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
296
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): h t t p s :// nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
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
297
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): h t t p s ://
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): h t t p s ://
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
R ight-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
298
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/
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
299
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)
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
300
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: h t t p s ://
nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
bikeway-design-guide/bicycle-signals/
Unsignalized
Intersections
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: h t t p s ://
nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
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/
301
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: h t t p s ://
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
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
302
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: h t t p s ://
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: h t t p s ://
nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
Pages 65 – 70; https:/ /nacto.org/publication/
urban-street-design-guide/street-design-
elements/stormwater-management/
303
2 Draft
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE
304
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 Buffered 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 /f_ile 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. 305
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. 306
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 Buffered 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 /f_ile from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him) Class III Facility Class IV Facility
307
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. 308
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
309
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. 310
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.
311
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.
312
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
313
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. 314
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.
315
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
316
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: FHW A Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
APPLICATION OF PEDESTRIAN CRASH
COUNTERMEASURES BY ROADWAY FEATURE
317
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
318
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
319
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 29 Draft
Draft
CURB EXTENSION
Source: City of Dublin
320
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
321
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 .
322
32 City of Dublin
Draft
DESCRIPTION:
A bike box is a dedicated area at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that provides bicyclists with a safe and visible way to get ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Signalized intersections with higher volumes of bicyclists and right- turning vehicles, typically along Class II or Class III facilities.
COST ESTIMATE:
$1,000 each
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
• “Wait Here” pavement markings can be placed in advance of the bike box as reinforcement for drivers not to impede the bike box • A STOP HERE ON RED (MUTCD R10-6 or R10-
6a) sign can be used at the advance stop bar, with an
EXCEPT BICYCLES (MUTCD R3-7bp) plaque below.
• Green paint highlights bike boxes for visibility.
• Right turn on red and bike boxes are not compatible.
Use approved MUTCD “NO RIGHT TURN
ON RED” signs shall be used (R10-11).
• A bike box shall include an advance stop line at least 10 feet in advance of the intersection stop line, with at least one bicycle pavement marking in the box.
• FHWA requires a bicycle pavement marking within bike boxes.
BIKE BOXES
Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc .
323
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 33 Draft
Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Two-stage turn queue boxes offer bicyclists a dedicated space to make left turns at multi-lane signalized intersections from a right side cycle track or bike lane or right turns from a left side cycle track or bike lane.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes are commonly used to facilitate a left turn across multiple lanes of traffic at a signalized intersection. They may also be used for turns at midblock crossing locations, for right turns from a left-side bike lane, or to facilitate a proper angle across tracks (streetcar, train, etc.) COST ESTIMATE:
$1,000 each
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
The turn box should be sized to provide room for waiting cyclists, up to 10 feet wide and 6.5 feet deep but not less than 3 feet deep. 11 • Appropriate signage may be used to indicate the two-stage turn is provided (MUTCD D11-20L or D11-20R, see below).
The bicycle symbol and left-turn arrow marking shall be provided within the box, which shall be bounded by solid white lines on all sides.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
FWHA’s Interim Approval for Option Use of
Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Boxes (IA-20)
TWO STAGE TURN QUEUE BOXES
San Diego, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc .
324
34 City of Dublin
Draft
DESCRIPTION:
A protected intersection provides physical separation for bicyclists and pedestrians up to and through an intersection and provides bicyclists and pedestrians with the right of way over turning vehicles.
The physical separation between people driving and people biking or walking creates a setback, which is intended to control speeds, promote visibility, and reduce conflicts among motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. Protected intersections generally also provide shorter crossing distances for people walking and biking.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Intersections with higher speeds and volumes, especially at intersections where Class IV bikeways are present, or a high incidence of bicycle or pedestrian crashes.
COST ESTIMATE:
$100,000 per intersection
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Intersection crossing markings for bicyclists and
pedestrians provide directional guidance for where each should cross. Green cross bike or skip striping and/or
bike markings can provide clear guidance to people biking and allow drivers to anticipate bicyclists in this space. • Radii should be small enough to discourage passenger
cars from turning faster than 10 mph.
• Wider pedestrian islands support higher volumes of people walking and biking. Pedestrian crossing islands should be at least 6 ft wide to provide an accessible waiting area.
PROTECTED INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc .
• A modified “Turning Vehicles Yield to Bikes and Pedestrians” sign (R10-15)17 is recommended where a signalized intersection allows right turns with bicycle and pedestrian movements.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Reference the following NACTO guidance: https:/ /nacto.org/ publication/dont-give-up-at-the-intersection/protected-intersections 325
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 35 Draft
Draft
DESCRIPTION:
A bicycle lane approach to intersections can take different forms depending on the type of lane, existence of turn lanes, and other roadway features. In locations where a right turn lane is added, the roadway can include a mixing zone in the approach to keep bicyclists to the left of the right-turning vehicles. Depending on the geometry of the roadway, the bicycle lane may maintain as a straight line or may transition with a diagonal at the beginning of the turn lane.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Intersections with right turn lanes adjacent to a bike lane.
COST ESTIMATE:
$1,500 - $4,000 per approach
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
• The merge/conflict area can be highlighted with
markings, including green paint and skip striping.
• The right turn lane should be as short as practical to encourage slow vehicle speeds when merging across the bike lane. The merge area should also be no more than 100 feet long for the same reasons. • A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right of a right-turn lane (MUTCD 9C.04) unless the movements are separated by different traffic signal phases.
• Use “BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD
TO BIKES” (MUTCD R4-4) at the beginning
of the right turn lane and merge area.
INTERSECTION APPROACH CONSIDERATIONS
Source: NACTO
• In cases where space is especially constrained (13’ is not available for both a right turn lane and bike lane), a shared right turn/through bike lane may be provided.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
AASHTO Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities, 2012, pgs 422 - 427
326
36 City of Dublin
Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Bicycle signals offer a bicycle-exclusive phase at signalized intersections. Bicycle signals can improve safety and operations at intersections by removing bicycle and vehicle time conflicts in time or defining different needs from other road users.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Bicycle signals are most appropriate at locations with high bicycle and right-turning vehicle volumes, and often is used to provide a through phase for bicyclists separate from the right-turn phase for motorists. A bicycle signal can be triggered by loop detection, push-buttons, or video detection.
Automatic bike detection discourages red-light running.
COST ESTIMATE:
$27,000 - $78,000
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
• At intersections with right-turning vehicles, right-
turns on red should also be prohibited to prevent
conflict with the bicycle movement.
• MUTCD Figure 9C-7 provides guidance on
bicycle detector pavement markings.
• Some existing bicycle signal designs shields the bicycle signal from drivers’ line of sight to avoid potential
confusion. NACTO recommends that bicycle signal heads
be separated laterally from motor vehicle signal heads by at least two feet to increase road user comprehension.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONSIDERATIONS
Source: NACTO
• Section 4D.105(CA) Bicycle/Motorcycle Detection Standard:
01 All new limit line detector installations and modifications to the existing limit line detection on a public or private road or driveway intersecting a public road shall either provide a Limit Line Detection Zone in which the Reference Bicycle Rider is detected or be placed on permanent
recall or fixed time operation. Refer to CVC 21450.5.
327
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 37 Draft
Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Short-term and long-term bicycle parking is an essential part of a successful bicycle system. A lack of secure and convenient bicycle storage can discourage cycling.
CONTEXT:
Short-term bicycle parking is intended to be used for a few hours at most and is provided in public space. Often this is provided along the curb or furniture zone of a street. - Long-term bicycle parking is intended to be used for longer than several hours. It should be sheltered or indoors to provide greater security.- A bike corral, or multiple bike parking spaces on the street along the curb, can be an efficient use of space. Bike corrals can store up to 12 bicycles in a single vehicle parking space.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Bicycle parking should be provided at or near all destinations to allow people to bike to access those destinations. The amount and type of bicycle parking should be dependent upon the type of destination. Short term parking should be provided.
COST ESTIMATE:
$27,000 - $78,000
.
BICYCLE PARKING
Source: City of Dublin
328
38 City of Dublin
Draft
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Bike racks should be securely fastened to the ground to prevent a bike from being stolen by removing the rack. Adding a crossbar below where the bike would likely be fastened to reduce the ability to remove the bike rack from the ground to slip a lock off and including internal cabling to make it more challenging to cut through can further reduce theft and increase the security of the bike parking system.
• Bike racks should accommodate U-shaped locks and support the bicycle at two points above its center of gravity to allow the frame and both wheels to be locked. Wave bike racks generally do not allow for this and should be avoided.
• Long-term parking should be included as a requirement in all buildings where people travel to spend more than several hours, including multi-family housing, places of work, schools, hospitals, and other destinations.
• Long-term parking requirements should be based on household units, trip generation, employees per square footage, and visitation rates. It should be easy to find, direct, and accessible without stairs. It is preferred that it can also be accessed by use of automatic doorways and entryways to limit the need for someone to open a door and hold their bike, which may not be possible. • Long-term parking should accommodate e-bike charging by locating electrical outlets near the parking spots and should include spaces for longer bicycles, including cargo bikes or bike trailers. If mounted bicycle parking is provided, there should also be horizontal floor parking available for larger bikes or those that can not lift their bike. For double-decker bicycle racks, a lift- assisted mechanism should be provided to access the upper tier.
Source: City of Dublin
329
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 39 39 City of Dublin Draft
Draft 330
Item 7.1
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan Update
August 16, 2022
331
Project Overview
Project
Initiation
Baseline
Inventory &
Needs Analysis
Network
Recommendations
& Implementation
Plan
Draft Plan
Final Plan &
Environmental
Review
Public Participation
In-Person Event (as County health guidance allows)
Community Workshop
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
Fall
2022
Summer 2022Late 2021Fall 2020
332
Draft Plan Vision & Goals
Vision
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 connect individuals,
inclusive of all ages and
abilities, to local and
regional destinations.
Goals
1. Enhance Safety
2. Increase Walking and
Biking
3. Improve Connectivity
4. Enhance Accessibility
5. Prioritize Investments
333
Engagement Summary
• Website & Interactive Map
– 200+ comments
– 1,500+ visits
• Public Survey
– 200+ responses
• Online Workshop
• Pop-up Events
– Farmers’ Market
– Alamo Creek Trailhead
– St Patrick’s Day Festival
334
Existing Conditions & Needs Analysis
Evaluated the following to identify needs:
1. Demographic Analysis: Summarized available
population, job, and travel pattern data
2. Collision Analysis + High Injury Network: Analyzed 6 years of bicycle and pedestrian collision data to analyze where collisions are concentrated in the City
3. Level of Traffic Stress Analysis: Evaluated the bicycle level of traffic stress (a measure of comfort) of the City’s roadway network
4. Demand Analysis: Evaluated mode shift potential
sensitivity to Plan infrastructure recommendations
335
Demographics Analysis:
Commute Snapshot
336
Collision Analysis – HIN
Pages 65-69 of Draft BPMP
• 62% of pedestrian
collisions occurred on
4% (8.4 miles) of
Dublin’s roads
• 62% of bicycle
collisions occurred on
3.5% (6.7 miles) of
Dublin’s roads
• 71% of the pedestrian
HIN has four or more
vehicle through lanes
• 88% of the bicycle HIN
has 4 or more vehicle
through lanes
Pedestrian High-Injury Network Map
Pedestrian High-Injury Network Map
Bicycle High-Injury Network Map
337
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
• LTS measures the stress imposed on bicyclists,
• LTS 1 is - most comfortable & LTS 4 is - most stressful 338
Demand Analysis:
Walking and Biking Access
• Schools
• Transit
• Job Centers
• Parks and Open Space
339
Draft Network Recommendations
– Corridor projects – Identified on high-stress roadways that represented major barriers to walking and biking.
• Considers land use and roadway context and FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide recommended treatments for all ages and abilities facilities
• Complete Street studies & further evaluation recommended to identify appropriate facility on constrained corridors
– Point projects – targeted project locations that
experienced a high frequency or severity of collisions, • Includes trail access improvements, freeway ramp crossings, high-stress intersections and projects identified in prior plans 340
Existing and Proposed Network
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 341
Project Recommendations
Project Type Facility Classification Length in Miles
Shared Lane Class III 12.4
Bike Lane Class IIA 4.0
Buffered Bike Lane Class IIB 17.4
Complete Streets Study Class I or Class IV 9.2
Class IB Improvements 4.9
Trail Class IA 7.9
Speed Reduction Evaluation - 1.3
Total 55.6*
Intersections 33
Trail and midblock crossings 5
Freeway intersection/interchange 16
*Corridor projects are not double counted in this total if they represent multiple project types 342 Coordination with Existing Projects
and Plans
Coordination with other jurisdictions and organizations to advance the development of identified projects, including:
Iron Horse Nature Trail Master Plan Projects
District 4 Freeway Ramp Crossing Projects
Safe Routes to School Projects
BART Station Access Projects
Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan Projects
Local Roadway Safety Plan Projects
Development and Dublin Unified School District Projects, including Emerald High School
343
Program & Policy Recommendations
Pages 97 of Draft BPMP
344
Prioritization Factors
345
Project Tiers
Pages 110 of Draft BPMP
• Tier I: Highest priority projects with likely funding or implementation sources, such as Roadway Rehab & Maintenance Account funds • 9 corridor projects and 6 point projects
• Tier II: High priority projects without an identified funding source or with need for further project development and engagement. • 10 corridor projects and 8 point projects
• Tier III: Buildout of the proposed network in support of a complete and comfortable walking, biking, and rolling environment throughout the City.
346
Tier I Projects
347
Cost Estimates ($ 2022)
Project Type Low Cost
Estimate
High Cost
Estimate
Class III $1,698,000 $1,698,000
Class IIA $4,177,000 $17,757,000
Class IIB $3,239,000 $39,421,000
Class IB or Class IV $12,118,000 $45,161,000
Class IA $40,429,000 $40,550,000
Intersections $7,393,000 $24,274,000
Trail and midblock crossings $9,520,000 $9,520,000
Freeway intersection/interchange $17,833,000 $17,833,000 Speed Reduction Evaluation $139,000 $2,753,000
Total $102,013,000 $207,281,000
348
Cost Estimates ($ 2022)
Project Type by Tier’s Low Cost
Estimate
High Cost
Estimate
Tier I $21,085,000 $27,589,000
Tier II +III $80,928,000 $179,692,000
Total $102,013,000 $207,281,000
349
Performance Measures
350
Design Guide
351
Next Steps
1. City Council review and provide feedback on draft Plan
2. Planning Commission and Parks Commission presentations
3. Finalization of Plan document
4. Environmental review
5. Approval and adoption of the Plan
6. Certification of environmental document
352
We’d love your feedback
What questions or comments do you have?
What needs to be addressed prior to finalizing the
Plan?
353
Thank you!
Follow-up Questions/Comments
Project website:
http://dublinbikeped.org
354
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Item 7.2
DATE: August 16, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Update on the Dublin Boulevard Extension Project Prepared by: Pratyush Bhatia, Transportation and Operations Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
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 the report on the Dublin Boulevard Extension project and provide feedback.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
Background
Dublin Boulevard is a major arterial roadway that connects the entire City from the western city limit to Fallon Road on the east. The roadway is a key route for transit buses, pedestrians, bicyclists, and automobiles, connecting residential, commercial, and public uses, including two BART stations, with several access points to I-580.
The Dublin Boulevard extension project proposes to extend the roadway approximately 1.5 miles from Fallon Road to North Canyons Parkway in the City of Livermore, through an unincorporated portion of Alameda County and has been planned since 1984. The City of Dublin General Plan 355
(GP), the General Plans of Alameda County and the City of Livermore, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), the Fallon Village Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and Plan Bay Area 2040 all include the extension of Dublin Boulevard. The project location is shown in Attachment 1.
Project Description
The City of Dublin is the lead agency for implementing the project. 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, landscaping, and a bridge over Cottonwood Creek. Six travel lanes will be located within the City of Dublin and four travel lanes will be within unincorporated Alameda County and the City of Livermore.
Local and regional planning efforts have identified several transportation goals, which the project, directly and indirectly, helps to achieve. The transportation goals are:
Increase bicycle and pedestrian access and circulation. Interconnect five Priority Development Areas (PDAs) in Dublin and Livermore. Improve overall mobility, access, connectivity, safety, and efficiency of the multimodal transportation system for all users, including goods movement. Provide approaches and technologies that enhance the existing roadway system’s efficiency and capacity without widening streets.
Reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips by providing a transit system along the roadway extension with improved headways during peak periods.
The project provides a needed connection to undeveloped areas within the EDSP area east of Fallon Road and adjacent to the I-580 frontage. The proposed roadway extension also closes a gap in the existing local roadway network connecting Dublin and Livermore. Similarly, the roadway extension provides direct access from PDAs in Livermore (Isabel Avenue/Bay Area Rapid Transit Station) and Dublin (Town Center and Transit Center PDAs) to existing and planned employment and commercial areas in Dublin.
Currently, trips between Dublin and Livermore are completed using I-580. The use of I-580 for local trips adds to congestion on the regional transportation network and indirectly generates additional air pollutants from traffic congestion due to idling vehicles. Additionally, the use of I- 580 for local trips may result in a longer trip length, requiring motorists to go out of their way to reach their destination. The project allows local users to shorten their trip distance by using local streets as well as reduce trips on I-580 by providing an alternate route for local travel.
Project Status
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project was certified and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program was adopted on August 20, 2019 (Resolution No. 90-19). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project was completed in February 2021 with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). NEPA approval makes the project eligible to receive Federal funding.
The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) is the implementing agency for 356
the final design phase in cooperation with Dublin, Livermore, and Alameda County. On May 19, 2020, the City Council approved a Cooperative Agreement with those agencies for the design phase of the project (Resolution No. 38-20). The final design began in spring 2021 and is anticipated to be completed by winter 2023. Currently, the project design is 35% complete.
Dublin’s share of the project is fully funded only through the design phase, coming from the City’s General Fund, Measure BB Grants, the Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation Account (SB-1), and the Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee program (EDTIF).
Near the completion of the design, the Utilities and Right-of-Way phase will begin, which includes the acquisition of street right-of-way and temporary construction easements. This phase is anticipated to take one year to complete.
The Environmental Permitting phase will also begin near the end of the design phase and prior to construction and includes the off-site mitigation for direct and indirect impacts. Construction is anticipated to take 18 months and will not begin until all funding is secured, right-of-way is acquired, and all resource agency permits are issued. It is anticipated that construction of the extension would commence in 2026 provided that the funding is in place.
Project Construction Costs and Funding Sources
The preliminary engineering level cost estimate for the project is currently $151.5 million. This amount, which includes right-of-way, environmental mitigation, and construction costs, is anticipated to be divided among the cities of Dublin and Livermore based on the roadway length in each jurisdiction and the portion of the roadway in unincorporated Alameda County. It is expected that Dublin’s share will be approximately $124 million, and Livermore’s share will be approximately $27.5 million (this assumes that the project costs for the portion located in unincorporated Alameda County will be split evenly).
The table below reflects Dublin’s share of the costs and estimated funding sources, followed by a discussion of cost and funding considerations. The unidentified funding amount that Dublin is responsible for is $47.5 million.
357
Table 1: Project Cost (Dublin Share Only) and Funding Sources Cost Notes and Considerations
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
The project will impact the potential habitat for several special-status species, including the California Tiger Salamander and California red-legged frog. The project will also impact a stream channel, seasonal wetland, and riparian habitat. The project could potentially impact the habitat for several other special-status species, such as the tri-colored blackbird, western pond turtle, San Joaquin kit fox, and burrowing owls. The EIR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion identified 22.7 acres of permanent direct impact due to the construction of the roadway.
Direct permanent impacts will result from the permanent replacement of existing habitat within the footprint of the new road. The EIR identified up to 133.47 acres of permanent indirect impacts south of the roadway. Indirect impacts will result from the isolation of habitat by the new road for lands between the developed areas of the new road and Interstate 580.
Compensatory mitigation for impacts to these species’ habitat is required in accordance with the measures outlined in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS). Mitigation can take the form of purchase of mitigation credits from a mitigation bank or project-specific mitigation or other mitigation plan. The ratio of mitigation to impact varies with the location of the proposed mitigation, and would be 2.5:1 at a minimum, but may be as high as 4:1. The ratio is defined as the acreage of new habitat to the acreage of impacted habitat. The estimated cost of implementing these mitigation measures is approximately $12.5 to $23 million, with the mitigation credits from a mitigation bank being the most expensive. The project costs discussed in this Staff Report assume $23 million in total mitigation costs (roughly $4.4 million in direct mitigation and $18.6 in indirect mitigation).
Project Costs - Dublin
Right-of-way aquisition and construction $101.0
Environmental mitigation $23.0
Total Costs $124.0
Funding Sources
EDTIF $63.0
TVTD $13.5
Total Funding $76.5
Remaining Funding Needed $47.5
358
Right-of-Way Acquisition
The permanent area required for the project, including the roadway, Class I trail, sidewalks, buffered bike lanes, and intersections as street right-of-way is estimated at about 29 acres. The right-of-way needed for the project is located within the highlighted properties in Attachment 2 within the Dublin city limits. All of these properties have conceptual development plans, and a few are in the planning and entitlement phase. Staff is working with each of the property owners to require right-of-way dedication through their entitlements, however, if the roadway project is constructed ahead of the development schedule, the City may need to acquire the right-of-way directly from the property owners.
Funding Notes and Considerations
EDTIF and TVTD
On December 21, 2021, the City Council adopted the update to the EDTIF, which includes this project (Resolution No. 144-21). As development occurs in the East Dublin program area, fees will be collected and will be allocated to the project up to the amount of approximately $63 million.
The project cost included in the updated EDTIF is based on the share of future traffic volume using the Dublin Boulevard extension that is associated with the EDTIF area land use. It should be noted that the EDTIF funding is not expected to be available by the time the construction phase starts but will be collected over the full buildout duration of Eastern Dublin. Staff is exploring ways of advancing this funding until it is collected.
On June 21, 2022, the City Council adopted the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee and received a report on the Nexus Study and Strategic Expenditure Plan, which includes the project and allocates $16 million for the Right-of-Way Phase. A portion of this is anticipated to be allocated to the Livermore share of the project, leaving Dublin with approximately $13.5 million in TVTD funds.
Other Potential Funding
As discussed above, Staff expects this project to have $23 million in total environmental mitigation costs. Of that, the $4.4 million in direct mitigation costs can be covered by the EDTIF program and have been included in the total EDTIF funding shown in this report, leaving $18.6 in indirect mitigation costs not yet funded. Because the indirect mitigation work will serve to benefit the property owners, Staff has engaged the owners in discussions about creating a reimbursement structure whereby the City would be made whole for these costs. Moreover, should the City move forward with advancing both the indirect mitigation funding as well as EDTIF funding, it is anticipated that the project would then become eligible and competitive for Measure BB funds that could cover a significant amount of the remaining $28.9 million for this project.
With that in mind, Staff is continuing to evaluate every federal, state, and local grant opportunity available and work with Alameda CTC to identify sources for Dublin’s share of unfunded project costs. Some opportunities, such as those listed below, were not pursued as the project is still in the early stages of design (i.e., not “shovel-ready") or does not meet the inclusionary or sustainability criteria for these grant programs.
Infrastructure for Building America (INFRA)
359
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
Alameda CTC Comprehensive Investment Program (CIP)
One-Bay Area Grant Cycle 3 (OBAG 3)
Safe Streets for All (SS4A)
Next Steps
Staff continues to work on the project and the next steps include the following:
Continue to coordinate with Zone 7 and Alameda County to review the Cottonwood Creek bridge and improvements along the proposed corridor.
Continue to coordinate with the City of Livermore, Alameda County, and Zone 7 to review the plans, specifications, and estimates.
Develop a funding plan for right-of-way acquisition and continue to work with private property owners.
Develop a funding plan for the construction phase, including the purchase of environmental mitigation land or credits from a mitigation bank.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The City Council Agenda was posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Project Location and Alignment
2) Right-of-Way Acquisition Properties in the City of Dublin 360
Project Location and Alignment
Attachment 1
361
Attachment 2
362
Item 7.2
Update on the Dublin
Boulevard Extension Project
August 16, 2022
363
Project Location and Description
• 1.5 miles extension
• 6 lanes in Dublin to
• 4 lanes in Livermore
• Bike Lanes
• Sidewalk
• Landscaping
• Street Lighting
• Utilities
364
Project Location and Description
• 1.5 miles extension
• 6 lanes in Dublin to
• 4 lanes in Livermore
• Bike Lanes
• Sidewalk
• Landscaping
• Street Lighting
• Utilities
365
Project Description
• 1.5 miles extension
• 6 lanes in Dublin to
• 4 lanes in Livermore
• Bike Lanes
• Sidewalk
• Landscaping
• Street Lighting
• Utilities
Typical section from Fallon Road to Croak Road
Typical section east of Croak Road and through County to Livermore 366
Project Status
• CEQA completed – EIR w/ MMRP , Aug 2019
• NEPA completed – EA w/ FONSI, Feb 2021
• Cooperative Agreement with Livermore & Alameda CTC
for Design Phase
• MOA Design Review ($300,330 Dublin; $127,770
Livermore)
• Design Phase began in May 2021; 35% review complete
• Anticipated completion of Design Phase: Winter 2023
• Right-of-Way and Environmental Phases begin towards
the end of Design Phase.
• Construction anticipated to begin in 2026 if funding
available.
367
Environmental Impacts
Habitat within Biological Study Area
• 1.5 miles extension
• 6 lanes in Dublin to
• 4 lanes in Livermore
• Bike Lanes
• Sidewalk
• Landscaping
• Street Lighting
• Utilities
368
Environmental Impacts
Mitigation
• 1.5 miles extension
• 6 lanes in Dublin to
• 4 lanes in Livermore
• Bike Lanes
• Sidewalk
• Landscaping
• Street Lighting
• Utilities
• Permanent direct and indirect potential loss of habitat for special status species
– California Tiger Salamander and Red-legged Frog
– Potential Impact to several other species (San Joaquin kit fox, tri-colored blackbird, western pond turtle, and burrowing owls) – Impacts to stream channel, seasonal wetlands and riparian habitat
– Ratio of mitigation to impact ranges from 2.5:1(minimum) to 4:1 • Estimated perm impacts: direct 22.7 acres (CRLF , CTS); indirect 133.47 acres (CRLF , CTS)
• Mitigation can take the form of purchase of mitigation credits from a mitigation bank or off-site mitigation;
Estimated cost $12.5M-23M
369
Right-of-Way Acquisition
• 28 acres
• Conceptual Development
• Planning and Entitlement
Phase
• Dedication or Acquisition
370
Project Costs
• Project Cost (2020 preliminary engineering level
estimate) : $151.5M
– Right-of-Way and Environmental: $47.5M
– Construction: $104M
• Divided between Dublin and Livermore based on
roadway length.
• Unincorporated Alameda County costs split evenly
– Dublin: $124M
– Livermore: $27.5M
371
Project Costs Dublin
Costs in Millions
372
Funding Considerations
• EDTIF Update Adopted December 21, 2021
– EDTIF funding of $63M not expected by construction
– Staff exploring ways to advance funding
• TVTD fee adopted June 21, 2022: $16M for project,
$13.5M for Dublin.
• Environmental Impacts
– Direct Impact mitigation cost $4.4M included in EDTIF – Indirect Impact mitigation cost $18.6M not funded
373
Potential Funding
• Indirect Impact Mitigation ($18.6M) benefits property owners
– Staff has engaged owners to create a reimbursement
structure
• Remaining Dublin cost assuming EDTIF, TVTD,
indirect impact mitigation cost reimbursement-
$28.9M
– $63M(EDTIF)
– $13.5M(TVTD)
– $18.6M(Owner Reimbursement)
• Potential Funding
– State and Federal Grants, Measure BB
374
Next Steps
• Continue to work with Zone 7 and Alameda County
– review of Cottonwood Creek, bridge and
improvements
• Continue to work with City of Livermore, Alameda
County and Zone 7 – review of the Design
• Funding Plan for Right-of-way Acquisition including
Environmental Mitigation Land or Bank, and continue
to work with private property owners
• Funding Plan for Construction Phase
375
Thank Y ou
https://dublin.ca.gov/1919/Dublin-
Boulevard-Extension
376
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Item 8.1
DATE: August 16, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Review of Childcare in Downtown Dublin
Prepared by: John Stefanski, Assistant to the City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
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.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
This item is in response to an Item 9 request by the City Council for information regarding childcare in the Downtown neighborhood.
Background
The State of California Department of Social Services is responsible for licensing and regulating childcare facilities. Childcare is generally provided in licensed Family Childcare Homes or in licensed Childcare Centers (licensed childcare providers). Family Childcare Homes include both Small Family (up to eight children) and Large Family (up to 14 children). Childcare Centers include Infant Centers, Day Care Centers, and School Age Day Care Centers (Extended Day Child Care). Data and Information provided in this report was provided by the Department of Social Services and details only those licensed childcare facilities.
Within the City there are 109 licensed childcare providers whose services include a mix of either Infant Care, Day Care Centers, and School Age Day Care Centers/Extended Day Child Care (EDCC) 377
or are Small Home Childcare Providers. In total, these providers are licensed to accommodate 3,596 children, and are mostly concentrated west of Hacienda Drive, except for Small Home Providers which are predominately located east of Hacienda Drive.
Table 1: Citywide Childcare Services by Location1
Childcare Services East of Hacienda West of Hacienda
Day Care Center 3 19
Infant Center 0 6
School Age Day Care Center 5 5
Small Family Providers 40 31
Total Providers 48 61
Total Licensed Capacity 1,516 2,080
The availability of childcare providers located west of Hacienda Drive in Downtown Dublin, narrows considerably, however several additional options exist within a half-mile radius of the Downtown Dublin boundary lines:
Table 2: Downtown Childcare Services2
Childcare Services Downtown Dublin Downtown Plus
Half-Mile Radius
Day Care Center 6 6
Infant Center 3 2
School Age Day Care Center 1 2
Small Family Providers 1 7
Total Providers 11 17
Total Licensed Capacity 575 1,629
Barriers to Accessing Childcare
In preparation of this item, Staff met with representatives from Hively, a Childcare Resource and Referral Agency, to better understand childcare access in Dublin. From Hively’s perspective, childcare is generally available in Dublin. It is their view that the challenge facing families is the lack of available transportation to afterschool childcare for children not enrolled in onsite extended care school programs. Data from Hively shows that there are only five childcare providers in the City that provide transportation for children, two of which are in Downtown Dublin. Furthermore, demand for extended care programs typically exceeds supply, with all eight offered in Dublin through Extended Day Child Care (EDCC), maintaining waitlists.
EDCC does not give priority enrollment to the children of low-income parents; “enrollment eligibility” is granted for siblings of students that are currently enrolled or children of DUSD district employees, and remaining enrollment is handled through a lottery system. Parents of children not in EDCC or programs with transportation must make separate arrangements to have their children transported to their off-site childcare.
1 Data provided by the California State Department of Social Services. 2 Data provided by the California State Department of Social Services. 378
DUSD has partnered with LAVTA to provide dedicated bus service to middle and high schools in Dublin, with four regular routes offered during the school year. LAVTA does not offer transit options for elementary-school-aged children.
Support for Low-Income Dublin Families
Hively assists families in Dublin with finding childcare either through providing childcare referrals or connecting families with vouchers which help pay for Hively registered childcare providers. Of the 109 providers in the City, 72 are registered with Hively. Eighty-three Dublin children currently receive childcare vouchers.
The Voucher Program automatically enrolls parents who are on CalWORKs; however, for parents not on CalWORKs, it takes Hively anywhere between two and four weeks to process voucher applications. Application processing priority is also given to children who are from lower-income homes, are at-risk or foster youth, or are involved in Child Protective Services.
In recent years, funding for childcare has increased substantially from all levels of government, boosting the capacity of childcare providers. Recently, the State expanded the California Alternative Payment Program (i.e., childcare vouchers) to include essential workers, thereby allowing for families who are over the income qualifications to take advantage of the program.
Additional State grants for capacity building of childcare providers have also become more readily available.
Discussion
Forecasting Future Childcare Demand in the Downtown
Dublin Unified School District utilizes yield rates per residential developments to forecast the number of students generated per housing unit. In the Downtown plan area, there is anticipated to be between 2,500-3,000 units based on the updated plans for the Housing Element. Currently, there are five multi-family projects developed in Downtown Dublin, of which only one is considered affordable (Valor Crossing – 66 units). It is anticipated that two additional affordable projects will be constructed in the next two to three years (Amador Station/Bridge Housing and Regional Street), adding 422 units for very low-, low- and moderate-income households.
Assuming these parameters, the estimated TK through Grade 8 student yield from downtown residential development is 584 students, of which 185 would be considered low income.
Furthermore, Staff estimates that 439 of these students will be in grades TK-5, 134 of which would be low income. Staff is unable to estimate the total number of children under this age group due to unavailable Census data. Table 3 & 4 below details this further.
Table 3: Student Yield Estimates at Neighborhood Buildout Development Units Total Student
Yield
TK-5 Student
Yield
6-8 Student
Yield
High Density Yield Rate 0.133 0.036
Connolly Station 309 52 41 11
Aster 313 53 42 11
379
Valor Crossing 66 11 9 2
The Perch 60 10 8 2
Elegance 35 0 0 0
Avalon West 499 113 79 34
Regional Street 114 0 0 0
Amador Station/Bridge
Housing
308 141 99 42
Remaining Downtown Units 1,209 204 161 44
Total 584 439 146
Table 4: Low Income Student Yield Estimates at Neighborhood Buildout Development Affordable
Units
Total Student
Yield
TK-5 Student
Yield
6-8 Student
Yield
High Density Yield Rate 0.133 0.036
Connolly Station 0 0 0 0
Aster 103 9 6 2
Valor Crossing 66 11 9 2
The Perch 0 0 0 0
Elegance 0 0 0 0
Avalon West 0 0 0 0
Regional Street 0 0 0 0
Amador Station/Bridge
Housing
308 141 99 42
Remaining Downtown Units 151 26 20 5
Total 185 134 51
These calculations assume that (1) Elegance and Regional Street are senior housing developments and will not generate students; (2) the remaining downtown unit count is based off of 2,913 units; and (3) the Aster project is 33% affordable to account for its transition to “Middle-Income” housing; (4) Amador Station and Avalon West are based off of DUSD development specific student generation calculations, from which staff extrapolated the Grades TK-5 and 6-8 breakdowns.
Policy Considerations and Opportunities
Historically, the City has relied on a Semi-Public Facilities Policy (Resolution 21-04) which established a standard for the provision of Semi-Public designated land within new development provided by a General Plan Amendment. The Policy requires that:
“new residential development subject to the policy shall strive to provide sites for Semi- Public Facilities land uses at a rate of 1 acre (net) per 1,000 residents. In practice, General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment applications shall strive to provide .5 acres of land designated for Public/Semi-Public Facilities per 150 units of single-family density and/or .5 acres of land designated Public/Semi Public facilities per 250 units of medium density or greater density or increments and combinations thereof.” 380
As a result of implementing the Policy in 2004, the City was able to guide the development of the Childcare Center at Emerald Vista, Springfield Montessori School, and the School of Imagination on properties designated as Public/Semi-Public.
With an anticipated demand of over 400 new children in grades TK-5 in the Downtown, Staff estimates that at least three childcare providers with a capacity of 80-100 children each would be required to meet this increased demand. Currently, the private market is responding to citywide demand with two childcare facilities under construction in the City and one planning application to construct a daycare facility in the Downtown.
However, the City could spur the development of additional childcare facilities in the Downtown through the Community Benefit Agreement process in working with potential developers to dedicate land for, construct, or provide funding for new childcare facilities. The City could also supplement these efforts with a new grant program to assist with the capital costs associated with developing new childcare centers. Transportation for afterschool childcare would still require a solution, which could be achieved through partnerships with LAVTA and potential City subsidy.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The City Council Agenda was posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
381
Item 8.1
Review of Childcare in Downtown
Dublin
August 16, 2022
382
Background
• State Department of Social Services licenses and
regulates childcare facilities.
Childcare Centers Family Childcare Homes
Infant Centers Small Family (8 children max.)
Day Care Centers Large Family (14 children max.)
School Aged Day Care Centers
• Total of 109 Licensed facilities in Dublin
• Licensed capacity of 3,596 children
383
Childcare Geographic Dispersion
Childcare
Services
East of
Hacienda
West of
Hacienda
Downtown
Dublin
Downtown Plus
(.5 mi radius)
Day Care Center
3 19 6 6
Infant Center 0 6 3 2
School Age Day
Care Center
5 5 1 2
Family Childcare
Providers
40 31 1 7
Small Family 20 15 1 1
Large Family 20 16 0 6
T otal Providers 48 61 11 17
T otal Licensed
Capacity
1,516 2,080 575 1,629
384
Childcare Access
• Transportation for school-aged children
• Demand exceeds supply for EDCC
– EDCC programs give no priority for low-income
families.
• Hively voucher program available to low-income
families.
385
Future Demand in the Downtown
• Staff report forecasts potential childcare
demand for the Downtown.
– Utilizing DUSD student yield rates, and assumptions
around current and future residential development.
Student Yield TK-5 6-8 To t a l
To t a l 439 146 584
Low-Income 134 51 185
386
Policy Considerations & Opportunities
• Semi-Public Facilities Policy (2004)
– Emerald Vista, Springfield Montessori, & School of
Imagination.
• Private Market responding to citywide demand
– Two childcare facilities under construction and one
planning application in for the Downtown.
• Utilize Community Benefit Agreement Process.
– Land dedications, facility construction, etc.
• New City grant programs to assist with capital
costs.
• Transportation still requires a solution.
387
Questions?
388
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Item 8.2
DATE: August 16, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Designation of Voting Delegates for the 2022 National League of Cities City Summit
Prepared by: Marsha Moore, MMC, City Clerk
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
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.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Sufficient funds have been allocated for attendance at the November 2022 Conference.
DESCRIPTION:
The National League of Cities (NLC) is an organization through which city officials work together on a national level to further their common interests and the interests of their citizens.
The NLC City Summit is scheduled to be held November 17-19, 2022, in Kansas City, Missouri.
During this conference, the annual business meeting is held, at which each member city is afforded the opportunity to shape the NLC’s federal advocacy agenda for the upcoming year by casting a vote on preferred policy recommendations. In accordance with the NLC By-Laws, Article IV, Section 2 Member Voting (Attachment 1), the City gets two votes and is allowed one voting delegate, and two alternates to cast those votes for the November 2022 conference. For the City of Dublin to participate in this meeting, the City Council needs to appoint a voting delegate, and alternates, to attend and vote on the City’s behalf at the Summit. 389
Once City Councilmembers have been appointed, notification of the voting delegate and alternate(s) will be forwarded to the NLC.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The City Council Agenda was posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) NLC By-Laws
390
1 Bylaws of the
National League
of Cities
Amended on November 19, 2016
ARTICLE I.
NAME, OBJECTS, MEANS, AND DEFINITIONS
Section 1. NAME, OBJECTS, AND MEANS. The name of the organization shall be the National League of Cities (NLC). It shall be a 501 (c) (4) nonprofit organization incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois. The National League of Cities is dedicated to advancing the public interest, building democracy and community, and improving the quality of life by strengthening the capacity of local governments and advocating for the interests of local communities.
As custodians of democratic values, local government officials work together through the National League of Cities and their state municipal leagues to safeguard the authorities and improve the capabilities of general-purpose local governments to respond to the needs and aspirations of the people.
Local government officials act together through the National League of Cities and their state municipal leagues to express and advocate for their common interests and views as responsible partners in the federal system of governance.
Section 2. DEFINITIONS. As used herein, the words "city," "municipality," "local government," and "general-purpose local governments" shall mean any city, town or township, village, borough, or county that is a corporate entity or functions as such. The term "capacity" Attachment 1
391
2 references the means and ability to carry out the responsibilities of general-purpose local governments. The term "state" shall include any state, territory, or possession of the United States.
ARTICLE II.
MEMBERS
Section 1. MEMBER LEAGUES. Any state league or municipality or substantially similar organization (the dues of which are paid by municipalities and consisting of not less than ten active members) is eligible for membership in NLC and may be admitted as a member league upon filing the proper application and receiving the approval of the Board of Directors.
Section 2. MEMBER CITIES. Any city in the United States may, upon payment of the prescribed annual dues, become a member city and, as such, be entitled to all the services and privileges of NLC. It is herein provided that no city which is eligible to, but elects not to, hold membership in its respective state league shall be eligible for membership in NLC.
Section 3. AFFILIATE MEMBER CITIES. If a member state league participates in NLC’s Affiliate Member Program, any city in such state, upon fulfillment of the requirements of its state league, may become an Affiliate Member City. An Affiliate Member City shall be entitled to all services and privileges provided by NLC and its member leagues. Elected Municipal officials of eligible affiliate cities shall be entitled to attend and participate in all organizational meetings of NLC, subject to rules and procedures set forth by the Board of Directors.
Section 4. STATE LEAGUE CITY. Any city, upon fulfillment of the requirements of its member state leagues, shall be eligible to become an NLC State League City. An NLC State League City shall be entitled to all the general services furnished to municipalities through the member state leagues. Such state league cities will not have the voting privileges of member cities and member state leagues.
392
3 ARTICLE III.
OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Section 1. LEAGUE OFFICERS. The officers of the National League of Cities shall be: a President, a First Vice President, a Second Vice President, an Immediate Past President, and an Executive Director. The Executive Director shall be appointed by the Board of Directors and shall hold office at the pleasure of that Board. The Executive Director shall be Secretary and Treasurer of NLC. The President, the First Vice President, and the Second Vice President, all of whom are elected at the annual meeting, shall hold office for one year, or until their successors are qualified. The term of office of all newly-elected and designated officers shall commence immediately upon adjournment of the annual meeting.
Section 2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS. The affairs of the National League of Cities shall be governed by a Board of Directors consisting of: the President, the First Vice President, the Second Vice President, the Chief Executive Officers from eight (8) member leagues, and forty (40) additional at-large members, all selected in the manner provided in Article III, Section 6 and Article IV. In addition, all Past Presidents still in elective office in a member city, and the Chair of each NLC standing Federal Advocacy Committee shall serve on the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall conduct the affairs of NLC when representatives of the membership are not assembled, including by a majority vote of Board of Directors members, determination or modification of national municipal policies, or adoption of resolutions on national legislation affecting cities. The Board of Directors may refer to the membership through the mail or electronically on any matter which is not otherwise provided for in these bylaws, the voting thereon to be as provided in Article IV, Section 5.
Section 3. TERMS. At-large members of the Board of Directors (referred to here as “Director”) shall serve a term of two (2) years from the date of their election. Directors shall take office immediately following the close of the annual meeting at which they are elected. No Director shall serve more than two (2) two-year terms. Fulfilling an incomplete term is not considered part of the term limit. Director terms shall be staggered so that approximately half the number of Directors will end their term in any given year.
393
4 Section 4: POWERS AND DUTIES OF OFFICERS. The powers and duties of the Officers of the National League of Cities shall be indicated by the general definition of the title of their offices. The President shall establish and appoint such committees as may be necessary, provided that standing Board committees shall be established by a majority vote of the Board of Directors and their membership appointed by the President. The Executive Director shall transact the financial business of NLC and keep a complete record of all transactions and, with such assistants and staff personnel as necessary, shall perform such other duties as NLC or the Board of Directors shall direct and shall receive such compensation as the Board of Directors may prescribe.
Section 5. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. There shall be an Executive Committee composed of the following members of the Board: the President, the First Vice President, the Second Vice President, the two (2) most immediate Past Presidents still in elective office in a member city, two (2) Chief Executive Officers of member leagues recommended by the President and approved by the Board, and up to three (3) members of the Board recommended by the President and approved by the Board. NLC’s Executive Director shall also serve on the Committee in an ex officio capacity. The Executive Committee may exercise the powers of the Board between meetings of the Board unless otherwise specified by the Board. A majority of the members of the Executive Committee shall comprise a quorum. The Executive Committee shall meet at the call of the President or of a majority of its members. All official actions taken by the Executive Committee shall be reported to the Board at its next meeting or as otherwise specified by the Board.
Section 6. QUALIFICATIONS. Each elected officer of the National League of Cities shall be, at the time of their election, an elected official of a member city. Each Board member shall be, at the time of their election, an elected official of a member city or a chief executive officer, or equivalent officer of a member league.
Section 7. ELECTIONS. The elected officers and other members of the Board of the National League of Cities shall be elected in the manner provided for in Article IV. Nominations for all officers and Board members, except Past Presidents still in elective office in a member city and the Chairs of each standing federal advocacy committee, shall be made by a nominating 394
5 committee of not less than six (6) nor more than fourteen (14) members from member leagues and member cities and the most Immediate Past President, all of whom shall be appointed by the President. Nominations shall take into consideration the diversity of the membership. The Immediate Past President shall serve as Chair of the Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee shall make its report in writing at least four hours before the scheduled election.
Section 8. VACANCIES. A vacancy shall occur in any office of the National League of Cities in the event that the person holding the office resigns or ceases to possess the essential qualifications for election to office as provided in Article III, Section 6. A vacancy in the office of President shall be filled by the succession of the First Vice President to that office. A vacancy in the office of the First Vice President shall be filled by the succession of the Second Vice President to that office. A vacancy in the office of the Second Vice President or other elected member of the Board of Directors shall continue until a new qualified person is elected under Article Ill, Section 7, unless it is filled for the unexpired term by a person selected by a majority vote of the remaining members of the Board of Directors. A vacancy which occurs for a person serving as a member of the Board of Directors as a Past President, a Federal Advocacy Committee Chair, or a Chief Executive Officer of a member league because that person ceases to possess the essential qualifications provided in Article III, Section 6 shall continue until a new, qualified Past President, Chair or Chief Executive Officer assumes such position on the Board of Directors.
Section 9. ADVISORY COUNCIL. The Board of Directors shall establish an Advisory Council, which shall consist of previous members of the Board of Directors who remain in elected office. The duties, responsibilities, and leadership of the Advisory Council shall be determined by the Board of Directors.
ARTICLE IV.
MEETINGS, VOTING, AND NATIONAL POLICIES
Section 1. MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS. An annual meeting of the membership shall take place during the organization’s fall conference. At the annual meeting, the memberships shall 395
6 elect directors and officers, receive reports on activities of the association, and adopt national municipal policies for the coming year. The President may also call a special meeting of the membership. The time, place, and program of the annual meeting shall be determined by a motion of the Board of Directors. Notices of meetings for members shall be delivered to the mailing address or electronic address designated by the members not less than thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60) days before such meetings, provided that any notices required by this section may be waived before such meetings.
Section 2. MEMBER VOTING. In all meetings requiring the official decision of the National League of Cities, each member league shall be entitled to twenty votes. Each member city shall be entitled to one to twenty votes based upon population as follows:
Under 50,000 l vote
50,000- 99,999 2 votes
100,000- 199,999 4 votes
200,000 - 299,999 6 votes
300,000- 399,999 8 votes
400,000 - 499,999 10 votes
500,000-599,999 12 votes
600,000 - 699,999 14 votes
700,000 - 799,999 16 votes
800,000- 899,999 18 votes
900,000 and above 20 votes
Member cities, but not member leagues, shall be required to cast unanimous votes.
It shall be the duty of the President in advance of or at the beginning of any such meeting to appoint a credentials committee of three persons, at least one of whom shall be a representative of a member city. As soon as practicable after the naming of the credentials committee, each member league shall designate one or more voting delegates not to exceed the number of votes to 396
7 which it is entitled, and may designate alternate voting delegates not to exceed the number of its voting delegates. Each member city shall designate one voting delegate and may designate one alternate voting delegate. It shall be the duty of the credentials committee to settle any dispute concerning the voting rights of members and their voting delegates and alternate voting delegates, the number of votes each is entitled to cast, and the total number of votes of all the members of NLC.
All voting shall be by voice vote unless a weighted vote is demanded by ten percent or more of the certified votes present at the meeting. When the weighted vote is taken, voting shall be limited to the duly certified voting delegates, or their alternates, each casting the total number of votes to which the voter is entitled by the certified voting roll. A majority vote of the certified votes present at the meeting shall be required for the election of any officer or member of the Board of Directors, or for passage of any matter of business brought before the business meeting.
There shall be no voting by proxy.
Section 3. MEMBER QUORUM. A quorum at the annual business meeting or special meeting shall consist of majority of the votes certified to the meeting.
Section 4. MEMBER RESOLUTIONS ON POLICIES. Resolutions on national legislation affecting cities shall be submitted to the voting delegates in writing by the Board of Directors, by a resolution committee appointed therefore, or by special petition, provided that such petition is presented to the annual convention by ten (10) voting delegates with the consent of a majority vote. A two-thirds vote shall be necessary to adopt all resolutions.
Section 5. BALLOTS BY MAIL OR ELECTRONICALLY. Except as otherwise expressly provided by these bylaws, a matter of business may be submitted to a vote of the membership through the mail or electronically. If submitted through the mail, a response from a member league shall bear the signature of the President and the countersignature of the Chief Executive Officer of such member leagues, and the response from a member city shall bear the signature of the Mayor. If submitted electronically, the response must come from the electronic address designated by the member. Weighted voting shall be in effect in all balloting through the mail or electronically.
397
8 Section 6. BOARD MEETINGS. Notices of meetings of the Board of Directors shall be delivered through the mail to the mailing address or electronically to the email address designated by the members of the Board of Directors not less than five (5) nor more than forty (40) days before such meetings, unless otherwise required by law, provided that any notices required by this section may be waived before such meetings. A majority of the directors present at a meeting shall constitute a quorum, provided that a quorum consists of no less than one-third of the directors then in office. An act of the majority of the directors present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be considered an act of the Board of Directors, unless otherwise required by the articles of incorporation or these bylaws.
ARTICLE V.
FINANCIAL MATTERS
Section 1. DUES AND CHARGES. The annual membership dues of the National League of Cities, and the schedule of fees or systems of charges for all other services of NLC, shall be established by a resolution of the Board of Directors. Within such resolution, general limits may be set by NLC in annual meetings. Annual membership dues and annual service charges shall be due the first day of the membership year for which they are assessed.
Section 2. FISCAL YEAR. The fiscal year of the National League of Cities shall be from October 1 to September 30, inclusive of those dates.
Section 3. ANNUAL BUDGET. The revenues and expenditures of the National League of Cities shall be planned and approved through an annual budget, and financial obligations shall be incurred based on that budget. The annual budget shall be prepared by the Executive Director under the direction of the Board of Directors. The budget shall be approved by the Board of Directors.
Section 4. ANNUAL AUDIT. An annual audit shall be made of the financial affairs of the National League of Cities by a certified public accountant designated or approved by the Board of Directors.
398
9 ARTICLE VI.
AMENDMENTS
These bylaws may be repealed or amended at the annual meeting of the membership, or through the mail or electronically. In the case of an annual meeting, a two-thirds majority of the certified votes cast at the meeting shall be necessary to pass such an amendment. In the case that an amendment is submitted through the mail or electronically, a two-thirds majority of the votes cast shall be necessary to pass such an amendment. Amendments may be proposed either by initiatory petitions signed by members present at the meeting or by resolution of the Board of Directors, provided notice of such proposed amendments to be voted on at the annual meeting shall be delivered to all members not less than fifteen days prior to that annual meeting.
In the case that an amendment is submitted through the mail or electronically, not less than forty days shall elapse before the votes are canvassed by two members of the Board of Directors. Such amendments, when adopted through the mail or electronically, shall become effective ten days after the votes are canvassed and written notice of adoption is delivered to the membership.
ARTICLE VII.
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
Except as provided in these bylaws, and such official rules and procedures for the conduct of business meetings as may be adopted by the Board of Directors, the procedures defined in Robert's Rules of Order (revised edition) shall prevail in matters of parliamentary procedure. 399