US Treasury Note 1.500% Due 01/31/2027 4,500,000.00 Various 2.15% 4,367,285.16 4,372,935.79 93.50 3.03% 4,207,675.50 28,156.08 1.78% (165,260.29) Aaa / AA+ AAA 4.59 4.35 91282CEN7 US Treasury Note 2.750% Due 04/30/2027 4,000,000.00 Various 3.04% 3,946,171.88 3,946,509.72 98.80 3.01% 3,951,876.00 18,532.60 1.66% 5,366.28 Aaa / AA+ AAA 4.84 4.48 TOTAL US Treasury 65,750,000.00 1.52% 65,374,961.00 65,431,585.44 2.99% 62,468,441.00 221,024.86 26.28% (2,963,144.44) Aaa / AA+ Aaa 3.05 2.94 TOTAL PORTFOLIO 247,425,533.01 1.57% 248,615,382.47 247,950,085.33 3.20% 237,591,495.97 926,068.06 100.00% (10,358,589.36 ) Aa1 / AA Aaa 2.69 2.39 TOTAL MARKET VALUE PLUS ACCRUALS 238,517,564.03 As of June 30, 2022 37 99 Holdings Report City of Dublin Reporting Account -Account #10219 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration LAIF 90LAIF$00 Local Agency Investment Fund State Pool 50,464,181.02 Various 0.94% 50,464,181.02 50,464,181.02 1.00 0.94% 50,464,181.02 86,800.11 36.16% 0.00 NR / NR NR 0.00 0.00 TOTAL LAIF 50,464,181.02 0.94% 50,464,181.02 50,464,181.02 0.94% 50,464,181.02 86,800.11 36.16% 0.00 NR / NR NR 0.00 0.00 Local Gov Investment Pool 90CAMP$00 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 89,240,307.94 Various 1.40% 89,240,307.94 89,240,307.94 1.00 1.40% 89,240,307.94 0.00 63.84% 0.00 NR / AAA NR 0.00 0.00 TOTAL Local Gov Investment Pool 89,240,307.94 1.40% 89,240,307.94 89,240,307.94 1.40% 89,240,307.94 0.00 63.84% 0.00 NR / AAA NR 0.00 0.00 TOTAL PORTFOLIO 139,704,488.96 1.23% 139,704,488.96 139,704,488.96 1.23% 139,704,488.96 86,800.11 100.00% 0.00 NR / AAA NR 0.00 0.00 TOTAL MARKET VALUE PLUS ACCRUALS 139,791,289.07 As of June 30, 2022 38 100 SECTION |Section 5 |Transactions 39 101 Transaction Ledger City of Dublin -Account #10198 Transaction Type Settlement Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss ACQUISITIONS Purchase 04/13/2022 362585AC5 780,000.00 GM Financial Securitized ART 2022-2 A3 3.1% Due: 02/16/2027 99.979 3.13%779,836.98 0.00 779,836.98 0.00 Purchase 04/27/2022 023135CF1 1,750,000.00 Amazon.com Inc Callable Note Cont 3/13/2027 3.3% Due: 04/13/2027 99.827 3.34%1,746,972.50 2,245.83 1,749,218.33 0.00 Purchase 04/28/2022 912828Z78 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.5% Due: 01/31/2027 94.199 2.81%1,883,984.38 7,209.94 1,891,194.32 0.00 Purchase 05/09/2022 91282CDZ1 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.5% Due: 02/15/2025 96.258 2.92%1,925,156.25 6,878.45 1,932,034.70 0.00 Purchase 05/11/2022 36266FAC3 1,020,000.00 GM Financial Auto Lease Trust 2022-2 A3 3.42% Due: 06/20/2025 99.990 3.45%1,019,893.61 0.00 1,019,893.61 0.00 Purchase 05/13/2022 14913R2V8 1,165,000.00 Caterpillar Financial Service Note 3.4% Due: 05/13/2025 99.873 3.44%1,163,520.45 0.00 1,163,520.45 0.00 Purchase 05/18/2022 05602RAD3 850,000.00 BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2022-A A3 3.21% Due: 08/25/2026 99.995 3.23%849,955.80 0.00 849,955.80 0.00 Purchase 05/24/2022 02582JJT8 2,205,000.00 American Express Credit Trust 2022-2 A 3.39% Due: 05/17/2027 99.978 3.42%2,204,512.25 0.00 2,204,512.25 0.00 Purchase 05/31/2022 927804GH1 660,000.00 Virginia Electric Power Corp Callable Note Cont. 4/15/2027 3.75% Due: 05/15/2027 99.688 3.82%657,940.80 0.00 657,940.80 0.00 Purchase 05/31/2022 927804GH1 340,000.00 Virginia Electric Power Corp Callable Note Cont. 4/15/2027 3.75% Due: 05/15/2027 100.539 3.63%341,832.60 0.00 341,832.60 0.00 Purchase 06/07/2022 91282CEN7 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note 2.75% Due: 04/30/2027 98.805 3.01%1,976,093.75 5,679.35 1,981,773.10 0.00 March 31, 2022 through June 30, 2022 As of June 30, 2022 40 102 Transaction Ledger City of Dublin -Account #10198 Transaction Type Settlement Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss Purchase 06/30/2022 91282CEN7 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note 2.75% Due: 04/30/2027 98.504 3.08%1,970,078.13 9,116.84 1,979,194.97 0.00 Subtotal 16,770,000.00 16,519,777.50 31,130.41 16,550,907.91 0.00 TOTAL ACQUISITIONS 16,770,000.00 16,519,777.50 31,130.41 16,550,907.91 0.00 DISPOSITIONS Sale 04/08/2022 912828L57 750,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.75% Due: 09/30/2022 100.313 2.06%752,343.75 286.89 752,630.64 3,266.68 Sale 04/27/2022 808513AT2 2,000,000.00 Charles Schwab Corp Callable Note Cont 12/25/2022 2.65% Due: 01/25/2023 100.352 2.74%2,007,040.00 13,544.44 2,020,584.44 8,275.92 Sale 04/28/2022 912828M49 1,000,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.875% Due: 10/31/2022 100.250 2.47%1,002,500.00 9,271.41 1,011,771.41 5,357.64 Sale 05/05/2022 912828L57 1,000,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.75% Due: 09/30/2022 100.164 2.06%1,001,640.63 1,673.50 1,003,314.13 2,681.33 Sale 05/09/2022 912828L57 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.75% Due: 09/30/2022 100.191 2.06%2,003,828.13 3,729.51 2,007,557.64 5,853.29 Sale 05/13/2022 931142EK5 1,380,000.00 Wal-Mart Stores Callable Note Cont 5/26/2023 3.4% Due: 06/26/2023 101.121 3.41%1,395,469.80 17,855.67 1,413,325.47 15,550.19 Sale 05/20/2022 9128284D9 1,750,000.00 US Treasury Note 2.5% Due: 03/31/2023 100.449 2.76%1,757,861.33 5,976.78 1,763,838.11 11,438.32 Sale 05/25/2022 9128284D9 250,000.00 US Treasury Note 2.5% Due: 03/31/2023 100.492 2.76%251,230.47 939.21 252,169.68 1,733.35 Sale 06/07/2022 9128284D9 1,750,000.00 US Treasury Note 2.5% Due: 03/31/2023 100.316 2.76%1,755,537.11 8,128.42 1,763,665.53 8,909.70 Sale 06/29/2022 084670BR8 1,865,000.00 Berkshire Hathaway Callable Note Cont 1/15/2023 2.75% Due: 03/15/2023 99.844 3.35%1,862,090.60 14,816.39 1,876,906.99 4,346.36 Subtotal 13,745,000.00 13,789,541.82 76,222.22 13,865,764.04 67,412.78 March 31, 2022 through June 30, 2022 As of June 30, 2022 41 103 Transaction Ledger City of Dublin -Account #10198 Transaction Type Settlement Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss Call 05/11/2022 166764AH3 1,000,000.00 Chevron Corp Callable Note Cont 3/24/2023 3.191% Due: 06/24/2023 101.059 3.59%1,010,593.72 12,143.50 1,022,737.22 0.00 Subtotal 1,000,000.00 1,010,593.72 12,143.50 1,022,737.22 0.00 Maturity 06/23/2022 06417MQL2 2,500,000.00 Bank of Nova Scotia Houston Yankee CD 0.2% Due: 06/23/2022 100.000 2,500,000.00 5,069.45 2,505,069.45 0.00 Subtotal 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 5,069.45 2,505,069.45 0.00 TOTAL DISPOSITIONS 17,245,000.00 17,300,135.54 93,435.17 17,393,570.71 67,412.78 March 31, 2022 through June 30, 2022 As of June 30, 2022 42 104 Transaction Ledger City of Dublin Reporting Account -Account #10219 Transaction Type Settlement Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss ACQUISITIONS Purchase 04/15/2022 90LAIF$00 39,735.77 Local Agency Investment Fund State Pool 1.000 0.42%39,735.77 0.00 39,735.77 0.00 Purchase 06/30/2022 90CAMP$00 80,385.23 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 1.000 1.40%80,385.23 0.00 80,385.23 0.00 Subtotal 120,121.00 120,121.00 0.00 120,121.00 0.00 Security Contribution 06/28/2022 90CAMP$00 4,000,000.00 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 1.000 4,000,000.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 0.00 Subtotal 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 0.00 TOTAL ACQUISITIONS 4,120,121.00 4,120,121.00 0.00 4,120,121.00 0.00 DISPOSITIONS Security Withdrawal 06/01/2022 90CAMP$00 1,000,000.00 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 1.000 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 0.00 Security Withdrawal 06/14/2022 90CAMP$00 500,000.00 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 1.000 500,000.00 0.00 500,000.00 0.00 Subtotal 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 TOTAL DISPOSITIONS 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 March 31, 2022 through June 30, 2022 As of June 30, 2022 43 105 Important Disclosures 2022 Chandler Asset Management, Inc, An Independent Registered Investment Adviser. Information contained herein is confidential.Prices are provided by ICE Data Services Inc (“IDS”),an independent pricing source.In the event IDS does not provide a price or if the price provided is not reflective of fair market value, Chandler will obtain pricing from an alternative approved third party pricing source in accordance with our written valuation policy and procedures.Our valuation procedures are also disclosed in Item 5 of our Form ADV Part 2A. Performance results are presented gross-of-advisory fees and represent the client’s Total Return.The deduction of advisory fees lowers performance results.These results include the reinvestment of dividends and other earnings.Past performance may not be indicative of future results.Therefore,clients should not assume that future performance of any specific investment or investment strategy will be profitable or equal to past performance levels.All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss.Economic factors,market conditions or changes in investment strategies, contributions or withdrawals may materially alter the performance and results of your portfolio. Index returns assume reinvestment of all distributions.Historical performance results for investment indexes generally do not reflect the deduction of transaction and/or custodial charges or the deduction of an investment management fee,the incurrence of which would have the effect of decreasing historical performance results.It is not possible to invest directly in an index. Source ICE Data Indices,LLC ("ICE"),used with permission. ICE permits use of the ICE indices and related data on an "as is"basis;ICE,its affiliates and their respective third party suppliers disclaim any and all warranties and representations, express and/or implied,including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use,including the indices,index data and any data included in,related to,or derived therefrom.Neither ICE data,its affiliates or their respective third party providers guarantee the quality, adequacy, accuracy,timeliness or completeness of the indices or the index data or any component thereof,and the indices and index data and all components thereof are provided on an "as is"basis and licensee's use it at licensee's own risk.ICE data,its affiliates and their respective third party do not sponsor,endorse,or recommend chandler asset management,or any of its products or services. This report is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a specific investment or legal advice.The information contained herein was obtained from sources believed to be reliable as of the date of publication, but may become outdated or superseded at any time without notice.Any opinions or views expressed are based on current market conditions and are subject to change.This report may contain forecasts and forward-looking statements which are inherently limited and should not be relied upon as indicator of future results.Past performance is not indicative of future results.This report is not intended to constitute an offer,solicitation,recommendation or advice regarding any securities or investment strategy and should not be regarded by recipients as a substitute for the exercise of their own judgment. Fixed income investments are subject to interest,credit and market risk.Interest rate risk:the value of fixed income investments will decline as interest rates rise.Credit risk:the possibility that the borrower may not be able to repay interest and principal.Low rated bonds generally have to pay higher interest rates to attract investors willing to take on greater risk.Market risk:the bond market in general could decline due to economic conditions, especially during periods of rising interest rates. Ratings information have been provided by Moody’s,S&P and Fitch through data feeds we believe to be reliable as of the date of this statement,however we cannot guarantee its accuracy. Security level ratings for U.S.Agency issued mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) reflect the issuer rating because the securities themselves are not rated.The issuing U.S.Agency guarantees the full and timely payment of both principal and interest and carries a AA+/Aaa/AAA by S&P,Moody’s and Fitch respectively. As of June 30, 2022 44 106 Benchmark Disclosures ICE BofA 1-5 Yr US Treasury & Agency Index* The ICE BofA 1-5 Year US Treasury &Agency Index tracks the performance of US dollar denominated US Treasury and nonsubordinated US agency debt issued in the US domestic market.Qualifying securities must have an investment grade rating (based on an average of Moody’s, S&P and Fitch).Qualifying securities must have at least one year remaining term to final maturity and less than five years remaining term to final maturity, at least 18 months to maturity at time of issuance,a fixed coupon schedule,and a minimum amount outstanding of $1 billion for sovereigns and $250 million for agencies. The ICE BofA 1-3 Year US Treasury &Agency Index tracks the performance of US dollar denominated US Treasury and nonsubordinated US agency debt issued in the US domestic market.Qualifying securities must have an investment grade rating (based on an average of Moody’s, S&P and Fitch).Qualifying securities must have at least one year remaining term to final maturity and less than three years remaining term to final maturity, at least 18 months to maturity at time of issuance,a fixed coupon schedule,and a minimum amount outstanding of $1 billion for sovereigns and $250 million for agencies. As of June 30, 2022 45 107 Transaction Ledger City of Dublin -Account #10198 Transaction Type Settlement Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss ACQUISITIONS Purchase 04/13/2022 362585AC5 780,000.00 GM Financial Securitized ART 2022-2 A3 3.1% Due: 02/16/2027 99.979 3.13%779,836.98 0.00 779,836.98 0.00 Purchase 04/27/2022 023135CF1 1,750,000.00 Amazon.com Inc Callable Note Cont 3/13/2027 3.3% Due: 04/13/2027 99.827 3.34%1,746,972.50 2,245.83 1,749,218.33 0.00 Purchase 04/28/2022 912828Z78 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.5% Due: 01/31/2027 94.199 2.81%1,883,984.38 7,209.94 1,891,194.32 0.00 Purchase 05/09/2022 91282CDZ1 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.5% Due: 02/15/2025 96.258 2.92%1,925,156.25 6,878.45 1,932,034.70 0.00 Purchase 05/11/2022 36266FAC3 1,020,000.00 GM Financial Auto Lease Trust 2022-2 A3 3.42% Due: 06/20/2025 99.990 3.45%1,019,893.61 0.00 1,019,893.61 0.00 Purchase 05/13/2022 14913R2V8 1,165,000.00 Caterpillar Financial Service Note 3.4% Due: 05/13/2025 99.873 3.44%1,163,520.45 0.00 1,163,520.45 0.00 Purchase 05/18/2022 05602RAD3 850,000.00 BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2022-A A3 3.21% Due: 08/25/2026 99.995 3.23%849,955.80 0.00 849,955.80 0.00 Purchase 05/24/2022 02582JJT8 2,205,000.00 American Express Credit Trust 2022-2 A 3.39% Due: 05/17/2027 99.978 3.42%2,204,512.25 0.00 2,204,512.25 0.00 Purchase 05/31/2022 927804GH1 660,000.00 Virginia Electric Power Corp Callable Note Cont. 4/15/2027 3.75% Due: 05/15/2027 99.688 3.82%657,940.80 0.00 657,940.80 0.00 Purchase 05/31/2022 927804GH1 340,000.00 Virginia Electric Power Corp Callable Note Cont. 4/15/2027 3.75% Due: 05/15/2027 100.539 3.63%341,832.60 0.00 341,832.60 0.00 Purchase 06/07/2022 91282CEN7 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note 2.75% Due: 04/30/2027 98.805 3.01%1,976,093.75 5,679.35 1,981,773.10 0.00 March 31, 2022 through June 30, 2022 As of June 30, 2022 40 Attachment 2 108 Transaction Ledger City of Dublin -Account #10198 Transaction Type Settlement Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss Purchase 06/30/2022 91282CEN7 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note 2.75% Due: 04/30/2027 98.504 3.08%1,970,078.13 9,116.84 1,979,194.97 0.00 Subtotal 16,770,000.00 16,519,777.50 31,130.41 16,550,907.91 0.00 TOTAL ACQUISITIONS 16,770,000.00 16,519,777.50 31,130.41 16,550,907.91 0.00 DISPOSITIONS Sale 04/08/2022 912828L57 750,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.75% Due: 09/30/2022 100.313 2.06%752,343.75 286.89 752,630.64 3,266.68 Sale 04/27/2022 808513AT2 2,000,000.00 Charles Schwab Corp Callable Note Cont 12/25/2022 2.65% Due: 01/25/2023 100.352 2.74%2,007,040.00 13,544.44 2,020,584.44 8,275.92 Sale 04/28/2022 912828M49 1,000,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.875% Due: 10/31/2022 100.250 2.47%1,002,500.00 9,271.41 1,011,771.41 5,357.64 Sale 05/05/2022 912828L57 1,000,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.75% Due: 09/30/2022 100.164 2.06%1,001,640.63 1,673.50 1,003,314.13 2,681.33 Sale 05/09/2022 912828L57 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.75% Due: 09/30/2022 100.191 2.06%2,003,828.13 3,729.51 2,007,557.64 5,853.29 Sale 05/13/2022 931142EK5 1,380,000.00 Wal-Mart Stores Callable Note Cont 5/26/2023 3.4% Due: 06/26/2023 101.121 3.41%1,395,469.80 17,855.67 1,413,325.47 15,550.19 Sale 05/20/2022 9128284D9 1,750,000.00 US Treasury Note 2.5% Due: 03/31/2023 100.449 2.76%1,757,861.33 5,976.78 1,763,838.11 11,438.32 Sale 05/25/2022 9128284D9 250,000.00 US Treasury Note 2.5% Due: 03/31/2023 100.492 2.76%251,230.47 939.21 252,169.68 1,733.35 Sale 06/07/2022 9128284D9 1,750,000.00 US Treasury Note 2.5% Due: 03/31/2023 100.316 2.76%1,755,537.11 8,128.42 1,763,665.53 8,909.70 Sale 06/29/2022 084670BR8 1,865,000.00 Berkshire Hathaway Callable Note Cont 1/15/2023 2.75% Due: 03/15/2023 99.844 3.35%1,862,090.60 14,816.39 1,876,906.99 4,346.36 Subtotal 13,745,000.00 13,789,541.82 76,222.22 13,865,764.04 67,412.78 March 31, 2022 through June 30, 2022 As of June 30, 2022 41 109 Transaction Ledger City of Dublin -Account #10198 Transaction Type Settlement Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss Call 05/11/2022 166764AH3 1,000,000.00 Chevron Corp Callable Note Cont 3/24/2023 3.191% Due: 06/24/2023 101.059 3.59%1,010,593.72 12,143.50 1,022,737.22 0.00 Subtotal 1,000,000.00 1,010,593.72 12,143.50 1,022,737.22 0.00 Maturity 06/23/2022 06417MQL2 2,500,000.00 Bank of Nova Scotia Houston Yankee CD 0.2% Due: 06/23/2022 100.000 2,500,000.00 5,069.45 2,505,069.45 0.00 Subtotal 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 5,069.45 2,505,069.45 0.00 TOTAL DISPOSITIONS 17,245,000.00 17,300,135.54 93,435.17 17,393,570.71 67,412.78 March 31, 2022 through June 30, 2022 As of June 30, 2022 42 110 Transaction Ledger City of Dublin Reporting Account -Account #10219 Transaction Type Settlement Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss ACQUISITIONS Purchase 04/15/2022 90LAIF$00 39,735.77 Local Agency Investment Fund State Pool 1.000 0.42%39,735.77 0.00 39,735.77 0.00 Purchase 06/30/2022 90CAMP$00 80,385.23 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 1.000 1.40%80,385.23 0.00 80,385.23 0.00 Subtotal 120,121.00 120,121.00 0.00 120,121.00 0.00 Security Contribution 06/28/2022 90CAMP$00 4,000,000.00 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 1.000 4,000,000.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 0.00 Subtotal 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 0.00 TOTAL ACQUISITIONS 4,120,121.00 4,120,121.00 0.00 4,120,121.00 0.00 DISPOSITIONS Security Withdrawal 06/01/2022 90CAMP$00 1,000,000.00 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 1.000 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 0.00 Security Withdrawal 06/14/2022 90CAMP$00 500,000.00 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 1.000 500,000.00 0.00 500,000.00 0.00 Subtotal 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 TOTAL DISPOSITIONS 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 March 31, 2022 through June 30, 2022 As of June 30, 2022 43 111 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 4 Agenda Item 4.7 DATE:August 16, 2022 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT:Dublin Transit Center Parking Garage Public Art ProjectPreparedby:Shaun Chilkotowsky,Heritage &Cultural Arts Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The City Council will receive a report on the public art project planned for the Dublin Transit Center Parking Garage being constructed by Alameda County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Receive the report. FINANCIAL IMPACT:None. This public art project is funded by the County of Alameda and managed by the Alameda County Arts Commission, a division of the County of Alameda. DESCRIPTION:BackgroundThe County of Alameda is building a new parking structure adjacent to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The Dublin Transit Center Parking Garage will have the capacity for more than500 parking spaces,including priority vanpool parking and electric vehicle charging stations, to promote and increase commuter ridership. The new parking structure is intended to limit vehicle miles for commuters, reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Livermore and Amador Valley areas,and support the County’s vision for acc essible infrastructure and a healthy environment. The County is funding a public art project for the parking structure. The public art project is managed by the Alameda County Arts Commission (ACAC), a division of Alameda County. The location for the artwork is a five-story glass wall for the stair tower located at the corner of Campus Drive and Martinelli Way.This will be a highly visible expansive artwork integrated 112 Page 2 of 4 directly into the building. The ACAC will engage an artist to create a new original artwork for this project. The artwork will be digitized and printed onto the glass. The fabrication and installation of the decorative glazing are part of the design-build contract. The decorative glazing and stair tower will meet all building construction and safety standards. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors passed the Public Art Ordinance in 1994, which requires that all County capital improvement projects include art integrated into the built public environment to support the programs and services provided to the public and to contribute to the overall quality of life of the community. County staff work closely with the appointed members of the ACAC and the Public Art Advisory Committee to provide oversight of the programs and make recommendations for contracts and grant awards to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. Artist Selection Committee and Artist Selection ProcessThe ACAC is following its standard process to engage community members and select an artist for this project. To start the community engagement phase, the ACAC invited community members to submit information about Dublin through an online survey. They then requested that communitymembers submit an interest form if they wished to serve on the Selection Committee of eightmembers chosen by the ACAC. Community members serving on the Selection Committee were required to meet the following criteria: Live, work, or own a business in Dublin or the Tri-Valley region. Be willing to work cooperatively as part of a committee. Be willing to consider opinions beyond their individual interests and the greater community when making recommendations. Be interested in art (prior experience evaluating artwork is not necessary). Be able to attend committee meetings.Additionally, a stated goal of the ACAC was to have one or some community members with direct art experience and knowledge of visual art and/or design, familiarity with evaluating artwork in terms of style, materials, and concepts, and the ability to share their expertise with others who do not have an art or design background. Artists considered for this project are part of the 2021 Alameda County Artist Registry, an established list of pre-qualified artists from 14 counties of the greater Bay Area (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, and Yolo). From the Artist Registry, a Project Pool of artists was identified. The ACAC staff considered the following when developing the Project Pool: The artists’ professional experience illustrates an ability to fulfill the scope of work for this project. Artists who work in various styles and materials that may be appropriate for this large-scale, design-only project. Artists who live in Dublin, Pleasanton, or Livermore.The ACAC staff presented the past work of the 44 artists in the Project Pool to the Artist Selection Committee on April 20 and 27, 2022. The Selection Committee reviewed images of the artists’ past 113 Page 3 of 4 work and selected six semi-finalists for the project. The semi-finalists are: Cece Carpio, Emily Fromm, Robin Gibson, Phillip Hua, Rough Edge Collective (Maria-Jose Lindo-Lawyer and Joshua Lawyer), and t.w.five (Pernilla Andersson and Paula Pereira).The semi-finalists attended an orientation meeting with the ACAC to learn about the technical aspects of the project during the proposal development period. Each semi-finalist was paid astipend of $1,000 to create a visual and written artwork proposal. Community Input in Artwork Design SelectionThe six semi-finalists each created a visual and written proposal for this project after their selection. They considered the character of Dublin’s landscape and community and the architectural and site conditions. Dublin community members are invited to review the proposals and provide comments. The proposals and feedback form are available online at https://bit.ly/DublinGarage_Proposals. An informational display is also available at the Dublin Library from August 9-22. The Artist Selection Committee will consider all comments received, both online and in written format provided at the library, through Tuesday, August 23, at 12:00 p.m. The ACAC is promoting this opportunity throughout Dublin via social media. As part of the ACAC community engagement activities, Arts Commission Director Rachel Osajima presented information about the public art project to the City of Dublin Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission at their meetings of Thursday, May 12, 2022, and Thursday, August 11, 2022.Next StepsThe semi-finalists will present their proposals and be interviewed by the Artist Selection Committee on Wednesday, August 24. The Selection Committee will choose one artist (or one artist team) for this project. The Selection Committee’s recommendation of the artist will be presented for approval to the Alameda County Public Art Advisory Committee at their meeting onThursday, August 25, and to the ACAC at their meeting on Wednesday, September 14. The artist’s contract will be presented to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors for final approval in October 2022 (exact date to be determined). All meetings are held via teleconference. The ACACmeeting agendas and Zoom links can be found on their website at www.acgov.org/arts. The Board of Supervisor’s meeting information can be found on the main County website at https://bos.acgov.org/regular-meetings/.Once the selected artist is under contract, the artist will work closely with ACAC staff to further develop their proposal. The anticipated completion date for the Dublin Transit Center Parking Garage is early 2024. It is anticipated that ACAC staff will provide an update in October 2022 to the Dublin City Council regarding the selected artist and the final design of the artwork. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:The City Council Agenda was posted. 114 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENTS:None. 115 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item 4.8 DATE:August 16,2022 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT:First Amendment to the Agreement with All City Management Services Inc. Prepared by:Nate Schmidt,Captain Dublin Police Services EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The City Council will consider approving an amendment to the agreement with All City Management Inc. to pay for additional crossing guard services rendered in Fiscal Year 2021-22. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Adopt the Resolution Approving Amendment #1 to the Agreement with All City Management Services Inc. for Crossing Guard Services. FINANCIAL IMPACT:The original agreement with All City Management Services Inc. was not to exceed $275,242.64. The amendment to the agreement adds $27,643.51, for a total not-to-exceed cost of $302,886.15. There is sufficient funding remaining in the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Police Services budget for this amendment. DESCRIPTION:All City Management Services Inc (ACMS), headquartered in Los Angeles and serving numerous cities in northern and southern California, has provided crossing guard services to the City of Dublin since July 1, 1995 via a yearly agreement. The most recent agreement with ACMS was approved on July 20, 2021 and included crossing guard services in 15 locations throughout the City for a not-to-exceed amount of $275,242.64 through June 30, 2022. Due to staggered start and end times at several Dublin Unified School District schools,unanticipated crossing guard coverage was needed to maintain the same level of service. Thisincrease in service resulted in additional costs and requires an amendment to the contract to finalize the Fiscal Year 2021-22 billings. 116 Page 2 of 2 The proposed amendment adds $27,643.51 to the agreement for a total not-to-exceed amount of $302,886.15 for Fiscal Year 2021-22. There is sufficient funding in the Police Operating budget for this amendment. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:The City Council Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS:1) Resolution Approving Amendment #1 to the Agreement with All City Management Services Inc. for Crossing Guard Services2) Exhibit A to the Resolution – Amendment #1 to the Contractor Services Agreement Between the City of Dublin and All City Management Services Inc.3) Contractor Services Agreement Between the City of Dublin and All City Management Services Inc. 117 Attachment 1 Reso. No. XX-22 Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING AMENDMENT #1 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC. FOR CROSSING GUARD SERVICES WHEREAS,the City of Dublin uses All City Management Services Inc. to provide crossing guard services in 15 locations throughout the City; and WHEREAS,on July 20, 2021 City Council approved an agreement with All City Management Services for crossing guard services with a not-to exceed amount of $275,242.64; and WHEREAS, due to unanticipated staggered start and end times at several schools, additional crossing guard hours were needed to maintain the same level of service and safety to the school community; and WHEREAS, the increase in service resulted in an additional cost of $27,643.51 with an amended not-to-exceed amount of $302,886.15; and WHEREAS, there is sufficient funding in the Police Operating budget for this amendment; and WHEREAS, the amendment will close out the invoices for Fiscal Year 2021-22 for All City Management Services Inc. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve Amendment #1 to the Agreement with All City Management Services Inc. attached hereto as Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the Amendment to the Contract with All City Management Services Inc. and make any necessary minor adjustments to carry out the intent of this Resolution. {Signatures on the following page} 118 Reso. No. XX-22 Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 2 of 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of August 2022, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk 119 Attachment 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution Page 1 of 3 AMENDMENT #1 TO THE CONTRACTOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC. WHEREAS, on JULY 20, 2021, the City of Dublin (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and All City Management Services Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR") entered into a Contractor Services Agreement for Crossing Guard Services (hereinafter referred to as the “AGREEMENT”); and WHEREAS, the existing AGREEMENT expires on June 30, 2022; and WHEREAS, due to unanticipated staggered start and end times at several schools, additional crossing guard services were needed to maintain the same level of service and safety to the school community; and WHEREAS, THE CITY and CONTRACTOR now wish to amend the AGREEMENT to increase the not-to-exceed amount by $27,643.51 for a total of $302,886.15 to close out the Fiscal Year 2021-22 invoices. NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the AGREEMENT is amended as follows: 1) Section 2 - COMPENSTATION shall be rescinded and replaced with the following: owing: City hereby agrees to pay CONTRACTOR a sum not to exceed $302,886.15, notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in CONTRACTOR’s proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and CONTRACTOR’s proposal, attached as Exhibit B, regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay CONTRACTOR for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below shall be the only payments from City to CONTRACTOR for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by City in writing, CONTRACTOR shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. CONTRACTOR and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement is based upon CONTRACTOR’s actual costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of CONTRACTOR. Consequently, the Parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which CONTRACTOR and its employees, agents, 120 Attachment 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution Page 2 of 3 and subcontractors may be eligible. City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement. SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE 121 Attachment 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution Page 3 of 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be executed as of the date of the City Manager’s signature below. CITY OF DUBLIN ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICDES INC. By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ Linda Smith, City Manager Demetra Farwell, Corporate Security Dated: ATTEST: By: _____ Marsha Moore, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: _____________________________ City Attorney 122 Attachment 3 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 3 Agenda Item 6.1 DATE:August 16, 2022 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT:Dublin Districts—Public Hearing 5: Final Map Selection, Introduction of Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election SystemPreparedby:John Stefanski,Assistant to the City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The City Council will hold a Public Hearing to give the community an opportunity to provide feedback regarding the boundaries and composition of the Final Map. The City Council will thenreview and select a Final Map,and introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election System. At the February 15, 2022 meeting, the City Council adopted a Resolution Declaring its Intention to Transition From an At-Large Election System to a District-Based Election System.Under California Elections Code, the City must hold a series of Public Hearings to allow the community to provide input on the composition of districts and communities of interest as well as the potential district boundaries, draft maps, and sequence of elections. Maps considered at this meeting must have been published at least seven days before the Public Hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Receive the presentation, conduct the Public Hearing to receive input,review and select a Final Map, and waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election System. FINANCIAL IMPACT:There is no financial impact associated with the presentation of this information. Costs borne by the City for consultants working on this project were provided in previous Staff Reports to the City Council. 140 Page 2 of 3 DESCRIPTION:BackgroundOn February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 17-22 Declaring its Intention to Transition from an At-Large Election System to a District-Based Election System in conformance with the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA). The Resolution declares the City’s intent to consider adoption of an ordinance establishing district-based elections beginning with the November 2024 regular municipal election.Under Elections Code Section 10010, a city is required to hold at least five public hearings during the transition process. In Dublin, the first two public hearings gave the community opportunitiesto provide input on the composition of the districts before any maps were drawn. Subsequently, draft district maps were drawn by the City’s demographer, and two more public hearings wereheld for the public to provide input regarding draft maps, sequence of elections, communities of interest, and potential district boundaries, and for the City Council to provide direction on draft maps options and refinements. The maps must be published at least seven days before the public hearing to be considered by the City Council. This is the fifth, and final, public hearing at which theCity Council will consider an ordinance that establishes the district-based elections and approves a final map.District Drawing FactorsThroughout this process the public was asked to provide input regarding communities of interest and other local factors that should be considered while drafting district maps. A community of interest is a neighborhood or group that would benefit from being in the same district because of shared interests, views, or characteristics. Examples of these include, but are not limited to: -Naturaldividinglinessuchasmajorroads,hills,orhighways.-Areasaroundparksandotherneighborhoodlandmarks/amenities.-Schoolattendanceareas.-Commonissues,neighborhoodactivities,orlegislative/electionconcerns;and-Shareddemographiccharacteristics,suchas: o Similarlevelsofincome,education,orlinguisticinsolation. o Languagesspokenathome. o Single-familyandmulti-familyhousingunitareas.The district boundary maps must meet certain criteria. In particular, the districts must be roughly equal in population, excluding persons incarcerated in federal prisons. However, persons incarcerated at Santa Rita Jail are included in the population count for the districts (Elec. Code, § 21601, subd. (a)).The districts are further subject to the following criteria in order of priority:-Geographical contiguity.-Minimize the division of any local neighborhood or local community of interest.-Easily identified and understood by residents.-Geographical compactness. (Elec. Code, § 21601, subd. (c).) 141 Page 3 of 3 Final Map Selection ProcessAt the July 19, 2022 Public Hearing, the City Council reviewed draft district maps and provided direction to Staff to return at the fifth public hearing with Map 112 and variations of Map 112 which keep the neighborhood east of Village Parkway and north of Amador Valley Boulevard together in either District 1 or District 2 so long as the population deviation permits. At this same Public Hearing, the City Council agreed to sequence election such that elections for Districts 1 and 3 would occur at the November 2024 municipal election, and every four years thereafter, and elections for Districts 2 and 4 would occur at the November 2026 municipal election, and every four years thereafter. Attachment 3 includes the original Map 112, and Map 112B, a variation developed following City Council direction. These are the two final focused maps for the City Council to consider adopting. Next StepsStaff is requesting the City Council do the following: 1. Receive the presentation.2. Conduct the Public Hearing to receive input.3. Review and select the final map.4. Waive the reading and introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election System.At the second reading of the ordinance, the City Council will adopt an accompanying resolution which indicates the final district map. A copy of this resolution can be found in Attachment 2. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:The City published a Public Hearing Notice in the East Bay Times and posted on www.dublin.ca.gov/dublindistricts on August 10, 2022. Individuals subscribed to the Dublin Districts notification list were emailed regarding this meeting. The City Council Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS:1) Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election System2) Resolution Adopting the City of Dublin Official District Map3) Maps 112 and 112B 142 Attachment 1 Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 1 of 4 ORDINANCE NO. XX – 22 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING CHAPTER 2.32 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A DISTRICT-BASED ELECTION SYSTEM WHEREAS,members of the City Council of the City of Dublin (“City”) are currently elected in “at-large” elections, in which each City Councilmember is elected by the registered voters of the entire City; and WHEREAS,California Government Code Section 34886 permits the legislative body of a city to adopt an ordinance to change its method of election from an “at-large” system to a “district-based” system in which each councilmember is elected only by the voters in the district in which the candidate resides; and WHEREAS, the City received a letter on January 4, 2022, from Kevin Shenkman of the law firm of Shenkman & Hughes, on behalf of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project and its unidentified members residing within Dublin, alleging that the City’s at-large councilmember electoral system violates the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”) and threatening litigation if the City declines to voluntarily change to a district-based election system for electing councilmembers; and WHEREAS, under Elections Code section 14028(a), a violation of the CVRA is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections. “Racially polarized voting” means voting in which there is a difference in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices that are preferred by voters in a protected class, and in the choice of candidates and electoral choices that are preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate (Elections Code Section 14026, subd. (e)); and WHEREAS, under the provisions of California Elections Code Section 10010, a city that changes from an at-large city council method of election to a district-based city council method of election must hold a series of public hearings, which includes at least two public hearings regarding potential voting district boundaries prior to the release and consideration of any draft voting district maps, and at least two public hearings following the release of draft voting district maps; and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 17-22 declaring its intention to transition from an at-large election system to a district-based election system in conformance with the CVRA and establishing the timeframe for doing so; and WHEREAS, the City retained the services of a qualified demographer to provide a detailed analysis of the City’s current demographics and to prepare draft maps that divide the City into voting districts in a manner consistent with the intent and purpose of the CVRA and all other applicable laws; and WHEREAS,as required by California Elections Code Section 10010, the City Council held public hearings on April 19, 2022 and May 17, 2022 to consider input from the public on the composition of the City Council districts and criteria for determining district boundaries; and 143 Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS,as required by California Elections Code Section 10010, the City Council held public hearings on June 21, 2022, and July 19, 2022, where the public was invited to provide comments and input on the draft maps and the proposed sequence of elections; and WHEREAS, throughout the foregoing process, the City engaged in a significant amount of public outreach and engagement beyond the public hearings and other procedures required by California Elections Code Section 10010, including but not limited to hosting two community workshop meetings, creating a dedicated district elections web page and a multi-media outreach approach with significant social media engagement. Additional outreach included a Citywide Community Workshop postcard to all Dublin postal customers, several press releases, emails to website districting subscribers, calls and emails to civic and community business organizations, and process flyers posted to the website and distributed at the Dublin Farmers’ Market; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered all oral and written information, testimony, and comments received during the public review process. All draft maps were published more than seven days before the public hearing at which they were discussed; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on July 19, 2022, the City Council agreed to sequence elections such that elections for Districts 1 and 3 would occur at the November 2024 municipal election, and every four years thereafter, and elections for Districts 2 and 4 would occur at the November 2026 municipal election, and every four years thereafter; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on August 16, 2022, the City Council voted to proceed with a final map, identified as _______________; and WHEREAS,the purpose of this Ordinance is to enact, pursuant to California Government Code Section 34886, an ordinance providing for the election of members of the City Council of the City of Dublin by district in four single-member districts and this change in the method of electing members of City Council is being made in furtherance of the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001. The City will maintain the at-large election for Mayor. NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows: Section 1.Municipal Code Amendment. Chapter 2.32 (Elections) of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the following: 2.32.030 District Based Electoral System. A.Subject to Section 2.32.050, Councilmembers shall be elected on a district-based electoral system from four single-member city council districts pursuant to Government Code Sections 34886 and 34871. For purposes of this section, the term “district-based electoral system” shall mean the election of Councilmembers by the voters of the district alone. B.Except as provided in subsection C, below, each Councilmember elected to represent a district must reside in that district and be a registered voter in that district, and any candidate for City Council must reside in, and be a registered voter in, the district in which they seek election at the time nomination papers are issued, pursuant to Government Code Section 34882 and Elections Code Section 10227. Termination of residency in a district by a Councilmember shall create an immediate vacancy for that district unless a substitute residence within the district is established within thirty (30) days after that termination of residency. 144 Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 3 of 4 C.An at-large Councilmember shall continue in office until the expiration of the full term to which they were elected or appointed and until their successor is qualified. If vacancies in Councilmember offices elected at-large occur before expiration of the full term thereof, such vacancies shall be filled pursuant to California Government Code Section 36512. D.Upon expiration of the full term of each Councilmember elected at-large, that Councilmember’s successor shall be elected on a by-district basis in the districts established in Section 2.32.040.A and as provided in Section 2.32.050. 2.32.040 City Council Districts Established By Resolution. A.Subject to Section 2.32.050, Councilmembers shall be elected on a by-district basis from the Council Districts depicted on the Official District Map, as adopted separately by resolution and incorporated by this reference, a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. B.The Council Districts specified in 2.32.040 subsection A, above, shall continue in effect until they are amended or repealed in accordance with law. The Council Districts shall be adjusted following each decennial federal census, as required by the Elections Code and other applicable law. 2.32.050 Election Schedule. Councilmembers shall be elected in Council Districts 1 and 3 beginning at the general municipal election in November 2024, and every four years thereafter. Councilmembers shall be elected in Council Districts 2 and 4 beginning at the general municipal election in November 2026, and every four years thereafter. The term and election schedule for the Mayor is not affected by this Section. Section 2.Technical Adjustments. If necessary to facilitate the implementation of this Ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized to make technical adjustments to the district boundaries that do not substantively affect the populations in the districts, the eligibility of candidates, or the residence of elected officials within any district. The City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any technical adjustments deemed necessary and shall advise the City Council of any such adjustments required in the implementation of the districts. Section 3.CEQA. The City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the Dublin Municipal Code are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 4.Severability.If any part of this ordinance is declared invalid by a court, such invalidity shall not affect any of the remaining parts. Section 5.Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days following its final adoption. 145 Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 4 of 4 Section 6.Posting. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __th day of _______ 2022, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk 5160199.3 146 Attachment 2 Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING THE CITY OF DUBLIN OFFICIAL DISTRICT MAP WHEREAS,members of the City Council of the City of Dublin (“City”) are currently elected in “at-large” elections, in which each City Councilmember is elected by the registered voters of the entire City; and WHEREAS,California Government Code Section 34886 permits the legislative body of a city to adopt an ordinance to change its method of election from an “at-large” system to a “district-based” system in which each councilmember is elected only by the voters in the district in which the candidate resides; and WHEREAS, the City received a letter on January 4, 2022, from Kevin Shenkman of the law firm of Shenkman & Hughes, on behalf of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project and its unidentified members residing within Dublin, alleging that the City’s at-large councilmember electoral system violates the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”) and threatening litigation if the City declines to voluntarily change to a district-based election system for electing councilmembers; and WHEREAS, under Elections Code section 14028(a), a violation of the CVRA is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections. “Racially polarized voting” means voting in which there is a difference in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices that are preferred by voters in a protected class, and in the choice of candidates and electoral choices that are preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate (Elections Code Section 14026, subd. (e)); and WHEREAS, under the provisions of California Elections Code Section 10010, a city that changes from an at-large city council method of election to a district-based city council method of election must hold a series of public hearings, which includes at least two public hearings regarding potential voting district boundaries prior to the release and consideration of any draft voting district maps, and at least two public hearings following the release of draft voting district maps; and WHEREAS,on February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 17-22 declaring its intention to transition from an at-large election system to a district-based election system in conformance with the CVRA and establishing the timeframe for doing so; and WHEREAS, the City retained the services of a qualified demographer to provide a detailed analysis of the City’s current demographics and to prepare draft maps that divide the City into voting districts in a manner consistent with the intent and purpose of the CVRA and all other applicable laws; and WHEREAS,as required by California Elections Code Section 10010, the City Council held public hearings on April 19, 2022 and May 17, 2022 to consider input from the public on the composition of the City Council districts and criteria for determining district boundaries; and 147 Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS,as required by California Elections Code Section 10010, the City Council held public hearings on June 21, 2022, and July 19, 2022, where the public was invited to provide comments and input on the draft maps and the proposed sequence of elections; and WHEREAS, throughout the foregoing process, the City engaged in a significant amount of public outreach and engagement beyond the public hearings and other procedures required by California Elections Code Section 10010, including but not limited to hosting two community workshop meetings, creating a dedicated district elections web page and a multi-media outreach approach with significant social media engagement. Additional outreach included a Citywide Community Workshop postcard to all Dublin postal customers, several press releases, emails to website districting subscribers, calls and emails to civic and community business organizations, and process flyers posted to the website and distributed at the Dublin Farmer’s Market; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered all oral and written information, testimony, and comments received during the public review process. All draft maps were published more than seven days before the public hearing at which they were discussed; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on July 19, 2022, the City Council agreed to sequence elections such that elections for Districts 1 and 3 would occur at the November 2024 municipal election, and every four years thereafter, and elections for Districts 2 and 4 would occur at the November 2026, and every four years thereafter; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on August 16, 2022, the City Council voted to proceed with a final map, identified as _______________, and introduced Ordinance No. XX-22 to establish a district-based electoral system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED after due consideration of the considerable public comment and testimony received, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the map attached as “Exhibit A” to this Resolution as the City of Dublin Official District Map. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, a copy of this Official District Map shall be maintained at all times in the Office of the City Clerk until the map is superseded or replaced by subsequent City Council resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Clerk is directed to provide a copy of the Official District Map to the Alameda County Elections Division. {Signatures on the following page} 148 Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 3 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __th day of _______ 2022, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk 5160201.1 149 1.79% Total DeviationProposed Election Sequence: 2024: Districts 1 Gosey & McCorriston) and 3 (Hu) 2026: Districts 2 (Kumagai) and 4 (vacant) Alternative Election Sequence: 2024: Districts 3 (Hu) and 4 (vacant) 2026: Districts 1 Gosey & McCorriston) and 2 (Kumagai) Map layers D Map 112 --River Streets ©2021 CALIPER Map 112 Broder Blvd Glr-a.s_o.o Dr Fai 1field St "-�----'Sur mer Glen Dr ual '?1<-'i l'faven Pl cel"I O � 2nd St Dublin Bi'vd 3: � -� I � VJ Ma�tinelle \Way ,..,. 3: �ro g ic.: 41,ltamirano Ave 1 �_l_;l,_�: 0 u Q Dublin 2022 Districting Attachment 3 150 Map 112 District 1 Total Pop 17,867 Deviation from ideal % Deviation 0.00% % Hisp 15.0% % NH White 39% % NH Black 3% % Asian-American 40% Total 13,714 % Hisp 14% % NH White 42% % NH Black 3% % Asian/Pac.Isl.37% Total 10,907 % Latino est.13% % Spanish-Surnamed 12% % Asian-Surnamed 16% % Filipino-Surnamed 3% % NH White est.66% % NH Black 3% Total 9,270 % Latino est.13% % Spanish-Surnamed 12% % Asian-Surnamed 16% % Filipino-Surnamed 3% % NH White est.66% % NH Black 3% Total 6,726 % Latino est.12% % Spanish-Surnamed 12% % Asian-Surnamed 12% % Filipino-Surnamed 2% % NH White est.71% % NH Black est.3% ACS Pop. Est.Total 16,939 age0-19 25% age20-60 56% age60plus 19% immigrants 27% naturalized 60% english 67% spanish 7% asian-lang 18% other lang 8% Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well"11% hs-grad 30% bachelor 37% graduatedegree 20% Child in Household child-under18 40% Pct of Pop. Age 16+employed 69% income 0-25k 5% income 25-50k 9% income 50-75k 8% income 75-200k 50% income 200k-plus 28% single family 87% multi-family 13% rented 23% owned 77% Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. 2 18,057 190 1.06% 18% 32% 7% 39% 14,417 18% 34% 7% 37% 7,581 13% 12% 17% 3% 60% 7% 6,338 12% 11% 17% 3% 61% 7% 3,808 11% 11% 11% 3% 65% 6% 13,304 25% 61% 14% 39% 43% 57% 6% 20% 17% 14% 25% 39% 25% 41% 72% 7% 9% 8% 55% 21% 50% 50% 55% 45% 3 17,737 -130 -0.73% 6% 18% 4% 70% 12,458 7% 20% 4% 66% 7,126 10% 9% 30% 3% 49% 8% 6,013 9% 9% 31% 3% 48% 8% 3,567 10% 9% 26% 3% 52% 8% 16,586 30% 58% 12% 42% 45% 41% 4% 36% 18% 18% 16% 38% 37% 51% 74% 5% 7% 7% 44% 37% 56% 44% 42% 58% 4 17,807 -60 -0.34% 5% 11% 2% 80% 11,794 4% 13% 2% 79% 8,593 7% 7% 45% 3% 37% 6% 7,507 7% 7% 44% 3% 38% 6% 4,134 7% 7% 42% 3% 41% 5% 13,504 32% 56% 12% 50% 57% 40% 3% 34% 23% 17% 13% 38% 38% 63% 74% 5% 1% 2% 36% 55% 90% 10% 15% 85% Total 71,468 320 1.79% 11% 25% 4% 57% 52,383 11% 28% 4% 54% 34,207 11% 10% 26% 3% 54% 6% 29,128 10% 10% 26% 3% 54% 5% 18,235 10% 10% 21% 3% 59% 5% 60,333 28% 58% 14% 39% 51% 52% 5% 27% 16% 15% 22% 38% 30% 47% 72% 5% 7% 7% 47% 34% 70% 30% 35% 65% 07/07/2022 2:45 Page 1 of 1 Total Pop Citizen Voting Age Pop Voter Registration (Nov 2020) Voter Turnout (Nov 2020) Voter Turnout (Nov 2018) Age Immigration Language spoken at home Education (among those age 25+) Household Income Housing Stats 151 5.91% Total DeviationProposed Election Sequence: 2024: Districts 1 Qosey & McCorriston) and 3 (Hu) 2026: Districts 2 (Kumagai) and 4 (vacant) Alternative Election Sequence: 2024: Districts 3 (Hu) and 4 (vacant) 2026: Districts 1 Qosey & McCorriston) and 2 (Kumagai) Map 112B ©2021 CALIPER Dublin 2022 Districting 152 Map 112B District 1 Total Pop 17,434 Deviation from ideal -433 % Deviation -2.42% % Hisp 15.1% % NH White 40% % NH Black 3% % Asian-American 39% Total 13,241 % Hisp 14% % NH White 43% % NH Black 3% % Asian/Pac.Isl.36% Total 10,887 % Latino est.13% % Spanish-Surnamed 12% % Asian-Surnamed 15% % Filipino-Surnamed 3% % NH White est.67% % NH Black 2% Total 9,276 % Latino est.13% % Spanish-Surnamed 12% % Asian-Surnamed 15% % Filipino-Surnamed 3% % NH White est.67% % NH Black 2% Total 6,874 % Latino est.12% % Spanish-Surnamed 11% % Asian-Surnamed 12% % Filipino-Surnamed 2% % NH White est.72% % NH Black est.2% ACS Pop. Est.Total 16,990 age0-19 26% age20-60 55% age60plus 19% immigrants 26% naturalized 61% english 68% spanish 6% asian-lang 18% other lang 8% Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well"11% hs-grad 30% bachelor 36% graduatedegree 20% Child in Household child-under18 40% Pct of Pop. Age 16+employed 69% income 0-25k 4% income 25-50k 9% income 50-75k 8% income 75-200k 50% income 200k-plus 28% single family 89% multi-family 11% rented 21% owned 79% Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. 2 18,490 623 3.49% 17% 31% 7% 40% 14,890 17% 33% 7% 38% 7,601 13% 12% 17% 3% 59% 8% 6,332 12% 11% 17% 3% 59% 8% 3,660 11% 11% 12% 3% 63% 7% 13,253 24% 62% 13% 40% 43% 57% 6% 20% 17% 14% 25% 39% 26% 40% 73% 7% 9% 8% 55% 22% 49% 51% 56% 44% 3 17,737 -130 -0.73% 6% 18% 4% 70% 12,458 7% 20% 4% 66% 7,126 10% 9% 30% 3% 49% 8% 6,013 9% 9% 31% 3% 48% 8% 3,567 10% 9% 26% 3% 52% 8% 16,586 30% 58% 12% 42% 45% 41% 4% 36% 18% 18% 16% 38% 37% 51% 74% 5% 7% 7% 44% 37% 56% 44% 42% 58% 4 17,807 -60 -0.34% 5% 11% 2% 80% 11,794 4% 13% 2% 79% 8,593 7% 7% 45% 3% 37% 6% 7,507 7% 7% 44% 3% 38% 6% 4,134 7% 7% 42% 3% 41% 5% 13,504 32% 56% 12% 50% 57% 40% 3% 34% 23% 17% 13% 38% 38% 63% 74% 5% 1% 2% 36% 55% 90% 10% 15% 85% Total 71,468 1,056 5.91% 11% 25% 4% 57% 52,383 11% 28% 4% 54% 34,207 11% 10% 26% 3% 54% 6% 29,128 10% 10% 26% 3% 54% 5% 18,235 10% 10% 21% 3% 59% 5% 60,333 28% 58% 14% 39% 51% 52% 5% 27% 16% 15% 22% 38% 30% 47% 72% 5% 7% 7% 47% 34% 70% 30% 35% 65% 07/27/2022 16:41 Page 1 of 1 Total Pop Citizen Voting Age Pop Voter Registration (Nov 2020) Voter Turnout (Nov 2020) Voter Turnout (Nov 2018) Age Immigration Language spoken at home Education (among those age 25+) Household Income Housing Stats 153 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 6 Agenda Item 7.1 DATE:August 16, 2022 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT:Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan UpdatePreparedby:Sai Midididdi,Associate Civil Engineer (Traffic) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The City Council will receive an update on the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, which updates and replaces the City’s 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and will inform future infrastructure and program and policy recommendations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Receive the report on the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update and provide feedback. FINANCIAL IMPACT:None. DESCRIPTION:BackgroundThe Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is a critical planning, policy,and implementation document that supports the City’s efforts to improve the safety and attractiveness of biking and walking as a means of transportation and recreation. This Plan updates and replaces the City’s 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The Plan assesses existing system conditions through an inventory of existing infrastructure, programs,and policies related to biking and walking, analysis of bicycle level of traffic stress, evaluation of collision data, estimation of bicycle and pedestrian access and demand, and public input. The Plan results in a recommended biking and walking network and a prioritized list of projects to support biking and walking in Dublin.Summary of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan UpdateKey sections and recommendations of the Plan are summarized in the sections below. 154 Page 2 of 6 Community Engagement:The community engagement effort included the following virtual and in-person activities: Project website and interactive map. The project website can be accessed at https://dublinbikeped.org/. The website provides information about the Plan, including the project timeline, engagement activities, and summaries of technical analyses, along with an interactive map that allows respondents to provide geographic input on key issues and opportunity locations for biking and walking throughout Dublin. Since going live in March 2020, the website received about 1,500 visits and almost 300 unique comments were posted on the map. Public workshop. A virtual public workshop was held on September 2, 2020, from 6:00-7:00 p.m. There were approximately 45 members of the public in attendance. The meetingincluded a presentation, live polls, and a question-and-answer period. The meeting was recorded and is available online. Public survey. A public survey was used to collect information from the public about their personal transportation preferences, travel habits, and issues and opportunities related to biking and walking in Dublin. The 17-question survey was distributed in summer 2020 and received almost 200 responses about travel behavior and mode preference, travel to school, challenges, barriers to access and mobility, and priorities for investments related to biking and walking. In-person events. The project team participated in three in-person events as public health guidance due to the COVID-19 pandemic allowed. Flyers with the public survey link were handed out at the Farmers’ Market on May 27, 2021, and people were rewarded with giveaways for participation. The City partnered with Bike East Bay to hear from trail users at the Alamo Creek Trailhead as a part of the National Bike Month Activities in 2021. Draft network recommendations were shared at the St. Patrick’s Day Festival earlier this year. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings. A TAC composed of staff from the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, as well as AC Transit, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, BART, Dublin Unified School District, Dublin Police Services, Dublin Fire Services, and Caltrans were engaged at key milestones to provide ongoing input on technical analysis and deliverables. There were four TAC meetings over the course of the project between spring 2020 and 2022. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) meetings. The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) BPAC, which serves as Dublin’s local BPAC, was engaged at key milestones to provide ongoing input on technical analysis and deliverables. There have been five BPAC meetings with the fifth and final meeting held inJuly 2022.PlanVisionThe City of Dublin is a vibrant place where walking and biking are safe, comfortable, and convenient ways to travel and connect individuals, inclusive of all ages and abilities, to local and regional destinations. 155 Page 3 of 6 PlanGoals Enhance Safety - Prioritize safety in design and implementation of biking and walking facilities. Increase Biking and Walking - Support biking and walking as attractive modes of transportation. Improve Connectivity - Develop a bicycle and pedestrian network that provides well-connected facilities for users of all ages and abilities. Enhance Accessibility - Utilize principles of universal design to make biking and walking a viable transportation option for all, including people with disabilities. Prioritize Investments - Maintain sufficient funding to provide for existing and future bicycle and pedestrian needs, including supporting programs and operation and maintenance. Leverage biking and walking projects to promote economic activity and social equity outcomes among people of all ages and abilities.Existing Conditionsand NeedsAnalysisThe existing conditions and needs analyses were conducted to set the foundation the policy recommendations and provide the technical analysis to support the development of the prioritization framework and implementation strategy. This analysis covered: Program and Policy Inventory. The project team reviewed bike- and pedestrian-related programs and policies from relevant planning documents and conducted benchmarking interviews with staff from seven City departments and the Dublin Unified School District to develop an updated inventory of existing programs and policies relevant to biking and walking and identify gaps or needs that could be addressed by the Plan. Land Use and Demographic Analysis. The project team gathered and summarized land use and demographic data to provide background and context to inform the Plan development, including the demand analysis and prioritization. Collision Analysis. The project team analyzed reported collision data from the six most recently available years (2014-2019) involving bicyclists and pedestrians. A citywideanalysis was conducted to identify corridors and locations with the highest concentration of pedestrian and bicycle collisions. These corridors are called high injury networks (HINs)(Figure 25, Page 66 and Figure 26, Page 67 in Attachment 1). The collision data was furtheranalyzed to identify any citywide trends based on temporal characteristics, lighting conditions, location characteristics (intersection versus segment), main cause of the collision, age, and gender. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis. The project team analyzed the bicyclist level of traffic stress (LTS) on the City’s existing roadway network (“on-street LTS”) and on the Class I path, or the shared–use path with exclusive right of way for bicyclists and pedestrians away from the roadway like Iron-Horse Regional Trail, network (“path LTS”). Bicycle LTS methodology considers various roadway characteristics such as the number of vehicle travel lanes, speed of vehicle traffic, and presence and width of a bike facility to measure the stress a bicyclist feels while riding on a given facility. The goal of planning and 156 Page 4 of 6 designing a bicycle network is to enable people of all ages and abilities to feel safe and comfortable riding bicycles throughout the city. These LTS findings are useful for identifying high stress locations where installation of, or upgrades to, bicycle infrastructure would increase bicyclists’ comfort and safety. Pedestrian Barriers Analysis. Sidewalk gaps and lack of safe crossing opportunities can create barriers to walking by requiring people to go out of their way to avoid the gap or by forcing people to walk in the street and increase exposure to vehicle traffic. The project team identified and mapped existing barriers to a safe and comfortable walking network in Dublin, including major arterials and freeways with high vehicle speeds and volumes, gaps in the sidewalk network, and locations with long crossing distances and limited street connectivity. The barriers analysis was used as one input into the Access and Demand Analysis. Access and Demand Analysis. The ability of people to walk or bike to key walking and biking destinations was analyzed to estimate existing access to key destinations. The outputs from the land use and demographic analysis, collision analysis, barrier analysis, and bicycle LTS analysis were key inputs to estimate the share of the Dublin population that had comfortable access and could be expected to walk or bike to each activity center. Access to each destination was estimated for existing conditions with the existing networkand with network recommendations to understand the potential effect of Plan implementation on walk and bike mode share.Network RecommendationsPublic feedback and findings from the existing conditions and needs analysis contributed to thenetwork recommendations (Figure 3, Page 17 in the Executive Summary section and Figure 35, Page 80 in Network Recommendations section within Attachment 1), which include: Corridor Projects. Corridor projects were identified on high-stress roadways that represented major barriers to biking and walking. Point Projects.Point projects were identified at locations that represented major barriers to biking and walking, including freeway crossings, high-stress trail crossings, high-stress intersections, and locations that experienced a high frequency or severity of collisions.Over 50 centerline miles and 54 point project locations were identified to increase low-stress bicycle connectivity and reduce barriers to walking by improving crossings and closing gaps in the network. A complete streets approach was taken during the development of infrastructure recommendations. Bicycle-, pedestrian-, and transit-supportive investments are considered in each corridor and crossing project. The project recommendations are presented as a package, with concurrent improvements to support all three active and sustainable travel modes. Network recommendations include: Shared Lane (Class III): 12.4 miles Bike Lane (Class IIA): 4.0 miles Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB): 17.4 miles 157 Page 5 of 6 Path – Shared use path like Iron Horse Regional trail used by bicycles and pedestrians(Class IA): 7.9 miles Complete Streets Study o Upgrade to Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV): 9.2 miles o Improvements to existing shared use paths adjacent to roadway: 4.9 miles o Speed Reduction: 1.3 miles Point Projects o Interchange projects: 16 locations o Crossing projects: 5 locations o Intersection projects: 33 locationsProgram and Policy RecommendationsPublic feedback and findings from the program and policy review and existing conditions and needs analysis contributed to the program and policy recommendations. The recommendations are organized into eight topic areas and supported by specific strategies and actions to guide the work of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian programs and activities and complement infrastructure recommendations to encourage active transportation in the city.ImplementationStrategyThe project team developed and implemented a prioritization framework, prepared cost estimates, and identified funding sources. The prioritization framework considered factors including safety, social equity, connectivity, and network quality as well as previously identified projects and feasibility of implementation to identify the locations where investments should be prioritized. The infrastructure projects were divided into three tiers, representing: Tier I Projects.High priority projects with likely funding or implementation sources. Tier II Projects.High priority projects with no identified funding source. Tier III Projects.Lower priority investments that support a full low-stress walking, biking, and rolling network across the City.The total cost of all the projects identified in this Plan is approximately $102 million (low cost) to $207 million (high cost). The low-end cost estimates assume implementation of projects by reorganization of the roadway through restriping and minor, quick-build treatments, such ascreating curb extensions using delineators and paint. The high-end cost estimates consider the need to move the curb thereby adding new bicycle facilities, upgrading bicycle facilities, updatingor adding pedestrian crossings, updating pedestrian facilities, adding street trees, redesigning interchange ramps, and adding signage. The cost estimates also include soft costs for Staff time, engineering, design support, construction management, and contingency.Active transportation projects in Dublin have typically been funded through a combination offunding sources, including ballot measure monies (e.g., Alameda County Measure B and BB), the 158 Page 6 of 6 City’s General Fund, developer funds, and State, regional, and federal grants. The Plan identifiespotential funding programs and relevant requirements.BicycleandPedestrianPlan: Supplemental DesignGuidanceThis document (Attachment 2) identifies relevant resources for a variety of design topics relevant to planning and designing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It provides specific planning and design recommendations for several key topics relevant to developing Dublin’s biking and walking infrastructure, including bikeway selection and facility design, bicycle facilities through intersections, accessible pedestrian signals, and crosswalk improvements.Next Steps and ScheduleThe draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan will be presented to both the Planning Commission and the Parks and Community Services Commission for their feedback in fall 2022. The draft Plan will also go through the environmental clearance process and will be brought back to the City Council for adoption near the end of 2022. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:The City Council Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS:1) Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan2) Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Supplemental Design Guidance 159 DUBLIN BICYCLE AND DUBLIN BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN PEDESTRIAN PLAN August 2022 Draft 160 2 City of Dublin2 City of Dublin Draft ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CITY OF DUBLIN Melissa Hernandez (Mayor) Jean Josey (Vice Mayor) Shawn Kumagai (Councilmember) Sherry Hu (Councilmember) Michael McCorriston (Councilmember) Pratyush Bhatia, Transportation Manager Sai Midididdi, Project Manager and Associate Civil (Traffic) Engineer Laurie Sucgang, Assistant Public Works Director Andrew Russell, Public Works Director Bridget Amaya, Parks & Community Services Assistant Director Hazel Wetherford, Economic Development Director John Stefanski, Assistant to City Manager Michael Cass, Principal Planner Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Director CONSULTANT TEAM Kittelson & Associates—Amanda Leahy, AICP; Laurence Lewis, AICP; Camilla Dartnell; Mike Alston, RSP Winter Consulting—Corinne Winter TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chris Stevens, Dublin Unified School District Kevin Monaghan, Dublin Police Services Bonnie S. Terra, Alameda County Fire Department Lisa Bobadilla, Transportation Division Manager at City of San Ramon Cedric Novenario, Senior Traffic Engineer at City of Pleasanton Julie Chiu, Associate Civil Engineer at City of Livermore Andy Ross, Assistant Planner at City of Livermore Christopher Marks, Associate Transportation Planner at Alameda CTC Sergio Ruiz, Branch Chief for Active Transportation at Caltrans Jake Freedman, East Alameda County Liaison at Caltrans District 4 Mariana Parreiras, Project Manager at BART Cyrus Sheik, Senior Transit Planner at Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority Chloe Trifilio, CivicSparks Fellow ALAMEDA CTC BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Matt Turner (Chair), Castro Valley Kristi Marleau (Vice Chair), Dublin David Fishbaugh, Fremont Feliz G. Hill, San Leandro Jeremy Johansen, San Leandro Howard Matis, Berkeley Dave Murtha, Hayward Chiamaka Ogwuegbu, Oakland Nick Pilch, Albany Ben Schweng, Alameda 161 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 3 Draft Acknowledgments 2 Glossary 4 Executive Summary 6 1. Introduction 19 2. Community & Stakeholder Engagement 37 3. Walking & Biking in Dublin Today 46 4. Recommended Bicycle & Pedestrian Networks 79 5. Recommended Programs, Policies, and Practices 97 6. Implementation Strategy 108 Appendix 124 TABLE OF CONTENTS 162 2014 PLAN. The 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which is being replaced by this plan. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION. Active transportation includes personal mobility devices of all kinds: bicycles, wheelchairs, scooters, rollerblades, skateboards, hoverboards, e-bikes, e-scooters, motorized wheelchairs, and more. Emerging technology and the availability of personal mobility devices complicate the definitions of bicycle and pedestrian. This Plan recognizes the high degree of overlapping policy, programmatic, and infrastructure needs among active modes and considers these a part of the bicycling and walking ecosystem. Where necessary, the Plan distinguishes electric mobility such as e-bikes and e-scooters to meet their unique requirements and needs. 1 Roger Geller, “Four Types of Cyclists,” Portland Office of Transportation (2005), https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597?a=237507. BICYCLE. A bicycle (or bike) is a human-powered or motor- powered, pedal-driven vehicle with two wheels attached to a frame. Bicycles can be categorized in different ways, including by function, number of riders, general construction, gearing, or means of propulsion. The more common types include utility or commuter, mountain, road or racing, touring, hybrid, cruiser, BMX, and electric. Less common types include tandem, low-riders, tall bikes, fixed gear, folding, cargo, and recumbents. Unicycles, tricycles, and quadracycles are often referred to as bicycles though they are not strictly bicycles as they have fewer or more than two wheels. BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS. Bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) is an analysis approach that quantifies the amount of comfort and level of stress that people feel when they bike on certain streets based on interactions with other travel modes, traffic control, and roadway characteristics. The methodology was developed in 2012 by the Mineta Transportation Institute and San Jose State University. BICYCLIST TYPOLOGY. Bicyclist typology was developed in 2005 in Portland, Oregon to help understand how people used bicycles for transportation and what biking concerns and needs they had.1 Based on this research, bicyclists tend to fall into one of four groups: (1) Strong and Fearless— willing to bicycle with limited or no bicycle-specific infrastructure. (2) Enthused and Confident— willing to bicycle if some bicycle- specific infrastructure is in place. (3) Interested but Concerned— willing to bicycle if high-quality bicycle infrastructure is in place (4) No Way No How— unwilling to bicycle even if high-quality bicycle infrastructure is in place COMPLETE STREET. Complete Streets is an approach to planning, designing, building, operating, and maintaining streets that enables safe access for all people who need to use them, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. https:/smartgrowthamerica.org/ what-are-complete-streets/ COMPLETE STREET STUDY. A Complete Street Study is recommended on constrained corridors with multiple competing priorities where Class I or Class IV facilities were identified as the suitable facility to provide an all ages and abilities network. The Complete Street Study may GLOSSARY 4 City of Dublin 4 City of Dublin Draft 163 include data collection, analysis, concept design development, and engagement and would be intended to evaluate conditions for people walking, biking, taking transit, and driving along the corridor and assist decision-makers and the public in selecting a preferred alternative for implementation. CURBSIDE MANAGEMENT. An overarching management program and/or plan to guide allocation and regulation of the curbside for optimized mobility and safety for people using the curb space. Curb uses and users include: bicycle infrastructure, pedestrians and crossing infrastructure, vehicle storage, freight and passenger loading, parklets, food trucks and mobile vendors, among others. ELECTRIC BICYCLE. An electric bicycle has fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts. According to Section 312.5 of the California Vehicle Code, there are three classifications of electric bicycles: (1) A Class 1 electric bicycle, or low-speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle, has a motor that assists only when the rider is pedaling. That motor ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. (2) A Class 2 electric bicycle, or low-speed throttle-assisted electric bicycle, has a motor that can be used to propel the bicycle exclusively. The motor is not capable of assisting when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. (3) A Class 3 electric bicycle, or speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle, has a motor that assists only when the rider is pedaling. The motor stops assisting when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. This class of electric bicycles is equipped with a speedometer. END-OF-TRIP FACILITIES. Designated places—like secure bicycle parking, locker facilities, and changing rooms—that encourage bicyclists, joggers, and walkers to use sustainable modes to travel instead of driving. HIGH INJURY NETWORK. The collection of worst- performing street segments based on severity and frequency of pedestrian and bicycle collisions. MICROMOBILITY. Any small, low-speed, human or electric-powered transportation device, including bicycles, scooters, electric-assist bicycles (e-bikes), electric scooters (e-scooters), and other small, lightweight, wheeled conveyances. PEDESTRIAN. People who travel by walking or jogging and people who use a mobility assistive device like walkers, canes, crutches, wheelchairs, or mobility scooters. PERSONAL MOBILITY DEVICE. Various mechanical means of transportation including seated and standing traditional and electric scooters, skateboards, powered wheelchairs, bicycles, and Segways. ROLLING. Rolling as a way to get around can mean many things, like bicycling, using a wheelchair, scooting, skateboarding, among other methods. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 5 Draft 164 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THE NEED FOR A BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN In Dublin, residents and visitors walk and bike for transportation and recreation. People walking and biking are vulnerable road users, and the City needs a connected network of quality infrastructure and amenities to support safe travel by these sustainable modes. Walking and biking for transportation improves health and well-being and provides numerous environmental and economic benefits. The City of Dublin’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (Plan) is a critical planning, policy, and implementation document that supports City efforts to improve safety and attractiveness of biking and walking as a means of transportation and recreation. This Plan builds on, updates, and replaces the 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2014 Plan) and makes recommendations for infrastructure, programs, and policies that support walking and biking in Dublin. VISION STATEMENT The City of Dublin is a vibrant place where walking and biking are safe, comfortable, and convenient ways to travel. In Dublin, walking and biking connects individuals, inclusive of all ages and abilities, to local and regional destinations. 6 City of Dublin 6 City of Dublin Draft 165 GOAL 1 GOAL 2 GOAL 3GOAL 3 GOAL 4 GOAL 5GOAL 5 Enhance Safety Prioritize safety in design and implementation of walking and biking facilities. Increase Walking and Biking Support biking and walking as attractive modes of transportation. Improve Connectivity Develop a bicycle and pedestrian network that provides well- connected facilities for users of all ages and abilities. Enhance Accessibility Utilize principles of universal design to make biking and walking a viable transportation option for all, including people with disabilities. Prioritize Investments Maintain sufficient funding to provide for existing and future bicycle and pedestrian needs, including supporting programs and operation and maintenance. Leverage biking and walking projects to promote economic activity and social equity outcomes among people of all ages and abilities. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 7 Draft 166 ORGANIZATION The Plan document is organized in the following chapters: INTRODUCTION — Outlines the project’s background, vision, planning process, timeline, and goals. COMMUNITY & STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT— Summarizes the approach to, and findings from, community and stakeholder engagement activities. WALKING & BIKING IN DUBLIN TODAY—Maps and analyzes physical and socioeconomic conditions applicable to improving walking and biking in Dublin. Evaluates bicycle level of traffic stress, collision history, high injury streets, and other barriers to walking and biking. RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK —Summarizes the approach to developing network recommendations and presents the recommended citywide bicycle and pedestrian network. RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS, POLICIES, & PRACTICES —Summarizes the approach to developing non- infrastructure recommendations and presents the program and policy recommendations. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY—Summarizes the prioritization framework and presents a tiered list of projects for implementation that considers resource availability and funding opportunities. Presents cost estimates and identifies potential funding sources for these recommendations. LOOKING AHEAD — Recaps key findings from prior chapters and discusses next steps for Plan implementation. TECHNICAL APPENDIX— Includes bicycle and pedestrian facility design guidelines and provides memorandums documenting technical analysis and engagement activities. PROCESS FALL 2020 Project Initiation Baseline Inventory & Needs Analysis Public Participation via In Person Events and Workshops Draft Plan Final Plan & Environmental Review LATE 2021 EARLY 2022 SUMMER 2022 Network Recommendations & Implementation Plan 8 City of Dublin 8 City of Dublin Draft 167 COMMUNITY & STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT At the outset of the planning process, a community engagement plan was created to outline activities, methods, and tools that would be used for public and stakeholder engagement. Due to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic and subsequent stay-at-home orders, the community and stakeholder engagement effort included digital outreach. In-person events were held when it was safe to do so. For more, see Chapter 2. PROJECT WEBSITE BPAC - Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee TAC - Technical Advisory Committee CCC - City Commission and Council Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 20202020 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 20212021 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 20222022 TAC #1 MAR 4, 2020 TAC #2 SEP 15, 2020 TAC #3 JUN 3, 2021 TAC #4 MAR 15, 2022 CCC AUG-SEP 2022Public Survey MAY - SEP 2021 Project Start Project End BPAC #1 SEP 17, 2020 BPAC #2 MAY 25, 2021 BPAC #3 OCT 21, 2021 BPAC #4 FEB 24, 2022 ST PATRICK’S DAY POP-UP MAR 12, 2022 BPAC #5 JUL 21, 2022 Online Workshop & FAQ Live SEP 2, 2020 Farmers’ Market Pop-Up MAY 25, 2021 Alamo Creek Trailhead Pop-Up MAY 27, 2021 Stakeholder Meetings APR–MAY 2021 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 9 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 9 Draft 168 WALKING & BIKING IN DUBLIN TODAY DUBLIN DEMOGRAPHIC SNAPSHOT Dublin Population 61,240 Dublin Population by Race/Ethnicity Dublin Population by Age 35% 7% 9% 24% 16% 8% 25-44 UNDER 5 65+ 45-65 5-14 15-24 6% 2+ RACES 1.1% Hispanic or Latino/a/x 49% <1% 2% ASIAN <1% Hispanic or Latino/a/x AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE <1% Hispanic or Latino/a/x OTHER 1.6% Hispanic or Latino/a/x 4% BLACK/ AFRICAN AMERICAN <1% Hispanic or Latino/a/x 39% WHITE 6.5% Hispanic or Latino/a/x 48% 28% 7% 7% 5% 5% ASIAN-INDIAN CHINESE (EXCEPT TAIWANESE) OTHER ORIGINS FILIPINO KOREAN VIETNAMESE *rounded Source: US Census American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2015-2019) 10 City of Dublin 10 City of Dublin Draft 169 23,000 Commute Snapshot DRIVE ALONE TAKE PUBLIC TRANSIT, CAR SHARE (E.G., GETAROUND, TURO), TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY (E.G., LYFT, UBER), OR A TAXI EITHER WALK OR BIKE OF HOUSEHOLDS IN DUBLIN DO NOT OWN A VEHICLE DUBLINERS COMMUTE OUTSIDE THE CITY FOR WORK MORE THANCARPOOL 69% 13% 2% 3% &9%2015-2019 American Community Survey data Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 11 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 11 Draft 170 PROGRAM AND POLICY NEEDS • Additional resources, including staff dedicated to active transportation. • Updated design guidance and standards to incorporate the innovations and changes since the 2014 Plan. • Enhanced coordination across departments. • Clearer processes and stronger policies related to pedestrian and bicycle project maintenance, design review, and implementation. SAFETY AND COMFORT COLLISION ANALYSIS FINDINGS • 68 bicycle-involved collisions over the 6-year period; 3 fatal and severe injury collisions. • 81 pedestrian-involved collisions over the 6-year period; 12 fatal and severe injury collisions. • People 15–24 years old are overrepresented in pedestrian and bicycle collisions. They represent 25% and 18% of pedestrians and bicyclists involved in collisions, but make up just 8% of the city’s population • 62% of the pedestrian collisions occurred on just 8.4 miles of roadway that comprise the pedestrian high injury network (see Figure 25) • 62% of the bicycle collisions occurred on just 6.7 miles of roadway that comprise the bicycle high injury network (see Figure 26). BICYCLE LEVEL OF STRESS ANALYSIS • Low-stress on-street facilities are typically local residential streets without dedicated bicycle facilities. • Arterial streets, such as Dublin Boulevard, are typically higher-stress due to high vehicular speeds, high traffic volumes, or multiple travel lanes. • Sidepaths can be high stress or low stress, depending on path width, shoulder width, and presence of wayfinding. • Only 37 percent of collectors and 7 percent of arterials in Dublin are low stress. Many businesses and services are located on or near collectors, and these desintations can only be accessed with some travel along or across the collectors or arterials. For more, see Chapter 3. Figure 1. Miles of Bikeway Stress by Functional Classification LOW STRESS STREETS HIGH STRESS STREETS Arterial Streets Collector Streets Residential Streets 0 30 60 90 120 150 Miles *Miles do not include paths. 12 City of Dublin 12 City of Dublin Draft 171 WALKING AND BIKING ACCESS SCHOOLS Cottonwood Creek School, Dougherty Elementary, and Kolb Elementary exhibit the highest estimated walk access with around 36 percent of students living within a 10-minute walk. Access points on high-stress streets create a barrier and reduce the likelihood of students to bike to school. Figure 2. Bicyclist Typology Table 18. Pedestrian Typology Age Typology Walking Characteristics Under 14 Youth Limited by multilane crossings 14 to 55 Teenage and Working Age Adults Strong and capable, but still limited by sidewalk gaps, unsignalized crossings at major roads, and absence of midblock crossings Over 55 Aging The limits experienced by young adults and adults and further limited by the absence of curb ramps or long multilane crossings SHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLINSHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLIN • Dublin High, • Frederiksen Elementary, • Murray Elementary, and • Wells Middle School. BART Approximately 11 percent of Dublin residents are within a 15-minute walk of either the Dublin/ Pleasanton or West Dublin BART stations. Less than one percent of “interested and concerned” bicyclists have a low-stress bicycle route to BART. JOB CENTERS Access to job centers is limited by the distance between employment and residential uses. Job centers are located on high-stress streets, which currently limit safe and comfortable bicycle access to these sites. PARKS Almost 62 percent of residents live within a 15-minute walk of a park. Nearly 42 percent of residents have a low-stress bicycle route to a park. For more, see Chapter 3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 13 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 13 Draft 172 NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS BICYCLE FACILITIES The recommended new facilities include the following: Class I: 12.8 miles Class II: 19.9 miles Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike Lane Bike Lane Shoulder Sharrow Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations Identify complementary bicycle facilities Class I Facility Class II Facility KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him) Class III Facility Class IV Facility Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike Lane Bike Lane Shoulder Sharrow Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations Identify complementary bicycle facilities Class I Facility Class II Facility KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him) Class III Facility Class IV Facility Class III: 12.4 miles Class IV: 9.2 miles Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations Identify complementary bicycle facilities Class I FacilityClass II Facility KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him) Class III Facility Class IV Facility For more, see Chapter 4. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES The recommended pedestrian and bicycle networks were developed in tandem using a complete street approach. A suite of pedestrian treatments is recommended along project corridors so that when concept designs are developed, bicycle and pedestrian improvements can be planned, designed, and implemented at the same time. Pedestrian improvements include: • consistent sidewalk • buffers with street trees and green stormwater infrastructure • high-visibility crosswalks • accessible curb ramps • curb extensions • reduced corner radii • signal improvements SPOT IMPROVEMENTS Intersections and mid-block locations in the city with relatively high collision frequency and severity relative to the rest of the network have been prioritized for safety enhancements. The recommendations for this Plan include 16 freeway modernization improvements, 33 intersection improvements, and 5 crossing improvements. For more, see Chapter 4. 14 City of Dublin 14 City of Dublin Draft 173 PROGRAM AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Coordination and Collaboration Emerging Technologies Promotion and Encouragement Funding and Implementation Supporting Infrastructure and Amenities Operations and Maintenance Data Collection Design For more, see Chapter 5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 15 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 15 Draft 174 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Table 1. Prioritization Factors and Variables FACTOR VARIABLE Safety High-Injury Corridors Social Equity Youth and Senior Population Connectivity Demand Analysis Proximity to Schools Quality of Service Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Sidewalk Gaps Major Barriers Freeway Crossings Consistency with Past Planning Previously Identified Projects TIER I Near-Term Project Cost $21,085,000 - $27,589,000 TIER II AND TIER IIILong-Term Investment Cost $80,928,000- $179,692,000 Active transportation projects in Dublin have typically been funded through a combination of ballot measure monies (e.g., Alameda County Measure B, BB, and Measure RR), the City General Fund, the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, developer- funded projects, and transportation impact fees, with some funding from state, regional, and federal grants. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) or Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), signed into law in November 2021, established more than two dozen competitive grant programs for infrastructure initiatives. These discretionary grants and other funding sources are described in Chapter 6. FUNDING IDENTIFIED IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2022-2027) $1,879,684 for citywide bicycle and pedestrian projects. $12,147,565 for street resurfacing. PRIORITIZATION FACTORS COST ESTIMATES PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCES For more, see Chapter 6. 16 City of Dublin 16 City of Dublin Draft 175 !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022 Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California [0 3,300 FeetProposed Point Project !Spot Improvement Proposed Segment Project !!!Shared Lane (Class III) !!!Bike Lane (Class IIA) !!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) !!!Complete Streets Study: Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV) !!!Complete Streets Study: ConsiderImprovements to Existing Sidepaths Class I Path Project Existing Facility Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Schools BART Stations Parks Figure 3. Recommended Projects and Existing Facilities !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022 Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California [0 3,300 FeetProposed Point Project !Spot Improvement Proposed Segment Project !!!Shared Lane (Class III) !!!Bike Lane (Class IIA) !!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) !!!Complete Streets Study: Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV) !!!Complete Streets Study: Consider Improvements to Existing Sidepaths Class I Path Project Existing Facility Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Schools BART Stations Parks !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022 Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California [0 3,300 FeetProposed Point Project !Spot Improvement Proposed Segment Project !!!Shared Lane (Class III) !!!Bike Lane (Class IIA) !!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) !!!Complete Streets Study: Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV) !!!Complete Streets Study: ConsiderImprovements to Existing Sidepaths Class I Path Project Existing Facility Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Schools BART Stations Parks Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Training Area Locations with identified proposed segment projects may also include pedestrian improvements such as consistent sidewalks, buffers with street trees and/or green stormwater infrastructure, high-visibility crosswalks, accessible curb ramps, curb extensions, reduced corner radii, and signal improvements Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 17 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 17 Draft 176 21 177 This chapter introduces the project, including its background and need, and sets the stage for the analysis, findings, and recommendations detailed in subsequent chapters. ABOUT THE PLAN The City of Dublin’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is a critical planning, policy, and implementation document that supports the City’s efforts to improve the safety and attractiveness of biking and walking as a means of transportation and recreation. This Plan updates and replaces the City’s 2014 Plan by building upon the 2014 Plan’s goals and recommendations and by using new guidance documents. The update will result in infrastructure and program and policy recommendations that support walking and biking in Dublin. THE 2014 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN The 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the following six goals included in the 2014 Plan, provides a baseline for the updated Plan. 2014 GOALS Goal 1: Support bicycling and walking as practical, healthy, and convenient alternatives to automobile use in Dublin. Goal 2: Implement a well- connected active transportation system to attract users of all ages and abilities. Goal 3: Incorporate the needs and concerns of bicyclists and pedestrians in all transportation and development projects. Goal 4: Support infrastructure investments with targeted bicycle and pedestrian education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation programs. Goal 5: Maximize multi- modal connections in the transportation network. Goal 6: Improve bicycle and pedestrian safety citywide. NEW GUIDANCE Since the 2014 Plan was adopted, bicycle and pedestrian planning and design guidance and standards have evolved to include innovative treatments and guidance from local and national agencies. Best-practice documents should be considered when implementing any bicycle and pedestrian facility. The latest versions of best-practice design guides developed by outside sources should be 1. INTRODUCTION 5. Proposed Bicycle & Pedestrian Networks 100 City of Dublin TABLE 5-2 PROPOSED BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS Project Name Proposal (Directions) Class Location Existing Conditions Recommendations Length (miles) Sierra Court Bicycle Lanes IIA Sierra Court between Sierra Lane and Dublin Boulevard Existing 50'+ curb-to-curb distance with limited parking utilization Connection between Dougherty Road/Iron Horse Trail and Civic Plaza/Alamo Canal Trail 0.12 Sierra Lane Bicycle Lanes IIA Sierra Lane between Sierra Court and Dougherty Road Existing 50'+ curb-to-curb distance with limited parking utilization Connection between Dougherty Road/Iron Horse Trail and Civic Plaza/Alamo Canal Trail 0.3 Silvergate Drive Bicycle Lanes IIA Woodren Court to San Ramon Road EB Bicycle Lane not striped; WB bicycle lane striping starts in channelized SB right-turn lane Proposed Class IIA EB between Woodren Court and San Ramon Road remove SB right slip lane and restripe WB Class IIA Bicycle Lane 0.06 St. Patrick Way Bicycle Lanes IIA St. Patrick Way from Regional Street to Essex Development and Golden Gate Drive to Amador Plaza Road Extends from Amador Plaza Road to Golden Gate Drive only; will be extended to Regional Street with West Dublin/Pleasanton BART development. Proposed Class IIA in both directions to support “last mile” connections to West Dublin BART-Developer-Built Facility 0.25 Stagecoach Park / Iron Horse Trail Connector Shared-Use Path and Bridge I From Stagecoach Road along edge of Stagecoach Park to Iron Horse Trail Significant grade issues; Bridge needed across Alamo Canal; Crosses land owned by Southern Pacific. Proposed Class I in coordination with proposed Iron Horse Nature Park. 0.06 Stagecoach Road Bicycle Lanes IIA Stagecoach Road between Alcosta Boulevard and Stagecoach Park Low-volume collector street; existing shoulder can be re-striped as bicycle lane. Proposed Class IIA Bicycle Lanes 0.56 Prepared by: 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Prepared for the: City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Adopted by the City Council on Octobe r 7 , 2 0 1 4 Dublin Existing Bikeways Figure 4-5 Not to Scale March 2014 U U U DUBLIN B L I580 FA L L O N R D I68 0 TA S S A J A R A R D TA SS A J A R A C R E E K TR A I L CENTRAL PW GLEASON DRVIL L A G E P W FA L L O N 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 ALA M O C A N AL T R A I L S A N R A M O N R D AMAD O R V A L L E Y B L AR N O L D R D V O M A C R D HA C I E N D A D R SIER R A C T POSI T A N O P W TAMARACK DR SIL V E R G A T E D R ST A G E C O A C H R D DAVONA DR P E P P E R T R E E R D YOR K D R PEN N D R MARTINELLI WY RE G I O N A L S T S T A R W A R D D R A M A D O R P L A Z A R D D O N O H U E D R MAPLE DR DUBLIN CT IR O N H O R S E P W G O L D E N G A T E D R CIVIC P Z GR A F T O N S T U Signalized Trail Crossing Undercrossing Existing Unsignalized Crossin g Crossing with Pedestrian Beac o n Exiting Trail Crossings Exiting Bikeways CPath Bicycle Lanes Bicycle Route lass I Class II Class III BART City Limits Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 19 Draft 178 consulted regularly to ensure information is up to date. Relevant guidance includes: • California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2018) • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bikeway Selection Guide (2019) • FHWA Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts (2016) • AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Design Guidelines (2019) • National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2014) • NACTO Transit Street Design Guide (2016) • NACTO Urban Street Stormwater Guide (2016) Relevant documents and additional guidance is presented in the Design Guide (appendix D). PROGRESS SINCE THE 2014 PLAN Since the 2014 Plan’s adoption, the City and developers have built 10.8 miles of the proposed 35.3 miles of bikeways. They have built 7 of the 25 recommended pedestrian projects, and 2 more are in progress. The infrastructure inventory is presented in Figure 4. This Plan update reevaluates recommendations and carries forward relevant projects from the 2014 Plan. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS Federal, state, and local agencies develop policies and publish plans to guide investment and set transportation priorities. Understanding how these plans and policies relate and fit together helps ensure recommendations are consistent with and build on prior planning efforts. This section describes relevant plans and policies. Table 2 presents what aspects of the most relevant existing policy and planning documents were used to guide this Plan’s policies and projects. FEDERAL POLICIES USDOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations. In 2010, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued a policy directive in support of walking and bicycling. The policy encouraged transportation agencies to go beyond minimum standards and fully-integrate active transportation into projects. As part of the statement, the USDOT encouraged agencies to adopt similar policy statements in support of walking and bicycling considerations. Americans with Disabilities Act—The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title III is legislation enacted in 1990 that provides thorough civil liberties protections to individuals with disabilities with regards to employment, state and local government services, and access to public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications. Title III of the Act requires places of public accommodation to be accessible and usable to all people, including people with disabilities. 20 City of Dublin Draft 179 INFRASTRUCTURE INVENTORY The 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan produced a suite of infrastructure recommendations, including the following: A recommended walking network consisting of five main improvement types: 83 bikeway infrastructure projects, totaling 35.3 miles Signalized Tassajara Creek trail crossing at Central Parkway. The 2014 Plan recommended Tassajara Creek crossing locations at Dublin Boulevard which have not yet been built. WALKING NETWORK PROJECT TYPES A recommended bikeway network with the following intended focus: CONNECTIONS TO KEY ACTIVITY CENTERS COMFORT AND LOW LEVEL OF STRESS CONNECTIONS TO REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM CONNECTIONS TO ADJACENT CITIES BIKEWAY NETWORK PROJECT TYPES Class IIA bike lane along Tassajara Road, which was proposed in the 2014 Plan. INTERSECTION CROSSING TREATMENTS SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ADA IMPROVEMENTS SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS REMOVE BARRIERS Figure 4. Infrastructure Inventory 24 pedestrian infrastructure projects Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 21 Draft 180 PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT TYPE PROPOSED BUILT IN PROGRESS Intersection crossing treatments 12 2 0 Sidewalk improvements 2 0 1 ADA improvements 6 1 0 Signal modifications 4 1 0 Remove Barriers 3 3 1 Wayfinding signage 1 0 0 Total 28 7 2 Pedestrian projects proposed and built, by project type Bicycle facilities proposed and built, by mileage Some projects included multiple types and are double or triple counted into all relevant categories. PROGRESS: Proposed mixed facilities are listed by their highest proposed class (e.g., Class IIA/IIIA is listed as Class IIA) 8.1 10.8 16.4 10 8 6 4 2 0 Class IIIA Class IIA Class IIB Class I 0.8 4.0 4.8 2.0 9.2 0.8 2.43.3 5.4 2.7 Built To be Built by City To be Built by Developer Built To be Built by City To be Built by Developer 22 City of Dublin Draft 181 !m !m!m!m!m !m !m !m !m!m!m !m !m!m !m!m!m!m !m §¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H RD M A D D EN W Y T A MARACKDR D A V ONA DR S I L V E RGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUBLIN BL DOUGHERTY RD POSITANO P W V IL L A G E P W D O N O HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIERRA CT FALLON RD TASSAJARA RD NORTHSIDE DR A M A D O R V A L L E Y B L COLLIER CANYON RD 8TH ST CROMWELL AV BARNET BL CROAK RD RANGERD FCI CREEKSIDEDR HORIZON PW SCARLETT CT PERSI M MONDR A L L E Y 6TH ST 7TH ST SEBILLE RD SC A RLETT D R P A LI S A D E S DR 1 2 T H S T TOWER RD SYRAHDR HILLR O S E D R IN S P I R ATIONCI ALBROOK DR EAGLE R D BRODER BL I N S PIRATI O N DR CREEKVIEW DR H I L L T O P RD DUBLIN BL Civic Plaza Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Proposed Bikeways, Built Class I Class IIA Class IIB Proposed Bikeways, Not Built Class I Class IIA Class IIB Class IIIA [0 1 Mile Pedestrian Intersection/Crossing Project !m Not Built !m Built Pedestrian Corridor Projects Not Built In Progress Built Figure 5. 2014 Plan Proposed Bikeway Facilities Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Training Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 23 Draft 182 Table 2. Relevant Plans and Policies Plan Relevance to Current Plan Bicycle Policies Pedestrian Policies Facility/ Network Maps Design Guidelines Project Recommendations or Concept Designs Program Recommendations STATE AND REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES California Green Building Code Caltrans Toward an Active California (2017) Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018) Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan (2020) Alameda Countywide Active Transportation Plan (2019) Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Plan Bay Area 2050 (2021) MTC Active Transportation Plan (in progress, anticipated 2022) East Bay Regional Parks District Master Plan (2013) LOCAL CITY PLANS AND POLICIES Local Roadway Safety Plan (in progress, anticipated 2022) Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan (in progress, anticipated 2022) 24 City of Dublin Draft 183 Plan Relevance to Current Plan Bicycle Policies Pedestrian Policies Facility/ Network Maps Design Guidelines Project Recommendations or Concept Designs Program Recommendations LOCAL CITY PLANS AND POLICIES CONTINUED Streetscape Master Plan (2009) Complete Streets Policy (City Council Resolution 199-12) (2012) Dublin Boulevard Bikeway Corridor and Connectivity Studies (2013) Pedestrian Safety Assessment (2014) Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2014) General Plan Land Use & Circulation (2014) Circulation & Scenic Highways Element Schools, Public Lands, & Utilities Element Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2022) Iron Horse Regional Trail Feasibility Study (2017) Traffic Safety Study Update (2018) Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (2020) Downtown Streetscape Master Plan (2020) Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 25 Draft 184 Plan Relevance to Current Plan Bicycle Policies Pedestrian Policies Facility/ Network Maps Design Guidelines Project Recommendations or Concept Designs Program Recommendations Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan (2019) Specific Plans Dublin Crossing (2013) Downtown (2014) Dublin Village Historic Area (2014) Eastern Dublin (2016) FEDERAL PLANS AND POLICIES USDOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accomodation Regulations and Recommendations Americans with Disabilities Act 26 City of Dublin Draft 185 STATE AND REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES Complete Streets Act of 2008: California’s Complete Streets Act of 2008 (Assembly bill 1358) requires all cities to modify the circulation element of their general plan to “plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users” when a substantive revision of the circulation element occurs. The law went into effect on January 1, 2011. The law also directs the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to amend its guidelines for the development of circulation elements to aid cities and counties in meeting the requirements of the Complete Streets Act. Senate Bill 375/Assembly Bill 32: California Assembly Bill 32 requires greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by 28 percent by the year 2020 and by 50 percent by the year 2050. Senate Bill 375 provides the implementation mechanisms for Assembly Bill 32. Senate Bill 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations and regional planning agencies to plan for these reductions by developing sustainable community strategies (SCS), which will be a regional guide for housing, land uses, and transportation and will incorporate the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). A key component of SCS is the reduction of automobile trips and vehicle miles traveled. Planning for increases in walking, bicycling, and transit use as viable alternatives to automobile travel are important components of these SCS/RTP plans. California Green Building Standards Code: According to Chapter 8.76 of the City of Dublin’s Municipal Code, bicycle parking and support facilities in both residential and non-residential development shall conform to the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The CALGreen Code includes both mandatory and voluntary measures. For non-residential buildings, it is mandatory that both short-term and long-term bicycle parking is provided and secure. Generally, the number of long-term bicycle parking spaces must be at least 5 percent of the number of vehicle parking spaces. Schools have additional requirements so both students and staff have access to sufficient bicycle parking. Caltrans Toward an Active California (2017): Toward an Active California is Caltrans’s first statewide policy and plan to support bicyclists and pedestrians through objectives, strategies, and actions. Toward an Active California introduces 4 new objectives, 15 strategies, and 60 actions that are specific to active transportation and serve as the basis for Plan implementation. Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018): This plan evaluates bicycle needs on and across the State transportation network and identifies priority bicycle projects. Projects are prioritized as top tier, mid tier, and low tier. The following projects are recommended for Dublin: FINAL MAY 2017 Plan Oversight The plan was developed with support from a Technical Advisory Committee, that was selected to be broadly repre- sentative of Caltrans, regional and local transportation agencies, and partners in related fields. Committee members include: » Representatives of each Caltrans District » Representatives of Caltrans Divisions of Transportation Planning; Design; Local Assistance; Maintenance; Traffic Operations; Programming; Environmental Analysis; Rail and Mass Transportation; and Research, Innovation and System Information » California Highway Patrol » California Department of Public Health » California Department of Motor Vehicles » California Transportation Commission » California High Speed Rail Authority » California Office of Traffic Safety » City of San Luis Obispo » Southern California Association of Governments » Sacramento Regional Transit District » Rural Counties Task Force » Nevada County Transportation Commission » California Bicycle Coalition » California Walks » UC Davis Sustainable Transportation Center » Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority » Federal Transit Administration Plan oversight was provided by a Policy Advisory Committee, which included the: » Deputy Director of Planning & Modal Programs » Deputy Director of Project Delivery » Deputy Director of Maintenance and Operations » Deputy Director of Finance » Deputy Director of Sustainability » Deputy Secretary of Housing and Environment CALTRANS DISTRICTS TOWARD AN ACTIVE CALIFORNIA | 4 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 8 10 11 7 Ã1 £6 £50 £97 £101 £95 ¥80 ¥40 ¥15¥5 ¥10Long Beach Bakersfield Lancaster Chico Monterey Salinas Santa Cruz San Bernardino SantaBarbara Fresno Eureka San Jose Sacramento San Diego SanFrancisco Los Angeles TOWARD AN ACTIVE CALIFORNIA | 12 1996 First bicycle signal head installed in North America in Davis, CA 2008Deputy Directive 64 released, requiring complete streets integration into all agency activities 2010 Smart Mobility Framework released Complete Streets Implementation Acti o n P l a n Complete Intersections Guide 1999 AB 1475 authorizes the statewide Safe Routes to School program. 2007 Statewide Safe Routes to School program made permanent 2009 Pedestrian Safety Improvement Program (P S I P ) launched, identifying and addressing problem s with pedestrian safety in California The increasing rate of biking and w a l k i n g h a s m a d e C a l i f o r n i a r o a d s s a f e r . However, safety continues to be a c o n c e r n . BETWEEN 2005 AND 2014, THER E W E R E 134,125 bicyclist-involved collisions and 136,618 pedestrian-involved collisions across California. That is an aver a g e o f 37 and bicyclist-involved 38 pedestrian-involvedcollisions per day collisions per dayTHERE WERE 1,351 bicyclist fatalities across California. That is more than 2.5 FATALITIES PER WEEK AND THERE WERE 6,874 pedestrian fatalities across California. That is nearly 2 PEDESTRIANS KILLED EACH DAY IN 2014, NEARLY 14ROADWAY FATALITIES in involved a pedestrian Note, collision statistics typically exclude colli s i o n s o n t r a i l s o r b e t w e e n b i c y c l i s t s a n d / o r p e d e s t r i a n s 25% 10% SAFETY IS IMPROVINGRelative to the number of trips, bicycle and pedestrian fatalities have declined PEDESTRIANRITRIAFATALITIEESSDECLINEEDD BICYCLE E FATALITTIIEEESSSDECLINENEDD 40% 50% BUT REMAINS A CHALLENGE Bicycle and pedestrian fatalities an d s e r i o u s injuries are an increasing share of the t o t a l ROAD FATALITIES DECLINED PEDESTRIAN FATALITIES STAYED THE SAME BICYCLE E FATALITTIIEEESSSINCREAASSEEDDD Data from SWITRS, 2005-2014,California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and National Household Travel Survey 200 0 - 2 0 0 2 & 2 0 1 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 27 Draft 186 • Top Tier Project: Santa Rita Road and I-580 interchange reconstruction (ramps only); Class IIB facility • Mid Tier Project: Tassajara Creek and I-580 new separated crossing; Alcosta Boulevard and I-680 minor interchange improvements (signage and striping); Class II facility • Low Tier Project: Demarcus Boulevard and I-580 new separated crossing Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan (2020): This plan identifies and prioritizes pedestrian needs along and across the State Highway System to inform future investments. The plan’s main output is a prioritized list and map of location-based pedestrian needs and a toolkit with strategies to address those needs. Alameda Countywide Active Transportation Plan (2019): The 2019 Countywide Active Transportation Plan (CATP) updates and combines the Countywide Bicycle Plan and the Countywide Pedestrian Plan. The CATP analyzes low-stress bike networks, identifies a countywide high injury pedestrian and bicycle network, evaluates major barriers to the bicycle and pedestrian network, and establishes a framework for prioritizing projects of countywide significance to inform decision-making about active transportation funding at the Alameda County Transportation Commission. At the local level, the CATP provides resources to member agencies to help advance projects that provide complete, safe, and connected networks for biking and walking, including better connections to the regional transit network. Connectivity analysis presented in the CATP indicate that the east planning area, which includes the City of Dublin, generally has poor low-stress connectivity in the rural and outlying suburban areas and in the business park portions of Dublin and Pleasanton. Based on the high-injury network analysis completed in the CATP, the combined bicycle and pedestrian high-injury network miles represent less than one percent of the total countywide high-injury network. In the east planning area, Dublin Boulevard from Arnold Road to Hacienda Drive and Village Parkway from Davona Drive to Tamarack Drive have the highest bicycle collision severity scores. Dublin Boulevard was identified as the street with the most miles on the pedestrian high-injury network. The 2020 Countywide Transportation Plan (2020): The 2020 Countywide Transportation Plan (2020 CTP) was adopted along with the Community-Based Transportation Plan and the New Mobility Roadmap. The 2020 CTP covers transportation projects, policies, and programs out to the year 2050 for Alameda County. The Community- Based Transportation Plan is an assessment of transportation needs in the county’s low-income communities and communities of color with a focus on input collected via community engagement activities. The New Mobility Roadmap provides a foundation for agency policy, advocacy, and funding decisions to advance new mobility technologies and services for the Alameda CTC and partner agencies, as well as the private sector. The 2020 CTP 10-year priority project list includes the following projects in the City of Dublin: Iron Horse Trail Crossing at Dublin Boulevard, Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan Implementation, Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station Active Access Improvements, Safe Routes to School Improvements, Interchange modernizations at I-580/I-680, I-580/Fallon/El Charro, and I-580/Hacienda, widening of Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Tassajara Road and the extension of Dublin Boulevard North Canyons Parkway. To 28 City of Dublin Draft 187 Bay Area Metro Center – 375 Beale Street, San Francisco, CA 94105ABAG – Suite 700 – 415.820.6700 – info@bayareametro.gov – abag.ca.govMTC – Suite 800 – 415.778.6700 – info@bayareametro.gov – mtc.ca.gov For moreinformation visit usat planbayarea.org. October 21, 2021 Adopted FINAL SU M M A R Y R E P O R T DISTR I C T4 FOR THE BAY AREAPEDESTRIAN PLAN2021 DISTRICT 4 MESSAGE FROM THE DISTR I C T 4 D I R E C T O R I am pleased to present the Caltran s D i s t r i c t 4 P e d e s t r i a n Plan for the San Francisco Bay Are a . T h i s P l a n f u r t h e r s t h e 2017 State Bicycle and Pedestrian P l a n , Toward an Active California, which established statewide polic i e s , s t r a t e g i e s and actions to advance active tra n s p o r t a t i o n a n d t r a n s i t safety, mobility, preservation, and eq u i t y . I t a l s o b u i l d s o n t h e success and ongoing implementatio n o f t h e 2 0 1 8 D i s t r i c t 4 Bike Plan. The Caltrans Bay Area team is alread y w o r k i n g t o incorporate pedestrian elements i n t o o u r p r o j e c t s , a n d embracing a complete streets appro a c h t o o u r p l a n n i n g , project development, operation, and m a i n t e n a n c e a c t i v i t i e s . This plan provides valuable guidanc e b y i d e n t i f y i n g a n d prioritizing needs informed by our d e p a r t m e n t a n d o u r p u b l i c agency and community partners. The Pedestrian Plan will guide Caltran s B a y A r e a i n v e s t m e n t s to support walking and connect peop l e w i t h o p p o r t u n i t i e s , while seeking to reconnect previous l y d i v i d e d c o m m u n i t i e s . Collaboratively working with our par t n e r s f r o m l o c a l a n d r e g i o n a l agencies, community organizations, a n d a d v o c a c y g r o u p s i s central to the development of this p l a n , a n d w i l l b e c e n t r a l t o i t s implementation. I would like to ackn o w l e d g e a n d t h a n k a l l w h o participated in this process, with a spec i a l r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e important role and contribution of the P e d e s t r i a n P l a n W o r k i n g Group in guiding the development of t h e p l a n . We look forward to working with our lo c a l a n d r e g i o n a l p a r t n e r s and communities on implementing the P e d e s t r i a n P l a n . Dina A. El-Tawansy District Director District 4 – Bay Area WHERE IS CALTRANS DISTRICT 4? District 4 covers the Bay Area, which includes the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. District 4 Director, Dina A. El-Tawansy SR 1 at Tam Junction. Photo by Sergio Ru i z . 4 CALTRANS DISTRICT 4 / Pedestrian Plan for the Bay Area / SUMMARY REPORT Plan Bay Area 2 0 5 0 In summer 2020, M T C a n d A B A G h e l d 2 4 p u b l i c a n d s t a k e h o l d e r e v e n t s . R e s i d e n t s w e r e a b l e t o p r o v i d e t h e i r feedback via online s u r v e y , i n f o r m a l v i r t u a l “ c o f f e e c h a t s , ” e m a i l , t e l e p h o n e , a s t a t i s t i c a l l y v a l i d t e l e p h o n e p o l l a n d an online tribal sum m i t . O v e r 1 7 8 , 0 0 0 c o m m e n t s w e r e r e c e i v e d f r o m m o r e t h a n 8 , 2 0 0 r e s i d e n t s . P l a n B a y A r e a 2 0 5 0 “wrapped up” its en g a g e m e n t e f f o r t s i n s u m m e r 2 0 2 1 f o l l o w i n g t h e r e l e a s e o f t h e D r a f t P l a n B a y A r e a 2 0 5 0 a n d t h e completion of the t h i r d r o u n d o f p u b l i c a n d p a r t n e r e n g a g e m e n t . Photo: Peter Beele r 2 3 4 ,00 0 +2 3 ,00 0 +TWO-THIRDS OF EVENTS AND A C T I V I T I E S PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED during Horizon an d Plan Bay Area 205 0 PARTICIPANTS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS TARGETED TO EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITIES AND OTHER UNDERSERVED GROUPS 450+ PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES including in-pers o n a n d virtual workshop s , p o p - u p events, and board a n d working group me e t i n g s , among others 19 complement these projects, the 10-Year Priority Projects and Programs, the 2020 CTP includes a series of Strategies that reflect guiding principles, industry best practices, and a gaps analysis of areas that aren’t fully covered by projects: safe system approach, complete corridors approach, partnerships to address regional and megaregional issues, transit accessibility and transportation demand management, and new mobility and an automated, low- emission and shared future. MTC Plan Bay Area 2050 (2021): This plan from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the region’s long- range strategic plan. It is focused on the interrelated elements of housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment. MTC Active Transportation Plan (in progress, anticipated 2022): This forthcoming plan will guide investments in infrastructure and the development and implementation of regional policy. The plan supports the Plan Bay Area 2050 strategy to build a complete streets network and helps to meet goals to improve safety, equity, health, resilience, and climate change. East Bay Regional Parks District Master Plan (2013): This policy document guides future development of parks, trails, and services. LOCAL CITY PLANS AND POLICIES Streetscape Master Plan (2009): This master plan maximizes opportunities to craft an urban image unique to Dublin and opportunities to maintain existing amenities like street trees. Among other goals, the plan aims to coordinate improvements and responsibilities for Dublin’s streets and to strengthening Dublin Boulevard’s streetscape. In the context of active transportation, this plan is a valuable resource for identifying and implementing street improvements that contribute to Dublin’s image. Complete Streets Policy (City Council Resolution No. 199-12) (2012): The City of Dublin’s Complete Streets Policy identifies complete streets planning as a critical contributor to: • Increase walking, biking, and taking transit • Reduce vehicle miles traveled • Meet greenhouse gas reduction goals Together, these targets aim to benefit public health. The policy emphasizes community engagement, sensitivity to land use and context, and coordination with nearby jurisdictions to connect infrastructure across city boundaries. The policy names several improvements that should be considered to Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 29 Draft 188 benefit all users of the street, including sidewalks, shared use paths, bike lanes and routes, and accessible curb ramps. Dublin Boulevard Bikeway Corridor and Connectivity Studies (2013): Completed in 2013, these two studies evaluated options for improving bicycling conditions on Dublin Boulevard, particularly in Downtown Dublin. A traffic analysis determined that removing a vehicle travel lane on Dublin Boulevard would delay transit service and worsen traffic during peak periods. Community members and local business owners expressed concern that this change would be a barrier to visiting Downtown Dublin by car. Ultimately, a shared-use path running alongside Dublin Boulevard and connecting to the Alamo Canal Trail became the long-term vision for bicycling in Dublin. In the interim, the City added sharrows (a Class III facility) to Dublin Boulevard between Dublin Court and Tassajara Road and permitted riding on sidewalks to make bicycling a more comfortable experience for all skill levels. Pedestrian Safety Assessment (2014): The University of California, Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies Technology Transfer Program prepared this assessment for the City of Dublin in 2014. The assessment authors compared different types of collisions that occurred in Dublin with other cities in California and found that Dublin has a relatively high number of collisions involving pedestrians—particularly young and old pedestrians— and collisions involving high vehicle speeds. Opportunities to improve walking conditions in Dublin include traffic calming programs, transportation demand management policies and programs, and coordination with health agencies. This assessment also included specific areas of Dublin where improvements could benefit pedestrian conditions. The updated bicycle and pedestrian plan reviewed these key areas. Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2014): Adopted in 2014, Dublin’s 2014 Plan established key goals and policies to maintain and improve biking and walking infrastructure. The plan’s goals and policies support its vision for Dublin. The 2014 Plan inventoried the bicycle and pedestrian network and documented potential improvements to specific facilities. The plan organized infrastructure projects at key locations into four tiers by priority and intended to actualize the proposed biking and walking network. Programming opportunities to attract biking and walking trips are also identified in the 2014 Plan. In addition to listing potential funding sources for project implementation, the Entrance to Iron Horse Trail 30 City of Dublin Draft 189 2014 Plan includes bicycle and pedestrian design guidelines that apply national resources and best practices to project implementation in Dublin. General Plan Circulation & Scenic Highways Element and Schools, Public Lands, & Utilities Element (2014): The General Plan’s Land Use & Circulation elements focus on meeting the mobility needs of all roadway users by any mode and aligns with two key documents: the City of Dublin’s Complete Streets Policy and the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan (a regional plan). The element promotes the use of local and regional trails and emphasize improving experiences walking and taking transit. The elements prioritize two areas for active transportation investments: the Eastern Extended Planning Area and Downtown Dublin. .The elements’ guiding policies that are the most relevant to the Plan include: • 5.3.1.A.3—Encourage improvements in the Enhanced Pedestrian Areas to improve the walkability of these areas. • 5.5.1.A.1—Provide safe, continuous, comfortable, and convenient bikeways throughout the city. • 5.5.1.A.2—Improve and maintain bikeways and pedestrian facilities and support facilities in conformance with the recommendations in the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. • 5.5.1.A.3—Enhance the multimodal circulation network to better accommodate alternative transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation. • 5.5.1.A.4—Provide comfortable, safe, and convenient walking routes throughout the city and, in particular, to key destinations such as Downtown Dublin, BART stations, schools, parks, and commercial centers. Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2022): The Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) establishes goals, standards, guiding policies, and an action plan to guide the City of Dublin in the acquisition, development, and management (operations and maintenance) of Dublin’s park and recreation facilities through the ultimate build-out of the City in accordance with the General Plan. This PRMP update addresses the program and facility needs of the anticipated future population growth. The development standards for new parks and facilities are intended to provide for quality parks, trails, sports fields and recreation and cultural facilities needed at build-out in a manner that is fiscally sustainable to operate and maintain. Relevant goals and objectives include exploring improving/adding bike paths and walking trails, and continuing to maintain and improve existing facilities, parks, trails, and open spaces. The standards and criteria for the City’s parks and recreation facilities include requirements for bicycle parking, paving, and width. Iron Horse Regional Trail Feasibility Study (2017): Based on a multimodal assessment and community outreach processes, this Feasibility Study arrives at several key preferred alternatives for the Iron Horse Regional Trail and its crossings on Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard, and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. A multi-use trail separating people walking and biking was preferred; a bicycle/ pedestrian bridge was preferred for crossing Dublin Boulevard, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 31 Draft 190 while an at-grade crossing was preferred for Dougherty Road. Improvements near the BART station are intended to both enhance access to transit and improve experiences for trail users passing through the station area. Improvements to the Iron Horse Regional Trail contribute to this Plan by making use of the Trail easier and more convenient. Traffic Safety Study Update (2018): Collisions were studied in the 2018 Traffic Safety Study Update (Safety Study) to evaluate safety performance on specific street sections and intersections. Overall, collisions had increased at the time of the Safety Study, likely as a result of population increases and people living and driving in Dublin, particularly East Dublin. Recommendations in the Update include continuous bicycle lanes at Central Parkway and Tassajara Road. The collision analysis included in this Plan supplements the findings and recommendations of the Safety Study. Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (2020): The Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond, establishes the City’s vision for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2045. The CAP names transportation as the largest source of emissions in Dublin and lays a plan for Dublin to become carbon neutral by 2045. Zero-emission vehicles and mode shift to biking, walking, and transit trips are key strategies to reduce Dublin’s GHG emissions and meet citywide targets. The CAP sets measures to develop plans and programs around transportation demand management, transit- oriented development, parking management, and electric vehicle infrastructure planning to support mode shift and electrification of Dublin’s vehicle fleet. A shift to alternative, active, shared, and electric mobility will provide safer routes between home, transit stops, and other community amenities, reduce GHG emissions, reduce traffic congestion, improve public health outcomes, and have economic benefits. Downtown Streetscape Master Plan (2020): The Downtown Streetscape Master Plan provides direction for public and private investment, specifically in regard to the development of the public realm and Downtown’s identity. One of the plan’s key goals is to develop pedestrian-oriented environments on Commercial Throughways and on Downtown Local Streets. On these roadways as well as on Crosstown Boulevards and Parkways, the plan also emphasizes providing safe and comfortable facilities and crossings for people walking and biking. Recommended improvements within the Downtown area are prioritized into four tiers that can be matched to project scale, budget, funding source, and other opportunities. Tier 1 and Tier 2 street and pedestrian enhancements are illustrated on Figures 24, 25, and 27 and include restriping/road diet evaluation, sidewalk widening, intersection and mid-block crossing treatments, as well as art and wayfinding opportunities. Notable guidelines include widening sidewalks to provide a minimum 12-foot sidewalk with minimum five- to six-foot clear throughway zone for walking. IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBI L I T Y S T U D Y Final Report 33 Figure 7a: Precedent BEF Ratings March 2017 City of Dublin Iro n H o r s e T r a i l Feasibility Study Prepared for: Prepared by: WC14-3178 Project Partners In Association with :section title 34 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report EXISTING CONDITIONS 05 Figure 7b: Precedent BEF Ratings Oversized 32 City of Dublin Draft 191 Specific Plans Four areas of Dublin have specific plans that outline guiding principles, policies, and design guidance related to active transportation: Dublin Crossing, Downtown, the Dublin Village Historic Area, and Eastern Dublin. Dublin Crossing (2013). This Specific Plan focuses on improving east-west connectivity in the Dublin Crossing, particularly between transit stops, destinations, and trails. A relevant guiding principle in this Specific Plan is to make it easier and more convenient for people to access and use the Iron Horse Regional Trail, the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station, and retail destinations without a car. Downtown Specific Plan (2014): Guiding principles, pertinent to biking and walking in Downtown, aim to create pedestrian-friendly streets, enhance multimodal travel options, and cultivate pedestrian connections to retail destinations. Transit-oriented development and lighting should be scaled to people walking in Downtown. Pedestrian connectivity between buildings, parking, and sidewalks should be maintained throughout Downtown, and pedestrian amenities like street furniture are encouraged. Dublin Village Historic Area (2014): Placemaking, creating a positive experience for people walking, and attracting people to this area are key goals of this Specific Plan. Creating positive experiences for people walking includes providing more crosswalks and median refuges, calming vehicle traffic, adding pedestrian amenities or a plaza, and implementing pedestrian- scale lighting and wayfinding. Eastern Dublin (2016): A key goal in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is to reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles by planning the area’s land uses to naturally promote walking, biking, taking transit, and ridesharing. Notably, development with a higher intensity is encouraged near transit corridors in Eastern Dublin. Relevant policies in this Specific Plan include: • Providing sidewalks in the Town Center and Village Center • Requiring development to balance pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile circulation • Creating a north-south trail along Tassajara Creek and other streams • Establishing a bike network that meets both travel needs and recreational opportunities • Providing bicycle parking at key destinations Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan (2019): The purpose of the City’s Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan (GSI) is to describe how the City will meet requirements specified in the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (MRP), Order No. R2-2015- 0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 issued on November 19, 2015. This GSI Plan demonstrates how the City is meeting MRP requirements and intends to use GSI to enhance the urban environment. Local Roadway Safety Plan (anticipated 2022). The Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) provides a framework to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local roads. Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan (anticipated 2022). The ADA Transition Plan is a formal document outlining the City’s compliance with ADA. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 33 Draft 192 VISION, GOALS, & PERFORMANCE MEASURES To set a clear path forward, City staff and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members outlined the City’s purpose, vision, and goals for this Plan. PROJECT VISION This Plan sets forth the following vision: VISION STATEMENT The City of Dublin is a vibrant place where walking and biking are safe, comfortable, and convenient ways to travel. In Dublin, walking and biking connects individuals, inclusive of all ages and abilities, to local and regional destinations. 1 Enhance Safety Prioritize safety in design and implementation of walking and biking facilities. 33 Improve Connectivity Develop a bicycle and pedestrian network that provides well-connected facilities for users of all ages and abilities. 4 Enhance Accessibility Utilize principles of universal design to make biking and walking a viable transportation option for all, including people with disabilities. 55 Prioritize Investments Maintain sufficient funding to provide for existing and future bicycle and pedestrian needs, including program support, operation, and maintenance. Leverage biking and walking projects to promote economic activity and social equity in the community. 2 Increase Walking and Biking Support biking and walking as attractive modes of transportation. GOALS This Plan establishes the following five overarching goals related to the vision that guide recommendations: 34 City of Dublin Draft 193 PERFORMANCE MEASURES Setting performance measures helps track progress toward goals and document the results of investments in biking, walking, and rolling. The following performance measures and desired trends have been established to track progress towards achieving the goals of this Plan: Goal Performance Measure (Desired Trend)* Enhance Safety • Decrease vehicle travel speed measured at specific locations • Decrease number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions • Reduce severity of pedestrian and bicycle collisions • Increase users’ perception of safety • Decrease average crossing distances Increase Walking and Biking • Increase walk/bike/roll to school mode share • Increase walk/bike/roll to work mode share • Increase walk/bike/roll to transit mode share • Increase walk/bike/roll to recreational facilities Improve Connectivity • Reduce bicycle level of traffic stress • Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps • Increase number of crossing opportunities • Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements • Increase the number of secure bike parking spaces Enhance Accessibility • Increase the number of traffic signals with audible cues • Increase the number of intersections with directional curb ramps and detectable warning surfaces • Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps • Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements • Decrease length of sidewalks that are broken or in disrepair Prioritize Investments • Maintain and increase sustainable funding mechanisms and a dedicated funding source to build a complete streets network • Maintain a maintenance plan for bicycle and pedestrian facilities • Increase funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects as a percentage of total transportation infrastructure spending *not in order of importance Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 35 Draft 194 22 195 Inclusive and meaningful community and stakeholder engagement is necessary to create a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that is community- suported and implementable. A community and stakeholder engagement plan was developed at the outset of the planning process to outline the activities, methods, and tools that would be used to engage the Dublin residents and key stakeholders. The community and stakeholder engagement plan established a framework and identified opportunities and specific milestones for sharing information, soliciting feedback, and collaborating with agency stakeholders and Dublin community members. ENGAGEMENT AND COVID-19 Due to the outbreak of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the resulting stay-at-home order initiated on March 17, 2020 in Alameda County that affected the ability to conduct in-person engagement, a hybrid approach was used. Primarily digital outreach methods were used with in-person engagement when possible to safely and effectively reach a broad audience. 2. COMMUNITY & STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES To better understand Dublin’s walking and bicycling issues and opportunities, stakeholders and community members were engaged through the following methods: The engagement timeline is shown in figure 5, and specific activities are described in this section. • Project website • Interactive map • Public survey • Public workshop • Pop-up events • Stakeholder meetings • Technical Advisory Committee meetings • Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee meetings Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 37 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 37 Photos from pop-up events at the St Patrick's Day Festival and Alamo Creek Trailhead Draft 196 Figure 6. Public Engagement Timeline PROJECT WEBSITE BPAC - Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee TAC - Technical Advisory Committee CCC - City Commission and Council Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 20202020 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 20212021 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 20222022 TAC #1 MAR 4, 2020 TAC #2 SEP 15, 2020 TAC #3 JUN 3, 2021 TAC #4 MAR 15, 2022 CCC AUG-SEP 2022Public Survey MAY - SEP 2021 Project Start Project End BPAC #1 SEP 17, 2020 BPAC #2 MAY 25, 2021 BPAC #3 OCT 21, 2021 BPAC #4 FEB 24, 2022 BPAC #5 JUL 21, 2022 Online Workshop & FAQ Live SEP 2, 2020 Farmers’ Market Pop-Up MAY 25, 2021 St Patrick’s Day Pop-Up MAR 12, 2022 Alamo Creek Trailhead Pop-Up MAY 27, 2021 Stakeholder Meetings APR–MAY 2021 38 City of Dublin 38 City of Dublin Draft 197 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AND FINDINGS Community feedback and findings are presented in this section. Select quotes from community members are presented throughout the Plan document. Supporting materials are included in appendix A. PROJECT WEBSITE AND INTERACTIVE MAP An interactive website was created to share key project milestones and provide information about the Plan development and events. Since going live in March 2020, the project website has received approximately 1,500 visits (with 2.7 actions per visit), 3,700 page views, and 123 data downloads. The website also included an interactive online map on which the public could identify desired improvements, gaps, and key destinations in the existing bicycle and pedestrian network. The online map received a total of 208 comments. Map feedback was classified into four categories: barriers, ideas, praise, and questions (figure 7). Nearly half of responses indicated a barrier to walking or biking, and another third offered an idea to improve walking and biking conditions. The remaining responses were either praise for actions the City has taken to create a safe and connected active transportation network and promote sustainable transportation options or questions about the Plan or planning process. Responses were analyzed to identify central themes for each of the four categories. BARRIERS Themes for each of the response categories were generated from the subject matter of received comments to summarize the most common kinds of community input. The top five themes in the barriers category are shown in figure 8 and listed in ranked order below. Figure 7. Web Map Comments by Category 47% BARRIER 33% IDEA 13% PRAISE 7% QUESTION 35% Figure 8. Barrier Themes in Comments BIKE SAFETY 17%BIKE CONNECTIONS 14%MAINTENANCE 12%SIGNALS 8%PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 4%PEDESTRIAN CROSSING 4%DRIVING <1%SIDEWALK DESIGN <1%BIKE RACKS Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 39 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 39 Draft 198 35%35% Bike Safety. Comments that discussed bike safety largely focused on a need for greater separation between bikes and vehicles, traffic calming, lack of bike lanes, and concerns about biking near on- and off-ramps. 17%17% Bike Connections. Comments that discussed bike connections largely focused on consistent connections to paths, across over and under passes, and main bike routes. 14%14% Maintenance.Comments that discussed maintenance largely focused on poor road conditions, debris in the road, and broken sidewalk. 12%12% Signals. Comments that discussed signals largely focused on issues with signal bike detection at intersections. 8%8% Pedestrian Safety. Comments that discussed pedestrian safety largely focused on dangerous crossings. IDEAS Community members also offered ideas. The top four themes of these ideas are shown in figure 9 and are listed in ranked order: BIKE SAFETY 24% 26% BIKE CONNECTIONS 12%SIGNALS 12%BIKE CONNECTIONS 8%PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES 6%SIDEWALK DESIGN 4% 4% 4% DRIVING TRAFFIC CALMING BIKE AMENITIES Figure 9. Idea Themes in Comments MOST COMMON BARRIER LOCATIONS MENTIONED In addition to the most common themes, there were also common locations identified by community comments. The top five locations for comments noted as barriers were: 1 DUBLIN BOULEVARD 2 TASSAJARA ROAD 3 FALLON ROAD 4 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD 5 DOUGHERTY ROAD 26%26% Bike Lanes. Comments that discussed bike lanes largely focused on a need for greater connections between important destinations and along major roads and trails. 24%24% Pedestrian Connections. Comments that discussed pedestrian connections largely focused on improving specific sidewalk connections and creating walking paths. 40 City of Dublin 40 City of Dublin Draft 199 ? QUESTIONS Three key question themes emerged from the online map responses; they are listed below and illustrated in figure 11. 56% Planning Process. Questions about the planning process had to do with the reach of the survey, how funding is being used efficiently, and how the City plans to finish certain projects. 33% Connections. Comments which discussed bike and walk connections asked about projects at specific locations, including whether they were planned or if they can be added to the City’s efforts. 11% Micromobility. Questions about micromobility focused on legal operating requirements, including whether electric scooters are allowed on bike paths about whether electric scooters are allowed on bike paths. 12%12% Signals. Comments which discussed signals largely focused on safer intersections through changes to signals timing. 12%12% Bike Connections Comments that discussed bike connections largely focused on connecting bike trails and lanes to key destinations and each other. 22%22% The remaining in the ideas category covered pedestrian amenities, sidewalk design, driving, traffic calming, and bike amenities. PRAISE Respondents praised several key features of Dublin’s existing walking and biking network as well as the City’s ongoing efforts to improve it. The top three themes in the praise category are shown and listed in rank order in figure 10. 35%35% General. Comments that were general were focused on appreciation for the City’s efforts to improve bike and pedestrian facilities. 35%35% Bike Lanes. Comments that discussed bike lanes were focused on effective plastic barriers, separated bike paths, and green paint. 18%18% Signals. Comments that discussed signals were focused on flashing lights at intersections and well-placed crossing buttons. 12%12% The remaining comments in the praise category covered existing amenities and connections. 35% 35% 18% 9% 9% GENERAL BIKE LANES SIGNALS CONNECTIONS AMENITIES Figure 10. Praise Themes in Comments 56% 33% 11% PLANNING PROCESS CONNECTIONS MICROMOBILITY Figure 11. Question Themes in Comments Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 41 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 41 Draft 200 PUBLIC SURVEY A public survey was used to collect information from the public about their personal transportation preferences, travel habits, and issues and opportunities related to walking and biking in Dublin. The public survey was distributed in Summer 2020 and was promoted on social media and posted to the website. A fact sheet with the survey link and QR code was provided at the Alamo Creek Trailhead and Farmers’ Market pop-up events. Approximately 200 responses were received to the 17-question survey, which covered travel behavior and mode preference; travel to school; challenges and barriers to moving around Dublin; and priorities for investments related to walking and biking. SURVEY RESULTS General Travel Behavior and Mode Preferences When asked about modes taken to work and school prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 33 percent of respondents said they drove alone, 17 percent used a bike or scooter, and 17 percent walked. These numbers stayed relatively constant when respondents were asked about the same behaviors during COVID. The top reason (22 percent) respondents gave when asked why driving to work was the best option was that driving alone was the quickest and most convenient option. Around 10 percent of respondents indicated safety, irregular work schedules, and the need to make additional stops as reasons they chose to drive alone to work. Of respondents who use a combination of travel modes, there were a similar number of respondents across modes. Travel to School Approximately 38 percent of respondents had school-age children. Of those respondents, approximately 40 percent indicated that they used a personal vehicle for school drop-off/pick-up. Another 26 percent walked to school while 14 percent biked. Respondents indicated the top three factors discouraging walking or biking to school were safety concerns (35 percent), distance or travel time (18 percent), and lack of sidewalks or curb ramps (13 percent). Barriers to Walking and Biking When asked about barriers to walking and biking, respondents indicated that safety was a primary consideration, followed by vehicle speed. Responses were mixed on the topics of street lighting and maintenance, with a fairly even split of people indicating it was either not important, somewhat important, or very important. Most respondents were less concerned with distance to their destinat ions or available shade. Investment Priorities When asked what types of improvements would encourage walking or biking, 22 percent of respondents indicated better/more sidewalks and trails, 14 percent indicated better/more bicycle facilities, 11 percent indicated slower vehicles and more traffic calming, and 10 percent indicated better maintenance of existing facilities. When asked where the City should prioritize walking and biking improvements, the top three responses (about 20 percent each) were high collision locations; routes connecting people to schools, libraries, parks, and other key destinations; and, along and across busy streets. PUBLIC WORKSHOP On September 2, 2020 a digital workshop was held via Zoom to inform the public about the Plan and gather broad community feedback. Forty- two people attended the hour- long Zoom workshop, which included a presentation and a question-and-answer period. This workshop aimed to establish a community understanding of the planning process and to obtain feedback on the project’s vision and goals. The workshop also included a poll, which asked RESPONSES were received to the 17-question survey 200 42 City of Dublin 42 City of Dublin Draft 201 participants questions about their experiences on public streets, their comfort with various modes of micromobility, and their demographic information. The workshop also included a poll asking participants about their experiences walking, biking, and using micromobility on public streets, whether they feel comfortable using these modes in Dublin, and whether they would want to see bike and scooter share programs in Dublin. The poll received 30 responses. Participants of the poll were also asked how they classify themselves in terms of confidence using a bike in Dublin, as well as how often they ride a bike. Of the responses, the most common confidence level was Enthused and Confident (47 percent), followed by Interested but Concerned (27 percent), Strong and Fearless (23 percent), and No Way, No How (3 percent) (see figure 12). POP UP EVENTS Feedback was gathered at three in-person events to understand where people walk and bike and what issues, concerns, ideas, and priorities they have related to walking and biking in Dublin. FARMERS’ MARKET —25 MAY, 2021 Feedback was gathered on existing conditions and needs. Approximately 40 people provided input, and participants were rewarded with Carrot Cash and giveaways. ALAMO CREEK TRAILHEAD —27 MAY, 2021 Dublin partnered with Bike East Bay in an effort to hear from trail users at the Alamo Creek Trailhead as part of National Bike Month Activities. Feedback was gathered in real time and flyers with the public survey link were handed out. ST PATRICK’S DAY FESTIVAL—12 MARCH, 2022 Feedback was gathered on the draft network recommendations and additional comments on program and policy priorities for walking and biking in Dublin. The St. Patrick’s Day Festival in Dublin is one of the biggest local community events of the year. This two- Figure 12. Poll Responses to Classification of Bicyclist Types by Frequency of Bicycle Use Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 43 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 43 Draft 202 day celebration brings out thousands of engaged residents and visitors per day, making it an important opportunity for the City of Dublin to communicate its plans and receive feedback. The celebration had an added importance this year as this would be the first in-person public event of this scale in Dublin since 2019, making for an excited and engaged audience. Approximately 136 community members provided feedback on possible infrastructure improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists in Dublin, and this pop-up resulted in 231 unique data points. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) involves interested community members in Alameda CTC’s policy, planning, and implementation efforts related to bicycling and walking. The Alameda CTC BPAC includes representatives from cities in Alameda County, including Castro Valley, Dublin, Fremont, San Leandro, Berkeley, Hayward, Oakland, Albany, and Alameda and serves as Dublin’s advisory body as Dublin does not currently have a local BPAC. The Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update was brought to the Alameda CTC BPAC five times during the project. The group provided feedback on key items throughout the planning process, including the technical analysis approach and findings and program, policy, and project recommendations. Comments were addressed and incorporated into the Plan document. Meeting summaries and supporting materials are included in appendix A. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed to provide key guidance on the Plan. The TAC included staff from City departments, including Planning, Economic Development, and Parks & Community Service and other agency representatives from Dublin Unified School District, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Fire Department, San Ramon, Pleasanton, Livermore, Alameda CTC, Caltrans, BART, and LAVTA. The team hosted five TAC meetings over the course of the project. The Plan process, community engagement, existing conditions and needs analysis, prioritization framework, and program, policy, and project recommendations were discussed during these meetings. Comments were addressed and incorporated into the Plan document. Meeting summaries and supporting materials are included in appendix B. Alamo Creek Pop Up Event 44 City of Dublin 44 City of Dublin Draft 203 204 This chapter provides an overview of walking and biking in Dublin and presents results of the existing conditions and needs assessment, which includes relevant demographic data, existing walking and biking infrastructure, high injury bicycle and pedestrian network, and bicycle level of traffic stress analysis. This inventory and analysis of existing citywide conditions sets the stage for identifying strategic pedestrian and bicycle investments and informs the prioritization process and network recommendations presented in chapter 4. Dublin Population: 61,240 LIVING AND WORKING IN DUBLIN This section discusses demographics and transportation data including race/ethnicity, age, gender, mode share, and worker inflow and outflow patterns. The purpose of this information is to provide background and context describing people living and working in Dublin as it relates to walking and biking. The data presented is obtained from the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), Longitudinal Employer- Household Data (LEHD) from 2017, and the American Community Survey five- year estimates (2015–2019) from the US Census. RACE & ETHNICITY The most common racial background of Dublin residents is Asian alone (49 percent) and White alone (39 percent). Approximately 6 percent of Dublin residents identify as being two or more races, and 4 percent of residents identify as Black/African American alone. Approximately 10% of Dublin residents identify as hispanic or latino/a/x. Dublin’s population by race & ethnicity is illustrated in figure 13. GENDER Dublin has an almost 50/50 split of people self reporting as females vs males. Note that American Community Survey data is not available for gender identity for the years covered by this Plan. AGE The most common ages of Dublin residents are 25–44 (40 percent) and 45–64 (24 percent). Combined, ages 25–64 make up 64 percent of the population. The Dublin population younger than 15 accounts for 24 percent of the total population, while the population over 65 makes up 9 percent. Figure 13 illustrates Dublin’s population by age. ZERO-VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS When compared with the surrounding Alameda County, Dublin has a lower proportion of households without vehicles. Overall in Alameda County, 10 percent of households do not have a vehicle; in Dublin, 3 percent of households do not have a vehicle. 3. WALKING & BIKING IN DUBLIN TODAY Source: US Census American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates (2015-2019) 46 City of Dublin 46 City of Dublin Draft 205 Figure 13. Dublin Population by Race & Ethnicity Figure 14. Dublin Rounded Population by Age 35% 7% 9% 24% 16% 8% 25-44 UNDER 5 65+ 45-65 5-14 15-24 OF RESIDENTS FEMALE AND MALE *gender identity data is not available 50/50* Figure 15. Dublin Population by Gender 6% 2+ RACES 1.1% Hispanic or Latino/a/x 49% <1% 2% ASIAN <1% Hispanic or Latino/a/x AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE <1% Hispanic or Latino/a/x OTHER 1.6% Hispanic or Latino/a/x 4% BLACK/ AFRICAN AMERICAN <1% Hispanic or Latino/a/x 39% WHITE 6.5% Hispanic or Latino/a/x 48% 28% 7% 7% 5% 5% ASIAN-INDIAN CHINESE (EXCEPT TAIWANESE) OTHER ORIGINS FILIPINO KOREAN VIETNAMESE * 10.1% of Dublin's population identify as hispanic or latino/a/x Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 47 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 47 Draft 206 WORKERS Based on the most recent LEHD data available (2017), the net inflow and outflow of Dublin workers is the following: • 16,042 people live elsewhere and commute into Dublin • 23,161 people live in Dublin and commute elsewhere • 1,484 people live and work in Dublin Only about 6 percent of workers living in Dublin also work in Dublin. COMMUTE MODE SHARE Working Dublin residents use various modes to travel to work (see figure 17). The commute data shown below provides a basic understanding of how people travel to and from work. However, because the data comes from the US Census—which only provides journey-to-work data for the primary mode of transportation—information on other trips, such as walking or biking to connect to public transit, are not represented. Approximately 76 percent of Dublin residents commute to work by car, either alone (67 percent) or in a carpool (9 percent). Public transportation is the second most popular way to commute at 15 percent. Walking represents approximately 1 percent of commute modes. Biking and riding a motorcycle each represent less than 1 percent of all commute modes. Additionally, about 7 percent of working Dublin residents worked from home. COMMUTING & COVID-19 The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically transformed the commuting and transportation landscape as restrictions on non- essential travel forced everyone into unplanned lifestyle changes. As we look to the future, it is unclear how COVID-19 will change commuting and teleworking patterns. Findings Figure 16. Workers by Residence and Job Location Figure 17. Commute Mode Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamic (LEHD), 2017.Source: US Census American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates (2015–2019). CAR/TRUCK/VAN – DROVE ALONE PUBLIC TRANSIT (INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY (UBER, LYFT) AND TAXI) CAR/TRUCK/VAN – CARPOOLED WORKED AT HOME WALKED BICYCLE AND MOTORCYCLE 67% 15% 9% 7% 1% 1% People working in Dublin 16,042 People Living in Dublin 23,161 People Living & working in Dublin 1,484 48 City of Dublin 48 City of Dublin Draft 207 from current research indicate that teleworking will increase relative to pre-COVID-19 conditions and people will be more likely to walk/bike/drive and less likely to take transit.2 BART STATION ACCESS There are two BART stations in Dublin: the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and the West Dublin BART Station. Based on the ridership data presented in BART’s Station Profile Survey (2015), there were approximately 8,000 daily station entries at the 2 https://www.kittelson.com/ideas/will-covid-19-permanently-alter-teleworking-and-commuting-patterns-heres-what-1000-commuters-told-us/) Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and 3,700 daily station entries at the West Dublin BART Station. As shown in figure 18, 9 percent of riders walk and 5 percent of riders bicycle to the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station; 11 percent of riders walk and 4 percent of riders bicycle to the West Dublin BART Station. A total of 68 shared-use electronic lockers operated by BikeLink are provided at the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station, and 56 lockers are provided at the West Dublin BART Station. With almost 15 percent of residents using public transportation to get to work, there is an opportunity to encourage more people to walk and bike to BART. This can be accomplished by focusing on convenient, safe first-mile and last-mile connections to these stations and secure end-of-trip facilities. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST TYPOLOGIES People have varying abilities and tendencies to walk or bike and different sensitivities to the presence and quality of transportation infrastructure based on age, gender, physical mobility, and other factors. A person’s income level, race, and availability of parking can help explain their tendency to walk or bike. Figure 18. Mode Split for BART Station Access in Dublin Source: BART Station Profile Survey (2015) Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 49 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 49 Draft 208 Pedestrian and bicyclist typologies were developed to understand the ability and propensity of people living within Dublin to walk or bike. These typologies are used to estimate the population of each walker and bicyclist type within the city’s census block groups and more accurately estimate the potential for bicycle and pedestrian investments because they account for neighborhood populations rather than uniform citywide demographics. 3 Roger Geller, “Four Types of Cyclists,” Portland Office of Transportation (2005), https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597?a=237507. PEDESTRIAN TYPOLOGY The walking typology presented in table 3 was determined based on travel behavior research and experience working on walking infrastructure. As shown in table 3, the typology assigns walking characteristics based on age (under 14, 14–55, and over 55). For many people with disabilities and people over 55, the absence of curb ramps and presence of multi-lane crossings can be barriers to walking. BICYCLIST TYPOLOGY The bicyclist typology, or “four types” categorization, was developed in Portland, Oregon in 2005 as an organizing principle for understanding people’s relationship to bicycling for transportation as well as their concerns and needs related to bicycling.3 Based on this research, bicyclists can be placed into one of four groups based on their relationship to bicycle transportation: • No Way, No How, or Non-Bicyclists. People unwilling or unable to bicycle even if high-quality bicycle infrastructure is in place. • Interested but Concerned. People willing to bicycle if high-quality bicycle infrastructure is in place. People in this type tend to prefer off-street, separated bicycle facilities or quiet residential streets; they may not bike at all if facilities do not meet their needs for perceived safety and comfort.Table 3. Pedestrian Typology Age Typology Walking Characteristics Under 14 Youth Limited by multilane crossings 14 to 55 Teenage and Working Age Adults Strong and capable, but still limited by sidewalk gaps, unsignalized crossings at major roads, and absence of midblock crossings Over 55 Aging The limits experienced by young adults and adults and further limited by the absence of curb ramps or long multilane crossings Figure 19. Bicyclist Typology SHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLINSHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLIN 50 City of Dublin 50 City of Dublin Draft 209 • Enthused and Confident. People willing to bicycle if some bicycle-specific infrastructure is in place. People in this type generally prefer separated facilities and are also comfortable riding in bicycle lanes or on paved shoulders, if necessary. • Strong and Fearless, or Highly Confident. People who are willing to bicycle alongside vehicle traffic and on roads without bike lanes. One end of the spectrum includes people who are comfortable riding with vehicle traffic, such as adult regular bike commuters. These highly confident bicyclists are willing to ride on roads with little or no bicycle infrastructure. The other end of the spectrum includes people who are not comfortable riding with or adjacent to traffic. This group often includes children, older adults, and adults who ride infrequently. Typically, these riders prefer off-street bicycle facilities or biking on low-speed, low-volume streets. If bicycle facilities do not meet their comfort preferences, they may not to bike at all. The middle of the spectrum includes bicyclists who prefer separated facilities but are willing to ride with or adjacent to traffic when vehicle volumes and speeds are low enough and separated facilities are not provided. Table 4 shows the population share for each typology and age group. These population shares were extrapolated to the City of Dublin population to estimate the proportion of adults within the typologies illustrated in figure 19. EXISTING WALKING AND BIKING NETWORKS This section defines the features, conditions, and types of walking and biking facilities in Dublin (Figure 20). It includes and explains maps of existing on-street bikeways, off-street paths, sidewalks, crossings, and supportive amenities and infrastructure—like walking- and biking-oriented wayfinding, bike parking, drinking fountains, and sidewalk benches. Table 4. Bike Group Typology— City of Dublin Population Share of Bicyclist Type by Age Bicyclist Type Share of Age Group Under 5 6–18 18–34 35–54 55+Dublin adult (18+) Strong and Fearless 0%0%11%2%0%4.1% Enthused and Confident 0%0%7%12%7%10.3% Interested but Concerned 0%100%61%59%46%58.1% No Way, No How 100%0%21%27%47%27.6% Total 100%100%100%100%100% Source: Table developed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. from data presented by Dill and McNeil Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 51 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 51 Draft 210 Figure 20. Existing Bicycle Network Map H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Existing facilities_07292022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022 Existing Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California [0 3,300 Feet Existing Facility Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Schools BART Stations Parks H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Existing facilities_07292022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022 Existing Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California [0 3,300 Feet Existing Facility Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Schools BART Stations Parks Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County Dublin Elem Murray Elem Dublin High Frederiksen Elem Wells Middle James DoughertyElem Eleanor Murry Fallon Midd John Green Elem Kolb Elem Cottonwood Creek Elem Amador Elem Future High School H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing Downtown Dublin Employment Centers Parks Schools BART Stations Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California [0 1 Mile Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Training Area 52 City of Dublin 52 City of Dublin Draft 211 MULTI USE PATHS (CLASS I) Multi use paths provide a separate facility designed for the exclusive use of bicycles, pedestrians, and other non- motorized uses with minimal vehicle crossflows. Generally, bicycle paths serve corridors not served by streets or are parallel to roadways where right of way is available. These paths provide bicyclists both recreational and commute routes with minimal conflicts with other road users. Class IA Paths—Multiuse paths along a separate alignment. In Dublin, this bikeway class exists on the Iron Horse Trail and the Martin Canyon Creek Trail. Class IB Sidepaths — Sidepaths that double as sidewalks along the side of a roadway. Examples include segments along the north side of Dublin Boulevard and the west side of San Ramon Road. Alamo Creek Trail, Dublin, CA. Source: City of Dublin Diagram of typical Class IB path configuration Class IB Path on San Ramon Road, Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc TYPES OF BIKEWAYS Dublin’s existing bikeway system consists of a network of bicycle paths, lanes, and routes. There are four types of bikeways as defined by chapter 1000 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2017). In addition, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC) has adopted a set of sub- classifications for each Caltrans classification. These sub- classifications were designed to correspond with the previously existing system and to incorporate emerging facility typologies. Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations Identify complementary bicycle facilities Class I Facility Class II FacilityKATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)Class III Facility Class IV Facility Dublin Boulevard east of Tassajara Road. Person riding a bike on a Class II facility separated from right-turning traffic. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 53 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 53 Draft 212 BICYCLE LANES (CLASS II) Bicycle lanes are on-street bikeways that provide a dedicated space for the exclusive or semi-exclusive bicycle use. Through- travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians is prohibited; vehicle parking and pedestrian- and motorist-crossflows are permitted. Class IIA—A conventional one-way striped bicycle lane. Class IIB —Upgraded bicycle lane with a striped buffer or green conflict markings. In Dublin, this bikeway class exists on Dublin Boulevard from Silvergate Drive to San Ramon Road and on Tassajara Road from Rutherford Drive to Fallon Road. BICYCLE ROUTES (CLASS III) Bicycle routes do not provide a dedicated space for bicycles, but instead, bikes share the lane with motorists and signs or pavement markings indicate the bike route. Class IIIA —Signage-only routes. Class IIIB —Wide curb lane or shoulder that may include signage. Class IIIC —Route with standard shared lane markings (“sharrows”) that can be used to alert drivers of the shared roadway environment with bicyclists. This class of bikeway exists on Davona Drive. Class IIB Facility on Tassajara Road, Dublin, CA. Source: Google Maps.Class III Facility in Portland, OR. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations Identify complementary bicycle facilities Class I Facility Class II Facility KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him) Class III Facility Class IV Facility Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations Identify complementary bicycle facilities Class I Facility Class II Facility KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him) Class III Facility Class IV Facility Diagram of typical Class III bike lane configuration Diagram of typical Class IIB bike lane configuration 54 City of Dublin 54 City of Dublin Draft 213 SEPARATED BICYCLE LANES (CLASS IV) Separated bicycle lanes are bicycle lanes that provide vertical separation from motorists on roadways. The separation may include grade separation, flexible posts, planters, on-street parking, or other physical barriers. These bikeways provide a greater sense of comfort and security in comparison to standard Class II bike lanes. Class IV facilities are especially relevant for high-speed or high-volume roadways. Separated bike lanes can provide one-way or two-way travel. SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE In addition to the on- and off-street facilities, supporting infrastructure is essential to promote walking and biking as viable modes of transportation. Critical elements include end-of-trip facilities, such as bicycle parking, showers, and lockers. Other critical infrastructure elements include wayfinding, drinking fountains, seating, and shade. BICYCLE PARKING Secure short-term and long-term bicycle parking that can accommodate a wide range of bicycles including children’s bicycles, electric bicycles, and cargo bicycles, for example, are necessary to support biking. Access to secure bicycle parking is one of the top factors determining whether someone chooses to ride a bike or not. New development provides key opportunities to ensure Dublin adequately provides both short- and long-term bicycle parking. Currently, Dublin follows parking requirements in Section 5.106.4 of the 2019 California Green Building Code. This code states that Class IV Facility, San Diego, CA Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. Class I FacilitySeperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow Bicycle ParkingMaintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations Identify complementary bicycle facilities Class I FacilityClass II Facility KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him) Class III Facility Class IV Facility Bike Parking at Dublin Library Source: City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 55 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 55 Draft 214 short-term parking must be provided for five percent of new visitor motorized vehicle parking spaces being added, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack. The bicycle parking must be anchored within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance. Long-term bike parking must be provided for new buildings with tenant spaces with 10 or more tenant-occupants, also at a 5 percent of vehicle parking space rate with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility. Short-term bicycle parking refers to traditional bike racks, which may be located on public or private property. Bike racks serve people who need to park their bikes for relatively short durations of about two hours or less. Because short- term bicycle parking does not provide additional security, locked bicycles and their accessories may be exposed to theft or vandalism. However, short-term bike racks are more numerous and conveniently located near destinations. To deter theft or vandalism, short-term parking should be within eyesight of a building or destination or located in well-traveled pedestrian areas. Dublin has short-term bicycle parking in the Downtown area as well as at many local parks and community centers. Long-term bicycle parking is the most secure form of parking and ideal for individuals who park their bikes for more than a few hours or overnight. Because long-term bike parking requires more space than short-term racks, facilities may be located farther away from the ultimate destination. Long-term parking is also often more expensive due to added security and space requirements. Long-term parking can consist of bike lockers, enclosed bike cages, bike rooms, and bike stations, each of which is discussed in the following bullets. • Bike lockers are fully enclosed and generally weather-resistant spaces where a single bicycle can be parked and secured by key or electronic lock. Shared-use electronic lockers operated by BikeLink are provided at the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station (68 lockers) and West Dublin BART Station (56 lockers). The BikeLink system allows users to pay by the hour for use of the lockers through a membership card. • Enclosed bike cages are multiple bike racks contained by a fence. The enclosure entrance is secured with a lock or key code, but within the cage, bicycles are exposed and secured to racks with personal locks. Cages can be outdoors (ideally with a roof for weather resistance) or located in building parking garages or utility rooms. Because contents are visible through the cage and bikes inside are accessible, the security of a bike cage depends on good management of access keys or codes. Bike cages are most appropriate for closed environments such as businesses, office buildings, or multi-family developments with access limited to owners, tenants, or employees. • Bike rooms are bicycle racks located within an interior locked room or a locked enclosure. Because they house bikes behind solid walls, bike rooms are more secure than bike cages, where bikes remain visible from the outside. As with bike cages, bike room security Short Term Racks at the Wave Dublin, CA Source: City of Dublin 56 City of Dublin 56 City of Dublin Draft 215 depends on access key and code management. Bike rooms are most appropriate where access is limited to owners, tenants, or employees. • Bike stations are full-service bike parking facilities that offer controlled access and other supporting services like attended parking, repairs, and retail space. Bike stations can offer services such as free valet parking, 24-hour access-controlled parking, sales of bike accessories, bike rentals, and classes. Other Infrastructure and Amenities Skateboard and Scooter Lockers should be provided at key destinations with high levels of skateboard and scooter activity like schools, transit stations, parks, and trailheads. Showers, Lockers, and Changing Rooms are important end-of-trip amenities that encourage bicycle commuting. Some places of employment in Dublin may provide showers, lockers, and changing rooms. However, the City does not inventory such facilities. The Shannon Community Center, Dublin Civic Center, and the high school and middle schools all provide showers and lockers. Maintenance Stations for bicycles should be provided throughout the city at key destinations with high levels of bicycle activity like trailheads, employment centers, transit stations, parks, and schools. Maintenance stations may include a repair stand with tools, such as screwdrivers, flat wrenches, pressure gauges, tire pumps, and other equipment, to allow people biking the opportunity to make on-the-go repairs. Wayfinding helps a high-quality bicycling and pedestrian network be easily navigable. Bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding helps residents, tourists, and visitors find key destinations. Modern, cohesive, multimodal sign plans and designs distinguish walking and bicycling routes, highlight specific destinations, and facilitate connections to and from public transit stops. BikeLink lockers at the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. Source: Kittelson * Associates. Inc. Maintenance station on a trail. Source: Kittelson & Assoicuates, Inc. Wayfinding signage for West Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station. Source: Kittelson & Assoicuates, Inc. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 57 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 57 Draft 216 Wayfinding can also define connections with popular hiking trails and regional trails. There is a need for a comprehensive wayfinding signage program in Dublin. Lighting improves safety and visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists. Some routes that are convenient during the day are unusable in the dark, limiting their utility and effectiveness. Illuminating trails and sidewalks reduces the possibility of user collisions with objects or each other and makes deformities or unevenness in the surface more visible which can also prevent falls and crashes. For example, pedestrian-scale lighting improvements on Dublin Boulevard under the I-680 overpass are needed to improve visibility of people walking along the corridor. Pedestrian amenities are a critical part of pedestrian-focused design, which prioritizes safety, comfort, and quality of service. Amenities like planters, benches, drinking fountains, restrooms, and sidewalk trees all enhance a walking environment. Shared mobility allows for flexible transportation options and provides bicycles and scooters to community members who would otherwise lack access to these modes. Dublin does not currently offer shared mobility options. KEY WALKING AND BIKING DESTINATIONS The choice and ability to walk and bike to essential destinations greatly benefits community members through increased activity and improved health. Walking and biking also benefits the broader community by reducing in greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle congestion. People have varying abilities and tendencies to walk or bike based on infrastructure presence and quality. Land- use patterns that determine the distance between origins and destinations as well as the density, diversity, and intensity of uses also shape people’s walking and biking habits. Key walking and biking destinations were mapped. Specific points of interest were selected for consistency with the Plan’s goals to increase walking and biking mode share to school, transit, trailheads and parks, and work. These activity centers are shown in figure 21 and include: • Schools: All public K–12 schools within Dublin Unified School District • BART: West Dublin/ Pleasanton station and Dublin/Pleasanton station • Job Centers: Seven job centers that include Dublin’s largest employers and concentrations of employment • Parks: Neighborhood and community parks in Dublin Person with an e-scooter waiting to cross at Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Road. Source: Kittelson & Associates. Inc. 58 City of Dublin 58 City of Dublin Draft 217 Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County Dublin Elem Murray Elem Dublin High Frederiksen Elem Wells Middle James Dougherty Elem Eleanor Murry Fallon Midd John Green Elem Kolb Elem Cottonwood Creek Elem Amador Elem Future High School H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing Downtown Dublin Employment Centers Parks Schools BART Stations Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California [0 1 Mile Figure 21. Land Use and Key Destinations Map Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County Dublin Elem Murray Elem Dublin High Frederiksen Elem Wells Middle James Dougherty Elem Eleanor Murry Fallon Midd John Green Elem Kolb Elem Cottonwood Creek Elem Amador Elem Future High School H:\2 4\ 24392 - D ublin ATP\ gis\Task 4\Land U se an d Key D estinations M ap .m xd Date : 7/19/ 2022 Dublin Crossing Downtown Dublin Employment Centers Parks Schools BART Stations Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California [0 1 Mile Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County Dublin Elem Murray Elem Dublin High Frederiksen Elem Wells Middle James Dougherty Elem Eleanor Murry Fallon Midd John Green Elem Kolb Elem Cottonwood Creek Elem Amador Elem Future High School H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing Downtown Dublin Employment Centers Parks Schools BART Stations Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California [0 1 Mile Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Training Area WEST DUBLIN/ PLEASANTON DUBLIN/ PLEASANTON Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 59 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 59 Draft 218 EXISTING PROGRAMS As shown in table 5, the City, the school district, the Police Services, Alameda CTC, and nonprofit organizations provide numerous programs that support walking and biking in Dublin. These programs play an important role in promoting active transportation and fostering safe walking and biking in the city. The City of Dublin recognizes the critical role that programs and policies play in complementing physical infrastructure to promote walking and biking and will continue to support and broaden the reach of these existing programs. Table 5. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs Program Description Managing Department / Organization Offering Services Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts Bicycle and pedestrian counts are included in the City’s turning movement counts. Bike counters collect data on the Iron Horse and Alamo Canal trails. Bicycle and pedestrian count data is also provided in environmental documents and traffic studies. Traffic and Planning Safe Routes to School (SRTS) SRTS establishes routes which maximize safety for travel to and from schools as well as educates school administrators, parents, and children about vehicle, bike, and pedestrian safety. Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) with support from Alameda CTC; several City departments, including Police, Planning, and Traffic Bicycle Rodeo and Safety Program Dublin Police Services has a Bicycle Safety Program, which is offered to elementary schools in Dublin. The program supports safe bicycle riding and challenges students' riding abilities in a safe and controlled environment. Dublin Police Services promotes bicycling by educating students about riding safely and properly. Police Adult School Crossing Guards Crossing guards help children safely cross the street at key locations on the way to school. Crossing guards set an example of how to safely cross the street, and they may help parents feel more comfortable allowing their children to walk or bike to school. Police and Traffic 60 City of Dublin 60 City of Dublin Draft 219 Program Description Managing Department / Organization Offering Services National Bike Month Activities Sponsored by the City, National Bike Month activities encourage people to bike during the month of May. Promoted events include cycling workshops, classes, and giveaways. The City also sponsors Bike to Work (or Wherever) Day, which provides energizer stations and self-guided rides, and Bike to Market Day, which rewards bicyclists with “carrot cash” to use at the Dublin Farmers’ Market. Traffic and Environmental Programs Walk and Roll to School Week During October, Walk and Roll to School Week encourages the Dublin community to walk, bike, skate, and ride scooters to school. Dublin schools celebrate walking and bicycling with promotional assemblies, walking school buses and bike trains, giveaways, and prizes. Dublin’s participation is partially funded by Measure B/BB. DUSD, Traffic Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Workshops The City hosts biannual bicycle and pedestrian workshops to share information about new bicycle and pedestrian projects and solicit feedback on current and future pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Traffic Traffic Safety Committee The City’s Traffic Safety Committee— comprised of representatives from Dublin Police Services’ traffic unit, Public Works’ transportation staff, and City maintenance staff—meets monthly to discuss public comments on potential traffic safety issues and to recommend appropriate actions. Common inquiries include requests for traffic calming devices to reduce vehicle speeds, stop sign installations, and new signs and pavement markings. Police, Traffic, Maintenance Program Description Managing Department / Organization Offering Services Community Rides and Bike Clubs Community rides help build both community and physical skills among new and continuing riders. They provide a guided pathway for new bicyclists to gain confidence riding and navigating the city on a bike. Regular rides foster community among riders, especially for youth looking for physical and creative outlets outside of school. During school, nonprofit organizations also lead bike clubs at middle and high schools, where staff provide bikes and safety gear and take students on group adventure rides. Community rides can be offered to the entire community or geared to women, queer-identifying, or other less-likely-to-ride demographics that are better served by a safe space that celebrates and empowers rider identity. Cycles of Change, Bay Area Outreach and Recreation Program, Bike East Bay, Bike Education Classes One or more sessions, bike education classes teach riders bike safety, bike mechanics, theft prevention, and other useful skills. Youth Bike Rodeos, Bike Mechanics Classes, Adult Bike Safety Classes, and Family Biking Workshops are a few examples of the variety of different bicycle classes offered by nonprofit organizations. Cycles of Change, Bike East Bay Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 61 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 61 Draft 220 BARRIERS TO WALKING AND BIKING Barriers to a safe and comfortable walking and biking network in Dublin take many forms, including • High-stress streets with multiple vehicle travel lanes, high vehicle volumes, high vehicle speeds, and lack of separation between vehicles and other modes. • Conflicts between bicyclists and turning or merging vehicles at intersections and interchanges. • Linear barriers such as the two major state highway system facilities (Interstate 680 and Interstate 580) that have limited and poorly- designed crossings for people walking and biking. • Long crossing distances and limited street connectivity (e.g., cul-de- sacs and long block lengths) for people walking. • Lack of east-west connectivity that limits route options for people walking and biking and forces travel along high-stress arterials like Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard. "This stretch is scary for bicycling when the lane disappears with lots of traffic." -community member quote “A person in a wheel chair or a parent with a stroller can’t safety navigate the sidewalk.” -community member quote • Incomplete or broken sidewalks, inadequate sidewalk widths, missing or outdated curb ramp designs, and a limited number of accessible pedestrian signals. These conditions discourage walking and biking and can increase stress and discomfort for those who choose to walk and roll. This discussion of barriers has two key parts: first, a discussion of safety barriers based on bicyclist and pedestrian collision statistics and citywide high- injury networks; and second, a discussion of pedestrian and bicycle connectivity based on the bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) analysis and pedestrian crossing opportunities analysis. VEHICLE SPEED & SAFETY As vehicle speeds increase, the risk of serious injury or fatality also increase. Increased speeds also reduce the driver’s visual field and peripheral vision. Managing and reducing vehicle speeds is imperative to achieving safer streets. 62 City of Dublin 62 City of Dublin Draft 221 COLLISION ANALYSIS Pedestrian and bicyclist collision data from 2014 to 2019 from local police reports and the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System capture safety trends citywide. This section describes the location, severity, circumstances, and timing of collisions involving people walking and biking. Findings from this analysis will help determine streets to prioritize to make it safer for people walking and biking. COLLISION TRENDS Available variables in the collision data helped identify citywide trends. Pedestrian and bicycle collisions were analyzed separately based on the following characteristics: • Lighting conditions • Location characteristics (specifically intersection versus segment collisions) • Primary collision factors cited by reporting officers • Age and perceived gender of people walking and biking involved in collisions The small size of each dataset—68 bicycle collisions and 81 pedestrian collisions over six years—limits the ability to find statistically valid trends. However, even with these limitations, the analysis revealed several patterns that reflect conditions in Dublin. LOCATION Table 6 and table 7 present pedestrian and bicycle collisions based on location and severity. Intersection collisions are those reported to have occurred within a 250-foot intersection influence area—all others are considered segment collisions. A majority of both pedestrian and bicycle collisions happened at intersections, where there are more conflicts with motor vehicle traffic than at other locations along roadways. Figure 22. Influence of Vehicle Speed on Driver’s Cone of Vision & Pedestrian Survival Rates Higher speeds decrease the chance that a pedestrian will survive a crash. Higher speeds affect a driver’s ability to perceive, focus on, and react to things in their line of vision. 15 mph 20 mph 30 mph 40 mph 75% of pedestrians will SURVIVE a crash at 32 mph. 50% of pedestrians will SURVIVE a crash at 42 mph. 25% of pedestrians will SURVIVE a crash at 50 mph. Based on the Local Road Safety Analysis, which evaluates all collisions on local roads within the City of Dublin between 2016 and 2020: Pedestrian collisions account for 28 percent of all fatal and serious injury collisions in the City—that is more than 10 percent higher than the state average. A disproportionate share of fatal and serious injury— including pedestrian collisions—occur in dusk/dawn or dark conditions. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 63 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 63 Draft 222 Table 6. Pedestrian Collisions by Location and Severity Location Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions Other Collisions Total Reported Collisions Share of Total Reported Intersection 11 63 74 91% Segment 1 6 7 9% Total Reported 12 69 81 100% Table 7. Bicycle Collisions by Location and Severity Location Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions Other Collisions Total Reported Collisions Share of Total Reported Intersection 2 50 52 76% Segment 1 15 16 24% Total Reported 3 65 68 100% Lighting Lighting conditions are an important factor for pedestrian and bicyclist visibility and personal security by enabling people to see each other. Figure 23 presents pedestrian and bicycle collisions by lighting conditions. The majority of bicycle and pedestrian collisions occurred in daylight conditions. All reported fatal and severe- injury bicycle collisions occurred in daylight conditions. When collisions occurred in dark conditions, they happened primarily under streetlights. Primary Collision Factors Primary collision factors (PCFs) are provided in the data and aggregated based on the section of the California Vehicle Code that the reporting officer records. For bicycle collisions, the PCFs were • Automobile right of way violation (26 percent of collisions), which indicates one of several California Vehicle Violation codes regarding a failure to yield right of way to oncoming traffic. This action may come from either the bicyclist or motorist involved. • Improper turning (16 percent of collisions), which indicates a motorist committed a hazardous violation while turning. • Other hazardous movement (12 percent of collisions), an aggregated violation category that indicates a hazardous movement on the part of either the bicyclist or motorist involved. The PCFs cited most frequently for pedestrian collisions were • Pedestrian right of way violation (27 percent of collisions), which indicates a driver violated a pedestrian’s right of way. • Other improper driving (20 percent of collisions) represents an aggregation of motorist violations. • Automobile right of way violation (14 percent of collisions), which indicates Figure 23. Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions by Lighting Conditions NOTE: totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding Source: 2014-2019 Statewide Integrated Traffic Record Systems collision database. 64 City of Dublin 64 City of Dublin Draft 223 one of several California Vehicle Violation codes regarding a failure to yield right of way to oncoming traffic. This action may come from either the pedestrian or motorist involved. • Pedestrian violation (6 percent of collisions), which indicates a pedestrian violated laws regarding right of way. Age of Parties Involved Figure 24 compares the ages of people walking or biking involved in collisions to Dublin’s population. Age data was only available for 76 percent of pedestrians and for 63 percent of bicyclists involved in collisions. This comparison reveals that people aged 15–24 are overrepresented in bicycle and pedestrian collisions. Although they make up just eight percent of the city’s population, people in this age group represent 25 percent and 18 percent of pedestrians and bicyclists involved in collisions. Similarly, people aged 45–64 are underrepresented among pedestrian and bicyclist collisions (at 12 percent each), despite making up 25 percent of Dublin’s population. Gender of Parties Involved Additionally, gender was reported for 78 percent of bicyclists involved in collisions and for 59 percent of pedestrians. Available data reveals that men represented approximately 60 percent of pedestrians involved in collisions and 83 percent of bicyclists involved in collisions. HIGH-INJURY NETWORK An analysis of the citywide roadway network was conducted to identify a set of bicycle and pedestrian high-injury streets, together called a high- injury network (HIN). This HIN constitutes the worst- performing segment locations based on collision severity and frequency of collisions involving people walking and biking. Figure 24. Age of Parties Involved in Collisions NOTE: totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding Source: 2014-2019 Statewide Integrated Traffic Record Systems collision database. “Every time I cross here, I almost get hit by a car trying to enter the freeway.” -community member quote Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 65 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 65 Draft 224 Figure 25. Pedestrian High-Injury Network Map §¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H RD M A D D E N WY T A MARACKDR D A V ONADR S I L V ERGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUB LIN BL DOUGHERTY RD POSITANO P W V IL L A G E P W D O N O HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIERRA CT FALLON RD TASSAJARA RD NORTHSIDE DR HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L BRANNIGAN ST SCHAEFER RANCH RD COLLIER CANYON RD 8TH ST CROMWELL AV BARNET BL CROAK RD RANGERD CREEKSIDEDR HORIZON PW SCARLETT CT PERSI M MONDR A L L E Y 6TH ST 7TH ST SC A RLETT D R P A L I S A D E S DR TOWER RD SYRAH DR HILLR O S E D R I N S P I R ATIONCI ALBROOK DR EAGLE R D BRODER BL I N S PIRATI O N DR CREEKVIEW DR H I L L T O P RD DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail Ir o n H o rs e Tr ail Civic Plaza Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Don Biddle Park Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Collision Analysis\Pedestrian and Bicycle High Injury Network Combined- Final.mxd Date: 5/17/2022 Pedestrian High Injury Network Figure 5 Pedestrian High Injury NetworkDublin, California [0 1 Mile §¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H RD M A D D E N W Y T A MARACKDR D A V ONA DR S I L V E RGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUBLIN BL DOUGHERTY RD POSITANO P W V IL L A G E P W D O N O HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIERRA CT FALLON RD TASSAJARA RD NORTHSIDE DR HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L BRANNIGAN ST SCHAEFER RANCH RD COLLIER CANYON RD 8TH ST CROMW ELL AV BARNET BL CROAK RD RANGERD CREEKSIDEDR HORIZON PW SCARLETT CT PERSI M MONDR A L L E Y 6TH ST 7TH ST SC A RLETT D R P A L I S A D E S DR TOWER RD SYRAH DR HILLR O S E D R I N S P I R ATIONCI ALBROOK DR EAGLE R D BRODER BL I N S PIRATI O N DR CREEKVIEW DR H I L L T O P R D DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail Ir o n H o rs e Tr ail Civic Plaza Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Don Biddle Park Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Collision Analysis\Pedestrian and Bicycle High Injury Network Combined- Final.mxd Date: 5/17/2022 Pedestrian High Injury Network Figure 5 Pedestrian High Injury NetworkDublin, California [0 1 Mile Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County Dublin Elem Murray Elem Dublin High Frederiksen Elem Wells Middle James DoughertyElem Eleanor Murry Fallon Midd John Green Elem Kolb Elem Cottonwood Creek Elem Amador Elem Future High School H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing Downtown Dublin Employment Centers Parks Schools BART Stations Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California [0 1 Mile Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Training Area 62 percent of pedestrian collisions occurred on 4 percent of Dublin's roads (8.4 miles) 71 percent of the pedestrian high injury streets has four or more vehicle through lanes 66 City of Dublin 66 City of Dublin Draft 225 Figure 26. Bicycle High-Injury Network Map Martin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail Ir o n H o rs e Tr ail§¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H RD M A D D E N WY T A MARACKDR D A V ONADR S I L V ERGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUB LIN BL DOUGHERTY RD POSITANO P W V IL L A G E P W D O N O HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIERRA CT FALLON RD TASSAJARA RD NORTHSIDE DR HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L BRANNIGAN ST SCHAEFER RANCH RD COLLIER CANYON RD 8TH ST CROMWELL AV BARNET BL CROAK RD RANGERD CREEKSIDEDR HORIZON PW SCARLETT CT PERSI M MONDR A L L E Y 6TH ST 7TH ST SC A RLETT D R P A L I S A D E S DR TOWER RD SYRAH DR HILLR O S E D R I N S P I R ATIONCI ALBROOK DR EAGLE R D BRODER BL I N S PIRATI O N DR CREEKVIEW DR H I L L T O P RD DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD Civic Plaza Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Don Biddle Park Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Collision Analysis\Figure 8- Bicycle High Injury Network - Final_20200623.mxd Date: 5/17/2022 Bicycle High Injury Network Figure 8 Bicycle High Injury NetworkDublin, California [0 1 Mile Martin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail Ir o n H o rs e T r ail§¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H RD M A D D E N W Y T A MARACKDR D A V ONA DR S I L V ERGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUB LIN BL DOUGHERTY RD POSITANO P W V IL L A G E P W D O N O HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIERRA CT FALLON RD TASSAJARA RD NORTHSIDE DR HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L BRANNIGAN ST SCHAEFER RANCH RD COLLIER CANYON RD 8TH ST CROMWELL AV BARNET BL CROAK RD RANGERD CREEKSIDEDR HORIZON PW SCARLETT CT PERSI M MONDR A L L E Y 6TH ST 7TH ST SC A RLETT D R P A LI S A D E S DR TOWER RD SYRAH DR HILLR O S E D R I N S P I R ATIONCI ALBROOK DR EAGLE R D BRODER BL I N S PIRATI O N DR CREEKVIEW DR H I L L T O P R D DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD Civic Plaza Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Don Biddle Park Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Collision Analysis\Figure 8- Bicycle High Injury Network - Final_20200623.mxd Date: 5/17/2022 Bicycle High Injury Network Figure 8 Bicycle High Injury NetworkDublin, California [0 1 Mile Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County Dublin Elem Murray Elem Dublin High Frederiksen Elem Wells Middle James DoughertyElem Eleanor Murry Fallon Midd John Green Elem Kolb Elem Cottonwood Creek Elem Amador Elem Future High School H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing Downtown Dublin Employment Centers Parks Schools BART Stations Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California [0 1 Mile Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Training Area 62 percent of bicycle collisions occurred on 3.5 percent of Dublin’s roads (6.7 miles) 88 percent of the bicycle high injury streets has four or more vehicle through lanes Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 67 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 67 Draft 226 High Injury Streets Table 8 provides the extents of each high injury street along with the total mileage (measured as centerline miles). HIGH INJURY NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS • 62 percent of pedestrian collisions occurred on 4 percent (8.4 miles) of Dublin’s roads. • 62 percent of the city’s bicycle collisions occurred on 3.5 percent (6.7 miles) of Dublin’s roads. Dublin’s pedestrian and bicycle HINs overlap for many of their segments. About 10 miles or just over 5 percent of Dublin’s roadways appear in either the bicycle HIN, pedestrian HIN, or both. This means that 66 percent of Dublin’s bicycle collisions and 66 percent of its pedestrian collisions occur on just 10 percent of streets in the city. Key Characteristics of the Pedestrian HIN • Approximately 40 percent of the pedestrian HIN has a speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Additionally, 32 percent of the HIN mileage consists of roads with speed limits of 40 or 45 miles per hour. The remainder of the HIN has speed limits of 25 or 30 miles per hour. • Approximately 55 percent of the pedestrian HIN consists of roads classified as arterial roads; the remaining roads are collector or residential streets. • Approximately 47 percent of the HIN has five or six vehicular through lanes. Another 24 percent of the network has four vehicular through lanes. The remainder of the HIN consists of roads with two or three lanes. Table 8. High Injury Streets Roadway Extents Pedestrian High Injury Streets Amador Valley Boulevard I-680 to Burton St. Arnold Road I-580 to Dublin Blvd. Bent Tree Drive Fallon Rd to Sugar Hill Terr. Burton Street Amador Valley Blvd. to Tamarack Dr. Dublin Boulevard Hansen Dr. to Grafton St. Hacienda Drive I-580 to Dublin Blvd. Regional Street Southern extents to Amador Valley Blvd. Tamarack Drive Canterbury Ln. to Brighton Dr. Tassajara Road Dublin Blvd. to Gleason Dr. Village Parkway Dublin Blvd. to Davona Dr. Total Mileage: 8.4 miles Bicycle High Injury Streets Amador Valley Boulevard San Ramon Rd. to Penn Dr. Dublin Boulevard Silvergate Dr. to Myrtle Dr. Village Parkway Dublin Blvd. to City Limits (N) Total Mileage: 6.7 miles 66 percent of bicycle collisions and 66 percent of pedestrian collisions occur on just 10 percent of streets in the City. 68 City of Dublin 68 City of Dublin Draft 227 Key Characteristics of the Bicycle HIN • Approximately 78 percent of the bicycle HIN mileage consists of roads with speed limits of 35 or 45 miles per hour. The remainder of the HIN has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. • The bicycle HIN is nearly evenly divided between arterial and collector roadways, with 54 and 46 percent, respectively. • Approximately 88 percent of the HIN has four or more vehicular through lanes. BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS LTS METHODOLOGY People on bikes are vulnerable street users. The presence of any one of several factors can make people feel unsafe or uncomfortable. Bicycle level of 4 This report uses an on-street LTS methodology developed by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) and documented in the Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity report published in 2012. This methodology was further refined by Dr. Peter Furth of Northeastern University in 2017. See Mekuria, Mazza C., “Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity” (2012), All Mineta Transportation Institute Publications., Book 4. http://scholarworks. sjsu.edu/mti_all/4 and http://www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/criteria-for-level-of-traffic-stress/, specifically “Version 2.0,” published in June 2017. traffic stress (LTS) measures the stress imposed on bicyclists by a road segment or crossing.4 The LTS methodology was used to classify Dublin’s intersections and on-street roadway and path segments as one of four levels of traffic stress. Classifications range from LTS 1 to LTS 4, with 1 being the most comfortable/ least stressful and 4 being least comfortable/most stressful. ON-STREET ROADWAY SEGMENT LTS METHODOLOGY The on-street roadway segment LTS methodology provides criteria for three bicycle facility types: bike lanes alongside a parking lane, bike lanes not alongside a parking lane, and mixed traffic (i.e., no bike lanes present). On-street roadway segment LTS analysis considers several factors that affect bicyclist comfort, including the number of vehicle travel lanes, vehicle volume, vehicle speed, presence and width of bike lanes, presence and width of parking lanes, and presence and type of separation between the bike lane and vehicle travel lanes (see figure 27). Path LTS Methodology The path LTS methodology was created to account for the various design factors that affect quality of service and bicyclists’ stress on the Class IA paths and Class IB sidepaths in Dublin. The analysis considers segment characteristics, including path width, shoulder width and separation, and wayfinding. The analysis also considers intersection/crossing elements, such as traffic control, crossing distance, geometric elements, pavement markings, and signage. Figure 27. Roadway Characteristics Used to Calculate Bicycle LTS NUMBER OF LANES SPEED OF TRAFFIC NUMBER OF VEHCILES PRESENCE & WIDTH OF BIKE LANES PRESENCE & WIDTH OF PARKING + BIKE LANES PRESENCE & PHYSICAL BARRIER BETWEEN BIKE LANES & VEHICULAR TRAFFIC Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 69 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 69 Draft 228 Crossing LTS Methodology A crossing LTS analysis was conducted for street and path intersections located along high-stress facilities (segments that scored LTS 3 or LTS 4) since it is likely that the characteristics of a high-stress segment can affect the bicyclist experience when crossing from a low-stress street. The crossing methodology analyzes intersections and crossings for the following situations: • Intersection approaches for pocket bike lanes (bike lanes that are to the left of a dedicated right-turn vehicle lane) • Intersection approaches for mixed traffic in the presence of right-turn lanes • Intersection crossings for unsignalized crossings without a median refuge • Intersection crossings for unsignalized crossings with a median refuge These situations do not describe all crossing circumstances. For example, in Dublin, many Class I facilities cross at signalized intersections. These situations are covered in the path LTS methodology. LTS RESULTS The LTS analysis was conducted using a spatial database with inputs obtained through a combination of field review, Google Earth aerial review, and City input. Assumptions were applied to fill data gaps where necessary. The on-street and path LTS results, presented together on figure 28, illustrate citywide bicycle level of traffic stress and network connectivity. To simplify the level of detail shown, the directionality of the on-street LTS has been suppressed. Each on-street segment is displaying its highest (i.e., worst) LTS value. Refer to appendix C for the full set of LTS maps, including directional LTS. • On-Street Level of Traffic Stress. Low-stress streets in Dublin are typically local residential roads without dedicated bicycle facilities where vehicle speeds and volumes are low. Higher stress streets are often arterial roads like Dublin Boulevard, which are less comfortable for bicyclists, due to the relatively higher vehicular speeds, higher traffic volumes, and the number of vehicle travel lanes. These higher stress streets present barriers to low-stress travel where they intersect with low-stress facilities and create islands isolated by high-stress segments and crossings. • Path LTS . Class IA multiuse paths most frequently score an LTS 2 given their width, shoulder, and wayfinding presence. Class IB side paths frequently score an LTS 3 with no wayfinding present along their segments. Path crossings vary, but they rarely exceed LTS 3 except at intersection crossings with high speeds, high volumes, and no crossing markings or signage. Although path LTS values were assessed for every path crossing location, only crossings with scores lower than their connecting path segments are mapped in the results. In other words, the mapped crossings are those which degrade the neighboring segment path LTS. • Low Stress Islands. Figure 29 presents Dublin’s network of low-stress facilities and highlights where gaps and islands exist. Fallon Road, Tassajara Road, San Ramon Road, and Dublin Boulevard are prime examples of low-stress gaps in the on-street network. In Dublin, most streets are residential streets. Nearly all of those streets (98 percent) are low stress because of their low speeds and volumes. With generally higher speeds and volumes, 70 City of Dublin 70 City of Dublin Draft 229 Figure 28. On Street and Path LTS Combined Map ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! §¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H RD M A D D E N WY T A MARACKDR D A V ONADR S I L V ERGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R AR N O L D R D CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUBLIN BL DO U G H E R T Y R D POSITANO P W V I L L A G E P W D O N O HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIE R R A C T FA L L O N R D TA S S A J A R A R D NORTHSIDE DR HA C I E N D A D R AMAD O R V A L L E Y B L BR A N N I G A N S T SC H A E F E R R A N C H R D COLLIER CANYON RD 8TH ST CROMWELL AV BA R N E T B L CR O A K R D RANGERD CREEKSIDEDR HORIZON PW SCARLETT CT PERSI M MONDR A L L E Y 6TH ST 7TH ST SC A R L E T T D R P A L I S A D E S DR TOW E R R D SYRAH DR HILLR O S E D R I N S P I R ATIONCI ALBROOK DR EAGLE R D BRODER BL I N S PIRATI O N DR CREEKVIEW DR H I L L T O P RD DUBLIN BLST E R L I N G R D Mar t i n C a n y o n C r e e k T r a i l Ala m o C a n a l T r a i l Ir o n H o r s e T r a i l Civic Plaza Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Don Biddle Park F A L L C R EEK R D C RO MWELL AV HAVE NPL BA R N E T B L CROAKRD FCI 6TH ST ASPENST DI A NA LN SEBILLE RD Q U A R T Z C I RAN G E R D SCHAEFERLN 1 2 T H S T ALBROOK DR VALLEY VISTADR DUBLIN BL P E N N DRV I LLAGEPW WILDWOODRD CENTRAL P W BENTTR E E D R D O U G H E R T Y R D P O S I TANOPW FAL L O N R D TASSAJA R A R D V I T T O RI A LP I N SPIRAT I O N DR §¨¦680 §¨¦580 Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County H: \ 2 4 \ 2 4 3 9 2 - D u b l i n A T P \ g i s \ T a s k 3 \ 1 3 A l l L T S C O m b i n e d . m x d D a t e : 5 / 1 7 / 2 0 2 2 On-Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Shared Use Path (Class IA) LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Sidepaths (Class IB) LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Path Crossings !LTS 1 !LTS 2 !LTS 3 !LTS 4 Existing Bicyclist Level of Traffic StressDublin, California [0 1 Mile Figure 13 ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! §¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H R D M A D D E N W Y T A MARACKDR D A V ONA DR S I L V E RGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R AR N O L D R D CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUBLIN BL DO U G H E R T Y R D POSITANO P W V I L L A G E P W D O N O HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIE R R A C T FA L L O N R D TA S S A J A R A R D NORTHSIDE DR HA C I E N D A D R AMAD O R V A L L E Y B L BR A N N I G A N S T SC H A E F E R R A N C H R D COLLIER CANYON RD 8TH ST CROMWELL AV BA R N E T B L CR O A K R D RANGERD CREEKSIDEDR HORIZON PW SCARLETT CT PERSI M MONDR A L L E Y 6TH ST 7TH ST SC A R L E T T D R P A LI S A D E S DR TOW E R R D SYRAH DR HILLR O S E D R I N S P I R ATIONCI ALBROOK DR EAGLE R D BRODER BL I N S PIRATI O N DR CREEKVIEW DR H I L L T O P R D DUBLIN BLST E R L I N G R D Ma r t i n C a n y o n C r e e k T r a i l Ala m o C a n a l T r a i l Ir o n H o r s e T r a i l Civic Plaza Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Don Biddle Park F A L L C R EEK R D C RO MWELL AV HAVE NPL BA R N E T B L CROAKRD FCI 6TH ST ASPENST DI A NA LN SEBILLE RD Q U A R T Z C I RAN G E R D SCHAEFERLN 1 2 T H S T ALBROOK DR VALLEY VISTADR DUBLIN BL P E N N DRV I L LAGEPW WILDWOODRD CENTRAL P W BENTTR E E D R D O U G H E R T Y R D P O S ITANOPW FAL L O N R D TASSAJA R A R D V I T T O RI A LP I N SPIRAT I O N DR §¨¦680 §¨¦580 Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County H: \ 2 4 \ 2 4 3 9 2 - D u b l i n A T P \ g i s \ T a s k 3 \ 1 3 A l l L T S C O m b i n e d . m x d D a t e : 5 / 1 7 / 2 0 2 2 On-Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Shared Use Path (Class IA) LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Sidepaths (Class IB) LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Path Crossings !LTS 1 !LTS 2 !LTS 3 !LTS 4 Existing Bicyclist Level of Traffic StressDublin, California [0 1 Mile Figure 13 Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County Dublin Elem Murray Elem Dublin High Frederiksen Elem Wells Middle James Dougherty Elem Eleanor Murry Fallon Midd John Green Elem Kolb Elem Cottonwood Creek Elem Amador Elem Future High School H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing Downtown Dublin Employment Centers Parks Schools BART Stations Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California [0 1 Mile Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Training Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 71 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 71 Draft 230 Figure 29. Low Stress Islands Map §¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H RD M A D D E N WY T A MARACKDR D A V ONADR S I L V E RGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUBLI N BL DOUGHERTY RD POSITANO P W V IL L A G E P W D O N O HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIERRA CT FALLON RD TASSAJARA RD NORTHSIDE DR HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A LL E Y B L BRANNIGAN ST SCHAEFER RANCH RD COLLIER CANYON RD 8TH ST CROMWELL AV BARNET BL CROAK RD RANGERD CREEKSIDEDR HORIZON PW SCARLETT CT PERSI M MONDR A L L E Y 6TH ST 7TH ST SC A RLETT D R P A L I S A D E S DR TOWER RD SYRAH DR HILLR O S E D R I N S P I R ATIONCI ALBROOK DR EAGLE R D BRODER BL I N S PIRATI O N DR CREEKVIEW DR H I L L T O P RD DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail Ir o n H o rs e Tr ail Dublin Sports Grounds Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County Level of Traffic Stress Scores On-Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 Existing Low-Stress Network and Modeled Activity CentersDublin, California [ H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_Existing low-stress network + all activity centers.mxd Date: 6/9/2022 §¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H RD M A D D EN W Y T A MARACKDR D A V ONA DR S I L V E RGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUBLIN BL DOUGHERTY RD POSITANO P W V IL L A G E P W D O N O HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIERRA CT FALLON RD TASSAJARA RD NORTHSIDE DR HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L BRANNIGAN ST SCHAEFER RANCH RD COLLIER CANYON RD 8TH ST CROMWELL AV BARNET BL CROAK RD RANGERD CREEKSIDEDR HORIZON PW SCARLETT CT PERSI M MONDR A L L E Y 6TH ST 7TH ST SC A RLETT D R P A LI S A D E S DR TOWER RD SYRAH DR HILLR O S E D R I N S P I R ATIONCI ALBROOK DR EAGLE R D BRODER BL I N S PIRATI O N DR CREEKVIEW DR H I L L T O P RD DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail Ir o n H o rs e T r ail Dublin Sports Grounds Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County Level of Traffic Stress Scores On-Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 Class IB S egment LTS 1 LTS 2 Existing Low-Stress Network and Modeled Activity CentersDublin, California [ H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_Existing low-stress network + all activity centers.mxd Date: 6/9/2022 Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County Dublin Elem Murray Elem Dublin High Frederiksen Elem Wells Middle James Dougherty Elem Eleanor Murry Fallon Midd John Green Elem Kolb Elem Cottonwood Creek Elem Amador Elem Future High School H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing Downtown Dublin Employment Centers Parks Schools BART Stations Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California [0 1 Mile Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Training Area 72 City of Dublin 72 City of Dublin Draft 231 collector and arterial roadways are higher stress for bicyclists unless they have appropriate facilities. Only 37 percent of collectors and 7 percent of arterials in Dublin are low stress (see figure 30). Many businesses and services are located on or near collectors, and these desintations can only be accessed with some travel along or across the collectors or arterials. The goal of planning and designing a low-stress bicycle facility network is to enable people of all ages and abilities to feel safe and comfortable riding bicycles throughout the city. These LTS findings are useful for determining and locating appropriate low-stress bicycle facilities in the city. Dublin’s extensive network of low-speed and low-volume local neighborhood streets already create a backbone for a low-stress biking network; however, these streets are isolated pockets throughout the city and remain separated by high-stress arterial and collector streets. By enhancing low-stress streets and adding separated bicycle facilities on targeted segments of higher-speed and higher- volume collectors and arterials, Dublin can support a more connected, low-stress bicycle network that better serves key destinations throughout the city. PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY Sidewalk gaps and lack of safe crossing opportunities can create barriers to walking by requiring people to go out of their way to avoid the gap or by forcing people to walk in the street and increase their exposure to vehicle traffic. These barriers to walking were mapped in figure 31. Figure 30. Miles of Bikeway Stress by Functional Classification LOW STRESS STREETS HIGH STRESS STREETS Arterial Streets Collector Streets Residential Streets 0 30 60 90 120 150 Miles *Miles does not include paths. "You can't use the sidewalk without tripping on a jagged piece of concrete." -community member quote Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 73 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 73 Draft 232 !èéëìí!èéëìí !èéëìí ./0""$ !èéëìí !èéëìí !èéëìí 89:m89:m 89:m 89:m89:m 89:m 89:m 89:m §¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H RD M A D D E N WY T A MARACKDR D A V ONADR S I L V ERGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUB LIN BL DOUGHERTY RD POSITANO P W V IL L A G E P W D O N O HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIERRA CT FALLON RD TASSAJARA RD NORTHSIDE DR HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L BRANNIGAN ST SCHAEFER RANCH RD COLLIER CANYON RD 8TH ST CROMWELL AV BARNET BL CROAK RD RANGERD CREEKSIDEDR HORIZON PW SCARLETT CT PERSI M MONDR A L L E Y 6TH ST 7TH ST SC A RLETT D R P A L I S A D E S DR TOWER RD SYRAH DR HILLR O S E D R I N S P I R ATIONCI ALBROOK DR EAGLE R D BRODER BL I N S PIRATI O N DR CREEKVIEW DR H I L L T O P RD DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD Civic Plaza Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Don Biddle Park Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Pedestrian Crossing Barriers_updated for Plan.mxd Date: 7/29/2022 !èéëìí Major street barrier - signal with no major street crossings ./0""$Major street barrier -- all-way stop, no marked crossings Major street barrier - side-street stop control Not a barrier - full accessibility 89:m Not a barrier- RRFB Roadways/Paths Major Street (crossing barriers exist along street) Paths Other streets - full crossing accessibility assumed at nodes Sidewalk gap on major road Pedestrian Demand Analysis FrameworkCrossing BarriersDublin, California [0 1 Mile Figure 7 Figure 31. Pedestrian Crossing Barriers Map !èéëìí!èéëìí !èéëìí ./0""$ !èéëìí !èéëìí !èéëìí 89:m89:m 89:m 89:m89:m 89:m 89:m 89:m §¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H RD M A D D E N W Y T A MARACKDR D A V ONA DR S I L V E RGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUBLIN BL DOUGHERTY RD POSITANO P W V IL L A G E P W D O N O HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIERRA CT FALLON RD TASSAJARA RD NORTHSIDE DR HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L BRANNIGAN ST SCHAEFER RANCH RD COLLIER CANYON RD 8TH ST CROMWELL AV BARNET BL CROAK RD RANGERD CREEKSIDEDR HORIZON PW SCARLETT CT PERSI M MONDR A L L E Y 6TH ST 7TH ST SC A RLETT D R P A LI S A D E S DR TOWER RD SYRAH DR HILLR O S E D R I N S P I R ATIONCI ALBROOK DR EAGLE R D BRODER BL I N S PIRATI O N DR CREEKVIEW DR H I L L T O P R D DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD Civic Plaza Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Don Biddle Park Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Pedestrian Crossing Barriers_updated for Plan.mxd Date: 7/29/2022 !èéëìí Major street barrier - signal with no major street crossings ./0""$Major street barrier -- all-way stop, no marked crossings Major street barrier - side-street stop control Not a barrier - full accessibility 89:m Not a barrier- RRFB Roadways/Paths Major Street (crossing barriers exist along street) Paths Other streets - full crossing accessibility assumed at nodes Sidewalk gap on major road Pedestrian Demand Analysis FrameworkCrossing BarriersDublin, California [0 1 Mile Figure 7 Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County Dublin Elem Murray Elem Dublin High Frederiksen Elem Wells Middle James Dougherty Elem Eleanor Murry Fallon Midd John Green Elem Kolb Elem Cottonwood Creek Elem Amador Elem Future High School H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing Downtown Dublin Employment Centers Parks Schools BART Stations Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California [0 1 Mile Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Training Area 74 City of Dublin 74 City of Dublin Draft 233 WALKING AND BIKING ACCESS The ability of people to walk or bike to key walking and biking destinations was analyzed to estimate existing access to key destinations. This analysis was used to identify barriers in the existing network and highlight locations where investments would have the greatest potential to close gaps in the network and increase access and mode share. The share of the Dublin population that could be expected to walk or bike to each activity center was estimated based on pedestrian and bicyclist typology, distance to the destination, and the quality of available infrastructure. These estimates of walk and bike access were determined by four inputs: • Demographic data: Dublin residents were grouped into walking and biking typology groups based on age. Groups exhibit different propensities to walk or bike and respond differently to supportive infrastructure. • Network distance to destination: The actual network distance between city parcels and each activity center was calculated using the shortest available route. • Barriers and impediments: For walking, uncontrolled crossings of major roads were identified as blocking or impeding an available walking route. For biking, a high LTS score (3 or 4) blocks or impedes available routes. Barriers block access and require a different route; impediments increase the perceived travel distance, which decreases the likelihood of walking or biking. Populations experience barriers and impediments differently. For example, uncontrolled crossings of major roads can create inaccessible routes for young children and older adults, but are merely inconvenient for teenagers and adults who are more likely to be able to cross. Pedestrian and bicyclist typologies were used to capture such differences in experiences. • Mode share data: Kittelson used data from the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), BART station profile surveys, the American Community Survey (ACS), and Safe Routes to School (SRTS) mode share surveys to estimate the percentage of people walking and biking and the relationship between mode share and destination distance. The percentage of the population estimated to walk or bike varies based on the perceived distance to the destination. For example, more people walk for a half- mile trip than a one-mile trip. The analysis was conducted using a four-step process illustrated in figure 32. WALKING AND BIKING DEMAND ANALYSIS PROCESS The methodology analyzes existing walking and biking access to key destinations using historical travel pattern and count data, demographic data, and infrastructure data. This analysis did not consider other factors that influence mode choice decisions like access or ability to ride a bicycle, income and wealth, disability, and trip chaining characteristics. This analysis indicates the magnitude of existing and potential latent demand for walking and biking based on a set of informed assumptions about the known relationship between infrastructure and mode choice. Existing demand is summarized in this section, and the detailed methodology and outcomes are presented in appendix D. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 75 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 75 Draft 234 WALK ACCESS • Schools: Cottonwood Creek School, Dougherty Elementary, and Kolb Elementary exhibit the highest estimated walk shares with around 36 percent of students living within walking distance. Other schools similarly exhibit high estimated walk shares, due in part to the localized nature of their student population compared to middle and high schools. • Transit : Approximately 11 percent of Dublin residents are within a 15-minute walk of either the Dublin/Pleasanton or West Dublin BART stations. Over 40 percent of Dublin residents live more than two miles from either BART station. • Job Centers: The walk share estimates range from 4 to 9 percent for each job center. The limited walkability of these sites is largely the result of the distance between the employment and residential uses. • Parks and Open Space: Access for each resident was determined by the nearest City park. The analysis measured perceived distance to any park for each resident rather than to a specific park. Almost 25 percent of Dublin residents live within one- eighth of a mile from a park, and 62 percent of residents live within a one-mile perceived walking distance of a park. Figure 32. Walking and Biking Demand Analysis Process Categorize city population into walking and biking typologies at Census block level Assign and apportion population by typology to residential buildings Calculate network distance to points of interest and percieved distance based on Infrastructure factors and walking and biking typology Using a distance/ mode split lookup table, estimate the mode share to points of interest. Calibrate based on existing mode split and travel data 04 Aggregate Results 03 Network Analysis 02 population Assignment to Buildings 01 Demographic Analysis Youth Walk Access to Cottonwood Creek School Walk Access for Adults to BART Walk Access to BART for Youth, Older Adults, and People with Disabilities Figure 33. Walk Access Note: Full size graphics are included in the appendix. 76 City of Dublin 76 City of Dublin Draft 235 BIKE ACCESS • Schools: Access points to Dublin High, Frederiksen Elementary, Murray Elementary, and Wells Middle School are provided on high-stress streets (streets with LTS scores of 3 or 4). High-stress streets create an access barrier and reduce the propensity of students to bike to school. Amador Elementary and Kolb Elementary exhibit the highest estimated bike share with 14 percent of students having low- stress bicycle access. • Transit : Based on the bicyclist typology and available infrastructure, approximately 12 percent of Dublin residents have a bike route matching their stress tolerance and can access one of the two BART stations within an approximately 15-minute ride at a 10-mile per hour pace. Less than one percent of interested and concerned bicyclists have a low-stress bicycle route to BART. • Job Centers: The share of population with an available and acceptable bicycle route varies from 18 percent to 37 percent; the resulting bike share estimates range between 1 and 3 percent for each job center. Limitations to bicycle access at these sites is primarily the result of being located on major arterials, which are typically high-stress streets. • Parks and Open Space: Access for each resident was determined by the nearest City park. The analysis measured perceived distance to any park for each resident rather than to a specific park. In Dublin, 42 percent of Dublin residents have an acceptable bicycle route to a park. Nearly 40 percent have no available low-stress route, and the remaining residents would not choose to bike if a low- stress route were available. Bike access to BART for (left to right) “interested but concerned”, “enthused and confident”, and “strong and fearless” riders. Illustrates the barriers to access for the “interested and concerned” group, Dublin’s largest population of bicyclists. Note: Full size graphics are included in the appendix. Figure 34. Bike Access to BART Bike access to BART for “interested but concerned” Bike access to BART for “enthused and confident” Bike access to BART for “strong and fearless” BART BART access pointsaccess points Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 77 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 77 Draft 236 4 237 This chapter presents the recommended citywide bicycle and pedestrian networks. These networks represent the City’s vision for walking and biking infrastructure in Dublin, with new and improved facilities to create safe and comfortable connections to key destinations for users of all ages and abilities. Public feedback and findings from the existing conditions assessment, high-injury network, bicycle level of traffic stress, pedestrian connectivity, and demand analysis contributed to developing the recommended network shown in figure 35. NETWORK DEVELOPMENT The network was developed in three phases: • Phase 1: Network Framework • Phase 2: Network Evaluation • Phase 3: Network Refinement The following sections describe the process and outputs of each phase. PHASE 1: NETWORK PHASE 1: NETWORK FRAMEWORKFRAMEWORK The active transportation network framework includes a variety of sources of data and information including community feedback, related plans and projects, existing conditions and needs analysis, and evaluation of destinations and barriers documented in the preceding chapters. PHASE 2: NETWORK PHASE 2: NETWORK EVALUATIONEVALUATION The Plan’s vision includes creating a safe and comfortable walking and biking network that can be enjoyed by all. Ultimately, the goal of the low-stress network is to enable a wider cross section of the city’s population to feel comfortable and safe while making trips by bike and on foot. With the vision of an all ages and abilities active transportation system in mind, criteria from the Federal Highway Administration’s Bikeway Selection Guide were used to select initial low-stress facility recommendations for all streets in Dublin. These initial recommendations will help the largest segment of the population to feel comfortable while walking and biking (see figure 35). Speed and volume roadway operational characteristics were used to determine the appropriate low-stress bicycle facility type. 4. RECOMMENDED BICYCLE 4. RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS& PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS “Bike lanes and separate pedestrian path are great” -community member quote Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 79 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 79 Draft 238 !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022 Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California [0 3,300 FeetProposed Point Project !Spot Improvement Proposed Segment Project !!!Shared Lane (Class III) !!!Bike Lane (Class IIA) !!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) !!!Complete Streets Study: Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV) !!!Complete Streets Study: ConsiderImprovements to Existing Sidepaths Class I Path Project Existing Facility Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Schools BART Stations Parks Figure 35. Recommended Projects and Existing Facilities !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022 Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California [0 3,300 FeetProposed Point Project !Spot Improvement Proposed Segment Project !!!Shared Lane (Class III) !!!Bike Lane (Class IIA) !!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) !!!Complete Streets Study: SeparatedFacility (Class I or Class IV) !!!Complete Streets Study: ConsiderImprovements to Existing Sidepaths Class I Path Project Existing Facility Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Schools BART Stations Parks Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County Dublin Elem Murray Elem Dublin High Frederiksen Elem Wells Middle James DoughertyElem Eleanor Murry Fallon Midd John Green Elem Kolb Elem Cottonwood Creek Elem Amador Elem Future High School H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing Downtown Dublin Employment Centers Parks Schools BART Stations Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California [0 1 Mile Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Training Area Locations with identified proposed segment projects may also include pedestrian improvements such as consistent sidewalks, buffers with street trees and/or green stormwater infrastructure, high-visibility crosswalks, accessible curb ramps, curb extensions, reduced corner radii, and signal improvements 80 City of Dublin 80 City of Dublin Draft 239 Figure 36. Preferred Bikeway Type PHASE 3: NETWORK PHASE 3: NETWORK REFINEMENTREFINEMENT Once the low-stress facility was determined, a high- level feasibility assessment of each corridor was conducted to evaluate the potential implications of installing the low-stress facility. For example, assessments considered whether vehicle parking or vehicle travel lanes would need to be removed to install a low-stress facility. For locations where implementation of the all ages and abilities low- stress facility would be more challenging, potential parallel routes were sought to provide similar quality of access as the constrained corridor. Constrained or challenging corridors were identified and recommended for further evaluation as part of a complete streets study. The resulting project list was refined to address feedback from City staff, TAC, BPAC, and community members. 23 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION Figure 9: Preferred Bikeway Type for Urban, Urban Core, Suburban and Rural Town Contexts 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Separated Bike Lane or Shared Use Path Bike Lane (Buffer Pref.) Shared Lane or Bike Boulevard 10k 9k 8k 7k 6k 5k 4k 3k 2k 1k 0 1 Chart assumes operating speeds are similar to posted speeds. If they differ, use operating speed rather than posted speed. 2 Advisory bike lanes may be an option where traffic volume is <3K ADT. 3 See page 32 for a discussion of alternatives if the preferred bikeway type is not feasible. Notes Source: US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Bikeway Selection Guide, FHWA-SA-19-077, February 2019, https:// safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf. "Would love to see separated bike lanes with street trees and widened sidewalks." -community member quote Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 81 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 81 Draft 240 NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS COMPLETE STREET APPROACHCOMPLETE STREET APPROACH A Complete Street approach was taken during the development of infrastructure recommendations. Bicycle-, and pedestrian- supportive investments are included in each corridor and crossing project and transit-supportive elements will be further considered along transit corridors as part of design development. The following list illustrates the range of treatments that may be applied to corridor and crossing projects: • Advance yield markings • Curb extensions • Median refuges or crossing islands • Centerline hardening5 • Intersection daylighting6 • Narrow vehicle travel lanes • Traffic control modifications (e.g., stop sign, signal) • Signal timing and phasing modifications (e.g., restrict right turn on red) 5 Centerline Hardening. A left-turn traffic-calming treatment that features a vertical element, such as a bollard, rubber curb, or concrete curb installed along the centerline at intersection departures to force drivers to approach the turn at a steeper angle and slower speed. 6 Intersection Daylighting. A strategy to increase visibility at intersections by prohibiting parking (e.g., installing red painted curb) at least 20 feet in advance of a crossing. • Sidewalk widening • Added or upgraded bike facility The project recommendations are presented as a package, with concurrent improvements to support all three active and sustainable travel modes. CORRIDOR PROJECTS CORRIDOR PROJECTS Corridor projects were identified on high-stress roadways that represented barriers to walking and biking. Recommended corridor projects are summarized in table 9 and presented by location in table 10. Table 9. Project Type by Length Project Type Miles Shared Lane (Class III)12.4 Bike Lane (Class IIA)4.0 Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)17.4 Complete Streets Study: Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV)9.2 Complete Streets Study: Consider Improvements to Existing Sidepaths (Class IB)4.9 Path (Class IA)7.9 Speed Reduction Evaluation 1.3 Total 55.6* * Corridor projects are not double counted in this total if they represent multiple project types. 82 City of Dublin 82 City of Dublin Draft 241 Table 10. Recommend Projects by Location Project ID Project Location From To Project Description SEGMENT PROJECTS S-1 Various locations for Class III facilities/neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack Drive, Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street, Brighton Drive, Grafton Street, Antone Way, South Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street Study opportunities and create designs for traffic calming, striping, and signs to create Class III bikeways S-2 Gleason Drive Arnold Road Brannigan Street Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future S-3 Hacienda Drive Southern City Limits Gleason Drive Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future S-4 Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Tassajara Road Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future S-5 Arnold Road Dublin Boulevard Altamirano Ave Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-6 Grafton Street Kohnen Way Antone Way Convert to a Class IIB bikeway through restriping S-7 Tassajara Road, Dougherty Road, and Hacienda Drive Southern City Limits Dublin Boulveard Convert to a Class IIB bikeway by restriping travel lanes on Tassajara, Dougherty, and Hacienda at the I-580 overcrossings S-8 Tassajara Road North Dublin Ranch Drive Rutherford Drive Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future S-9 Village Parkway Amador Valley Boulevard Northern City Limits Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment S-10 Various locations for Class III facilities/neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack Drive, Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street, Brighton Drive, Antone Way, South Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street Implement the traffic calming, striping, and signs plans and designs created in project S-1 to create Class III bikeways S-11 Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard Amador Valley Boulevard Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-12 Tassajara Road Palisades Drive North Dublin Ranch Drive Evaluate opportunities to reduce speed limit along this corridor Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 83 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 83 Draft 242 Project ID Project Location From To Project Description S-13 Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment S-14 Amador Valley Boulevard Stagecoach Road Dougherty Road Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment S-15 Tassajara Road Gleason Drive Southern City Limits Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. This project is anticipated to be implemented after the lower cost solution in S-7. S-16 Dublin Boulevard Inspiration Drive San Ramon Road Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment S-17 Dublin Boulevard Inspiration Drive Western extent Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment S-18 Fallon Road Gleason Drive Southern city limits Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. S-19 Fallon Road Gleason Drive Tassajara Road Make improvements to adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed. S-20 Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road Eastern city limits Add buffered bike lanes along the Dublin Boulevard Extension S-21 Tassajara Road Palidsades Drive Northern City Limits Work with Contra Costa County to design and implement Class IIB facilities S-22 Various locations: N Dublin Ranch Drive, S Dublin Ranch Drive, Hansen Drive, Starward Drive, San Sabana Road, Southwick Drive, Hibernia Drive, Donohue Drive, Keegan Street, Peppertree Road, Madden Way, Kohnen Way, York Drive, Maple Drive, Inspiration Drive, and Vomac Road Study opportunities, create designs, and implement traffic calming and signs to create Class III Bikeways along the identified roadways S-23 Lockhart Street Central Parkway Dublin Boulevard Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-24 John Monego Court Dublin Boulevard Southern extent Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-25 Sierra Lane Sierra Court Dougherty Road Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-26 York Drive Amador Valley Boulevard Poplar Way Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-27 Hibernia Drive Dublin Boulevard Summer Glen Drive Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists 84 City of Dublin 84 City of Dublin Draft 243 Project ID Project Location From To Project Description S-28 Shannon Avenue Vomac Road Peppertree Road Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-29 Glynnis Rose Drive Central Parkway Dublin Boulevard Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-30 Central Parkway 500' west of Croak Road Croak Road Extend bike lanes and sidepaths along Central Parkway to Croak Road S-31 Croak Road/ Volterra Drive Volterra Court Dublin Boulevard If Croak Road is improved south of S Terracina Drive, add low stress bicycle facilities based on anticipated speeds, volumes, and FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide recommendations S-32 Central Parkway Iron Horse Parkway Tassajara Road Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-33 Central Parkway Tassajara Road Fallon Road Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-34 Gleason Drive Fallon Road Brannigan Road Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-35 Amador Plaza Road Southern Extent Amador Valley Boulevard Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-36 Silvergate Drive San Ramon Road Peppertree Road Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-37 Arnold Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment S-38 Dougherty Road Scarlett Drive Northern City Limits Improve wayfinding and signage for parallel path on east side; restripe to upgrade Class IIA facilities to Class IIB facilities S-39 Lockhart Street Central Parkway Gleason Drive Add a Class IIB bike lane where no bike lane currently exists or improve adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed. S-40 Stagecoach Road Amador Valley Boulevard Northern City Limits Add a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-41 Sierra Ct Dublin Boulevard Northern extent Add a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-42 Amador Valley Boulevard Village Parkway Stagecoach Road Upgrade from Class IIA to Class IIB Bicycle Lane S-43 Bent Tree Drive Fallon Road East Sugar Hill Terrace Restripe to a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-44 Hacienda Drive Gleason Road Dublin Boulevard As a follow up to S-3, evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-45 Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 85 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 85 Draft 244 Project ID Project Location From To Project Description S-46 Dublin Boulevard Dougherty Road Scarlett Drive Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment S-47 Hacienda Drive Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. This project is anticipated to be implemented after the lower cost solution in S-7. S-48 San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, and conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment S-49 Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Tassajara Road Make improvements to adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed. S-50 Clark Ave/Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard Upgrade from Class IIB to Class IV Bicycle Lane S-51 Dublin Boulevard San Ramon Road Dougherty Road Upgrade to separated Class I facilities providing sufficient space to reduce conflicts between people walking and biking; evaluate opportunities to improve walkability by reducing obstructions; enhance median and lighting along Dublin Boulevard under I-680; improve sidewalk connection across commercial driveway and at bus stop (east of Regional Street); add pedestrian-scale lighting under I-680 Overpass. Install barrier in median underneath overcrossing to prohibit pedestrian crossings. S-52 Martinelli Way and Iron Horse Parkway BART Station on Iron Horse Parkway Hacienda Drive Add Class I facilities on both sides of the road on Martinelli Way and support the Class I facilities by adding signage, wayfinding, and crossing improvements at the intersections; connect to the BART Station by providing continuous Class I or Class IIA facilities along Iron Horse Parkway. S-53 Golden Gate Drive Dublin Boulevard Amador Valley Boulevard Add bike lanes with the implementation of the Golden Gate extension project Trail Projects T-1 Iron Horse Regional Trail Implement Phase I and II of the Iron Horse Nature Park Master Plan to create park space and trail access and connectivity improvements T-2 Downtown Dublin Regional Street Amador Plaza Road Add trail connection from Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road T-3 East of Tassajara approximately 500 ft Dublin Boulevard Central Parkway With development, add Class I connection between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway, just east of Tassajara Road 86 City of Dublin 86 City of Dublin Draft 245 Project ID Project Location From To Project Description T-4 Dublin Creek Trail Amador Plaza Road San Ramon Road Add trail connection along Dublin Creek along the Zone 7 channel, to connect at San Ramon Road T-5 San Ramon Bike Path Shannon Community Center Create connection to Shannon Community Center from the San Ramon Bike Path T-6 Alamo Canal Trail Dublin High School and Village Parkway Alamo Canal Trail between Cedar Lane and Ebensburg Lane Add Class I facility along east side of Village to connect to the Alamo Canal Trail T-7 Dublin Boulevard Amador Plaza Road Village Parkway As recommended in the 2014 plan, widen existing sidewalk and add signing and striping treatments to create a shared use path on the south side of Dublin Boulevard. T-8 Alamo Canal Trail/ Civic Plaza Village Parkway/ Clark Avenue Alamo Canal Trail Add a bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the canal to create Class I connection between Village Parkway/Clark Avenue at Alamo Canal Trail at the Dublin Public Safety Complex Site T-9 Dublin Boulevard Extension Fallon Road Collier Canyon Park (Livermore) Create Class I connection along the future Dublin Boulevard Extension corridor from Fallon Road to Collier Canyon Parkway (Livermore) T-10 Brannigan Street Central Parkway Gleason Boulevard Through development, add Class I facility on the west side of Brannigan St. from Central Parkway to Gleason Boulevard T-11 Central Parkway Emerald Glen Park/ Tassajara Road Brannigan Street Add Class I connection and street crossing enhancements on the north side of Central Parkway from Emerald Glen Park/Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street T-12 Dublin High School Iron Horse Trail Village Parkway Add Class I connection along the south side of the school grounds and Dublin Swin Center from Iron Horse Trail to Village Parkway T-13 Tassajara Creek Dublin Boulevard Pleasanton Study options for gap closure to provide a bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing and shared use path from Tassajara Creek at Dublin Boulevard south over I-580 into Pleasanton T-14 Nielson Elementary School Amarillo Road Mape Memorial Park Path Add Class I connection along the southern edge of Nielson Elementary to connect Amarillo Road with the existing path along Mape Memorial Park to san Ramon Road T-15 Altamirano Street Dublin BART station Martinelli Way Add Class I connection along Altamirano Street between the Dublin BART station and Martinelli Way T-16 Croak Road Dublin Boulevard Positano Parkway Add Class I connections along Croak Road from Dublin Boulevard to Positano Parkway T-17 Positano Parkway Croak Road La Strada Drive Add or improve trails along Positano Parkway to connect to the trail on Croak Road T-18 Tassajara Creek Trail Tassajara Road Trailhead Wallis Ranch development trails Add Class I connection between the existing Tassajara Creek trailhead on Tassajara Road and trails in the Wallis Ranch development Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 87 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 87 Draft 246 POINT PROJECTSPOINT PROJECTS Crossing projects were identified at locations that represented major barriers to walking and biking, including freeway crossings, high-stress trail crossings, high-stress intersections, and locations that experienced a high frequency or severity of collisions. The recommended crossing projects are presented in table 11 and includes: • Interchange projects to modernize and improve multimodal access and traffic safety, lessening the barriers to walking and biking that are posed by the I-580 and I-680 freeways. • Crossing projects to improve connections to and along existing Class I paths and trails or to provide mid- block connections across existing roadways. • Intersection projects to improve safety for people walking and biking by modifying intersection signal timing, geometry, signing, or striping. Table 11 outlines the recommended crossing projects by location. Table 11. Recommended Crossing Projects by Location Project ID Project Location Project Description Freeway Crossing Projects FC-1 San Ramon Road at southbound I-580 westbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-2 San Ramon Road at northbound I-580 westbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Project ID Project Location Project Description FC-3 San Ramon Road at I-580 westbound ramp terminal Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-4 St. Patrick Way at I-580 ramp terminal and entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-5 Dougherty Road at I-580 westbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-6 Dougherty Road at I-580 westbound ramp terminal Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-7 Dougherty Road at I-580 eastbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-8 Hacienda Drive at I-580 westbound ramp terminal Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-9 Hacienda Drive at I-580 eastbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-10 Hacienda Drive at I-580 westbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-11 Tassajara Road at I-580 westbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-12 Tassajara Road at I-580 westbound ramp terminal Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-13 Tassajara Road at I-580 eastbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-14 Fallon Road at I-580 westbound ramp terminal and entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings 88 City of Dublin 88 City of Dublin Draft 247 Project ID Project Location Project Description FC-15 Fallon Road at I-580 eastbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-16 Village Parkway at I-680 NB ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Pedestrian Crossing Projects C-1 Regional Street between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard Provide mid-block crossing (RRFB or other actuated treatment) C-2 Dublin Boulevard and Iron Horse Trail Provide pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing to connect to Don Biddle Community Park C-3 Sierra Court cul-de-sac Add connection from Sierra Court to the Alamo Canal/Iron Horse Trail network C-4 Tassajara Creek Trail and Dublin Boulevard Study the feasibility of improving the crossing of Tassajara Creek Trail at Dublin Boulevard by providing better connections to the existing crossing at John Monego Court. Provide wayfinding and signs to direct people biking and walking between the trail and the intersection. C-5 Tassajara Creek Trail and Tassajara Road Improve connections to nearby crossings or add crossing at Tassajara Road and Tassajara Creek Trail (south of Rutherford Drive) to provide access to the trailhead; improve general access to and connectivity from the trail to Tassajara Road and local destinations Intersection Projects I-1 Central Parkway/ Aspen Street Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school I-2 Grafton Street/ Antone Way Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school Project ID Project Location Project Description I-3 Amador Valley Boulevard/Burton Street Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school I-4 Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Remove slip lanes; reduce curb radii on all corners; install curb extensions on the SE and SW corners; install directional curb ramps. I-5 Village Parkway/ Tamarack Drive Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-6 Village Parkway/ Brighton Drive Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-7 Dublin Boulevard/ Hibernia Drive Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-8 Dublin Boulevard/ Arnold Road Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 89 Draft 248 Project ID Project Location Project Description I-9 Dublin Boulevard/ Hacienda Drive Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-10 Dublin Boulevard/ Village Parkway Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Reduce width of SB right-turn lane and reduce turning radii; remove NB right-turn slip lane and reduce curb radii; reduce curb radii on NE and SE corners; straighten crosswalks. I-11 Grafton Street/Madden Way/Kohnen Way Provide higher visibility crossing treatments, especially to support access to the school I-12 Antone Way/ Bridgepointe Lane Provide higher visibility crossing treatments, especially to support access to the school I-13 S Dublin Ranch Drive/ Woodshire Lane Provide higher visibility crossing treatments, especially to support access to the school I-14 Tassajara Road and Palisades Drive Add Class I signage, striping, and signal changes to create visibility of people walking and biking across the existing Tassajara Road and Palisades Drive signalized crossing I-15 Martin Canyon Creek Trail at Silvergate Drive Provide Class I facilities on the west side of Silvergate Drive and make intersection changes at Hansen Drive and Bay Laurel Street to provide comfortable connectivity to the existing stop controlled intersection at Hansen Drive I-16 Gleason Drive/ Grafton Street Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Project ID Project Location Project Description I-17 Gleason Drive/ Brannigan street Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-18 Central Parkway/ Brannigan street Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-19 Dublin Boulevard/ Brannigan street Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-20 Central Parkway/ Hibernia Drive Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-21 Central Parkway/ Hacienda Drive Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. 90 City of Dublin 90 City of Dublin Draft 249 Project ID Project Location Project Description I-22 Dublin Boulevard/ Regional Street Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-23 Tassajara Road/ Gleason Drive Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-24 Fallon Road / Central Parkway Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-25 Dublin Boulevard/ Golden Gate Drive Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-26 Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Project ID Project Location Project Description I-27 Dublin Boulevard/ San Ramon Road "Reduce curb radii on all corners; install directional curb ramps at all corners Subject to further analysis, remove NB overlap phase; install pedestrian countdown signals and audible warning signs Stripe crosswalk on south leg subject to further analysis" I-28 San Ramon Road/ Amador Valley Boulevard Consider adding leading pedestrian intervals for all approaches; Consider removing slip lanes on NW and NE corners and add curb extensions on SW, NW, and NE corners pending additional engineering analysis; Consider striping crosswalk on south leg pending additional engineering analysis I-29 Regional Street/Amador Valley Boulevard Consider modifying signal to include leading pedestrian interval on EB and WB approaches; Consider protected left- turn phasing for NB and SB traffic. I-30 Amador Valley Boulevard/ Amador Plaza Mark crosswalk on east leg of intersection; Widen median and add median tips as feasible to provide 6' pedestrian refuge; Reduce curb radii I-31 Dublin Boulevard/ Amador Plaza Road Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Reduce curb radii on all corners and install directional curb ramps. I-32 St. Patrick Way/ Golden Gate Drive Install wayfinding signage to West Dublin BART; install bulb-outs at all corners; construct directional curb ramps I-33 Amador Valley Boulevard/ Donohue Drive Reduce curb radii on all corners; widen medians and add median tips; install directional curb ramps on all corners Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 91 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 91 Draft 250 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONSOTHER RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to this Plan’s specific recommendations for projects, there are a number of steps that the City can undertake to improve walking and biking in Dublin. The City should implement the program and policy recommendations and the best practices described in the engineering and design guide. Additionally, the City can continue to implement projects from other previous or parallel planning efforts, including those shown in figure 37 and listed below: • Dublin Downtown Streetscape Plan • BART Station Access Projects • Iron Horse Regional Trail Projects • Dublin Safe Routes to School Projects • Local Road Safety Plan Projects INCREASED ACCESS TO DESTINATIONS With implementation of the network recommendations, low- stress biking and comfortable walking and rolling access to key destinations would increase. Existing biking access to BART was compared to biking access with the implementation of the project recommendations. Bicycle access to BART with the existing network and implementation of network recommendations is summarized in table 12 and shown in figure 39. As demonstrated by this analysis, network recommendations would increase potential bicycle access to BART by almost 600 percent, providing 71 percent of Dublin residents with a travel route along streets that match their stress tolerance. Table 12. BART Access by Bicyclist Type Bicyclist Type Share of Bicyclist Type with Suitable Access to BART Existing Network Recommended Network No Way, No How 0%0% Interested but Concerned 0%8% Enthused and Confident 36%51% Strong and Fearless 52%52% Total Across all Biker Types 6%12% Share of population with bicycle routes available that are suitable to their Traffic Stress tolerance 12%71% 92 City of Dublin 92 City of Dublin Draft 251 §¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H RD M A D D E N WY T A MARACKDR D A V ONADR S I L V ERGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUB LIN BL DOUGHERTY RD POSITANO P W V IL L A G E P W D O N O HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIERRA CT FALLON RD TASSAJARA RD NORTHSIDE DR HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L BRANNIGAN ST SCHAEFER RANCH RD DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD Civic Plaza Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Don Biddle Park Martin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail Ir o n H o rs e Tr ail Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\PastPlan Locations.mxd Date: 5/17/2022 Projects from Other PlansDublin, California [0 3,000 FeetSchools BART Stations Class IA Multi-use Path Class IA Multi-use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Iron Horse Regional Trail Project Locations BART Station Access Project Locations Downtown Dublin Plan Project Locations District 4 Freeway Ramp Crossing Project Locations Safe Routes To School Project Locations Figure 37. Recommended Projects from Other Plans Map §¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H RD M A D D E N W Y T A MARACKDR D A V ONA DR S I L V ERGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUBLIN BL DOUGHERTY RD POSITANO P W V IL L A G E P W D O NO HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIERRA CT FALLON RD TASSAJARA RD NORTHSIDE DR HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L BRANNIGAN ST SCHAEFER RANCH RD DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD Civic Plaza Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Don Biddle Park Martin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail Ir o n H o rs e T r ail Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\PastPlan Locations.mxd Date: 5/17/2022 Projects from Other PlansDublin, California [0 3,000 FeetSchools BART Stations Class IA Multi-use Path Class IA Multi-use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Iron Horse Regional Trail Project Locations BART Station Access Project Locations Downtown Dublin Plan Project Locations District 4 Freeway Ramp Crossing Project Locations Safe Routes To School Project Locations Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County Dublin Elem Murray Elem Dublin High Frederiksen Elem Wells Middle James DoughertyElem Eleanor Murry Fallon Midd John Green Elem Kolb Elem Cottonwood Creek Elem Amador Elem Future High School H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing Downtown Dublin Employment Centers Parks Schools BART Stations Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California [0 1 Mile Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Training Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 93 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 93 Draft 252 ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! k kkk §¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H R D M A D D EN W Y T A MARACKDR D A V ONA DR S I L V E RGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUBLIN BL DOUGHERTY RD POSITANO P W V IL L A G E P W D O N O HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIERRA CT FALLON RD TASSAJARA RD NORTHSIDE DR HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L BRANNIGAN ST SCHAEFER RANCH RD COLLIER CANYON RD 8TH ST CROMWELL AV BARNET BL CROAK RD RANGERD CREEKSIDEDR HORIZON PW SCARLETT CT PERSI M MONDR A L L E Y 6TH ST 7TH ST SC A RLETT D R P A LI S A D E S DR TOWER RD SYRAH DR HILLR O SE D R IN S P I R ATIONCI ALBROOK DR EAGLE R D BRODER BL I N S PIRATI O N DR CREEKVIEW DR H I L L T O P R D DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail Ir o n H o rs e Tr ail Dublin Sports Grounds Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_bart bike ex polygons_interested_5-2022.mxd Date: 6/13/2022 Level of Traffic Scores On-Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 BART Biking Access - "Interested but Concerned"Existing NetworkDublin, California [k Bart access points Access Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! k kkk §¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H RD M A D D E N WY T A MARACKDR D A V ONADR S I L V E RGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUBLI N BL DOUGHERTY RD POSITANO P W V IL L A G E P W D O N O HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIERRA CT FALLON RD TASSAJARA RD NORTHSIDE DR HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A LL E Y B L BRANNIGAN ST SCHAEFER RANCH RD COLLIER CANYON RD 8TH ST CROMWELL AV BARNET BL CROAK RD RANGERD CREEKSIDEDR HORIZON PW SCARLETT CT PERSI M MONDR A L L E Y 6TH ST 7TH ST SC A RLETT D R P A L I S A D E S DR TOWER RD SYRAH DR HILLR O S E D R I N S P I R ATIONCI ALBROOK DR EAGLE R D BRODER BL I N S PIRATI O N DR CREEKVIEW DR H I L L T O P RD DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail Ir o n H o rs e Tr ail Dublin Sports Grounds Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_bart bike ex polygons_interested_5-2022.mxd Date: 6/13/2022 Level of Traffic Scores On-Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 BART Biking Access - "Interested but Concerned"Existing NetworkDublin, California [k Bart access points Access Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles Figure 38. Existing Bike Access to BART Network Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Training Area Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County Dublin Elem Murray Elem Dublin High Frederiksen Elem Wells Middle James DoughertyElem Eleanor Murry Fallon Midd John Green Elem Kolb Elem Cottonwood Creek Elem Amador Elem Future High School H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing Downtown Dublin Employment Centers Parks Schools BART Stations Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California [0 1 Mile 94 City of Dublin 94 City of Dublin Draft 253 k kkk §¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H RD M A D D EN W Y T A MARACKDR D A V ONADR S I L V ERGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUBLIN BL DOUGHERTY RD POSITANO P W V IL L A G E P W D O NO HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIERRA CT FALLON RD TASSAJARA RD NORTHSIDE DR HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A LL E Y B L BRANNIGAN ST SCHAEFER RANCH RD COLLIER CANYON RD 8TH ST CROMWELL AV BARNET BL CROAK RD RANGERD CREEKSIDEDR HORIZON PW SCARLETT CT PERSI M MONDR A L L E Y 6TH ST 7TH ST SC A RLETT D R P A LI S A D E S DR TOWER RD SYRAH DR HILLR O S E D R IN S P I R ATIONCI ALBROOK DR EAGLE R D BRODER BL I N S PIRATI O N DR CREEKVIEW DR H I L L T O P RD DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail Ir o n H o rs e T r ail Dublin Sports Grounds Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_bart bike Recommended network polygons ibc_5-2022.mxd Date: 6/13/2022 Level of Traffic Stress Scores On-Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 BART Biking Access - "Interested but Concerned"Recommended NetworkDublin, California [ Figure X k Bart access points Access Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles k kkk §¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H RD M A D D E N WY T A MARACKDR D A V ONADR S I L V E RGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUBLI N BL DOUGHERTY RD POSITANO P W V IL L A G E P W D O N O HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIERRA CT FALLON RD TASSAJARA RD NORTHSIDE DR HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A LL E Y B L BRANNIGAN ST SCHAEFER RANCH RD COLLIER CANYON RD 8TH ST CROMWELL AV BARNET BL CROAK RD RANGERD CREEKSIDEDR HORIZON PW SCARLETT CT PERSI M MONDR A L L E Y 6TH ST 7TH ST SC A RLETT D R P A L I S A D E S DR TOWER RD SYRAH DR HILLR O S E D R I N S P I R ATIONCI ALBROOK DR EAGLE R D BRODER BL I N S PIRATI O N DR CREEKVIEW DR H I L L T O P RD DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail Ir o n H o rs e Tr ail Dublin Sports Grounds Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_bart bike Recommended network polygons ibc_5-2022.mxd Date: 6/13/2022 Level of Traffic Stress Scores On-Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 BART Biking Access - "Interested but Concerned"Recommended NetworkDublin, California [ Figure X k Bart access points Access Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles Figure 39. Recommended Bike Access to BART Network Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Training Area Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County Dublin Elem Murray Elem Dublin High Frederiksen Elem Wells Middle James DoughertyElem Eleanor Murry Fallon Midd John Green Elem Kolb Elem Cottonwood Creek Elem Amador Elem Future High School H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing Downtown Dublin Employment Centers Parks Schools BART Stations Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California [0 1 Mile Dublin residents with a bicycle route along streets that match their level of traffic stress tolerance would increase from 12 percent to 71 percent. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 95 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 95 Draft 254 5 255 This chapter presents the Plan’s recommended programs, policies, and practices. It provides recommendations for new programs, continuation of existing programs, or expansion of existing programs to encourage active transportation in the city. It also discusses recommended policies that the City should implement as well as best practices that the City can undertake in developing programs to encourage active transportation in the city. The recommendations are organized into the following categories, which consist of focused topic areas and recommendations: This chapter also references the Engineering and Design Guide, which was developed as part of this project, as a resource for recommended practices. The guide is included in appendix E. 5. RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS, 5. RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICESPOLICIES, AND PRACTICES Coordination and Collaboration Emerging Technologies Promotion and EncouragementFunding and Implementation Supporting Infrastructure and Amenities Operations and Maintenance Data Collection Design Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 97 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 97 Draft 256 A walk- and bike-friendly Dublin requires investing in infrastructure as well as ongoing programs that encourage and support more people to choose sustainable transportation options. To advance the vision and mission of this Plan, the City of Dublin must envision new policy and program initiatives and expand existing ones. The following program and policy recommendations are based on feedback from stakeholder interviews as well as guidance from the technical advisory committee, the bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee, a public survey, and online and in- person public engagement. Recommendations are organized into eight topic areas, each of which are supported by specific strategies and actions. • A strategy is a high-level approach to reach an outcome that works toward larger goals. • An action is a specific step that advances the strategy. These strategies and their actions will guide the work of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian programs and activities and complement the infrastructure recommendations presented in the previous section. Many factors contribute to the success of a specific action, or strategy—including partner agency support, funding opportunities, and alignment with technological advancement and industry change. Dublin, CA Source: City of Dublin 98 City of Dublin 98 City of Dublin Draft 257 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS Establish protocols and procedures for coordination of bicycle and pedestrian projects with external agency stakeholders. Utilize existing regional channels, such as the Tri- Valley Transportation Council, to coordinate bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects that abut or intersect jurisdictional boundaries. Coordinate with the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) to provide park access opportunities with local trails and bike paths and promote green transportation access and compliant accessibility from public transit stops to the regional parks and trails. This is consistent with Public Access 5 and Public Access 7 in the EBRPD Master Plan. Designate a City staff member and work with DUSD to designate a district staff person who is responsible for coordinating issues related to school connectivity and Safe Routes to School. Develop language for implementing easements and private property paths and coordinate with developers to advance completion of bicycle and pedestrian connections through and along private property. While the Plan includes specific recommendations for Class I multi-use paths, there is a larger need to highlight the opportunities that new development provides to create active transportation and greenway connections. Future developments should identify how trails can be implemented to complete connections with existing neighborhoods and across barriers. The City should consider how easements can be developed for the use of paths on private property as part of the development review process. Future development sites, especially along Dublin Boulevard, should be evaluated to include or contribute to paths that provide better linkages along and across the street. Partner with advocacy groups and community-based organizations to increase awareness of and build support for pedestrian and bicycle projects. Advocacy groups and community-based organizations are trusted partners that can highlight and elevate community voices. These alliances promote stronger, more meaningful collaborations that can be crucial to advancing active transportation projects and improving project outcomes. Work with Dublin Police Services to develop priorities and strategies to promote traffic safety (e.g., focused enforcement), particularly on high- injury streets and near schools. COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION Establish effective coordination processes and partnerships to advance bicycle and pedestrian projects. The City cannot reach its goals without the support of other key agencies: those who own, operate, and manage streets and trails, those who provide transit service within the city, and the agencies who fund plans, projects, and programs that advance transportation goals and objectives. The Alameda County Transportation Commission, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Caltrans, East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), Alameda County Flood Control District (ACFCD), United States Army Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks), Dublin Unified School District (DUSD), and adjacent jurisdictions all play critical roles in how streets and trails function. Because the reach of this Plan covers all city streets and trails regardless of ownership, the jurisdictional roles and responsibilities of agency partners at both the project and system-wide planning level are important and invaluable. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 99 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 99 Draft 258 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS Develop and maintain a spatial database and inventory of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities, including pedestrian-oriented lighting, curb ramps, crosswalks, traffic control devices, bicycle parking, maintenance stations, and multimodal count and vehicle speed data. Develop a data collection plan and standard operating procedures for collection of (1) speed survey data, especially along high-injury segments and other priority locations, such as streets near schools, and (2) bicycle and pedestrian counts, especially at activity centers and other priority locations, such as streets near schools. Complement the City’s bi-annual bicycle and pedestrian workshops with a written summary documenting progress implementing pedestrian and bicycle projects in the City. Post the newsletter online, through social media channels, and provide a subscription option to facilitate distribution of information to interested community members. Ensure that transportation impact analysis (TIA) conducted for new development adheres to the City’s TIA Guidelines (2021), addresses safety and comfort of people walking and biking, and includes the collection of bicycle and pedestrian counts. The safety analysis should be data-driven and generally follow best practices outlined in the FHWA’s Incorporating Data-Driven Safety Analysis in Traffic Impact Analysis: A How-To Guide. https://safety.fhwa.dot. gov/rsdp/downloads/fhwasa19026.pdf. DATA COLLECTION Routinely collect trip and facility information to track trends, evaluate projects, and prioritize investments. Data is crucial to make an evidence- based case for active transportation. Surveys, counts, and infrastructure data provide essential information about the built environment and user habits and experiences. This data can then help explain how projects affect neighborhoods and work toward achieving City and agency goals. By collecting location-specific data related to transportation behaviors, project design elements can be analyzed for their effectiveness and take advantage of opportunities to refine a project’s design. Data can also help communicate a project’s effects to the public and decision makers as well as track trends over time. 100 City of Dublin 100 City of Dublin Draft 259 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS Adhere to recommendations in the Design Guide as part of the Plan. Additionally, the City should incorporate best practice design guidance coinciding with Plan updates (at a minimum) and make updates as needed to reflect changes in transportation options, local, State, and national best practices, and new information as a result of research and evaluation of available data. Require new infrastructure projects to adhere to the Design Guide established by this Plan by implementing a design review process that ensures compliance, including for construction work zones. This recommendation is consistent with Climate Action Plan 2030 Measure SM-7: Develop a Built Environment that Prioritizes Active Mobility and supporting actions that improve the pedestrian experience and create a built environment that prioritizes active mobility. Develop design standards for the incorporation and use of pedestrian-scale lighting on new and reconstructed public streets, private streets, and within private development projects. Lighting can enhance the built environment and increase safety and security of people walking and biking. Pedestrian-oriented facility and intersection lighting helps motorists to see people walking and biking and avoid collisions. Pedestrian walkways, crosswalks, transit stops, both sides of wide streets, and streets in commercial areas should be well lit with uniform lighting levels to eliminate dark spots. Establish a list of approved traffic calming strategies and devices to be routinely considered with restriping and other roadway improvement projects. Continue to include bicycle and pedestrian considerations during review of new development. Follow best practices for site access and driveway design. example: consolidate or eliminate existing curb cuts and minimize new curb cuts; improve driveway sightlines; and, require parking ramps to include mirrors and messaging to prioritize people walking and biking. Rather than alerting people walking and biking that a car is approaching, messaging should alert drivers that a pedestrian or bicyclist is approaching. Coordinate pedestrian and bicycle design with the City’s Climate Action Plan and Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan. DESIGN Go beyond minimum design standards to incorporate safe walking and biking facilities into transportation projects. Upcoming capital projects should be Upcoming capital projects should be influenced by the Design Guide, which influenced by the Design Guide, which references the priority networks defined in references the priority networks defined in this Plan, namely the pedestrian priority this Plan, namely the pedestrian priority network and the all ages and abilities network and the all ages and abilities network (for biking and micromobility). network (for biking and micromobility). Design decisions are often most difficult Design decisions are often most difficult where these two priority networks overlap where these two priority networks overlap with major arterials, particularly when the with major arterials, particularly when the public right of way is constrained. While public right of way is constrained. While challenging, these corridors, provide the challenging, these corridors, provide the greatest opportunity to make bold changes greatest opportunity to make bold changes that will advance mode shift goals, that will advance mode shift goals, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and decrease vehicles miles travelled (VMT). decrease vehicles miles travelled (VMT). Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 101 Draft 260 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS Develop flexible policies to support development of emerging technologies and alternative modes of transportation, including shared autonomous vehicles, connected vehicles, and micromobility-share services. Policy topics to consider include general provisions, operations, equipment and safety, parking and street design, equity, communications and community engagement, data, and metrics. Consistent with Strategy 3—Sustainable Mobility and Land Use in the Climate Action Plan 2030, the City will work with micromobility and last-mile transportation providers to allow the use of scooters and bike share programs in specific Dublin locations. Monitor and evaluate the impact of emerging transportation technologies, such as bikeshare, scooter share, and electric bikes, on walking and biking in Dublin. Formulate partnerships to advance implementation of innovative, ambitious, and scalable pilots, such as micromobility services and mobility hubs. Leverage, manage, monitor, and design for new and emerging technologies that increase visibility and comfort of pedestrians and bicyclists. For example, assess digital wayfinding tools that provide real time information, explore emerging technology such as adaptive lighting, and test new technologies related to pedestrian and bicycle detection and data collection. Build a culture of continuous improvement in knowledge, education, and communications around technologies that advance transportation options. Support and create opportunities for staff training and capacity building through payment of professional memberships and participation in conferences, webinars, and trainings. Develop policy for use of e-bikes and personal mobility devices on multi- use paths and trails, and conduct public safety, education, and outreach campaigns to raise awareness of path etiquette. EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND INNOVATIONS Leverage emerging transportation technologies to support travel by sustainable modes. Today’s rapidly advancing technology simultaneously provides opportunities for transformational change and introduces new challenges. Adapting to such change requires anticipating and keeping pace with technology and being responsive to community needs. The greatest challenge is to safely, efficiently, and equitably transition to a transportation future in which everyone benefits from transformational transportation technologies, including ride-hailing, car-sharing, micromobility options, mobile fare payment apps, multimodal trip planning apps, real-time travel information apps, e-commerce apps, and grocery or meal delivery services, just to name a few. 102 City of Dublin 102 City of Dublin Draft 261 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS Incorporate proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects identified in this Plan into the development review processes. Develop clear direction for City staff and the development community for implementing bicycle and pedestrian projects. Continue to apply for local, state, and federal grants to support active transportation network improvements and programming. Leverage potential grant and alternative funding strategies. Utilize dedicated funding for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects. Add priority bicycle and pedestrian projects identified in this Plan to the Capital Improvement Program. Develop strategies for rapid network implementation and interim, or quick- build, design treatments. Utilize a quick-build approach, focusing on signing, striping, and markings and lower cost infrastructure modifications to implement near-term treatments that improve safety outcomes for people walking and biking. Broaden public involvement efforts and seek to engage the community and solicit feedback on an ongoing basis. The City strongly encourages public comment, input, and involvement in a wide range of transportation issues. To increase opportunities for community engagement, the City should continue to - provide multiple opportunities and various forums for feedback throughout the project process, provide regular/routine communication with the community on upcoming, in progress, and completed projects and proactively involve the public in the decision-making process. FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION Increase investment in walking and biking infrastructure and supporting programs. Identify and allocate resources to implement Plan recommendations. Walkable and bikeable communities have considerable economic benefits. In addition to capital gains, investment in placemaking and active transportation yield intangible, societal benefits. However, investments in active transportation infrastructure and supporting programs consistently fall short of other transportation investments, and there is a demonstrated need to increase the funding and resources allocated to walking and biking. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 103 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 103 Draft 262 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS Utilize flexibility created through the passage of Assembly Bill 43 to set safe speed limits in key areas within the city. The City should implement changes authorized in AB 43 and utilize guidance outlined in City Limits from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) to reduce default speed limits (1) on streets designated as safety corridors or high injury corridors (streets that have the highest number of serious injuries and fatalities); (2) in designated slow zones; and (3) on other designated corridors using a safe speed study. Under the provision that went into effect in January 2022, the City should move to lower speed limits by 5 miles per hour (from 25 mph to 20 mph or from 30 mph to 25 mph) in key business activity districts, streets where at least half of the property uses are dining or retail. Under the provision that goes into effect in June 2024, the City should reduce speeds by 5 mph on streets designated as safety corridors according to a definition that will be established by Caltrans’s roadway standards manual. Develop policy and guidance for modifications to traffic signal operations, including implementing leading pedestrian intervals, providing automatic recall, installing accessible pedestrian signals, implementing no right turn on red, and implementing protected-only left-turn phases. Establish, update, and implement maintenance policies and standards for bicycle and pedestrian facilities on City right of way. Review the existing Class I Facility Maintenance Plan (2015), and develop a standard maintenance plan for bicycle facilities of all types in the city that accounts for factors such as signing and striping maintenance and sweeping protocols. Continue to collaborate with East Bay Regional Parks District to coordinate maintenance efforts for off- street facilities in the city. When deciding which facilities to maintain first, prioritize facilities with the highest ridership and those that provide access to schools, business districts, major employers, major transit centers, and other important destinations. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Prioritize operations and maintenance of walking and biking infrastructure to make walking and biking safe and attractive options. When people decide to walk and bike, the condition of sidewalks, crosswalks, signals, bike lanes, bikeways, and trails are key factors. Inadequately maintained sidewalks and bicycle facilities create hazardous conditions and disrupt network connectivity. Facility quality also influences travel choice and behavior. Implementation of pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly signal timing operations and maintaining good sidewalk, street, and trail conditions are critical components of an accessible bicycle and pedestrian network. 104 City of Dublin 104 City of Dublin Draft 263 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS Continue to create a digital and printed citywide pedestrian and bike network and amenities map. Coordinate with local organizations to create programs and events that support active transportation and enhance the built environment. Sample topics include open streets, slow streets, temporary street closures, and pavement to parks, parklets, and plazas. This recommendation is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan Guideline 3.2.6 Parklets and Guideline 3.2.7 Street Closures. Continue to partner with Alameda CTC and DUSD to deliver Safe Routes to School assessments and programs. Encourage all Dublin schools to participate. Consider steps to becoming a Bicycle Friendly Community through the League of American Bicyclists. The program provides a roadmap to improving conditions for bicycling and guidance to help make a community’s vision for a better, bikeable community a reality. A Bicycle Friendly Community welcomes bicyclists by providing safe accommodations for bicycling and encouraging people to bike for transportation and recreation. Encourage businesses to be recognized as Bicycle Friendly Businesses through the League of American Bicyclists. The program recognizes employers for their efforts to encourage a more welcoming atmosphere for bicycling employees, customers, and the community. Interested business can apply here: https://www.bikeleague.org/business. Develop and implement a citywide transportation demand management (TDM) program to support additional transportation options, incentives to choose sustainable modes, and supplemental infrastructure improvements identified in this Plan. The TDM program should include guidance for staff on requirements for new development, including bicycle parking and policy strategies (such as density bonus for vehicle parking reductions) and vehicle parking strategies (such as shared and priced parking). This recommendation is consistent with (1) Measure 3: Develop a Transportation Demand Management Plan in Strategy 3: Sustainable Mobility and Land Use Measure and (2) Measure ML-2: Reduce Municipal Employee Commute GHG Emissions; and (3) the Climate Action Plan 2030. The TDM Plan will identify strategies to help facilitate the move from single-occupancy vehicles to less carbon intensive transportation modes, like walking and biking. PROMOTION AND ENCOURAGEMENT Encourage and promote increased use of sustainable travel modes, especially walking and biking. Active travel, including walking and biking, benefits physical and mental health as well as the environment. To promote active travel, the City must provide convenient, safe, and connected walking and biking infrastructure. But implementing programs and campaigns that provide targeted information or incentives can also motivate people to walk or bike. The recommendations focus on non-infrastructure or programmatic elements that emphasize active travel as a convenient and healthy option. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 105 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 105 Draft 264 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS Require short-term and long-term parking that accommodates various types of bicycles, skateboards, and scooters. Install new short- and long-term parking to meet the recommendations and requirements outlined in the Design Guide (appendix #). Consider adding or improving bicycle parking and other bicycle amenities, such as maintenance stations, in City parks, at trailheads, at community centers, and in high travel areas. Develop a bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding plan and install wayfinding throughout the city. The plan should refer to and coordinate with recommendations identified in the Public Art Program and Downtown Dublin Streetscape Master Plan. This recommendation is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan Guideline 4.2.2 Wayfinding. SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITIES Provide supportive infrastructure and amenities to make walking and biking convenient and comfortable. On any given street, careful and thoughtful design of the built environment affects accessibility, legibility, a sense of place, and security. The features that give a street character are often found in the frontage or amenity zones; key elements include supporting infrastructure like lighting, wayfinding, bicycle parking, benches, green stormwater infrastructure, transit stops, and mobility hubs. 106 City of Dublin 106 City of Dublin Draft 265 6 266 This Plan’s infrastructure and programmatic recommendations provide strategies and actions to help Dublin become a more walkable and bikeable city. Implementation of these recommendations will occur over time, depending on available resources and funding sources. This chapter provides an overview and outcomes of the prioritization process, estimated project costs, and a matrix of applicable funding sources to advance implementation. PRIORITIZATION PROCESS The project recommendations include a total of 55.6 miles across 53 segment projects; 18 trail projects; 16 freeway crossing 7 Peter A. Lagerwey, et al. Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Along Existing Roads—ActiveTrans Priority Tool Guidebook, NCHRP Report 803, Project No. 07-17 (2015), http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_803.pdf. projects; 5 pedestrian crossing projects; and 33 intersection projects. Prioritizing these projects is essential to optimize use of staff time and resources. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 803: ActiveTrans Priority Tool (APT) prioritization process was used to identify priority locations for pedestrian and bicycle projects that improve conditions for people walking, biking, and rolling in Dublin.7 The prioritization process and outcomes are summarized in this section and additional discussion is provided in appendix F. The APT methodology uses a standard set of terms and definitions to describe the different steps in the process. The following definitions apply within the APT: • Factors are categories used to express community or agency values considered in the prioritization process and contain groups of variables with similar characteristics. • Weights are the numbers used to indicate the relative importance of different factors based on community or agency values. • Variables are characteristics of roadways, households, neighborhood areas, and other features that can be measured, organized under each factor. The terms variables and evaluation criteria may be used interchangeably. • Scaling is the process of making two variables comparable to one another (e.g., number of collisions versus population density). The prioritization factors and evaluation criteria (or variables) shown in table 13 align with the Plan’s goals, and they were developed in collaboration with the City, the Technical Advisory Committee and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Variables were given equal weight in the analysis. 6. IMPLEMENTATION 6. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGYSTRATEGY 108 City of Dublin Draft 267 Table 13. Prioritization Factors and Variables FACTOR VARIABLE NOTES PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE Safety High-injury corridors Prioritize locations identified along the bicycle and pedestrian high- injury networks. This variable aligns with the goal enhance safety. Social Equity Youth and senior population Prioritizes locations with high scores indicating where investment would promote positive outcomes for vulnerable road users (youth and senior populations). This variable aligns with the goals improve connectivity and enhance accessibility. Connectivity Demand analysis Prioritize locations with high potential for walking and biking to unlock latent demand. This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity. Proximity to schools Prioritize locations within one mile of schools to provide increased opportunities to bike and walk to school. This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity. Quality of Service Bicycle level of traffic stress Prioritize locations based on the presence of existing high-stress riding facilities. This variable aligns with the goal increase walking and biking. Sidewalk gaps Prioritize locations with sidewalk gaps that may create barriers for people walking. This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity. Major Barriers Freeway crossings Prioritize improving safety and quality of service for ramp terminal intersection and freeway crossings. This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity. Consistency with Past Planning Previously identified projects Prioritize locations of pedestrian and bicycle projects that were identified in the previous plan. This variable aligns with the goal prioritize investments. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 109 Draft 268 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN After applying the evaluation criteria and conducting the prioritization analysis, three tiers of recommendations emerged. The infrastructure projects were divided into three tiers, representing the following: • Tier I: High priority projects with likely funding or implementation sources • Tier II: High priority projects with no identified funding source • Tier III: Lower priority investments that support a full low-stress walking, biking, and rolling network across the City TIER I PROJECTS Nine segment projects, one trail projects, two crossing project, and three intersection projects were identified as Tier I projects. The Tier I projects include a complete streets study, striping and signage for high-stress streets scheduled for repaving over the next three years, four new actuated crossings near schools, and a bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing bridge. Tier I projects, those most likely to be implemented in the next several years, are shown in figure 40. TIER II PROJECTS Ten segment projects, one crossing project, and seven intersection projects were identified as Tier II projects. Tier II projects were identified using the same prioritization criteria and framework as Tier I projects, with input from City staff and through public engagement. Tier II projects are high priority projects that may require additional feasibility analysis and concept design development prior to implementation. The list of Tier II projects is presented in Table 15 and the comprehensive prioritized list of projects is presented in Appendix C. TIER III PROJECTS Tier III projects include the remaining recommendations that increase the safety and comfort of people walking, biking, and rolling in the city. While Tier III projects are not listed in the implementation plan projects in Table 15, they can be found in the full list of projects provided in Table 6 in the Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks section. 110 City of Dublin Draft 269 CITYWIDE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS A total of 41 strategies and actions were recommended in one of eight policy and program topic areas. These recommendations will guide the City’s bicycle and pedestrian programs and activities and complement the infrastructure recommendations. COST ESTIMATES The total cost of all the projects identified in this Plan is between $102 and $207 million (see table 14). This cost includes adding bicycle facilities, upgrading bicycle facilities, updating or adding pedestrian crossings, updating pedestrian facilities, adding street trees, redesigning interchange ramps, and adding signage. Table 14 shows the estimated cost for all projects, including planning-level costs and soft costs for engineering, design support, and contingency. Although the cost estimates vary most based on bicycle facility type and how that facility will be implemented, pedestrian and transit costs are equally important and included on a per-mile basis in each cost as well. Costs for the individual corridors can be found in the full project list in appendix G. Cost estimates’ high ends consider a need to move the curb, therefore upgrading all pedestrian facilities (sidewalks, street trees, ADA ramps, etc.) while the low costs can be implemented through restriping the roadway. If all segment projects were able to be implemented through roadway reorganization, restriping, or minor additional treatments, it would cost approximately $102 million to implement the Plan. If reconstructing the curb to implement each segment project, the Plan is expected to cost about $207 million. Planning-level cost estimates vary depending on project context, which includes type of facility, existing conditions, right of way acquisition, and desired functional and aesthetic improvements like landscaping or hardscaping. Project costs were adjusted to include variable costs for engineering, design support, and contingency. Cost estimates were calculated using a combination of inputs from the City and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Guide. Moving forward, the City will need to develop detailed estimates during the preliminary engineering stage to calculate more accurate project costs. These more-detailed estimates are important due to the varying costs of obtaining right of way, construction, drainage, and grading. Right of way should also be considered in preliminary engineering, as the listed cost estimates do not include right of way costs. Many projects can be implemented without purchasing additional right of way by reallocating space within the existing right of way. Cost estimates for support programs are not provided, as the costs to implement these programs can vary greatly. Prior to implementing support programs, the City should outline the necessary element of each program and establish a cost. For example, to understand what an open streets or slow streets program would need, the City could consider questions such as how often streets would need to close and how much those closures would cost. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 111 Draft 270 Table 14. Total Project Costs PROJECT TYPE MILES LOW COST HIGH COST Shared Lane (Class III) 12.4 miles $1,698,000 $1,698,000 Bike Lane (Class IIA) 4.0 miles $4,177,000 $17,757,000 Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) 17.4 miles $3,239,000 $39,421,000 Complete Streets Study: Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV) 9.2 miles $12,118,000 $45,161,000 Complete Streets Study: Consider Improvements to Existing Sidepath (Class IB) 4.9 miles $5,460,000 $8,307,000 Shared Use Path/Paved Trail (Class IA)7.9 miles $40,428,776 $40,550,480 Speed Reduction Evaluation (exclusively)1.3 miles $139,000 $2,753,000 Freeway Crossing Projects 16 $17,840,000 $17,840,000 Pedestrian Crossing Projects 5 $9,520,000 $9,520,000 Intersection Projects 33 $7,393,000 $24,274,000 Total $102,013,000 $207,281,000 112 City of Dublin Draft 271 Table 15. Implementation Plan List: Tier I and Tier II Projects PROJECT NUMBER TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION FROM TO COST - LOW COST- HIGH S-1 Tier I Study opportunities and create designs for traffic calming, striping, and signs to create Class III bikeways Various locations for Class III facilities/ neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack Drive, Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street, Brighton Drive, Grafton Street, Antone Way, South Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street $25,000 (Study) $25,000 (Study) S-2 Tier I Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future Gleason Drive Arnold Road Brannigan Street $239,000 $239,000 S-3 Tier I Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future Hacienda Drive Southern City Limits Gleason Drive $106,000 $106,000 S-4 Tier I Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Tassajara Road $229,000 $229,000 S-5 Tier I Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility Arnold Road Dublin Boulevard Altamirano Ave $53,000 $53,000 S-6 Tier I Convert to a Class IIB bikeway through restriping Grafton Street Kohnen Way Antone Way $42,000 $42,000 S-7 Tier I Convert to a Class IIB bikeway by restriping travel lanes on Tassajara, Dougherty, and Hacienda at the I-580 overcrossings Tassajara Road, Dougherty Road, and Hacienda Drive Southern City Limits Dublin Boulveard $150,000 $150,000 S-8 Tier I Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future Tassajara Road North Dublin Ranch Drive Rutherford Drive $138,000 $2,784,000 S-9 Tier I Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Village Parkway Amador Valley Boulevard Northern City Limits $945,000 $4,803,000 S-10 Tier II Implement the traffic calming, striping, and signs plans and designs created in project S-1 to create Class III bikeways Various locations for Class III facilities/ neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack Drive, Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street, Brighton Drive, Antone Way, South Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street $691,000 $691,000 S-11 Tier II Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard Amador Valley Boulevard $91,000 $1,826,000 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 113 Draft 272 PROJECT NUMBER TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION FROM TO COST - LOW COST- HIGH S-12 Tier II Evaluate opportunities to reduce speed limit along this corridor Tassajara Road Palisades Drive North Dublin Ranch Drive $18,000 (Study) $18,000 (Study) S-13 Tier II Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits $274,000 $1,393,000 S-14 Tier II Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Amador Valley Boulevard Stagecoach Road Dougherty Road $331,000 $1,680,000 S-15 Tier II Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. This project is anticipated to be implemented after the lower cost solution in S-7. Tassajara Road Gleason Drive Southern City Limits $505,000 $2,567,000 S-16 Tier II Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dublin Boulevard Inspiration Drive San Ramon Road $1,212,000 $6,161,000 S-17 Tier II Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dublin Boulevard Inspiration Drive Western extent $1,653,000 $8,401,000 S-18 Tier II Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. Fallon Road Gleason Drive Southern city limits $1,322,000 $6,721,000 S-19 Tier II Make improvements to adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed. Fallon Road Gleason Drive Tassajara Road $238,000 $1,583,000 S-20 Tier II Add buffered bike lanes along the Dublin Boulevard Extension Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road Eastern city limits $80,000 $1,640,000 S-21 Tier II Work with Contra Costa County to design and implement Class IIB facilities Tassajara Road Palidsades Drive Northern City Limits $80,000 $1,640,000 T-1 Tier I Implement Phase I and II of the Iron Horse Nature Park Master Plan to create park space and trail access and connectivity improvements $11,560,000 $11,560,000 T-2 Tier II Add trail connection from Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road Downtown Dublin Regional Street Amador Plaza Road $764,767 $764,767 114 City of Dublin Draft 273 PROJECT NUMBER TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION FROM TO COST - LOW COST- HIGH T-3 Tier II With development, add Class I connection between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway, just east of Tassajara Road East of Tassajara approximately 500 ft Dublin Boulevard Central Parkway $620,753 $620,753 C-1 Tier I Provide mid-block crossing (RRFB or other actuated treatment) Regional Street between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard $320,000 $320,000 C-2 Tier I Provide pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing to connect to Don Biddle Community Park Dublin Boulevard and Iron Horse Trail $6,318,000 $6,318,000 C-3 Tier II Add connection from Sierra Court to the Alamo Canal/Iron Horse Trail network Sierra Court cul-de-sac $2,132,000 $2,132,000 C-4 Tier III Study the feasibility of improving the crossing of Tassajara Creek Trail at Dublin Boulevard by providing better connections to the existing crossing at John Monego Court. Provide wayfinding and signs to direct people biking and walking between the trail and the intersection. Tassajara Creek Trail and Dublin Boulevard $123,000 $123,000 C-5 Tier III Improve connections to nearby crossings or add crossing at Tassajara Road and Tassajara Creek Trail (south of Rutherford Drive) to provide access to the trailhead; improve general access to and connectivity from the trail to Tassajara Road and local destinations Tassajara Creek Trail and Tassajara Road $627,000 $627,000 I-1 Tier I Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school Central Parkway/ Aspen Street $320,000 $320,000 I-2 Tier I Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school Grafton Street/ Antone Way $320,000 $320,000 I-3 Tier I Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school Amador Valley Boulevard/ Burton Street $320,000 $320,000 I-4 Tier II Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Remove slip lanes; reduce curb radii on all corners; install curb extensions on the SE and SW corners; install directional curb ramps. Village Parkway/ Amador Valley Boulevard $123,000 $972,000 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 115 Draft 274 §¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H RD M A D D E N W Y T A MARACKDR D A V ONA DR S I L V E RGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR DUB LIN BL DOUGHERTY RD POSITANO P W V IL L A G E P W D O N O HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIERRA CT FALLON RD TASSAJARA RD NORTHSIDE DR HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L BRANNIGAN ST SCHAEFER RANCH RD COLLIER CANYON RD 8TH ST CROMWELL AV BARNET BL CROAK RD RANGERD CREEKSIDEDR HORIZON PW SCARLETT CT PERSI M MONDR A L L E Y 6TH ST 7TH ST SC A RLETT D R P A LI S A D E S DR TOWER RD SYRAH DR HILLR O S E D R I N S P I R ATIONCI ALBROOK DR EAGLE R D BRODER BL I N S PIRATI O N DR CREEKVIEW DR H I L L T O P RD DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD Civic Plaza Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Don Biddle Park ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!! !! !!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!!! ! ! !!! !! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\TierI Projects_05202022.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Tier I ProjectsDublin, California [0 3,300 Feet Proposed Point Project !Spot Improvement Proposed Segment Project !!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) !!!Complete Streets Study: Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV) Parks Schools BART Stations Figure 40. Priority Projects Map §¨¦680 §¨¦580 B R I GHTONDR V O M A C R D S T A G E C O A C H R D M A D D E N W Y T A MARACKDR D A V ONA DR S I L V E RGATEDR B A N D O N D R SIERR A L N H A N S E N D R ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW GLEASON DR LOCKHART ST YORK D R KEEGAN ST N D U B L I N RAN C H DR D UB LIN BL DOUGHERTY RD POSITANO P W V IL L A G E P W D O N O HUE DR S A N R A M O N R D SIERRA CT FALLON RD TASSAJARA RD NORTHSIDE DR HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L BRANNIGAN ST SCHAEFER RANCH RD COLLIER CANYON RD 8TH ST CROMWELL AV BARNET BL CROAK RD RANGERD CREEKSIDEDR HORIZON PW SCARLETT CT PERSI M MONDR A L L E Y 6TH ST 7TH ST SC A RLET T D R P A LI S A D E S DR TOWER RD SYRAH DR HILLR O S E D R I N S P I R ATIONCI ALBROOK DR EAGLE R D BRODER BL I N S PIRATI O N DR CREEKVIEW DR H I L L T O P R D DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD Civic Plaza Emerald Glen Park Dougherty Hills Open Space Fallon Sports Park Don Biddle Park ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!!! !! !! !! !!! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\TierI Projects_05202022.mxd Date: 5/20/2022 Tier I ProjectsDublin, California [0 3,300 Feet Proposed Point Project !Spot Improvement Proposed Segment Project !!!Shared Lane (Class III) !!!Bike Lane (Class IIA) !!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) !!!Complete Streets Study: Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV) !!!Complete Streets Study: Consider Improvements to Existing Sidepaths Class I Path Project Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Parks Schools BART Stations Pleasanton Livermore Alameda County San Ramon Contra Costa County Dublin Elem Murray Elem Dublin High Frederiksen Elem Wells Middle James DoughertyElem Eleanor Murry Fallon Midd John Green Elem Kolb Elem Cottonwood Creek Elem Amador Elem Future High School H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing Downtown Dublin Employment Centers Parks Schools BART Stations Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California [0 1 Mile Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Training Area 116 City of Dublin Draft 275 PROJECT NUMBER TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION FROM TO COST - LOW COST- HIGH I-5 Tier II Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Village Parkway/ Tamarack Drive $123,000 $972,000 I-6 Tier II Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Village Parkway/ Brighton Drive $123,000 $972,000 I-7 Tier II Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Dublin Boulevard/ Hibernia Drive $123,000 $972,000 I-8 Tier II Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Dublin Boulevard/ Arnold Road $123,000 $972,000 I-9 Tier II Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Dublin Boulevard/ Hacienda Drive $123,000 $972,000 I-10 Tier II Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Reduce width of SB right-turn lane and reduce turning radii; remove NB right-turn slip lane and reduce curb radii; reduce curb radii on NE and SE corners; straighten crosswalks. Dublin Boulevard/ Village Parkway $123,000 $972,000 Total Tier I $21,085,000 $27,589,000 Total Tier II and Tier III $80,928,000 $179,692,000 Total (all tiers) $102,013,000 $207,281,000 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 117 Draft 276 FUNDING SOURCES Active transportation projects in Dublin have typically been funded through a combination of ballot measure monies (e.g., Alameda County Measure B and BB), the City General Fund, developer-funded projects, and State, regional, and federal grants. There are many funding sources and programs available at the federal, state, regional, countywide, and local levels for pedestrian and bicycle projects. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) alone identifies almost 20 different sources across United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) funding programs that can be used to support active transportation improvements such as bike racks for transit vehicles and new sidewalks and separated bike lanes. On November 15, 2021, President Joe Biden signed into law the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), also called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The law authorizes $1.2 trillion for federal investments in transportation, broadband access, clean water, and electric grid renewal. The USDOT will distribute funds over five years through more than two dozen targeted competitive grant programs for initiatives like better roads and bridges, investments in public transit, and resilient infrastructure. This program and other relevant funds are summarized in table 16 along with current funding levels, applicable project type, and limitations. Table 16. Funding Sources FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS LOCAL General Fund Capital improvements without other funding sources regularly available. Relevant projects receiving funding through the General Fund as identified in the 2022-2027 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) include Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements, Downtown Dublin Street Grid Network, and San Ramon Trail Lighting. Approximately $700,000 was allocated to projects that included bicycle and pedestrian enhancements in 2021-2022 and a total of $342,000 has been allocated over the 2022- 2027 period, per the CIP. Impact Fees & Developer Mitigation Capital improvements, including streetscape enhancements, that would improve conditions for people walking and biking. Current impact fees include Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, Dublin Crossing Transportation Fee, Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee, and Dublin Crossing Fund. Impact fees contributed $2,400,000 in 2021-2022 and are anticipated to fund almost $1,000,000 of pedestrian and bicycle- related projects 2022-2027. The St Patrick Way Extension is a developer-funded project (about $3,750,000) that includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities. COUNTYWIDE AND REGIONAL 118 City of Dublin Draft 277 FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS Measure B and Measure BB Bicycle and Pedestrian Program: Capital project, programs, and plans that directly address bicycle and pedestrian access, convenience, safety, and usage. Cannot be used for repaving an entire roadway or for programs that exclusively serve city staff. Local Streets and Roads Program: Capital projects, programs, maintenance, or operations that directly improve local streets and roads and local transportation. Cannot be used for programs that exclusively serve city staff. MEASURE B: $1,400,000 allocated in 2021-2022 & $300,000 allocated in 2022-2027 to Annual Street Repaving, Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements and the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard. MEASURE BB: $6.5 million of Measure BB funds was allocated to bicycle and pedestrian projects in 2021- 22, including $5.2 million from Measure BB Grants. Approximately $4.7 million has been allocated in 2022-27. Measure RR Projects are required to make the BART system safer, more reliable, and to reduce traffic. $1,500,000 allocated to Iron Horse Bridge at Dublin Boulevard in 2021-22 and no funding is allocated to bicycle or pedestrian projects in 2022-27. One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Local street and road maintenance, streetscape enhancements, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, Safe Routes to School projects, and transportation planning. Most projects must be in a priority development area (PDA) or have a connection to one. $916 million in OBAG 2 regionwide8 $750 million in OBAG 3 for projects from 2023-26 with additional funds anticipated through the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.9 8 https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/federal-funding/federal-highway-administration-grants/one-bay-area-grant-obag-2 9 https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/federal-funding/federal-highway-administration-grants/one-bay-area-grant-obag-3 10 https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/investment-strategies-commitments/transit-21st-century/funding-sales-tax-and-0. 11 https://www.dublin.ca.gov/1955/Pavement-Management-Program FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 310 Design and construction of walkways, bike paths, bike lanes, and safety education programs. Project must be in an adopted plan. All projects must be reviewed by Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). $3 million annually every 2–3 years regionwide STATEWIDE Statewide Gas Tax Revenue Construction, engineering, and maintenance. Ineligible expenses include decorative lighting, transit facilities, park features, and new utilities. $2 million allocated in 2021-22 and $3.7 million allocated in 2022-27. Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Road maintenance and rehabilitation, safety improvements, railroad grade separations, traffic control devices, and complete streets components. If it has a pavement condition index (PCI) of 80 or more, a city may spend its RMRA funds on other transportation priorities. Dublin has a PCI greater than 80.11 1.8 million in 2021-22 and $5.6 million in 2022-27 for Annual Street Resurfacing and Iron Horse Bridge at Dublin Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 119 Draft 278 FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS Active Transportation Program (ATP)12 Infrastructure projects and plans, including bicycle and pedestrian projects, active transportation plans, quick build projects, and Safe Routes to School Plans, as well as education and encouragement activities. Funding cannot be used for funded projects or for cost increases. Scoring criteria favors projects located in or benefiting equity priority (disadvantaged) communities. $1.65 billion for Cycle 6 (2023) up from $223 million in Cycle 5. The State budget bill added $1 billion in June 2022 after applications were submitted. Biannual program Sustainable Communities Multimodal transportation and land use planning projects that further the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy. Requires 11.47 percent local match. $29.5 million, split between statewide and regional competitive funds Strategic Partnerships Planning efforts that identify and address statewide, interregional, and regional transportation deficiencies on the state highway system in partnership with Caltrans. Requires 20 percent local match. Would require Dublin to apply as sub-applicant to Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). $4.5 million, $3 million of which is dedicated to projects related to transit 12 https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active-transportation-program 13 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/SHOPP/2018_shopp/2018-shopp-adopted-by-ctc.pdf 14 https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/stip/2022-stip/2022-adopted-stip-32522.pdf FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP)13 Repair and preservation, emergency repairs, safety improvements, and some highway operational improvements. Elements include pavement, bridges, culverts, and transportation management systems. Projects must be on the California State Highway System. $18 billion statewide for 4 years Portfolio updated every 2 years State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Any transportation project eligible for State Highway Account or federal funds. Projects need to be nominated in Regional TIP, but MTC may nominate fund categories. $71 million for Alameda County14 Updated every 2 years FEDERAL Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program Projects that connect active transportation infrastructure. $1 billion nationally Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Focuses on infrastructure treatments with known crash reduction factors, such as countermeasures at locations with documented collision and safety issues. $263 million allocated statewide for 2022 Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Major infrastructure projects, especially with road, bridge, transit, or intermodal components. Minimum grant size of $5 million. It is possible to propose a program (or network) of projects that address the same transportation challenge. $2.275 billion nationally 120 City of Dublin Draft 279 FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS Safe Streets & Roads for All (SS4A) Comprehensive safety action plan development and implementation. $6 billion nationally PROTECT Resilience Grants Transportation resilience planning and project implementation. $1.4 billion nationally Reconnecting Communities Removing or retrofitting highways to restore community connectivity. $1 billion nationally SMART Grants Demonstrating projects utilizing innovative technology to improve transportation efficiency and safety. $1 billion nationally National Infrastructure Project Assistance grants program (Mega) Highway or bridge project, including grade separation or elimination project. Supports large, complex projects that are difficult to fund through other means and that are likely to generate national or regional economic, mobility, or safety benefits. Minimum grant size of $100 million. It is possible to propose a program, or network, of projects that address same transportation challenge. $5 billion nationally (2022–2026) Nationally Significant Multimodal Freight and Highways Projects grants program (INFRA) Multimodal freight and highway projects of national or regional significance to improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability of the movement of freight and people in and across rural and urban areas. Minimum project size of $100 million. A network of projects can be proposed that address same transportation problem. $7.25 billion nationally (FY 2022–2026) 15 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/stbgfs.cfm. FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS Healthy Streets Program Projects that reduce the urban heat island and improve air quality. $500 million Bridge Investment Program Bridge replacement, rehab, preservation, and protection. $15.8 billion Congestion Management & Air Quality (CMAQ) Transportation projects or programs that contribute to attainment of national air quality standards. Must reduce air pollution and be included in the regional transportation plan. Estimated $2.54 billion nationally in 2022, $506 million of which apportioned to California Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Improve conditions and performance on any federal-aid highway, bridge, or tunnel projects on a public road; includes pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. In general, funds aren’t used on local roads, but there are many exceptions to this.15 $13.835 billion estimated nationally in 2022; $1.2 billion of which is apportioned to California Divided into population- based and statewide funds. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 121 Draft 280 PERFORMANCE MEASURES Setting performance measures helps track progress toward goals and document the results of investments in biking, walking, and rolling. Performance measures and monitoring also helps to identify opportunities for improvement. Table 17 presents the performance measures and desired trends that have been established to track progress toward achieving this Plan’s goals. Table 17. Goals and Performance Measures GOAL PERFORMANCE MEASURE AND DESIRED TREND Enhance Safety • Decrease vehicle travel speed measured at specific locations • Decrease number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions • Reduce severity of pedestrian and bicycle collisions • Increase users’ perception of safety • Decrease average crossing distances Increase Walking and Biking • Increase walk/bike/roll to school mode share • Increase walk/bike/roll to work mode share • Increase walk/bike/roll to transit mode share • Increase walk/bike/roll to recreational facilities Improve Connectivity • Reduce bicycle level of traffic stress • Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps • Increase number of crossing opportunities • Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements • Increase the number of secure bike parking spaces Enhance Accessibility • Increase the number of traffic signals with audible cues • Increase the number of intersections with directional curb ramps and detectable warning surfaces • Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps • Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements • Decrease length of sidewalks that are broken or in disrepair Prioritize Investments • Maintain and increase sustainable funding mechanisms and a dedicated funding source to build a complete streets network • Maintain a maintenance plan for bicycle and pedestrian facilities • Increase funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects as a percentage of total transportation infrastructure spending 122 City of Dublin Draft 281 LOOKING AHEAD Walking and biking allow residents and visitors of Dublin to travel throughout the city in a way that promotes a sustainable, healthy, and vibrant community. This Plan helps foster a safe and connected multimodal transportation network and establishes Dublin’s vision and comprehensive approach to improving walking, biking, and rolling. The ultimate goal is a universally-accessible, safe, convenient, and integrated system that promotes active and sustainable transportation as a convenient alternative to motor vehicles. The Plan’s performance measures allow for the ongoing tracking of progress towards implementation of the following goals: GOAL 1 GOAL 2 GOAL 3GOAL 3 GOAL 4 GOAL 5GOAL 5 Enhance Safety Increase Walking and Biking Improve Connectivity Enhance Accessibility Prioritize Investments The Plan provides for both near-term and long-term infrastructure investments to achieve the Plan’s vision and goals as well as policy and programmatic recommendations that encourage and support walking, biking, and rolling. Together, these components create a comprehensive approach that will guide, prioritize, and implement a network of quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities to improve mobility, connectivity, and public health in Dublin. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 123 Draft 282 APPENDIX A. Community Engagement Summary B. Existing Conditions a. Program and Policy Review b. Demographic Analysis c. Collision Analysis & High Injury Network d. Level of Traffic Stress Analysis e. Demand Analysis C. Network Recommendations a. Prioritization Framework b. Project List c. Cost Estimates D. Engineering & Design Guide 283 DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PLAN: AND BICYCLE PLAN: SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGN GUIDANCE DESIGN GUIDANCE June 2022 Draft Attachment 2 284 2 City of Dublin Draft INTRODUCTION This guide was developed as a reference document for best practices in planning and designing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It first provides resources relevant to planning and designing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including a list of specific design topics and guidance document recommendations to consult. It then provides specific planning and design recommendations for several key topics relevant to developing Dublin’s biking and walking infrastructure. RESOURCES 3 DESIGN TOPICS AND RELEVANT GUIDANCE 4 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE 14 BIKEWAY SELECTION ...................................15 ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS ........25 CROSSING SELECTION .................................27 BICYCLE FACILITIES THROUGH INTERSECTIONS ............................................31 285 Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 3 Draft Draft KEY RESOURCES • AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, Fourth Edition (2012 ) – likely to be replaced by the Fifth Edition in 2022 • NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Second Edition (2014) • NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013) • FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations (2018) • CalTrans Highway Design Manual (2018) • FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015) • FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009) • California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Revision 4 (2019) SUPPLEMENTAL RESOURCES • TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Washington D.C.: TCRP and NCHRP, 2006. • Routine Accommodations of Pedestrians and Bicyclists in the Bay Area, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Available: https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/A-08_ RES-3765_complete_streets.pdf 2006. • Complete Streets Checklist Guidance Resolution 4493, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Available: https://mtc. ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-05/MTC- Administrative-Guidance-CS-Checklist.pdf (2022) RESOURCES The following resources should be used as references for best practices in planning and design for pedestrian facilities. 286 Draft 2 DESIGN TOPICS AND RELEVANT GUIDANCE 287 Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 5 Draft Draft DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Sidewalks and Sidewalk Zones NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013) https:// nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ Guide for the Planning Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004) https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf Pages 37– 44; https://nacto.org/publication/urban- street-design-guide/street-design-elements/sidewalks/ Chapter 3.2; Pages 54 - 70 Pedestrian Wayfinding Seamless Seattle Pedestrian Wayfinding Strategy (2019) Global Street Design Guide (2016) Global Street Design Guide | Global Designing Cities Initiative Wayfinding Strategy_July2019_ SDOT Edit.pdf (seattle.gov) 6.3.9; Page 91; https://globaldesigningcities.org/wp-content/uploads/ guides/global-street-design-guide-lowres.pdf Street Furniture Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-way (2013) https://www.access-board.gov/ prowag/preamble-prowag/ Page 70; https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/ preamble-prowag/#r212-street-furniture Pedestrian Scale Lighting FHWA Lighting Handbook (2012) https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/ lighting_handbook/pdf/fhwa_handbook2012.pdf Street Design Manual: Lighting Update (2016) https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/street_ design_manual_-_lighting_update_2016_2.pdf Guide for the Planning Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf Pages 75-78 Pages 2-3 Chapter 3.2.11, Page 65 288 6 City of Dublin Draft DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Crosswalk Markings Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/ part3/part3b.htm#section3B18 Uncontrolled Crossing Enhancements NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013):” https://nacto.org/publication/ urban-street-design-guide/ FHWA Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations (2005) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ research/safety/04100/04100.pdf https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street- design-guide/intersection-design-elements/ crosswalks-and-crossings/midblock-crosswalks/ Pages 49 - 61 Special Paving Treatments FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (2013) http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/index.cfm http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/ countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=39 Crossing Islands NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013): https:// nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ Page 116; https://nacto.org/publication/urban- street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/ crosswalks-and-crossings/pedestrian-safety-islands/ In-Street Pedestrian Crossings Signs Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/ part2/part2b.htm#section2B12 289 Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 7 Draft Draft DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Reduced Radii and Sidewalk Corners NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013): https:// nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ Pages 117-118/ https://nacto.org/publication/ urban-street-design-guide/intersection- design-elements/corner-radii/ Curb Extensions, Including Chicanes NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013): https:// nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ Guide for the Planning Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf Pages 45- 50; https://nacto.org/publication/ urban-street-design-guide/street-design- elements/curb-extensions/ Chapter 2.6.2 Page - 43 Curb Ramps Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-way https://www.access-board.gov/ prowag/preamble-prowag/ Pages 36 – 37; https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/preamble- prowag/#r304-curb-ramps-and-blended-transitions Right-Turn Slip Lane FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (2013) http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/index.cfm http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/ countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=24 Advanced Yield Markings Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/ part2/part2b.htm#section2B11 Advanced Warning Signs Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ Sign R1-5a 290 8 City of Dublin Draft DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Crossing Types: RRFB, PHB, Grade Separated Crossings, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ Sections 4C.05, 4C.06, 4F.01, 4L.03 Pedestrian Signal Timing NACTO Urban Street Design Guide: https://nacto. org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ Guide for the Planning Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ NACTO pages 125 – 134; https://nacto. org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ intersection-design-elements/traffic-signals/ Chapter 4.1.2 – Page 101 4E.06; https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ htm/2009/part4/part4e.htm Leading Pedestrian Intervals NACTO Urban Street Design Guide: https://nacto. org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ Page 128; https://nacto.org/publication/urban- street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/ traffic-signals/leading-pedestrian-interval/ Signal Phasing- Protected Left Turns and Split Phasing FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (2013) http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/index.cfm http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/ countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=51 291 Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 9 Draft Draft DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Bus Stop Accessibility Toolkit for the Assessment of Bus Stop Accessibility and Safety (2 https://www.nadtc. org/wp-content/uploads/NADTC-Toolkit-for- the-Assessment-of-Bus-Stop-Accessibility.pdf ADA Accessibility Guidelines (2002): Adaag 1991 2002 (access-board.gov) Page 10 Section 10.2; https://www.access-board. gov/adaag-1991-2002.html#tranfac Bikeway selection FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf Also see supplemental guidance pages XYZ Pages 22-23 Class I Shared Use Path & Shared Use Path Features Guide for the Planning Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf Chapter 3.2.14 Page 70 Grade Separation Guide for the Planning Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf Pages 94 - 98 Curb Ramps Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) (2013) https://www.access-board.gov/ files/prowag/PROW-SUP-SNPRM-2013.pdf R304; https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/ chapter-r3-technical-requirements/#r304- curb-ramps-and-blended-transitions 292 10 City of Dublin Draft DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Crossing Treatments Guide for the Planning Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf Chapter 3.3 Page 74,80; Chapter 3.4 Page 90 Bicycle Signal Heads NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https:// nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ Page 91; https://nacto.org/publication/urban- bikeway-design-guide/bicycle-signals/ Unsignalized Intersections NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https:// nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ Page 105; https://nacto.org/publication/urban- bikeway-design-guide/bicycle-signals/ Sidepaths AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012) Chapter 5, Page 8 Sidepath Intersection Design Considerations AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012) Chapter 5, Page 42 Class IIA Bicycle Lanes AASHTO 2012 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities https://nacto.org/references/aashto-guide-for- the-development-of-bicycle-facilities-2012/ Urban Bicycle Design Guide https://nacto.org/ publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ Chapter 4, Pages 11 -22 Pages 1 – 21/https://nacto.org/publication/ urban-bikeway-design-guide/bike-lanes/ 293 Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 11 Draft Draft DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Bicycle Facility Design NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https:// nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ Geometric Design of Highways and Streets https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/ftp/dtsd/ bts/environment/library/PE/AASHTO- GreenBook-7th-edition(2018).pdf Page 119/https://nacto.org/publication/urban- bikeway-design-guide/bikeway-signing-marking/ Chapter 4 Page 77; Chapter 5 Page 8; Chapter 6 Page 7; Chapter 9 Page 156 Bicycle Parking AASHTO 2012 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities https://nacto.org/references/aashto-guide-for- the-development-of-bicycle-facilities-2012/ Transit Street Design Guide https://nacto.org/ publication/transit-street-design-guide/transit-streets/ Chapter 6 Chapter 4 Page 105 Bicycle Facility Maintenance AASHTO 2012 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities https://nacto.org/references/aashto-guide-for- the-development-of-bicycle-facilities-2012/ Chapter 7 294 12 City of Dublin Draft DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Bicycle Signals AASHTO 2012 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities: https://nacto.org/references/aashto-guide-for- the-development-of-bicycle-facilities-2012/ Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https:// nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ Chapter 4 Page 43 MUTCD Figure 9C-7 (bicycle detector pavement markings); Section 4D.08 through 4D.16 (signal placement) Pages 91 – 111; https://nacto.org/publication/ urban-bikeway-design-guide/bicycle-signals/ Restriping to Add Bicycle Facilities FHWA: Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects, 2016 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ bicycle_pedestrian/publications/resurfacing/ resurfacing_workbook.pdf Entire document Stormwater Management NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https:// nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ Pages 65 – 70; https://nacto.org/publication/ urban-street-design-guide/street-design- elements/stormwater-management/ 295 2 Draft SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE 296 14 City of Dublin Draft DESCRIPTION: Bike paths provide a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with minimal or no conflicting motor vehicle traffic. Generally, these corridors are not served by streets, and the path may be along a river, converted rail right-of-way, or powerline, or other car-free corridors. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Class IA paths may provide connectivity between neighborhoods or communities, to parks or recreational areas, along or to rivers or streams, or to other destinations without travelling along a roadway corridor. COST ESTIMATE: $2.2M per mile , including design and construction for the path, assuming the inclusion of two high visibility actuated crossings DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: • The width of a shared-use path may vary based on expected bicyclist and pedestrian volume and right-of-way constraints. For accessibility purposes, trails should be limited to 5% grade. • Where right-of-way or other physical constraints exist, sidepaths may be provided adjacent to the roadway. Information about these facilities, Class IB facilities, are provided on the next page. Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations Identify complementary bicycle facilities Class I Facility Class II FacilityKATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)Class III Facility Class IV Facility BIKEWAY SELECTION CLASS IA: BIKE PATHS OR SHARED USE PATHS Iron Horse Regional Trail, Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 297 Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 15 Draft Draft PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS: • A 12- to 14-foot path is desirable. The higher the anticipated volumes of users, the greater the width should be to accommodate these users comfortably. • Pedestrian-scale lighting improves visibility, particularly at intersection crossings, tunnels, underpasses, trail heads, and rest areas. • A shy distance of at least one foot allows adequate lateral clearance for the placement of signs or other vertical objects. If objects are shorter than 3 feet tall, they may not present an obstruction for cyclists. REQUIRED ELEMENTS: • While the width may vary along a path, a path should be at least 10 feet wide except in rare cases and for short distances. • Path crossings may be designed with yield, signal, or stop control depending on path volume and traffic volume on the crossing street. Refer to MUTCD 9C.04 for more information. 298 16 City of Dublin Draft DESCRIPTION: Sidepaths are shared use paths that exist within a roadway corridor. They provide dedicated space for bidirectional travel for people walking, biking, using mobility devices, or using scooters or other micromobility devices. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Sidepaths are applicable in areas with few motor vehicle driveways or access points on roadways with operating speeds above 35 miles per hour and serving above 6,500 vehicles per day, but other treatments (generally sidewalks and Class IV facilities) are typically preferred for safety and comfort. Sidepaths can be used along high speed and/or volume roadways to provide a completely separated space outside of the roadway for people walking and biking. COST ESTIMATE: $2.6M per mile , including design and construction for the path and a planted buffer CLASS IB: SIDEPATHS Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations Identify complementary bicycle facilities Class I Facility Class II FacilityKATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)Class III Facility Class IV Facility 299 Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 17 Draft Draft DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: • In many situations, especially urban areas or denser or destination focused suburban areas, providing dedicated walking and biking facilities that are separate from each other is preferred to combining these modes on a sidepath. • As motor vehicle speeds and volumes increase, providing more separation between the roadway and the path will provide higher comfort for those using the path. • One key concern with providing sidepaths instead of directional bicycle facilities is the lack of driver awareness about contraflow bicycle traffic (higher speed traffic than pedestrians, which are expected to travel bidirectionally) at intersections and access points. If a motor vehicle is turning left, they are more likely to be aware of or look for traffic traveling toward them. Skip striping and signs that indicate two-way bicycle travel through crossings at intersections is key to creating awareness of the birdirectional traffic. At intersections, treatments like leading pedestrian and bicycle intervals can also help increase the visibility of crossings bicyclists. Sidepaths must be appropriately designed at access points or intersections. • Like for a Class IA facility, the width of a sidepath may vary based on expected bicyclist and pedestrian volume and right-of-way constraints. • When providing sidepaths, a critical consideration is the connection to other biking facilities. If a sidepath connects to a uni-directional bike lane at an intersection, the design of the intersection should consider the efficiency and safety of connecting bicyclists to the infrastructure they will need to use to continue on their path. Diagonal crossings can reduce the need for two-stage crossings, which can slow bicyclists and increase crossing exposure. Pavement markings and signs can also be effective in guiding bicyclists for how to make the connection and provide continuity and clarity to these transitions, which can otherwise be uncomfortable or unclear, and may encourage crossing in ways or locations that increase exposure or the number of potential conflict points. Striping on the ground to encourage separation between people walking and biking in different directions, especially at intersections or areas with higher volumes can create clarity and decrease conflicts between these modes. The maximum grade of a side path should be 5%, but the grade should generally match the grade of the roadway. Where the roadway grade exceeds 5%, the sidepath grade may as well but it must be less than or equal to the roadway grade. PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS: • A 12- to 14-foot path is desirable. The higher the anticipated volumes of users, the greater the width should be to accommodate these users comfortably. • Pedestrian-scale lighting improves visibility for and of the users, and is particularly important at intersection crossings and in areas with access points or driveways. • A shy distance of at least one foot allows adequate lateral clearance for the placement of signs or other vertical objects. If objects are shorter than 3 feet tall, they may not present an obstruction for cyclists. • Biking and walking facilities should be provided on both sides of the street to provide access to destinations along both sides of a street. REQUIRED ELEMENTS: • While the width may vary along a path, a path should be at least 10 feet wide except in rare cases and for short distances. • Path crossings may be designed with yield, signal, or stop control depending on path volume and traffic volume on the crossing street. Refer to MUTCD 9C.04 for more information. 300 18 City of Dublin Draft DESCRIPTION: Bike lanes are on-street bikeways that provide a designated right- of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles. Through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians is prohibited, but vehicle parking may be allowed on either side of the bikeway, and drivers may cross through for turning movements. Class IIA facilities are bike lanes without a buffer, while Class IIB facilities include a buffer between motor vehicle traffic and the dedicated bike lane. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Bike lanes are appropriate on streets with moderate traffic volumes and speeds: typically between 25-35 mph and 3,000 to 6,500 vehicles per day. Class IIB facilities are preferred for these conditions, but if constraints do not allow for a buffer to be added, Class IIA facilities can be provided. COST ESTIMATE: $225,000 – $5,500,000 per mile including design and construction; the lower end of the estimate is based on the ability to restripe existing roadway to add bicycle lanes, while the high end of the estimate is based on the need to widen the roadway to add facilities, including a full reconstruction of a planter strip and sidewalk. CLASS IIA AND CLASS IIB FACILITIES: BIKE LANES AND BUFFERED BIKE LANES Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc 301 Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 19 Draft Draft DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: A buffer provides a more comfortable facility, so if space is available, a buffer should be provided. A buffer becomes more necessary when speeds and volumes are at the high end of the ranges provided in the “typical application” above. PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS: When a bike lane is placed next to active street parking, a parking-side buffer is preferred. When steep grades are present, consider providing the next level of separation uphill (i.e., add a buffer, or physically separate the bike lane). It may be appropriate to mix facilities for opposite directions along a steep grade. The desired minimum width of a bike lane is 6 feet. When adjacent to parking, the recommended width from curb face to the far edge of the bike lane is 14.5 feet (12 feet minimum). With high bike volumes, a 7-foot travel area width is recommended. At intersections with right-turn vehicle lanes, it is recommended that the bike lane transitioned to the left of the lane (see below) using dotted white lines, appropriate signage, and colored pavement. REQUIRED ELEMENTS: When buffers are used, they shall be marked with 2 solid parallel white lines, at least 18 inches apart. If the buffer is at least 3 feet wide, use diagonal or chevron hatching inside. 302 20 City of Dublin Draft DESCRIPTION: Bike routes or bicycle boulevards provide a shared right-of-way with motorists. They are designated by signs or permanent markings, which may include shared-lane markings (“sharrows”) to alert drivers of the shared roadway environment. Because the right- of-way is shared, vehicle speeds on Class III bikeways should be managed through the use of traffic calming or traffic diversion. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Bike routes are appropriate only in the presence of low speeds and low traffic volumes: typically below 25 miles per hour and 3,000 vehicles per day. They are most applicable on streets where no centerline is present. Outside of these circumstances, a designated lane or other facility is appropriate. COST ESTIMATE: $40,000 – $135,000 per mile including design and construction, depending on the need to add traffic calming elements. BENEFITS: On streets that are already low speed and volume, bike routes can provide bike connectivity for people all ages and abilities at a relatively low cost. CLASS III BIKE ROUTES/BICYCLE BOULEVARDS Portland, OR. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. 303 Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 21 Draft Draft DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: To ensure the selected facility retains its low speed and low-volume character, bicycle boulevards should be supported with traffic calming measures and volume management measures (e.g., restricting vehicle access). The level of stress of bicycle boulevards are typically determined by major street crossings, which should be designed to promote the desired level of traffic stress (i.e., controlled). PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS: Bike routes should be direct, as bicyclists are unlikely to adhere to a path that requires significant out-of-direction travel. Ideally a bicycle boulevard would be parallel and proximate to a major vehicle route. Signs and pavement markings should be used to identify the bike route. Wayfinding signs are recommended to guide bicyclists to destinations and through any turns in the route (refer to CAMUTCD 9B.20). Chevron pavement markings can guide bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and bicycle to travel side-by-side within the same traffic lane, and alert road users of their presence. To create a shared street environment, it is most appropriate to use roadways that do not have a striped centerline as neighborhood bikeways. Typically, minor streets along the bicycle boulevard should be controlled to minimize delay for bicyclists and encourage use of the bicycle boulevard. Required elements: Place sharrow pavement markings at least every 250 feet and after each intersection. 304 22 City of Dublin Draft DESCRIPTION: Separated bikeways provide physical separation from vehicular traffic. This separation may include grade separation, flexible posts, planters or other inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking. These bikeways provide bicyclists a greater sense of comfort and security, especially in the context of high-speed roadways. Separated facilities can provide one-way or two-way travel and may be located on either side of a one-way roadway. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Separated bikeways are appropriate for higher volume and speed settings including above 35 miles per hour and serving 6,500 or more vehicles per day. COST ESTIMATE: $1,100,000 – $5,700,000 per mile including design and construction; the lower end of the estimate is based on the ability to reorganize existing roadway to add separated bike lanes, while the high end of the estimate is based on the need to widen the roadway to add facilities, including a full reconstruction of a planter strip and sidewalk. CLASS IV: SEPARATED BIKEWAY/CYCLE TRACK San Diego, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. Source: City of Dublin 305 Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 23 Draft Draft DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: Separated bikeways are appropriate at speeds and volumes where bike lanes or buffered bike lanes do not adequately address the comfort needs of the Interested but Concerned biking population. These facilities are more appropriate than shared-use paths if pedestrian and bicyclist volumes are expected to be relatively high or there are significant access points or driveways along a road. Two-way separated bikeways are appropriate along routes with many destinations on only one-side of the road, incidences of wrong-way riding, along one-way streets, or in locations where they facilitate connection to a shared-use path. PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS: The type of separator can impact the comfort of bicyclists along a separated bikeway. Elements with higher mass and height can provide higher comfort. Planted separators can also improve the aesthetics along a corridor. Along separated bikeways, intersections may provide the most exposure to cyclists. Including protected intersection treatments can improve the comfort along the entire route and make the facility more appropriate for people of all ages and abilities. REQUIRED ELEMENTS: Physical separation may be provided by flexible delineators, parked cars, bollards, planters, or parking stops. When parked cars provide separation, a buffer width of at least 3 feet should be provided for bicyclists to avoid the “door zone.” The riding area for one-way lanes should be at least 5 feet wide (7 feet if along an uphill grade). For two-way bikeways, the preferred width is 12 feet (10 feet minimum). In constrained environments, consider removing a travel lane, reducing the bike lane width, or reducing the sidewalk buffer width. Sidewalk accessibility requirements must be maintained, and adequate street buffer is essential for the safety of bicyclists. Klamath Falls, OR. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. 306 24 City of Dublin Draft DESCRIPTION: An accessible pedestrian signal (APS) is a pedestrian signal that uses audible tones or messages and/or vibrotactile surfaces to communicate crossing information (e.g., WALK and DON’T WALK intervals) to those walking who are vision impaired or blind. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act requires newly constructed and reconstructed public facilities to be accessible to all members of the public. APS should be installed wherever pedestrian signals are installed. TYPICAL APPLICATION: The factors that make crossing at a signalized location difficult for pedestrians who have visual disabilities include: quiet car technology including through electric vehicles, high right turn on red or continuous right-turn movements, complex signal operations, traffic circles, wide streets, or low traffic volumes that make it difficult to discern signal phase changes. APS should be provided everywhere a signalized crossing opportunity is provided. Greater consistency can provide more expectations. COST ESTIMATE: Costs range from $550 to $1,150 per signal in locations where pedestrian signal poles already exist; up to eight APS units are needed per intersection. ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS Source: Accessforblind.org BENEFITS: Without APS, those with visual disabilities generally determine if they’re able to cross a street by initiating a crossing when they hear traffic stop and traffic perpendicular to them move, but this does not always provide sufficient information needed to safely or efficiently cross. When it does provide accurate information, it may require the pedestrian to need to wait an additional signal cycle. APS has been shown to reduce the number of crossings during a DON’T WALK phase, provid more accurate judgements of the WALK phase, and reduce delay of crossing. It can also reduce delay and reduce conflicts due to a misunderstanding of crossing opportunities. 307 Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 25 Draft Draft DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: When APS cannot be implemented everywhere, it should be prioritized in areas with the following characteristics: • Very wide crossings, • Crossings of major streets where minor streets have minimal or intermittent traffic, • Complex or uncommon intersection types, • Low volumes of through vehicles, • High volumes of turning vehicles, • Split phase signal timing, • Exclusive pedestrian phasing, Leading pedestrian intervals, and • Proximity to major pedestrian destinations like BART stations, parks, downtowns, etc. PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS: An alert tone may be used to alert pedestrians to the beginning of the walk interval. Locator tones should help those with visual impairment find pushbuttons, and APS should be clear to which crossing leg the audible signal is associated. It is preferred for APS pushbutton poles to be at least 10 feet apart to improve clarity for which crossing leg is associated with each audible signal. Including the name of the street to be crossed in an accessible format, such as Braille or raised print on the pushbutton, can help provide clarity for which crossing the APS is associated. Pushbuttons for accessible pedestrian signals should be located as close as possible to the crosswalk line furthest from the center of the intersection and as close as possible to the curb ramp. In addition to being more useful, the closer to the crossing that it is located, the quieter it can be. It should be within 5 feet of the crosswalk extended or 10 feet of the edge of curb, shoulder, or pavement. REQUIRED ELEMENTS: • Where two accessible pedestrian signals are separated by a distance of at least 10 feet, the audible walk indication shall be a percussive tone. Where two accessible pedestrian signals on one corner are not separated by a distance of at least 10 feet, the audible walk indication shall be a speech walk message. • If speech walk messages are used to communicate the walk interval, they shall provide a clear message that the walk interval is in effect, as well as to which crossing it applies. Speech walk messages shall be used only at intersections where it is technically infeasible to install two accessible pedestrian signals at one corner separated by a distance of at least 10 feet. • If two accessible pedestrian pushbuttons are placed less than 10 feet apart or on the same pole, each accessible pedestrian pushbutton shall be provided with the following features: Pushbutton locator tone, tactile arrow, speech walk message, speech pushbutton information message • If the pedestrian clearance time is sufficient only to cross from the curb or shoulder to a median of sufficient width for pedestrians to wait and accessible pedestrian detectors are used, an additional accessible pedestrian detector shall be provided in the median. FOR MORE INFORMATION: NCHRP Web-Only Document 150: Accessible Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best Practices https://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/164696.aspx 308 26 City of Dublin Draft DESCRIPTION: Providing visible pedestrian crossings is critical to allowing those who travel by foot or mobility device to have access to their destinations. Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations correspond to higher pedestrian crash rates than controlled locations, often due to inadequate pedestrian crossing accommodations (FHWA, 2018). The type of crossing provided should be appropriate for the context of the roadway that is being crossed. The higher the speeds, volumes, and number of lanes on the roadway, the greater the need for higher visibility crossing elements. Providing regular crossings with the correct crossing features based on the roadway context supports a safe, convenient, and comfortable walking environment, leading to more people walking to meet everyday needs and thus contributing to the health, sustainability, and vibrancy of a community. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Mid-block and unsignalized intersections; crossings should be provided with regular spacing and should especially be provided to access key destinations like transit stops, schools, trailheads, parks, and grocery stores. Different crossing types and countermeasures are appropriate based on the roadway context. Figure X provides the appropriate crash countermeasures by roadway feature. CROSSING SELECTION 16 Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations Select Countermeasure(s) Table 1 provides initial countermeasure options for various roadway conditions. Each matrix cell indicates possibilities that may be appropriate for designated pedestrian crossings. Not all of the countermeasures listed in the matrix cell should necessarily be installed at a crossing. For multi-lane roadway crossings with vehicle AADTs exceeding 10,000, a marked crosswalk alone is typically insufficient (Zegeer, 2005). Under such conditions, more substantial crossing improvements (such as the refuge island, PHB, and RRFB) are also needed to prevent an increase in pedestrian crash potential. Roadway Configuration Posted Speed Limit and AADT Vehicle AADT <9,000 Vehicle AADT 9,000–15,000 Vehicle AADT >15,000 ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph 2 lanes (1 lane in each direction) 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9 3 lanes with raised median (1 lane in each direction) 1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9 3 lanes w/o raised median (1 lane in each direction with a two-way left-turn lane) 1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 7 9 7 9 9 7 9 7 9 9 7 9 9 9 4+ lanes with raised median (2 or more lanes in each direction) 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9 4+ lanes w/o raised median (2 or more lanes in each direction) 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9 Given the set of conditions in a cell, # Signifies that the countermeasure is a candidate treatment at a marked uncontrolled crossing location. Signifies that the countermeasure should always be considered, but not mandated or required, based upon engineering judgment at a marked uncontrolled crossing location. Signifies that crosswalk visibility enhancements should always occur in conjunction with other identified countermeasures.* The absence of a number signifies that the countermeasure is generally not an appropriate treatment, but exceptions may be considered following engineering judgment. 1 High-visibility crosswalk markings, parking restrictions on crosswalk approach, adequate nighttime lighting levels, and crossing warning signs 2 Raised crosswalk 3 Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians sign and yield (stop) line 4 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign 5 Curb extension 6 Pedestrian refuge island 7 Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB)** 8 Road Diet 9 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)** Table 1. Application of pedestrian crash countermeasures by roadway feature. *Refer to Chapter 4, 'Using Table 1 and Table 2 to Select Countermeasures,' for more information about using multiple countermeasures. **It should be noted that the PHB and RRFB are not both installed at the same crossing location. This table was developed using information from: Zegeer, C.V., J.R. Stewart, H.H. Huang, P.A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes, and B.J. Campbell. (2005). Safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations: Final report and recommended guidelines. FHWA, No. FHWA-HRT-04-100, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition. (revised 2012). Chapter 4F, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. FHWA, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse. http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/; FHWA. Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE). http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/; Zegeer, C., R. Srinivasan, B. Lan, D. Carter, S. Smith, C. Sundstrom, N.J. Thirsk, J. Zegeer, C. Lyon, E. Ferguson, and R. Van Houten. (2017). NCHRP Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; Thomas, Thirsk, and Zegeer. (2016). NCHRP Synthesis 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; and personal interviews with selected pedestrian safety practitioners. Source: FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations APPLICATION OF PEDESTRIAN CRASH COUNTERMEASURES BY ROADWAY FEATURE 309 Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 27 Draft Draft HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK MARKINGS, PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON THE CROSSWALK APPROACH, ADEQUATE NIGHTTIME LIGHTING LEVELS, AND CROSSING WARNING SIGNS PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc RAISED CROSSWALK Source: Federal Highway Administration RECTANGULAR RAPID-FLASHING BEACON Source: City of Dublin 310 28 City of Dublin Draft ADVANCE YIELD HERE TO (STOP HERE FOR) PEDESTRIANS SIGN AND YIELD/STOP LINE ROAD DIET Source: MUTCD Source: Federal Highway Administration IN STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGN Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON Source: Michigan Complete Streets Coalition 311 Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 29 Draft Draft CURB EXTENSION Source: City of Dublin 312 30 City of Dublin Draft In locations where there is dedicated space for bicyclists along a roadway, it is important to maintain the bicycle facility through the intersection to clearly provide the intended use of the space, enhance bicyclist comfort, increase motorist yielding behavior, and highlight conflict zones. There are several elements that can support bicyclist movements through intersections including bicycle lane markings, skip striping, green paint, bike boxes, two- stage left turn boxes, protected intersection elements , intersection approach considerations, and traffic control considerations. BICYCLE FACILITIES THROUGH INTERSECTIONS 313 Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 31 Draft Draft DESCRIPTION: Intersection crossing markings indicate where a bicyclist will be travelling through an intersection to clearly mark the intended use, enhance cyclist comfort, increase motorist yielding behavior, and highlight conflict zones. They are generally made up of green “skip striping” paint, green bike lane paint, and/or bicycle lane markings. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Through intersections or across driveways COST ESTIMATE: $1,500 - $4,000 per approach DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS: When colored paint is used for bicycle facilities, it should be green to avoid confusion with other traffic control markings. INTERSECTION CROSSINGS MARKINGS Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. 314