Cities Index.
Agenda packet

Dublin City Council
August 16, 2022

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
August 16, 2022
Body
Dublin City Council
Pages
128
Original file
72.6 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net. That file is the official record.

August 16, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 1

COUNCILMEMBERS City Council Chamber
Melissa Hernandez, Mayor Dublin Civic Center
Jean Josey, Vice Mayor 100 Civic Plaza
Shawn Kumagai, Councilmember Dublin, CA 94568
Dr. Sherry Hu, Councilmember www.dublin.ca.gov
Michael McCorriston, Councilmember

Regular Meeting of the

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL

Tuesday, August 16, 2022 Location: City Council Chamber 100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568

CLOSED SESSION 6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 PM

Pursuant to AB 361, the City is authorized to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public, without making available any physical location for the public.

Additional Meeting Procedures Available During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This City Council meeting will be broadcast live on Comcast T.V. channel 28 beginning at 7:00 p.m. This meeting will also be livestreamed at www.tv30.org and on the City’s website at: https://dublin.ca.gov/ccmeetings

Members of the public who wish to participate in the meeting electronically have the option of giving public comment via Zoom, subject to the following procedures:

 Fill out an online speaker slip available at www.dublin.ca.gov. The speaker slip will be made available at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 16, 2022. Upon submission, you will receive Zoom link information from the City Clerk. Speakers slips will be accepted until the public comment period ends, or until the public comment period on non-agenda items is closed.

 Once connected to the Zoom platform using the Zoom link information from the City Clerk, the public speaker will be added to the Zoom webinar as an attendee and muted. The speaker will be able to observe the meeting from the Zoom platform.

 When the agenda item upon which the individual would like to comment is addressed, the City Clerk will announce the speaker in the meeting when it is their time to give public comment. The speaker will then be unmuted to give public comment via Zoom.
1 August 16, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 2

CLOSED SESSION 6:00 PM

I. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: 1 case.

II. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: APN 985-27-2 and APN 905-1-6-3
Agency Negotiator: City Manager
Negotiating Parties: GH PacVest LLC
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment

III. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: APN 901-1-5-2
Agency Negotiator: City Manager
Negotiating Parties: Milton Righetti and Gloria Righetti Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment

IV. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: APN 905- 1-1-2 and APN 905-1-3-2
Agency Negotiator: City Manager
Negotiating Parties: Livbor Manning LLC
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment

V. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: APN 905-1-4-4
Agency Negotiator: City Manager
Negotiating Parties: Bex Development LLC
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment

VI. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: APN 905-1-4-3
Agency Negotiator: City Manager
Negotiating Parties: Town and County H Fund LLC and CHMH Dublin LLC Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment

REGULAR MEETING 7:00 PM

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2 August 16, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 3

3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

3.1 Presentation of a Resolution from Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan Recognizing the City of Dublin's 40th Anniversary
The City Council will receive a resolution from Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan in recognition of the City of Dublin's 40th Anniversary.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the resolution.

3.2 Employee Introduction
New City of Dublin Staff member, Jason Earl, Senior Management Analyst in the Community Development Department, will be introduced.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Welcome the new City of Dublin Staff member.

Staff Report

3.3 Presentation of American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month Proclamation The City Council will present the American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month proclamation.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Present the proclamation.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month Proclamation

3.4 Public Comment
At this time, the public is permitted to address the City Council on non-agendized items. Please step to the podium and clearly state your name for the record. COMMENTS SHOULD NOT EXCEED THREE (3) MINUTES. In accordance with State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Council may respond to statements made or questions asked, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Any member of the public may contact the City Clerk’s Office related to the proper procedure to place an item on a f uture City Council agenda. The exceptions under which the City Council MAY discuss and/or take action on items not appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(1)(2)(3).

4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the City Council with one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or the City Council who would like an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purposes of public input may request the Mayor to remove the item.

4.1 Approval of the July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the minutes of the July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes

3 August 16, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 4

4.2 Review of Two-Year Strategic Plan Accomplishments
The City Council will receive the final status update for the City’s 2020-2022 Strategic Plan.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the report.

Staff Report

4.3 City Proclamations for the Month of September
The City Council will consider the following proclamations for the month of September in the City of Dublin: Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month, Wilderness Month, Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, Childhood Obesity Awareness Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, Preparedness Month, Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, and Suicide Prevention Awareness Month.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the proclamations.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Alcohol Drug and Addiction Recovery Month Proclamation Attachment 2 - Wilderness Month Proclamation
Attachment 3 - Childhood Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation Attachment 4 - Childhood Obesity Awareness Month Proclamation Attachment 5 - Hispanic Heritage Month Proclamation
Attachment 6 - Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation Attachment 7 - Preparedness Month Proclamation
Attachment 8 - Prostate Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation Attachment 9 - Suicide Prevention Awareness Month Proclamation

4.4 Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Outdoor Seating (PLPA-2022-00020) On July 19, 2022, the City Council considered City-initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to continue to facilitate outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments on a long-term temporary basis to aid in the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Amendments are proposed to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit). The City Council waived the first reading and introduced the Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council is now requested to hold a second reading of the proposed Ordinance.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Waive the second reading and adopt the Ordinance Approving Amendments to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit).

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Ordinance Approving Amendments to Dublin Municipal Code Section

8.12.050, Section 8.76.080, and Section 8.108.020 Effective City-wide Attachment 2 - City Council Staff Report, Dated July 19, 2022, Without Attachments

4 August 16, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 5

4.5 Authorizing Remote Meetings of City Council and City Commissions Due to Increase in COVID-19 Cases
From March 2020 through September 2021, the City conducted meetings of its legislative bodies remotely pursuant to various executive orders that suspended certain Brown Act provisions. In October 2021, the City returned to in-person meetings and the Brown Act was amended to allow for teleconferencing during a state of emergency. Under the new law, AB 361, the City can continue to conduct virtual meetings where the Governor has proclaimed a State of Emergency, or state or local health officials have imposed or recommended social distancing, if the City Council makes certain required findings.

From January 11 – February 10, 2022, and since May 3, 2022, the City Council has operated under a resolution pursuant to AB 361 authorizing teleconferenced meetings for at least 30 days. The City Council will consider adopting a resolution that would allow for virtual attendance for the next 30 days.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Finding That There is a Proclaimed State of Emergency; Finding That Meeting in Person Would Present Imminent Risks to the Health or Safety of Attendees as a Result of the State of Emergency; and Authorizing Remote Teleconferenced Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Dublin Pursuant to AB 361.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution Finding That There is a Proclaimed State of Emergency; Finding That Meeting in Person Would Present Imminent Risks to the Health or Safety of Attendees as a Result of the State of Emergency; and Authorizing Remote Teleconferenced Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Dublin Pursuant to AB 361.

4.6 City Treasurer's Informational Report of Investments for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2022
The City Council will receive an informational report of the City’s investments through the quarter ending June 30, 2022 including a monthly transaction ledger. The City’s investment portfolio for this period totaled $378,308,853 (market value) with an average market yield of 2.48%. As required by the Policy, the City Treasurer (Administrative Services Director) affirms that the City is able to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the report of investments for the quarter ending June 30, 2022.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - City of Dublin Investment Report for Period Ending June 30, 2022 Attachment 2 - Transaction Ledger - April through June 2022

4.7 Dublin Transit Center Parking Garage Public Art Project The City Council will receive a report on the public art project planned for the Dublin Transit Center Parking Garage being constructed by Alameda County.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the report.

Staff Report

5 August 16, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 6

4.8 First Amendment to the Agreement with All City Management Services Inc.

The City Council will consider approving an amendment to the agreement with All City Management Inc. to pay for additional crossing guard services rendered in Fiscal Year 2021-22.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Approving Amendment #1 to the Agreement with All City Management Services Inc. for Crossing Guard Services.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution Approving Amendment #1 to the Agreement with All City Management Services Inc. for Crossing Guard Services
Attachment 2 - Exhibit A to the Resolution - Amendment #1 to the Contractor Services Agreement Between the City of Dublin and All City Management Services Inc.

Attachment 3 – Contractor Services Agreement with All City Management Services Inc. for Crossing Guard Services

5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION – None.

6. PUBLIC HEARING

6.1 Dublin Districts—Public Hearing 5: Final Map Selection, Introduction of Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election System
The City Council will hold a Public Hearing to give the community an opportunity to provide feedback regarding the boundaries and composition of the Final Map. The City Council will then review and select a Final Map, and introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election System.

At the February 15, 2022 meeting, the City Council adopted a Resolution Declaring its Intention to Transition From an At-Large Election System to a District-Based Election System. Under California Elections Code, the City must hold a series of Public Hearings to allow the community to provide input on the composition of districts and communities of interest as well as the potential district boundaries, draft maps, and sequence of elections. Maps considered at this
meeting must have been published at least seven days
before the Public Hearing.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the presentation, conduct the Public Hearing to receive input, review and select a Final Map, and waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election System.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election System
Attachment 2 - Resolution Adopting the City of Dublin Official District Map Attachment 3 - Maps 112 and 112B
Item 6.1 PowerPoint Presentation
6 August 16, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 7

7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

7.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update
The City Council will receive an update on the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, which updates and replaces the City’s 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and will inform future infrastructure and program and policy recommendations.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the report on the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update and provide feedback.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Attachment 2 - Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Supplemental Design Guidance Item 7.1 PowerPoint Presentation

7.2 Update on the Dublin Boulevard Extension Project
The City Council will receive an update on the Dublin Boulevard Extension Project. The City of Dublin, in cooperation with the City of Livermore, Alameda County Transportation Commission, and Alameda County, proposes to extend Dublin Boulevard approximately

1.5 miles eastward through unincorporated Alameda County and connect to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore, from its current terminus at Fallon Road. The extension is planned to have four to six travel lanes, a Class I trail on the north side, buffered bike lanes, sidewalks, traffic signals, streetlights, utilities, and landscaping.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive report on the Dublin Boulevard Extension project and provide feedback.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Project Location and Alignment
Attachment 2 - Right-of-Way Acquisition Properties in the City of Dublin Item 7.2 PowerPoint Presentation

8. NEW BUSINESS

8.1 Review of Childcare in Downtown Dublin
The City Council will receive a report reviewing childcare within the City and in the Downtown. This item is in response to an Item 9 request by the City Council for information regarding childcare, particularly for those families living in affordable units in the Downtown area.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the report.

Staff Report
Item 8.1 PowerPoint Presentation

8.2 Designation of Voting Delegates for the 2022 National League of Cities City Summit The City Council will consider appointing a voting delegate, and up to two alternates, to attend and vote on the City’s behalf at the National League of Cities City Summit in November 2022.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Discuss the item and appoint a voting delegate, and up to two alternates, to attend and vote, on the City’s behalf, at the National League of Cities City Summit in November 2022.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - NLC By-Laws
7 August 16, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 8

9. OTHER BUSINESS
Brief information only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB1234).

10. ADJOURNMENT

This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a)

If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make a request for disability- related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833-6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.

Mission

The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, fosters new opportunities, provides equity across all programs, and champions a culture of diversity and inclusion.

8 STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 1 ends

Agenda Item 3.2
DATE: August 16, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Employee Introduction
Prepared by: Sarah Monnastes, Human Resources Director
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

New City of Dublin Staff member, Jason Earl, Senior Management Analyst in the Community Development Department, will be introduced.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Welcome the new City of Dublin Staff member.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None.

DESCRIPTION:

New City of Dublin Staff member, Jason Earl, Senior Administrative Analyst in the Community Development Department, will be introduced.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:

None.
9 STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item 3.3
DATE: August 16, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Presentation of American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month Proclamation
Prepared by: Cierra Fabrigas, Executive Aide
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will present the American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month proclamation.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Present the proclamation.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None.

DESCRIPTION:

At the July 19, 2022 meeting, as part of the Consent Calendar, the City Council approved the American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month Proclamation for the month of August 2022.

The City Council will present the proclamation to representatives of the American Muslim community.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.
10

Page 2 of 2 ends

ATTACHMENTS:
1) American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month Proclamation 11 Attachment 1

A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
“American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month”
WHEREAS, Freedom of religion holds distinction as a cherished right and a fundamental value upon which the law and ethics of the United States are based; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin takes great pride in supporting individual religious freedoms and is strengthened by contributions of its diverse population, including those Americans who practice Islam, and WHEREAS, the earliest Muslim immigrants mostly worked on farms and made significant contributions to early agricultural efforts and approximately one millio n Muslim Americans currently reside in communities throughout California, the highest number in the United States, and
WHEREAS, the citizens of the City of Dublin benefit from Muslim religious, charitable, educational and empowerment organizations that operate within the City, and
WHEREAS, members of the Dublin Muslim community have been strong advocates for equity and inclusion at the municipal and state levels of education and social programs that support all Dubliners, and WHEREAS, it is appropriate t o promote awareness of the many contributions of American Muslims in Dublin and across the nation and extend to them the respect every American deserves.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim August 2022 as “American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month” in the City of Dublin and encourages all citizens DATED: July 19, 2022

Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Shawn Kumagai

Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Jean Josey Councilmember Michael McCorriston 12 STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 1 ends

Agenda Item 4.1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the minutes of the July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None.

DESCRIPTION:

The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
DATE: August 16, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of the July 19, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Prepared by: Marsha Moore, MMC, City Clerk
13 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
Regular Meeting: July 19, 2022

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
July 19, 2022
The following are minutes of the actions taken by the City of Dublin City Council. A full video recording of the meeting with the agenda items indexed and time stamped is available on the City’s website at:https://dublin.ca.gov/ccmeetings
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 PM
A Regular Meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, July 19, 2022, in the City Council Chamber. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM., by Mayor Hernandez. 1) CALL TO ORDER
Attendee Name Status
Melissa Hernandez, Mayor Present
Jean Josey, Vice Mayor Present
Shawn Kumagai, Councilmember Present - via Zoom
Michael McCorriston, Councilmember Present
Dr. Sherry Hu, Councilmember Present - via Zoom (arrived at 7:06 p.m.) 2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

3.1) Employee Introductions
New City of Dublin Staff members, Sunmi Song with the Community Development Department, Maxwell Waechter and Debbie Bell with the Public Works Department, and Kevin Coffee with the Parks and Community Services Department, were introduced.

Golden Shao provided public comment.

3.2) Public Comment
Golden Shao provided public comment.
4) CONSENT CALENDAR

4.1) Approved the June 21, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes. 14 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
July 19, 2022

4.2) Confirmed the recommended appointments of Councilmembers Hu and McCorriston as the 2022 Ad-Hoc Audit Review Committee.

4.3) Adopted Resolution No. 90-22 titled, “Approving A Contract Extension with Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc. for the Provision of Toxicology Testing Services.” Item was pulled from the Consent Calendar.

Golden Shao provided public comment.

4.4) Adopted Resolution No. 91-22 titled, “Approving Project Funding Agreements with Alameda County Transportation Commission for Crosswalk Improvement Projects.”

4.5) Adopted Resolution No. 92-22 titled, “Approving a Second Amendment to the Contract Instructor Services Agreement with Squad Estates dba Skyhawks Tri-Valley East Bay for Recreation Services.”

4.6) Adopted Resolution No. 93-22 titled, “Finding That There is a Proclaimed State of Emergency; Finding that Meeting in Person would Present Imminent Risks to the Health or Safety of Attendees as a Result of the State of Emergency; and Authorizing Remote Teleconferenced Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Dublin Pursuant to AB 361.”

4.7) Adopted Resolution No. 94-22 titled, “Approving the Contract for Transfer and Performance of Mitigation Services, the Agreement Regarding Acquisition of Off-Site Mitigation Property to Accommodate Drainage Ditch Maintenance Obligations, and the Perpetual Conservation Easement Endowment Agreement for Eagle Ridge Preserve – East Property Mitigation Area.”
Item was pulled from the Consent Calendar.

Jeanine Gillengerten provided public comment.

4.8) Received a report of payments issued from June 1, 2022 - June 30, 2022 totaling $6,682,962.04.

4.9) Adopted Resolution No. 95-22 titled, “Summarily Vacating Unused Right-Of-Way on Campus Drive.”

4.10) Approved the following proclamations for the month of August in the City of Dublin:

National Night Out and American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month.

Item was pulled from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Kumagai for comments.

4.11) Adopted Resolution No. 96-22 titled, “Approving the Third Amendment to Land Lease Between the City of Dublin and U.S. Bank National Association.” 15 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
July 19, 2022

4.12) Adopted Resolution No. 97-22 titled, “Approving a Public Art Installation and Maintenance Agreement with Dublin Crossing, LLC., for Public Art at The Boulevard Development.”

4.13) Adopted Resolution No. 98-22 titled, “Authorizing the City Manager to Approve Contract Change Orders with American Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Co., Inc. for the Fallon Sports Park Upper Terrace Parking Lot.”

4.14) Adopted Resolution No. 99-22 titled, “Approving an Amendment to the Agreement Between the City of Dublin and Wesco Graphics, Inc.”
On motion by Vice Mayor Josey, seconded by Councilmember McCorriston, and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted the Consent Calendar items, except items 4.3, 4.7, and 4.10.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Jean Josey, Vice Mayor
SECOND: Michael McCorriston, Councilmember
AYES: Hernandez, Josey, Kumagai, McCorriston, Hu
On motion by Vice Mayor Josey, seconded by Councilmember McCorriston, and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted the remaining Consent Calendar items 4.3, 4.7, and 4.10.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Jean Josey, Vice Mayor
SECOND: Michael McCorriston, Councilmember
AYES: Hernandez, Josey, Kumagai, McCorriston, Hu
5) WRITTEN COMMUNICATION - None.
6) PUBLIC HEARING

6.1) Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Outdoor Seating and Master Fee Schedule Amendments (PLPA-2022-00020)
The City Council received a presentation on City-initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to continue to facilitate outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments on a long-term temporary basis to aid in the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mayor Hernandez opened the public hearing.

Upon receiving no public comment, Mayor Hernandez closed the public hearing.

On motion by Vice Mayor Josey, seconded by Mayor Hernandez, and by unanimous vote, the City Council waived the reading and introduced the Ordinance Approving Amendments to Dublin 16 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
July 19, 2022
Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section

8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit); and adopted Resolution No. 100-22 titled, “Amending the Master Fee Schedule by Extending the Application Fee for Temporary Use Permit – Temporary Outdoor Seating and Site Development Review Waiver – Permanent Outdoor Seating until September 30, 2023.”
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Jean Josey, Vice Mayor
SECOND: Melissa Hernandez, Mayor
AYES: Hernandez, Josey, Kumagai, McCorriston, Hu

6.2) Dublin Districts— Public Hearing 4: Draft Final District Map Review and Community Feedback Opportunity
The City Council held a Public Hearing to give the community an opportunity to provide feedback regarding the boundaries and composition of the Draft Final Maps.

Mayor Hernandez opened the public hearing.

Matthew Aini provided public comment.

Jennifer Situ provided public comment.

Jeanine Gillengerten provided public comment.

Tom Evans provided public comment.

Richard Li provided public comment.

Mayor Hernandez closed the Public Hearing.

Staff asked the City Council to identify their top three maps to start the conversation. The top three maps identified by the City Council were Map 112, the Green Map, and the Pink Map.

Mayor Hernandez called for a break at 9:03 p.m.

Mayor Hernandez reconvened the meeting at 9:12 p.m.

The City Council directed Staff to bring modifications to Districts 1 and 2 on Map 112 to keep the area between Village Parkway and the Iron Horse Trail and north of Amador Valley Road in the same District.

The City Council discussed the proposed and alternative election sequence for Map 112. By consensus, the City Council agreed on the proposed election sequence on Map 112 with Districts 1 and 3 on the ballot in 2024 and Districts 2 and 4 on the ballot in 2026. 17 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
July 19, 2022
7) UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None.
8) NEW BUSINESS - None.
9) OTHER BUSINESS
The City Council and Staff provided brief information-only reports, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB1234). 10) ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hernandez adjourned the meeting at 9:39 p.m.

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
18 STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 10 ends

Agenda Item 4.2
DATE: August 16, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Review of Two-Year Strategic Plan Accomplishments Prepared by: John Stefanski, Assistant to the City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will receive the final status update for the City’s 2020-2022 Strategic Plan.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the report.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None.

DESCRIPTION:

The City Council adopted the City’s Two-Year Strategic Plan on May 5, 2020. This Plan sets the overall direction for the City, guiding resources and setting specific objectives to drive City action.

The Plan coincides with Fiscal Years 2020-21 and 2021-22.

This report represents the last of eight quarterly updates, covering the period of July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2022. Updates are categorized as follows:
- Complete— Staff was able to achieve the objective.
- Ongoing— Staff was able to make progress on the objective, however work will continue as some objectives are multi-year projects or do not have a definitive end. - Stalled— Staff was unable to make progress on the objective due to a given circumstance.

Updates for the strategies and objectives are provided below:
19

Page 2 of 10 ends

Strategy 1: Implement the City’s Adopted Preferred Vision for Downtown Dublin.

Objective Update
A Make necessary land use
changes.

Complete. On July 21, 2020, the City Council adopted amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan land uses and maximum floor area ratio based on the Preferred Vision.

B Work with private
property owners on
acquisitions that result in
the creation of a future
town square.

Ongoing. City Council adopted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with American Realty Advisors (ARA) in 2019 for the Dublin Place shopping center. Per the MOU, ARA intends to acquire additional parcels of the shopping center in order to work with the City on the siting of the town square.

During this time, ARA hired Hines to help them plan for future development, and they have selected Gensler as their design professional.

ARA has submitted a purchase offer to acquire the two parcels and has developed preliminary concepts to align with the Downtown Preferred Vision.

C Establish the proposed
street grid network,
including study of right-of-
way acquisition and the
appropriate funding
mechanism for
construction and
maintenance.

Ongoing. On July 21, 2020, the City Council adopted amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to incorporate the street grid contemplated in the Preferred Vision.

The Downtown Action Team continues to evaluate the right-of-way acquisition, cross sections, and the appropriate funding mechanism for construction and maintenance.

In fall 2020, the City launched an update to the Citywide Traffic Model to analyze the impacts of the new street grid. Staff has worked with the traffic consultant on 2040 model runs for the new street grid network and determined that additional information was needed at critical intersections. New counts were collected to adjust traffic forecasts at the study intersections. The traffic consultant is currently working on revising the traffic analysis at the study intersections based on the revised forecasts.

In addition, progress has been made on the street cross section designs as part of the new street grid network looking at the Downtown Core area.

D Conduct a parking analysis
of the Transit Oriented
District and the Retail
District and proposed
changes.

Ongoing. CHS Consulting Group, through the City’s primary consultant Urban Field Studio, has started work on the parking analysis of the Retail and Transit Oriented Districts of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.

E Create certainty and
provide development
rights that result in
achieving the City Council’s
Preferred Vision.

Stalled. Staff will pursue this objective once Hines has been able to complete their master planning process.

F Develop implementation
measures for the adopted
Downtown Streetscape
Master Plan and updated
Ongoing. On November 17, 2020, the City Council adopted the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan.

Regional Street was resurfaced and restriped.
20

Page 3 of 10 ends

Bike and Pedestrian Master
Plan for the next Capital
Improvement Program.

An existing condition, demographics, bicycle level of stress analysis, and prioritization framework was completed for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Staff presented the Bicycle and Pedestrian Update project to various community groups, at the Farmers’ Market, and through the City’s Social Media channels. Staff is now working on identifying prioritized locations for projects and developing recommendations and an implementation plan while still soliciting public input via the City website, social media, and the project website (https://dublinbikeped.org). The City Council will review a draft Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan in August 2022 with the final version being adopted later in Fall 2022.

G Market, in conjunction
with property owners, the
opportunity sites.

Ongoing. Recent examples of working with property owners include the repurposing of the vacant Hooter’s parcel, the repurposing of the vacant retail strip center into an affordable housing project with Eden Housing, the re-tenanting of the former OSH site with H Mart, the repurposing of the vacant BART parcel into an affordable housing project with BRIDGE Housing, and the re-tenanting of the former Fitness 2000 with ACE Hardware.

H Work with Downtown
property owners on
updating the CC&Rs to
facilitate retail transition.

Stalled. Staff has been working with the Dublin Plaza Retail Center property owners to amend their CC&Rs. A draft of the changes was shared with them for review. After further consideration by the property owners, they decided to pause on any amendments until they have more clarity on future development opportunities.

I Work with Downtown
property owners on
building/site
improvements.

Ongoing. Staff is currently working with Kimco Realty on the re-tenanting of the OSH site with H-Mart.

Staff continues to work with the Dublin Place Shopping Center property owners on an amendment to the Master Sign Program to rebrand and add new signage to the Center.

Avalon Bay processed a Building Permit application to construct the 499- unit St. Patrick Way project and related public improvements including the extension of St. Patrick Way to Regional Street.

BRIDGE Housing received Planning Commission approval on August 10, 2021, for a Site Development Review Permit to construct the 300-unit affordable project, known as Amador Station, on Golden Gate Drive adjacent to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. On September 7, 2021, the City Council approved the Community Benefit Agreement for the Amador Station project.

EDEN housing received Planning Commission approval on November 23, 2021, for a Site Development Review Permit to construct a 113-unit senior affordable housing project on Regional Street adjacent to the Avalon Bay project. On December 7, 2021, the City Council approved the Community Benefit Agreement for this project.

J Refine and provide
specificity on City
development goals in the
Complete. A memorandum was delivered to the City Manager. 21

Page 4 of 10 ends

Downtown Plan and East
Transit Center Area Plan.

Strategy 2: Explore New City Revenue Streams for Long Term Financial Stability Objective Update
A Explore the feasibility of
increasing the City’s
current Transient
Occupancy Tax.

Stalled. Currently infeasible with COVID-19 impacts.

B Evaluate the establishment
of other fees and/or taxes
that could offset City costs
in providing services to the
community.

Ongoing. Staff established fees for:
- The new Adopt-A-Bench program, where a bench can be adopted in honor of a family member, friend, or organization.
- Remote (online) programs and classes, outdoor fitness classes, and the L.I.V.E n’ Rec Program in response to COVID-19-related restrictions.
- The Heritage Memorial Program, which is expected to generate over $100,000 in revenue.
- The rental of outdoor basketball courts to allow for commercial use and private programming, as well as the rental of kitchens in City facilities.

C Explore operational
efficiencies in delivering
services with other public
agencies.

Ongoing. The City worked with the County and the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton on the creation of AXIS Bridge – the Mental Health Urgent Care Center Pilot. The three cities submitted and received an $450,000 federal earmark for additional program funding.

The City worked with the County, the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, and Stanford-Valley Care on the development of a Super POD COVID-19 Vaccination Site located at the Alameda County Fairgrounds.

Parks and Community Services partnered with Livermore Area Parks and Recreation District to provide certification instruction to aquatics staff, which enables them to become certified lifeguard trainers to provide in- house certification classes.

Staff is coordinating with neighboring cities to launch a regional, temporary public art project that will span the Tri-Valley.

D Continue to maintain
strong fiscal policies.

Ongoing. Fiscal Year 2021 closed in a surplus position, and on October 19, 2021 the City Council approved additional special designations to provide funding for planned projects.

In October 2021, the City issued the 2021 Lease Revenue Bonds (roughly $20M) to finance Energy Efficiency capital improvement projects approved by the City Council. Due to the City’s strong fiscal policies and budgetary performance, S&P Global Ratings assigned an ‘AAA’ issuer credit rating to the City and an ‘AA+’ bond rating on the Dublin Financing Authority’s bond issuance.

The City Council adopted the budget for Fiscal Years 2022-23 and 2023-24 on June 7, 2022. The primary goals addressed in the budget cycle are: 1) to 22

Page 5 of 10 ends

fully fund current City operations; 2) to fund future capital endeavors now through the setting aside of specific reserves; and 3) maintain adequate operating reserves over the long term. The General Fund Budget is balanced in both years and the 10-Year Forecast shows projected surpluses through Fiscal Year 2028-29.

Strategy 3: Create More Affordable Housing Opportunities Objective Update
A Facilitate production of
affordable housing for
lower income
seniors, workforce, and
special needs households
by leveraging the Alameda
County Measure A-1 Bond
funds and the City’s
Affordable Housing Fund.

Ongoing. On July 17, 2020, Staff released a Notice of Funding Availability for the creation of affordable rental housing. The City received two proposals, both of which were presented to the City Council on November 17, 2020. The proposal by BRIDGE Housing was selected for a site located on Golden Gate Drive adjacent to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.

On April 20, 2021, the City Council adopted a resolution appropriating $7.1M from the City’s Affordable Housing Fund and authorized the commitment of $2.9M of the Alameda County Measure A-1 Bond Fund.

On August 10, 2021, the Planning Commission approved the Site Development Review Permit for the 300 affordable units. On September 7, 2021, the City Council approved the Community Benefit Agreement for the Amador Station project.

Staff facilitated Eden Housing’s acquisition of a 1.3-acre site on Regional Street from Avalon Bay as required by the Community Benefit Agreement for the 499-unit St. Patrick Way development. Eden Housing proposes to construct a 113-unit senior affordable project on the site. The City Council reserved units from the Downtown Development Pool for the project and authorized the commitment of $5.0M in Alameda County Measure A-1 Bond funds for the project, as well as $3.3M from the Local Housing Trust Fund.

On November 23, 2021, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review Permit for Eden Housing’s project. On December 7, 2021, the City Council approved a related Community Benefit Agreement.

On January 25, 2022, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved the City’s request and adopted a resolution committing $2.9M to the Amador Station/BRIDGE Housing project and $5M to the Eden Housing Regional Street Senior Affordable Housing project, from Dublin’s Base City Allocation of Measure A-1 Bond Funds.

The City submitted a Local Housing Trust Fund Program grant application for $3,333,333 for Phase 1 of the BRIDGE Housing project to be located on the vacant lot adjacent to the West Dublin BART Station at 6501 Golden Gate Drive.
23

Page 6 of 10 ends

B Look for additional
opportunities to facilitate
the acquisition of sites, at
low or no cost, to build
housing that is affordable
to lower income
households.

Ongoing. The City received $3,333,333 in grant funds from the State of California’s Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) Program for the Eden Housing project.

Staff coordinated with the developer of the St. Patrick Way project regarding the acquisition of the adjacent parcel on Regional Street for development of an affordable housing project by Eden Housing.

Staff is working with Alameda County to sell a portion of the Transit Center D-1 parcel to Eden Housing for an affordable housing development.

Staff worked with Trumark Homes to dedicate two acres for a future affordable housing project that would provide 77 units of very low/low- income affordable rental housing. Staff is working with the County on the purchase and sale of the remainder D-1 site at the Dublin Transit Center for an affordable project.

C Facilitate the production
of accessory dwelling
units throughout the
community.

Ongoing. In November 2020, the City Council adopted Zoning Ordinance Amendments and approved related Impact Fee reductions to relax development standards and restrictions, and to address changes to state law to facilitate the production of accessory dwelling units.

On December 7, 2021, the City Council adopted a waiver of certain permit fees for ADUs <750 sq. ft. and for deed restricted ADUs >750 sq. ft. for lower-income households.

The City prepared eight different ADU prototype plans and an ADU Manual that serves as a how-to-guide for individuals looking to build an ADU. The City also launched an ADU webpage with this and additional information and resources. The webpage is a one-stop shop to facilitate the production of ADUs.

D Seek opportunities to
preserve the stock of
housing that is affordable
to moderate- and middle-
income households.

Ongoing. In September 2020, the City became a member of the California Community Housing Agency (CalCHA) Joint Powers Authority for the production, preservation, and protection of essential middle-income rental housing, and authorized the City Manager to enter into purchase option agreements with CalCHA for middle-income rental housing. Since that time, the City approved the purchase of Aster Apartments in the Downtown and the Fountains Apartments on Hacienda Drive.

On June 1, 2021, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the actions necessary to similar acquire the Waterford Place Apartments through the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) to preserve the units as affordable to middle-income households.

E Update the City’s General
Plan Housing Element in
accordance with state law
and to ensure an adequate
supply of sites to
accommodate the City’s
Regional Housing Needs
Ongoing. Staff prepared the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element which was available for public review between April 15 and May 15, 2022. The City Council held a public meeting to review the Draft Housing Element on May 17, 2022. Subsequent to that meeting, Staff submitted the Draft Housing Element to the California Housing and Community Development Department for their state mandated review. The City Council will review the final Housing Element in fall 2022.
24

Page 7 of 10 ends

Allocation for the period
2023-31.

Strategy 4: Become a 24/7 City Hall to Enhance Resident and Business Engagement Objective Update
A Reduce/eliminate the need
for paper transactions
where feasible.

Ongoing. The majority of external and internal City forms have been transitioned to electronic formats for completion, routing, and signature.

This includes Building Permit, Planning, and Business License applications, Public Works permits, and Fire Prevention processes.

The Parks and Community Services Department introduced ePACT to afterschool recreation and preschool programs in January 2022, which allows staff to collect data electronically and check participants in and out of programs using contactless methods.

Staff continues to evaluate additional processes for transition to electronic formats.

B Provide more
opportunities for residents
to complete transactions
with the City online, with
appropriate security
measures.

Ongoing. Parks and Recreation Staff began accepting online pre- registration for special events, limiting wait lines and reducing physical cash transactions. Staff worked with event partners/vendors to encourage them to utilize applications for ordering items. They implemented Epact software for camps, preschool, and afterschool programs. Parents will be able to complete necessary forms and check students in and out of programs securely online.

The Senior Center has transitioned from cash to pre-paid passes and is now utilizing electronic pre-registration and convenience passes for in- person programming.

Staff enhanced The Wave webpages to allow customers to subscribe to Newsflashes and pertinent information. In addition, the online registration process for the popular Lap Swim program has been streamlined to result in a more user-friendly process to reserve lanes.

Facility rental applications and Wave Waterpark Admission tickets have transitioned to electronic formats. Staff transitioned the Fireworks application process online. The Community Development Department launched the SolarApp+ which allows for the electronic application and automated issuance of building permits for residential solar panels 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

C Enhance citizen online
interaction via reporting of
issues and transparent
data.

Ongoing. On September 1, 2020, the City Council approved an agreement with OpenGov for financial transparency, budgeting, and citizen engagement software.

In May 2021, the City launched See, Click, Fix, a new citizen request and City work management software, which includes a City-branded app for mobile devices.
25

Page 8 of 10 ends

The City added closed captioning to City Council and Planning Commission meeting recordings to enhance the accessibility of such videos while also allowing the public to search for terms in the captions.

The City’s websites are equipped with Audio Eye, which scans the websites for issues related to accessibility. All pages are scanned, and accessibility issues are solved using the tool.

D Continue to utilize all
appropriate methods to
share and exchange
information with the
public, including social
media, at events and at the
City’s website.

Ongoing. Staff expanded the use of Facebook to share all news and business of the City. Additionally, the City is increasing the use of videos shared on all social media platforms and the City’s website. Examples include public service announcements (PSAs) from the City Council, a disaster preparedness video by the former Mayor, a replay of several “Community Conversations” that were held during the start of the Pandemic, and videos in remembrance of Ilene Misheloff.

The City completed a redesign of the City’s website, following consultations with a focus group, which included City staff and active residents. While the elements of Dublin’s brand are still prominent, the website has been streamlined, making it easier for users to find key information. Staff continues to manage the Document Center to ensure the search function works properly. A Website Committee has been created to ensure that the site remains current.

Staff continues to utilize existing programs and events to cross-promote other city events and activities. This also provides opportunities to target specific markets and demographics (i.e., promoting hiring and family events at the Senior Information Fair).

The Planning Division instituted informational community meetings for major development projects. A new “notify me” list was created where interested parties can be notified of these meetings which are also published on our social media channels.

A Dublin Police Annual Report was completed in Fall 2021.

Parks and Community Services Staff are now utilizing the text message feature in the City’s recreation software (Active Network) to text program information to customers.

The Wave utilized paid marketing to promote the Job Fair through Snapchat and Facebook. The advertisement included an apply-now button which takes them directly to the relevant webpage. Total reach was 225,000 individuals with 1,900 swipes.

The Parks and Community Services Department began utilizing the “text” feature within the Active Net Registration system as an additional means of communication for activity changes and cancellations, in addition to traditional e-mail notifications.
26

Page 9 of 10 ends

E Explore additional social
media platforms and
expanding use of Facebook
to other departments.

Complete. Staff has merged all the previous City Facebook accounts (other than The Wave) into one City of Dublin government account. Additionally, Staff transformed the former Parks and Community Services Instagram account into a City of Dublin account.

F Explore more exciting and
user-friendly presentation
of information, and a
periodic report from the
City Manager’s Office.

Complete. The City launched the Backyard Brief, the City Manager’s new monthly email newsletter.

Strategy 5: Large Land Tract Development and Open Space Objective Update
A Look to establish an
Economic Development
Zone to prioritize
commercial and industrial
development east of Fallon
Road.

Complete. The City established the Economic Development Zone in 2021.

B Work with the area
property owners in
conjunction with the
Dublin Boulevard
extension project on issues
such as road and project
mitigation, entitlements, as
well as supporting
infrastructure.

Ongoing. Staff meets regularly with the property owners surrounding the Dublin Boulevard extension area to discuss issues of roadway alignment and mitigation.

The City received National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) clearance from Caltrans in February 2021 for the project. Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) has initiated the 24-month design process. Staff continues to meet with ACTC, Livermore, the County, Zone 7, and other stakeholders in support of the design effort.

Staff is reviewing applications submitted by the Branaugh and Righetti property owners, as well as has reviewed a pre-application from the Monte Vista property.

C Begin discussions
regarding required
reporting under the Open
Space Initiative of 2014 for
the provisions of
commercial and industrial
development in the
unincorporated area.

Complete. City Council authorized the initiation of various studies necessary to meet the obligations under Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.
27

Page 10 of 10 ends

ATTACHMENTS:

None.
28 STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item 4.3
DATE: August 16, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: City Proclamations for the Month of September
Prepared by: Cierra Fabrigas, Executive Aide
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider the following proclamations for the month of September in the City of Dublin: Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month, Wilderness Month, Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, Childhood Obesity Awareness Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, Preparedness Month, Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, and Suicide Prevention Awareness Month.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the proclamations.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None.

DESCRIPTION:

The City Council will consider the following proclamations for the month of September in the City of Dublin:

1. Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month

2. Wilderness Month

3. Childhood Cancer Awareness Month

4. Childhood Obesity Awareness Month

5. Hispanic Heritage Month

6. Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month

7. Preparedness Month

8. Prostate Cancer Awareness Month
29

Page 2 of 2 ends

9. Suicide Prevention Awareness Month
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month Proclamation 2) Wilderness Month Proclamation
3) Childhood Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation
4) Childhood Obesity Awareness Month Proclamation
5) Hispanic Heritage Month Proclamation
6) Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation
7) Preparedness Month Proclamation
8) Prostate Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation
9) Suicide Prevention Awareness Month Proclamation
30 Attachment 1

A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
“Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month”
WHEREAS, every September, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) sponsors Recovery Month to increase awareness and understanding of mental and substance use disorders and celebrates the gains made by those in recovery; and WHEREAS, treatment and recovery improve the community’s welfare and provide a renewed outlook on life for those who struggle with substance use disorders and for their family and friends; and
WHEREAS, alcohol and drug prevention, intervention, and treatment service providers have a proud history of service, innovation, and dedication to the recovery process: and
WHEREAS, over 20.7 million people age 12 or older in the United States need treatment every year for substance use disorder; and WHEREAS, National Recovery Month celebrates the achievements of those individuals who have undergone successful addiction treatment and recognizes the professionals in the field of addiction treatment; and WHEREAS, the National Recovery Month theme, “Recovery is For Everyone: Every Person, Every Family, Every Community,” reminds people in recovery and those who support them that no one is alone in the journey through recovery; and WHEREAS, to help achieve these goals, the Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse and other community providers invite all residents of Dublin to participate in National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month (September).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim September 2022 as Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month and call upon the residents of Dublin to observe this month with appropriate programs, activities, and ceremonies supporting recovery in our community.

DATED: August 16, 2022

Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey

Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 31 Attachment 2

A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
“Wilderness Month”
WHEREAS, nationally celebrated, Wilderness Month honors the American spirit of exploration and discovery that has led us to experience the majesty of the Nation’s wilderness; and
WHEREAS, the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964, and 54 areas (9.1 million acres) in 13 states were designated as wilderness; and WHEREAS, this law established these areas as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Since 1964, the NWPS has grown almost every year and now includes 803 areas (111.7 million acres) in 44 states and Puerto Rico; and WHEREAS, in 1980, the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) added over 56 million acres of wilderness to the system, the largest addition in a single year; and WHEREAS, recent fires across California and the United States show us just how important wilderness is, and how precious it has become.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim September 2022 as Wilderness Month in the City of Dublin and encourage all citizens to become more aware of the significance of wilderness in our nation.

DATED: August 16, 2022

Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey

Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 32 Attachment 3

A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
“Childhood Cancer Awareness Month”
WHEREAS, according to the American Childhood Cancer Organization, one in 285 children in the United States will be diagnosed with cancer by their 20th birthday; and
WHEREAS, each year, worldwide, more than 300,000 children and youth under the age of 19 are diagnosed with cancer; and WHEREAS, childhood cancer causes chronic health conditions from the toxic effects of cancer treatment, including secondary cancers and other life-threatening illnesses; and
WHEREAS, the causes of childhood cancer are largely unknown, and more study is needed to understand which treatments work best for children; and
WHEREAS, researchers and healthcare professionals work diligently, dedicating their expertise to treat and cure children with cancer; and
WHEREAS, children who are diagnosed with cancer, battle cancer with fierce determination and bravery every day.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim September 2022 as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month in the City of Dublin and encourage all citizens to learn more about childhood cancers, vigorously support childhood cancer research, and do everything possible to support children with cancer and their families.

DATED: August 16, 2022

Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey

Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 33 Attachment 4

A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
“Childhood Obesity Awareness Month”
WHEREAS, with childhood obesity presenting a significant threat to child health, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is recognizing National Childhood Obesity Awareness Month during the month of September; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin, along with Dublin Unified School District, works to prioritize the health and wellbeing of Dublin’s children by supporting programs such as Healthy Dublin, Healthy Dublin Kids, and the Dublin Unified School District Health Center; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin works in conjunction with youth sports leagues to provide space for physical activities and team sports in the community; and
WHEREAS, the percentage of children with obesity in the United States has more than tripled since the 1970’s; today, about one in five school-age children (6-19) are considered obese; and
WHEREAS, obese children have an 80% chance of being obese adults and are more at risk for associated adult chronic diseases, including high blood pressure, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and stroke; and WHEREAS, participating in physical activity is important for children and teens as it can have beneficial effects; and not only on body weight, but also on blood pressure, bone strength, and mental wellbeing; and WHEREAS, proper nutrition is important to youth as it impacts their physical and mental health, and is important in the prevention of chronic diseases; and
WHEREAS, childhood obesity is preventable, yet does not appear to be declining.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim the month of September 2022 as Childhood Obesity Awareness Month and urge all residents to educate themselves and others of the programs and services that are available in Alameda County and in the City of Dublin.

DATED: August 16, 2022

Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey

Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 34 Attachment 5

A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
“Hispanic Heritage Month”
WHEREAS, each year, the federal and local governments observe Hispanic Heritage Month from September 15 to October 15 by recognizing and celebrating the histories, cultures, and contributions of American citizens whose ancestors came from Spain, Mexico, the Caribbean and Central and South America; and
WHEREAS, September 15th is significant as a starting date for Latino Heritage month because it is the anniversary of independence for the Latin American countries of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. In addition, Mexico and Chile celebrate their independence on September 16th and September 18th respectively, and Columbus Day or Dia de La Raza, which is October 12th, falls within this 30-day period; and WHEREAS, Latinos are the largest ethnic group in the State of California and at 18.5% of the United States population, make up the largest ethnic or race minority group in America; and
WHEREAS, the values expressed by labor leader and civil rights activist Cesar Chavez—a service to others, non-violence, acceptance of all people, respect for life and the environment, and celebrating community—are also America’s values; and WHEREAS, Hispanics and Latinos continue to enrich our nation’s character, shape our common future, and affirm the narrative of American unity and progress; and
WHEREAS, during National Hispanic Heritage Month, we celebrate Hispanic culture, honor the invaluable ways Hispanics contribute to our common goals, and work toward a stronger, more inclusive, more prosperous society for all.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim September 2022 as Hispanic Heritage Month in the City of Dublin and encourage all citizens to recognize the significance of Hispanic Heritage and history in our nation and community.

DATED: August 16, 2022

Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey

Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 35 Attachment 6

A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
“Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month”
WHEREAS, according to the American Cancer Society, ovarian cancer causes more deaths than any cancer of the female reproductive system; and
WHEREAS, in women ages 35-74, ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths; and WHEREAS, every woman is at risk for ovarian cancer, regardless of age, heritage, or medical history; and WHEREAS, diagnosis of ovarian cancer often does not occur until it has reached an advanced stage, making it the deadliest of all gynecological cancers; and
WHEREAS, an estimated 21,410 women in the United States will be diagnosed this year with ovarian cancer and an estimated 13,770 women with the disease will die; and
WHEREAS, ovarian cancer is treatable when detected early. More than 90% of women survive longer than five years if the disease is detected and treated properly before it has spread; and WHEREAS, women’s lives will be saved by raising public awareness about ovarian cancer and educating women about the symptoms of the disease.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim September 2022 as Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month in the City of Dublin and encourage all citizens to become more educated of the signs and symptoms of the disease.

DATED: August 16, 2022

Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey

Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 36 Attachment 7

A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
“Preparedness Month”
WHEREAS, National Preparedness Month, occurring annually in September since 9/11/2001, creates an opportunity for residents of the City of Dublin to join citizens across the United States in preparing their homes, businesses, and communities for any type of emergency, including natural, technological, and human-caused; and WHEREAS, as our nation continues to respond to COVID-19, there is no better time to be involved in preparing for any disaster; and WHEREAS, according to Alameda County emergency preparedness guidelines, citizens should have a plan, make a kit, be informed, and get involved in helping the community do the same; and
WHEREAS, planning now, before a disaster, is the best way to improve community resiliency; and WHEREAS, each year, we face situations that could change our lives forever, and the best protection is knowing and practicing what to do in the event of an emergency; and
WHEREAS, every eight minutes, the Red Cross responds to a disaster, and the vast majority of these are home fires. By having an emergency plan and kit, families can react quickly when a disaster strikes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim September 2022 as Preparedness Month in the City of Dublin and encourage all citizens to make a plan, build a kit, prepare for disasters, and talk to friends and family about preparedness.

DATED: August 16, 2022

Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey

Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 37 Attachment 8

A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
“Prostate Cancer Awareness Month”
WHEREAS, according to the American Cancer Society, prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in men and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in men; and
WHEREAS, the American Cancer Society estimates there will be 268,490 men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States alone this year and roughly 34,500 will die this year from the disease –which is one man every 15 minutes; and WHEREAS, prostate cancer not only affects men, but also affects their family and friends; and WHEREAS, prostate cancer is usually treatable if detected early and early stage prostate cancer usually has no symptoms; and WHEREAS, education regarding prostate cancer and early detection strategies is critical to savings lives and preserving and protecting our families and friends; and
WHEREAS, all men are at risk for prostate cancer and any treatment decisions should be based on clinician recommendations and patient values and preferences.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim September 2022 as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month in the City of Dublin and encourage all citizens to increase awareness about the importance for men to make an informed decision with their health care provider about early detection and testing for prostate cancer.

DATED: August 16, 2022

Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey

Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 38 Attachment 9

A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
“Suicide Prevention Awareness Month”
WHEREAS, National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month was created to raise the visibility of the mental health resources and suicide prevention services available in our community during the month of September. The goal is to start the conversation about mental health and the impact of suicide to help destigmatize the conversation and connect people with the appropriate support services; and WHEREAS, according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death among adults, and the 2nd leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 10 and 34 in the US; and WHEREAS, more than 48,000 people died by suicide across the United States in 2018, with an average of 132 suicides happening daily; and WHEREAS, each and every suicide directly impacts a minimum of 100 additional people, including family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and community members; and
WHEREAS, global organizations like Hope For The Day and our local mental health partner, Axis Community Health, serve on the front lines in support of diffusing the stigma regarding suicide and mental health; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin publicly places its full support behind those who work in the fields of mental health, education, and law enforcement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim the month of September 2022 as Suicide Prevention Awareness Month and encourage residents to take the time to understand the importance of mental health education and recognize that taking care of ourselves and others includes taking care of mental health.

DATED: August 16, 2022

Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Jean Josey

Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Michael McCorriston 39 STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item 4.4
DATE: August 16, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Outdoor Seating (PLPA-2022-00020) Prepared by: Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On July 19, 2022, the City Council considered City-initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to continue to facilitate outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments on a long-term temporary basis to aid in the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Amendments are proposed to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit). The City Council waived the first reading and introduced the Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council is now requested to hold a second reading of the proposed Ordinance.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Waive the second reading and adopt the Ordinance Approving Amendments to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit).

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

On April 20, 2021, the City Council approved the American Rescue Plans Act Budget and established a fund to track related expenditures. The approved budget includes grant funds for eating and drinking establishments to cover the costs of time and materials associated with processing applications for outdoor seating.

DESCRIPTION:

The City has initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to continue to facilitate outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments on a long-term temporary basis to aid in the 40

Page 2 of 2 ends

economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Amendments are proposed to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit), as outlined in the Ordinance provided as Attachment 1. On July 19, 2022, the City Council waived the first reading and introduced the Ordinance approving the amendments, as further described in Attachment 2.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment and are not subject to CEQA review.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Ordinance Approving Amendments to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit) 2) City Council Staff Report, dated July 19, 2022, without attachments 41 Attachment 1
Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 1 of 5 ORDINANCE NO. XX-22

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 8.12.050 (PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED LAND USES), SECTION 8.76.080 (PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY USE TYPE), AND SECTION 8.108.020 (USES

PERMITTED WITH A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT)

EFFECTIVE CITY-WIDE
PLPA-2022-00020
The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. RECITALS
A. The City occasionally initiates amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify, add, or amend certain provisions to ensure that the Zoning Ordinance remains current with federal and state law, internally consistent, simple to understand and implement, and relevant to changes occurring in the community.

B. On June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-20, approving an amendment to Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) Chapter 8.128 (Authority to Administer Title 8) to provide the City Manager with authority to waive certain Zoning Ordinance requirements and/or standards to facilitate business operations affected by public health orders of the federal, state, or county government designed to slow transmission of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19).

C. Subsequently, the City established a COVID-19 Relief Temporary Use Permit (TUP) application for minor temporary land uses that facilitate business operations, but deviate from certain development standards, provided they are temporary in nature and do not increase the intensity of the use.

D. The waiver of certain Zoning Ordinance requirements remained in effect for one year from adoption and expired on June 16, 2021.

E. In April 2021, Staff held a roundtable meeting with restaurant owners to understand ways the City could assist with their recovery in a post COVID-19 environment. Based upon the success of the COVID-19 Relief TUP program and concerns about business operations and consumer preferences post COVID-19, the restaurant owners expressed an overwhelming desire for the City to continue to facilitate outdoor dining on both a long- term temporary and permanent basis through relaxed regulations.

F. On August 17, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 07-21 approving amendments to DMC Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), Section 8.104.030 (Site 42 Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 2 of 5 Development Review Waiver), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit) to permit outdoor seating on a long-term temporary and permanent basis.

G. During the spring of 2022, Staff performed additional outreach to restaurant owners, including a business survey, walking tour and another roundtable meeting to understand their evolving needs and how the City could assist them. The restaurant owners continue to express overwhelming support for the City to facilitate the ability to provide outdoor dining on a long-term temporary basis.

H. The provision of Ordinance No. 07-21 permitting outdoor seating on a long-term temporary basis will expire on September 30, 2022.

I. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve along with efforts to slow the spread of the virus, and concerns about business operations and consumer preferences persist.

J. The City has initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to continue to facilitate outdoor seating on a long-term temporary basis.

K. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments include modifications to DMC Section

8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit).

L. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 28, 2022, during which all interested persons were heard, and adopted Resolution No. 22-10 recommending City Council adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments.

M. A Staff Report was submitted to the Dublin City Council recommending approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments.

N. The City Council held a public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments on July 19, 2022, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard.

O. Proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law.

P. The City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project.

SECTION 2. FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Section 8.120.050.B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council hereby finds that the Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan in that the amendments are necessary to facilitate temporary outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments to aid in economic recovery post- COVID-19. Specifically, General Plan Goal 11.6.1 calls for the City to maintain small- business-friendly development services and Implementation Measure 11.6.1.B.3 to “implement permit/inspection process refinements: improve City procedures, as appropriate.”
43 Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 3 of 5 SECTION 3.

A. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. The City Council hereby finds the amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) are exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment and are not subject to CEQA review.

SECTION 4.

A. The Dublin Municipal Code is amended as follows:

Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to add the following row to the table of Commercial Use Types:

COMMERCIAL USE TYPES

COMMERCIAL USE
TYPE A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2
Outdoor Seating –
Temporary
- - - - TUP TUP TUP TUP TUP TUP -
Subsection D of Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to add the following in alphabetical order

COMMERCIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
Outdoor Seating – Temporary None
Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended by adding provisions for “Outdoor Seating – Temporary” and the remainder of this subsection shall be re-lettered:

N. Outdoor Seating - Temporary. Outdoor Seating - Temporary may be permitted, subject to the following conditions:

1. Temporary outdoor seating is permitted until September 30, 2023. The expiration date of all existing approved Temporary Use Permits for temporary outdoor seating are extended to September 30, 2023.
44 Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 4 of 5

2. Temporary outdoor seating may occupy up to 20 percent of the required parking for that Eating and Drinking Establishment or two parking spaces, whichever is greater.

3. Temporary outdoor seating that is not located in a parking space(s) is limited to a maximum area equivalent to the area of 20 percent of the required parking for that Eating and Drinking Establishment or the area of two parking spaces, whichever is greater.

4. No additional parking is required for the temporary outdoor seating.

5. Tents, canopies, and shade structures.
a. Tents, canopies, and shade structures are subject to review and approval by the Planning Division, Building Division, and Fire Prevention. b. No advertising, logos, banners, or balloons are permitted on any tents, canopies, or shade structures, except with approval of a Temporary Sign.
c. If a business utilizes more than one tent, canopy, or shade structure, they should be of uniform color and design.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days following its final adoption and shall remain in effect until September 30, 2023.

SECTION 6. Severability. The provision of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereof is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any person or circumstance, such illegality, invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the ordinance or their applicability to other persons or circumstances.

SECTION 7. Posting. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. {Signatures on the following page}
45 Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 5 of 5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16 th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
46 STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 5 ends

Agenda Item 6.1
Attachment 2
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Outdoor Seating and Master Fee Schedule Amendments (PLPA-2022-00020)
Prepared by: Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider City-initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to continue to facilitate outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments on a long-term temporary basis to aid in the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. The City Council will also consider adopting changes to the Master Fee Schedule pertaining to the application fees for Temporary Use Permits for temporary outdoor seating and Site Development Review Waivers for permanent outdoor seating. Additionally, the City Council will consider an exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and: 1) waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Approving Amendments to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section

8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit); and 2) adopt the Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule by Extending the Application Fee for Temporary Use Permit – Temporary Outdoor Seating and Site Development Review Waiver – Permanent Outdoor Seating Until September 30, 2023.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

On April 20, 2021, the City Council approved the American Rescue Plans Act (ARPA) Budget and established a fund to track related expenditures. The approved budget includes grant funds for eating and drinking establishments to cover the costs of time and materials associated with processing Temporary Use Permit applications for outdoor seating and Site Development Review Waivers for permanent outdoor seating. The City Council will consider amending the Master Fee Schedule to extend the current application fees for Temporary Use Permit – Temporary Outdoor 47

Page 2 of 5 ends

Seating and Site Development Review Waiver – Permanent Outdoor Seating until September 30, 2023. The application fees will continue to be based on time and materials to ensure the City recovers the actual costs associated with reviewing these applications utilizing ARPA funding.

These fees will be valid until the City’s ARPA budget allocation is exhausted, or until September 30, 2023, whichever occurs first. Upon the ARPA budget allocation exhaustion, the TUP and SDR Waiver application fees would revert to the existing flat fee at that time.

DESCRIPTION:

Background
On June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-20 approving an amendment to Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) Chapter 8.128 (Authority to Administer Title 8) to provide the City Manager with authority to waive certain Zoning Ordinance requirements and/or standards to facilitate business operations affected by public health orders of the federal, state, or county government designed to slow transmission of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). Subsequently, the City established a COVID-19 Relief Temporary Use Permit (TUP) application for minor temporary land uses that facilitate business operations, but deviate from certain development standards, provided they are temporary in nature and do not increase the intensity of the use.

Ordinance No. 08-20 and the waiver of certain Zoning Ordinance requirements remained in effect for one year from adoption and expired on June 16, 2021.

In April 2021, Staff held a roundtable meeting with restaurant owners to understand ways the City could assist with their recovery from the COVID-19 environment. Based upon the success of the COVID-19 Relief TUP program and concerns about business operations and consumer preferences related to COVID-19, the restaurant owners expressed an overwhelming desire for the City to continue to facilitate outdoor seating on both a long-term temporary and permanent basis through relaxed regulations.

On August 17, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 07-21 approving amendments to DMC Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), Section 8.104.030 (Site Development Review Waiver), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit) to permit outdoor seating on a long-term temporary basis and on a permanent basis. The regulations for permitting outdoor seating on a long-term temporary basis are set to expire on September 30, 2022.

The City Council also adopted a companion Resolution (No. 93-21) amending the Master Fee Schedule by establishing two new application fees, based on time and materials, for Temporary Use Permit – Outdoor Seating and Site Development Review Waiver – Outdoor Seating, which are valid until the City’s applicable American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) budget allocation is exhausted, or until September 30, 2022, whichever occurs first.

Since the establishment of the COVID-19 Relief TUP program, the City has approved 47 TUP applications for eating and drinking establishments on a long-term temporary basis.

During the spring of 2022, Staff performed additional outreach to the restaurant owners, including conducting a business survey, walking tour, and another roundtable meeting with the restaurant 48

Page 3 of 5 ends

owners to understand their evolving needs. The restaurant owners continue to express overwhelming support for the City to facilitate the provision of outdoor dining on a long-term temporary basis. Some smaller users expressed concern about the size of the outdoor seating area allowed by the current regulations and requested that the City allow a certain minimum size for such areas.

Proposed Project
To address the needs of the business community, the City has initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to continue to facilitate outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments on a long-term temporary basis to aid in economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Amendments are proposed to DMC Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit). The proposed project also includes amending the Master Fee Schedule to extend the application fees for Temporary Use Permit – Temporary Outdoor Seating and Site Development Review (SDR) Waiver – Permanent Outdoor Seating, based on time and materials.

Analysis
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments would extend the current regulations and continue to permit outdoor seating on a long-term temporary basis with the approval of a Temporary Use Permit, until September 30, 2023. This would also extend the expiration date for all existing approved Temporary Use Permits for temporary outdoor seating until September 30, 2023.

The existing regulations allow temporary outdoor seating to occupy up to 20% of the required parking for an eating and drinking establishment or an equivalent area without having to provide parking for the temporary outdoor seating. To provide greater flexibility to eating and drinking establishments, the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments include a minor modification to allow temporary outdoor seating to occupy 20% of the required parking or a minimum two parking spaces, whichever is greater. The remainder of the existing regulations for outdoor seating would remain unchanged.

The proposed amendments would continue to facilitate temporary outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments to aid in economic recovery as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve, and concerns about business operations and consumer preferences persist. The draft Ordinance is included as Attachment 1.

Fee Amendments
The California Constitution authorizes local governments to recover the reasonable costs of providing services. Temporary outdoor seating requires approval of a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) and permanent outdoor seating requires approval of a Site Development Review Waiver (SDRW). The current TUP application fee is $286 and the current SDRW application fee is $401.

However, those fees do not recover the full cost to process an application and instead require a General Fund subsidy.

The actual cost of Staff from Planning, Building, Public Works, and Fire Prevention to review a TUP 49

Page 4 of 5 ends

for outdoor seating is estimated to be approximately $1,631 and the cost to review an SDRW for permanent outdoor seating is estimated to range from $2,929 to $4,529. These costs are eligible for reimbursement through the American Rescue Plans Act (ARPA) Budget. In April 2021, the City established an ARPA funded grant program to pay these application fees on behalf of eating and drinking establishment owners. Staff recommends extending the existing application fees that are due to expire on September 30, 2022, to recover the City’s full cost. The proposed fees would be valid until the City’s ARPA budget allocation is exhausted, or until September 30, 2023, whichever occurs first. Upon the ARPA budget allocation exhaustion, the TUP and SDR Waiver application fees would revert to the existing flat fee at that time. The draft Resolution, amending the Master Fee Schedule for outdoor seating is included as Attachment 2.

Consistency with the General Plan, Specific Plans, and Zoning Ordinance The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan in that the amendments are necessary to facilitate outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments to facilitate business operations and aid in economic recovery post-COVID-19. Specifically, General Plan Goal 11.6.1 call for the City to maintain small-business- friendly development services and Implementation Measure 11.6.1.B.3 to “implement permit/inspection process refinements: improve City procedures, as appropriate.” ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. The City Council will consider finding the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment and are not subject to CEQA review. The City Council will also consider finding the proposed Master Fee Schedule Amendments exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because revising fees is not a project and, therefore, is exempt from the requirements of CEQA.

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:

On June 28, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments and unanimously adopted Resolution No. 22-10 (Attachment 3), recommending the City Council adopt amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to continue to facilitate outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments on a long-term temporary basis.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

In accordance with State law, a public notice was published in the East Bay Times on July 9, 2022, 50

Page 5 of 5 ends

and July 14, 2022, and posted at several locations throughout the City. The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Ordinance Approving Amendments to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses), Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type), and Section 8.108.020 (Uses Permitted with a Temporary Use Permit) 2) Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule by Extending the Application Fee for Temporary Use Permit – Temporary Outdoor Seating and Site Development Review Waiver – Permanent Outdoor Seating Until September 30, 2023
3) Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-10
51 STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 3 ends

Agenda Item 4.5
DATE: August 16, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Authorizing Remote Meetings of City Council and City Commissions Due to Increase in COVID-19 Cases
Prepared by: John Bakker, City Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

From March 2020 through September 2021, the City conducted meetings of its legislative bodies remotely pursuant to various executive orders that suspended certain Brown Act provisions. In October 2021, the City returned to in-person meetings and the Brown Act was amended to allow for teleconferencing during a state of emergency. Under the new law, AB 361, the City can continue to conduct virtual meetings where the Governor has proclaimed a State of Emergency, or state or local health officials have imposed or recommended social distancing, if the City Council makes certain required findings. From January 11 – February 10, 2022, and since May 3, 2022, the City Council has operated under a resolution pursuant to AB 361 authorizing teleconferenced meetings for at least 30 days. The City Council will consider adopting a resolution that would allow for virtual attendance for the next 30 days.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Finding That There is a Proclaimed State of Emergency; Finding That Meeting in Person Would Present Imminent Risks to the Health or Safety of Attendees as a Result of the State of Emergency; and Authorizing Remote Teleconferenced Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Dublin Pursuant to AB 361.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None.
52

Page 2 of 3 ends

DESCRIPTION:

On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State address the broader spread of COVID-19.

On March 18, 2020, the City Council adopted a resolution ratifying the proclamation of a local state of emergency by the Director of Emergency Services due to COVID-19.

On March 17, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20, which suspended certain provisions of the Brown Act in order to allow local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or by other means. Additionally, the State implemented a shelter-in-place order, requiring all non-essential personnel to work from home.

At that time and through September 2021, the City’s legislative bodies met by teleconference. On June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21, which among other things, rescinded certain clauses of Executive Order N-29-20 after September 30, 2021, including clauses that suspended certain provisions of the Brown Act. Thus, effective October 1, 2021, agencies would have had to transition back to public meetings held in full compliance with the Brown Act.

The City of Dublin began meeting in person beginning in October 2021.

Since the Governor issued Executive Order N-08-21, the highly contagious Delta variant has emerged, causing a spike in cases throughout the state and within the Alameda County.

Additionally, since then, the Omicron variants have emerged and been designed as a variant of concern by the United States, and the number of cases in the City have increased over the last month.

On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361 (2021) which allows for local legislative and advisory bodies to continue to conduct meetings via teleconferencing under specified conditions and includes a requirement that the Council make specified findings. AB 361 took effect immediately.

AB 361 allows local legislative bodies to continue to meet remotely after the expiration of the clauses of Executive Order N-29-20. Under AB 361, the City and its legislative bodies may meet remotely when:
· The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency; · State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing;
· Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

On January 11, 2022, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing remote teleconferenced meetings for a period of 30 days pursuant to AB 361. That resolution expired on February 10, 2022.
53

Page 3 of 3 ends

At its April 19, 2022 meeting, the City Council directed Staff to bring a resolution to the May 3, 2022 meeting to allow the City Council and the City’s legislative bodies to meet virtually, including hybrid meetings, pursuant to AB 361. At its May 3, May 17, June 7, June 21, and July 19, 2022 meetings, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 39-22, 48-22, 65-22, 84-22, and 92-22 respectively, that included the necessary findings pursuant to AB 361 to allow the City Council and the City’s legislative bodies to meet remotely or in a hybrid format for 30 days.

The City meets the requirements to hold meetings remotely in order to ensure the health and safety of the public:
· The Governor has declared a State of Emergency, and the City Council has ratified the proclamation of a local emergency by the Director of Emergency Services; · The CDC recommends social distancing of at least six feet due to COVID-19; · There’s been an increase of COVID-19 cases within the state and throughout Alameda County;
· Meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, the legislative bodies, and staff.

The proposed resolution includes the necessary findings pursuant to AB 361 to allow the City Council and the City’s legislative bodies to meet remotely or in a hybrid format for the next 30 days. The City Council would need to adopt a subsequent resolution declaring the need to continue to meet remotely to allow for such meetings after that 30-day period.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Finding That There is a Proclaimed State of Emergency; Finding That Meeting in Person Would Present Imminent Risks to the Health or Safety of Attendees as a Result of the State of Emergency; and Authorizing Remote Teleconferenced Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Dublin Pursuant to AB 361
54 Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. xx-22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
FINDING THAT THERE IS A PROCLAIMED STATE OF EMERGENCY; FINDING THAT MEETING

IN PERSON WOULD PRESENT IMMINENT RISKS TO THE HEALTH OR SAFETY OF ATTENDEES AS A RESULT OF THE STATE OF EMERGENCY; AND AUTHORIZING REMOTE

TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN PURSUANT TO AB 361
WHEREAS, all meetings of the City of Dublin’s legislative bodies are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code sections 54950 – 54963), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City’s legislative bodies conduct their business; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State prepare for a broader spread of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (“COVID-19”); and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2020, the City Council adopted a resolution ratifying the proclamation of a local emergency by the Director of Emergency Services due to COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or by other means; and WHEREAS, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 and its successors, the City Council met primarily virtually through September 2021; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21, which, effective September 30, 2021, ended the provisions of Executive Order N-29-20 that allows local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or by other means; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 361 (2021) which allows for local legislative bodies and advisory bodies to conduct meetings via teleconferencing under specified conditions and includes a requirement that the City Council make specified findings. AB 361 (2021) took effect immediately; and
WHEREAS, under AB 361 (2021), an agency meeting virtually requires that the Governor declare a State of Emergency pursuant to Government Code section 8625; and WHEREAS, AB 361 (2021) further requires that state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or, requires that the legislative body determines that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees; and
WHEREAS, such conditions now exist in the City, specifically, Governor Newsom has 55 Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 2 of 3 declared a State of Emergency due to COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, since the issuance of Executive Order N-08-21, the highly contagious Delta variant of COVID-19 has emerged, causing an increase in COVID-19 cases throughout the State and Alameda County; and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2021, the Omicron variant was designated as a variant of concern by the United States; and
WHEREAS, cases of the highly contagious Omicron variant, including a subvariant called BA.2, have caused surges of COVID-19 and there has been an increase in cases during the last month in Alameda County; and
WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) continues to recommend physical distancing of at least 6 feet from others outside of the household; and WHEREAS, because of the recent rise in COVID-19 cases due in part to the highly contagious Omicron variants of COVID-19, the City is concerned about the health and safety of all individuals who intend to attend City Council and meetings of the City’s other legislative bodies; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the imminent risks of the City’s legislative bodies holding in person meetings to the health or safety of attendees exists due in part to the Omicron variants of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, acting as a legislative body pursuant to Government Code section 54952(a) and for the benefit of all legislative bodies created by the City Council pursuant to Government Code section 54952(b), that the presence of COVID-19 and the Delta and Omicron variants would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, staff, and members; and WHEREAS, teleconference meetings may include hybrid meetings, in which all or some members of the legislative body meet in person while others attend by teleconference, and members of the public are either allowed to participate only by teleconference or both in person and by teleconference (“hybrid meetings”). The purpose of hybrid meetings is to allow for multiple modes of attending meetings while reducing the risks of COVID-19, including the Delta and Omicron variants; and
WHEREAS, the City shall ensure that its meetings comply with the provisions required by AB 361 (2021) for holding teleconferenced meetings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Dublin as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct, and incorporated into this Resolution.

2. In compliance with AB 361 (2021), and in order to continue to conduct teleconference meetings without complying with the usual teleconference meeting requirements of the Brown Act, the City Council makes the following findings:
a) The City Council has considered the circumstances of the state of emergency; and b) The state of emergency, as declared by the Governor and City Council, and as specifically related to the current increase in cases apparently resulting from the 56 Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 3 of 3 Omicron variant, directly impacts the ability of the City Council and the City’s legislative bodies, as well as staff and members of the public, to meet safely in person; and c) The CDC continues to recommend physical distancing of at least six feet due to COVID-19 and as a result of the presence of COVID-19 and the increase of cases due to the Omicron variant, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, the legislative bodies and staff.

3. City staff is directed to facilitate any teleconference meetings, including hybrid meetings, of the City Council and City’s legislative bodies in compliance with AB 361, in order to better ensure the health and safety of the public for a period of thirty days following the adoption of this resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of August 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
57 STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 4 ends

Agenda Item 4.6
DATE: August 16, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: City Treasurer's Informational Report of Investments for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2022
Prepared by: Chris Rhoades, Financial Analyst
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will receive an informational report of the City’s investments through the quarter ending June 30, 2022 including a monthly transaction ledger. The City’s investment portfolio for this period totaled $378,308,853 (market value) with an average market yield of 2.48%. As required by the Policy, the City Treasurer (Administrative Services Director) affirms that the City is able to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the report of investments for the quarter ending June 30, 2022.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact resulting from this report. Investments are made in accordance with the City Investment Policy and State Law. Interest earned is apportioned between funds (i.e., General Fund, Gas Tax Fund, etc.) based upon their proportionate share of the total cash balance.

Based on the financial needs of the City including the timing of revenues and expenditures, the quarterly cash balance can vary from quarter to quarter.

DESCRIPTION:

The total investment portfolio (market value) consists of $238,517,564 managed by Chandler Asset Management, and $139,791,289 invested by the City in local government pools, the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and the California Asset Management Program (CAMP). The average market yield of the Chandler portfolio and the local pools was 3.20% and 1.23% respectively.

The total investment portfolio balance fluctuates throughout the year due to normal cash flow 58

Page 2 of 4 ends

needs and includes both discretionary and restricted funds.

Economic Update Highlights
The following are some highlights from the Economic Update included in the Investment Report prepared by Chandler (Attachment 1).

Financial markets are experiencing heightened volatility and tighter conditions as central banks employ more restrictive monetary policies to combat persistent inflation. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has exacerbated inflationary pressures, particularly with energy and commodities, and strict COVID lockdowns in China are intensifying distressed supply chains.

Inflation is weighing heavily on consumer sentiment and beginning to impact discretionary spending. Labor markets remain strong, but wage gains are not keeping up with inflation. While Chandler expects the Fed to continue to tighten monetary policy, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has very little margin for error as it attempts to combat inflation without pushing the economy into a recession. Chandler continues to believe the risk of an economic slowdown later this year has increased. Over the near term, Chandler expects financial market volatility to remain intensified and conditions to remain tighter with persistent inflation, geopolitical risk, supply chain bottlenecks, and the Fed's shift to a more hawkish monetary policy.

City of Dublin Portfolio
The City's aggregate portfolio has maintained a healthy balance of investment types with minimal change from the prior quarter as shown below in Chart 1.

Chart 1: Investments by Type
June 30, 2022 and March 31, 2022
The market value of the City's portfolio increased by $7,402,752 from the March 31, 2022 quarter.

The quarterly change results from the normal fluctuations in the timing of incoming revenue, 59

Page 3 of 4 ends

predominantly the receipt of property tax allocations, and sales tax revenue; and expenditures on Capital Projects; as well as payments to Alameda County for Police and Fire Services. The City’s portfolio increased $46 million from the same quarter the prior year due to the excess of revenues over expenditures trending on an annual basis (see Table 1 below). Overall market yield-to- maturity stays has increased to 2.48% over the prior quarter’s 1.62% (shown in Table 2) due to the factors discussed in the Economic Update Highlights. For detailed monthly transactions, see Attachment 2.

Table 1: Portfolio Values and Yield to Maturity
Table 2: Quarterly Holdings (Market Value) by Type, and YTM, 5 Quarters June 30, 2021 March 31, 2022
Holdings
Market
Value
Market
Value
Par
Value
Book
Value
Market
Value
% of
Subtotal
% of Total
Portfolio
Book
Yield
Market
Yield
Managed by City
LAIF 50,323,677 50,424,445 50,464,181 50,464,181 50,464,181 36.1% 13.0% 0.94% 0.94% CAMP 47,323,490 79,661,872 89,240,308 89,240,308 89,240,308 63.9% 23.1% 1.40% 1.40% SUBTOTAL 97,647,167 130,086,317 139,704,489 139,704,489 139,704,489 100.00% 36.09% 1.23% 1.23% Accrued Interest 38,855 36,519 86,800 97,686,022 130,122,836 139,791,289 Managed by Chandler
ABS 9,835,052 22,814,841 27,436,052 27,433,321 26,693,153 11.2% 7.1% 1.46% 3.66% Agency 75,581,659 57,293,846 58,320,000 58,550,080 56,641,842 23.8% 15.1% 1.60% 2.97% CMO - 4,052,552 4,000,000 4,184,455 3,966,300 1.7% 1.0% 1.35% 3.36% Money Market 756,163 632,736 3,039,481 3,039,481 3,039,481 1.3% 0.8% 0.97% 0.97% Negotiable CD 2,499,825 4,978,673 2,500,000 2,500,036 2,486,275 1.0% 0.6% 0.25% 2.13% Supranational 19,043,767 19,609,525 20,740,000 20,710,489 19,403,787 8.2% 5.4% 0.85% 2.97% Corporate 54,161,172 66,644,264 65,640,000 66,100,638 62,892,216 26.5% 17.0% 1.96% 3.64% US Treasury 71,745,729 63,976,891 65,750,000 65,431,585 62,468,441 26.3% 17.0% 1.52% 2.99% SUBTOTAL 233,623,366 240,003,327 247,425,533 247,950,085 237,591,496 100.00% 63.91% 1.57% 3.20% Accrued Interest 949,741 779,938 926,068 234,573,108 240,783,265 238,517,564 TOTAL PORTFOLIO 332,259,129 370,906,101 387,130,022 387,654,574 378,308,853 100.00% 2.48% 49,045,334 46,049,724
(11,616,776) 7,402,752
June 30, 2022
Change from Prior Year
Change from Prior Quarter
Holdings (Market Value) 6/30/21 9/30/21 12/31/21 3/31/22 6/30/22 LAIF/CAMP 97,647,167 93,494,034 149,433,475 130,086,317 139,704,489 ABS 9,835,052 13,665,558 14,715,444 22,814,841 26,693,153 Agency 75,581,659 65,306,279 64,567,126 57,293,846 56,641,842 CMO - 2,138,464 2,102,544 4,052,552 3,966,300 Money Market 756,163 809,873 287,150 632,736 3,039,481 Negotiable CD 2,499,825 2,500,588 4,996,560 4,978,673 2,486,275 Supranational 19,043,767 22,656,506 22,424,573 19,609,525 19,403,787 Corporate 54,161,172 57,831,563 56,130,717 66,644,264 62,892,216 US Treasury 71,745,729 68,951,352 66,952,848 63,976,891 62,468,441 Accrued Interest 988,596 773,887 912,441 816,458 1,012,868 TOTAL 332,259,129 328,128,102 382,522,878 370,906,101 378,308,853 YIELD TO MATURITY 0.39% 0.44% 0.60% 1.62% 2.48%
60

Page 4 of 4 ends

Funds Managed by the City
The City participates in two local agency investment pools managed by government finance professionals and treasurers: the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and the California Asset Management Program (CAMP). Recent quarterly yields are shown below.

Table 3: Quarterly Portfolio Yields, Recent 8 Quarters
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) City of Dublin Investment Report for Period Ending June 30, 2022 2) Transaction Ledger – April through June 2022
Market Yield LAIF CAMP Chandler
6/30/20 1.15% 0.48% 0.36%
9/30/20 0.66% 0.25% 0.30%
12/31/20 0.52% 0.12% 0.27%
3/31/21 0.35% 0.07% 0.46%
6/30/21 0.25% 0.05% 0.49%
9/30/21 0.21% 0.05% 0.56%
12/31/21 0.22% 0.05% 0.91%
3/31/22 0.42% 0.07% 2.38%
6/30/22 0.94% 1.40% 3.20%
61 CHANDLER ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC. | 800.317.4747 | www.chandlerasset.com

INVESTMENT REPORT
Period Ending June 30, 2022
City of Dublin
Attachment 1
62 SECTION 1 Economic Update
SECTION 2 Account Profile
SECTION 3 Consolidated Information
SECTION 4 Portfolio Holdings
SECTION 5 Transactions
Table of Contents As of June 30, 2022
1 63
SECTION |
Section 1 |
Economic Update
2 64
Economic Update



Financial markets are experiencing he ightened volatility and tighter conditions as central banks employ more restrictive monetary policies to combat persistent inflation. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has exacerbated inflationary pressures, particularly with energy and commodities, and strict COVID lockdowns in China are intensifying distressed supply chains. Inflation is weighing heavily on consumer sentiment and beginning to impact discretionary spending. Labor markets remain strong, but wage gains are not keeping up with inflation. While we expect the Fed to continue to tighten monetary policy, the FOMC has very little margin for error as it attempts to combat inflation without pushing the economy into a recession. We continue to believe the risk of an economic slowdown later this year has increased. Over the near- term, we expect financial market volatility to remain intensified and conditions to remain tighter with persistent inflation, geopolitical risk, supply chain bottlenecks, and the Fed's shift to a more hawkish monetary policy.

At the June meeting, persistently high inflation led the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to announce a 0.75% federal funds rate increase to 1.50%- 1.75%. Federal Reserve Chair Powell indicated the committee may raise rates by 50 or 75 bps at the July meeting and continue to tighten as needed to dampen inflation. The Fed will continue shrinking its $9 trillion balance sheet by $47 billion per month as of June, increasing to $95 billion in September. We anticipate additional rates hikes as the Fed remains “committed” to the 2% long-term inflation target. In the second half of the year, monetary policy will be dependent on how the economy responds to tighter conditions.

In June, yields rose, and the curve flattened. The 2-year Treasury yield soared 40 basis points to 2.96%, the 5-year Treasury yield increased 22 basis points to 3.04%, and the 10-year Treasury yield rose 17 basis points to 3.02%. The spread between the 2-year and 10-year Treasury yield fell to 6 basis points at June month-end, down from 29 basis points at May month-end, and down significantly from 122 basis points one year ago. The spread between 3-month and 10-year treasuries is wider at about 135 basis points but continues to compress with each Fed rate hike. The shape of the curve bears watching but does not indicate a high probability of an imminent recession. 3 65
Source: US Department of Labor Source: US Department of Labor Employment
The U.S. economy a dded 372,000jobs in June, and job gains in May were revised down to 384,000from 390,000. Trends in employment remain strong, with the three-month moving average payrolls at 375,000and the six-month moving average at 457,000.Hiring was led by education and health services, followed by professional and business services, and leisure and hospitality. The unemployment rate remained unchanged at 3.6% for the fourth month, and the U-6 underemployment rate, which includes those who are marginally attached to the labor force and employed part time for economic reasons, declined to a seasonally adjusted 6.7% rate. Average hourly earnings rose 5.1% year-over-year in June, easing from a revised 5.3% year-over-year gain in May, which reflects a continuing, slow deceleration in wage growth that could help ease broad cyclical price pressures. The labor participation rate decreased to 62.2%from 62.3%, suggesting a slower pace for workers returning to the labor market despite higher wages.
-5,000
-4,000
-3,000
-2,000
-1,000
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
MOM Change In (000's)
Nonfarm Payroll (000's)
Non-farm Payroll (000's)
3 month average (000's)

0.0%

4.0%

8.0%

12.0%

16.0%

20.0%

24.0%
Unemployment Rate
Underemployment Rate (U6)
Unemployment Rate (U3)
Rate (%)
4 66
Source: US Department of Labor Source: US Department of Commerce Inflation
The Consumer Price I ndex (CPI) hit a 40-year high in June with broad-based price increases for most goods and services. Headline CPI was up

9.1% year-over-year in June, surpassing expectations, up from 8.6% year-over-year in May. Core CPI (CPI less food and energy) was up 5.9% in June, down from 6.0% in May. Gasoline, shelter, and food were the largest contributors to the increase. The Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index was up 6.3% year-over-year in May, unchanged from April. Core PCE was up 4.7% year-over-year in May, versus up

4.9% year-over-year in April. Persistently elevated levels of inflation are likely to keep the Federal Reserve on the path of tightening monetary policy as long as they continue to run well above the Fed’s longer-run target of around 2.0%.

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%
Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE)
PCE Price Deflator YOY % Change
PCE Cor e Deflator Y OY % Change
YOY( %) Change

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%
Consumer Price Index (CPI)
CPI YOY % Change
Core CPI YOY % Change
YOY( %) Change
5 67
Retail sales rose 1.0% in June from an upwardly revised -0.1% in May, led by a significant dollar value increase in gasoline sales. The higher- than-expected results indicate consumer demand is holding up more than expected despite inflation. Retail sales growth is at risk as consumers dip into savings and assume more debt. On a year-over-year basis, retail sales were up 8.4% in June versus up 8.2% revised in May.

The Consumer Confidence index fell to 98.7 in June from a downwardly revised 103.2 in May. U.S. consumer savings rates are declining, and the wealth effect is waning from recent financial market declines. While the average consumer still has capacity to spend from accumulated savings, higher wages, and credit lines, consumer balance sheets and discretionary spending decisions are increasingly pressured by elevated gas, food, and shelter costs.

Source: US Department of Commerce Source: The Conference Board

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%
Retail Sales YOY % Change
YOY (%) Change
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
Index Level
Consumer Confidence
Consumer
6 68
Source: The Conference Board Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Economic Activity
The Conference Board’s L eading Economic Index (LEI) decreased more than expected to -0.8% month-over-month in June, following a decline to -0.6% in May. Although the index is still in positive territory at +1.4% year-over-year versus +2.8% in May, the Conference Board indicated that economic growth is slowing and recession risk is increasing due to elevated inflation and monetary policy tightening. The Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI) is unchanged at -0.19. On a 3-month moving average basis, the CFNAI decreased to -0.04 in June from +0.09in May.
-4.00
-2.00

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00
Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI)
3 Month Average
-1.0%
-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%
Leading Economic Indicators (LEI)
MOM ( %) Change
7 69
Source: US Department of Commerce Source: S&P
Housing
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
MOM Change (In Thousands of Units)
Housing Starts
Multi Family Housing Starts
Single Family Housing Starts

0.0%

3.0%

6.0%

9.0%

12.0%

15.0%

18.0%

21.0%

24.0%
S&P/Case-Shiller 20 City Composite Home Price Index
YOY( %) Change
Total housing starts de clined 2.0% to an annual rate of 1,559,000in June, from a revised 1,591,000in units in May. Single-family home starts fell by 8.1% and multi-family increased 15.0% month-over-month. On a year-over-year basis, total housing starts decreased 6.3%, driven by a drop in construction of single-family houses as homebuyers struggle with a combination of elevated prices and higher mortgage rates. According to the Case-Shiller 20-City home price index, home prices were up 21.2% in April versus 21.1% year-over-year in March, setting another new record. While tight supply has continued to support prices, rising mortgage rates and affordability could be headwinds to further price growth. 8 70
Source: Institute for Supply Management Source: Federal Reserve Manufacturing
The Institute for Suppl y Management (ISM) manufacturing index dropped sharply to a two-year low of 53.0in June from 56.1in May. Readings above 50.0 are indicative of expansion in the manufacturing sector. The decline was primarily driven by weakness in new orders due to softening consumer demand, supply constraints, and labor shortages. On a month-over-month basis, the Industrial Production index declined

0.2% in June, following a revised 0.0% change in May. Capacity utilization declined to 80.0% in June, from an upwardly revised 80.3% in May bringing it in line with its longer run average.
40 42
44 46
48 50
52 54
56 58
60 62
64 66
Institute of Supply Management Purchasing Manager Index

EXPANDING

CONTRACTING
-20.0%
-15.0%
-10.0%
-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%
Industrial Production
YOY( %) Change
9 71
Source: US Department of Commerce Source: US Department of Commerce 6/21 9/21 12/21 3/22

7.9% 1.4% 1.8% 1.2%
-0.7% 2.1% 5.8% 0.9%
-0.2% -1.3% -0.2% -3.2%
-0.4% -0.4% -0.3% -0.5%

0.0% 0.5% -0.2% -0.1%

6.7% 2.3% 6.9% -1.6%
Gross Private Domestic Investment
Personal Consumption Expenditures
Components of GDP
Federal Government Expenditures
State and Local (Consumption and Gross
Investment)
Net Exports and Imports
Total
-35.0%
-30.0%
-25.0%
-20.0%
-15.0%
-10.0%
-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
GDP QOQ % Change
GDP YOY % Change
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
According to the t hird estimate, first quarter 2022GDP contracted at an annualized rate of 1.6%, revised down from the second estimate of a

1.5% decline, and following fourth quarter 2021growth of 6.9%. The weaker estimate reflects personal consumption expenditures growing at a slower 1.2% rate, as consumers spent more in services offset by a shift away from nondurable goods spending. The widening trade deficit was the most significant contributor to the contraction. The consensus estimate calls for 2.2% growth in the second quarter of 2022and 2.1% growth for full year 2022.
10 72
Federal Reserve
Source: Federal Reserve Source: Bloomberg
At the June m eeting, persistently high inflation led the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to announce a 0.75% federal funds rate increase to 1.50% - 1.75%. Federal Reserve Chair Powell indicated the committee may raise rates by 50 or 75 bps at the July meeting and continue to tighten as needed to dampen inflation. Dot plot projections rose significantly from March, with the median fed funds target rate at

3.4% by the end of this year and 3.8% in 2023. The Fed will continue shrinking its $9 trillion balance sheet by $47 billion per month beginning this month, increasing to $95 billion in September. We anticipate additional rates hikes as the Fed remains “committed” to the 2% long-term inflation target. Although the FOMC views the economy as strong, the committee downgraded their economic outlook as trends cool later this year from tightening conditions.

0.00%

0.25%

0.50%

0.75%

1.00%

1.25%

1.50%

1.75%

2.00%

2.25%

2.50%

2.75%
Effective Federal Funds Rate
Yield (%)
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
10,000,000
Federal Reserve Balance Sheet Assets
In $ millions
11 73
Source: Bloomberg Source: Bloomberg

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%
US Treasury Note Yields
2-Year
5-Year
10-Year
Yield (%)

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%
US Treasury Yield Curve
Jun-22
Mar-22
Jun-21
Yield (%)
Bond Yields
At the end of June, the 2-year Treasury yield was 271basis points higher, and the 10-Year Treasury yield was about 155 basis points higher, year- over-year. The spread between the 2-year Treasury yield and 10-year Treasury yield fell to 6 basis points at June month-end, down from 29 basis points at May month-end, which is narrow compared to the average historical spread (since 2003)of about 130 basis points. The spread between 3-month and 10-year treasuries is wider at about 135 basis points but continues to compress with each Fed rate hike. The shape of the curve bears watching but does not indicate a high probability of an imminent recession. 12 74
Section 2|SECTION |
Section 2 |
Account Profile
13 75
Objectives
Chandler Asset Management Performance Objective
The performance objective of the City of Dublin is to earn a return that equals or exceeds the return on of the ICE BofA 1-5 Year Treasury and Agency Index.

Investment Objectives
The investment objectives of the City of Dublin are first, to provide safety of principal; second, to provide adequate liquidity to meet all requirements which might be reasonably anticipated; third, to attain a market average rate of return on its investments throughout economic cycles; and fourth, to be diversified to avoid incurring unreasonable and avoidable risks regarding specific security types or individual financial institutions.

Strategy
In order to achieve this objective, the portfolio invests in high quality fixed income instruments consistent with the City's investment policy and California Government Code.

As of June 30, 2022
14 76
Compliance As of June 30, 2022
Category Standard Comment
U.S. Treasury Issues No limitations; Full faith and credit of the U.S. are pledged for payment of principal and interest. Complies Federal Agenci es 35% max per agency i ssuer; 25% max cal l abl es for agency securi ti es; Federal Agenci es or U.S. Government Sponsored Enterpri ses (GSE), participations, or other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or U.S. GSEs. Complies Municipal Se curitie s "A" rated or higher by a NRSRO; 5% max per issuer; Obligations of the State of California, any of the other 49 states, or any local agency within the state of California; Complies
Supranational Securities
"A A " rating cate gory or be tte r by a N ationally Re cognize d Statistical Rating Organization ("N RSRO"); 30% m axim um ; 10% m ax pe r issue r; U.S. dollar denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ("IBRD"), the International Finance Corporation ("IFC") or the Inter-American Development Bank ("IADB") Complies
Asset-Backed Securi ti es/Mortgage-
Backe d Se curitie s/ Collate ralize d
Mortgage Obligations
"AA" rated or higher by a NRSRO; 20% maximum (combined); 5% max per issuer Complies Corporate Medi um Term Notes "A" rated or higher by a NRSRO; 30% maximum; 5% max per issuer; Issued by corporations organized and operating within the U.S. or by depository institutions licensed by the U.S. or any state and operating within the U.S. Complies Negoti abl e Certi fi cates of Deposi t
"A" long-term debt rated and/or "A-1" short-term rated or higher by a NRSRO; 30% maximum; 5% max per issuer; 20% max amount invested in NCDs with any one financial institution in combination with any other debt from that financial institution; Issued by a nationally or state-chartered bank, a savings association or a federal association, a state or federal credit union, or by a state-licensed branch of a foreign bank.

Complies
Ti me Deposi ts/ Certi fi cates of Deposi t 10% maximum; Collateralized/FDIC Insured; 1 year max maturity Complies Commerci al Paper
"A-1" rated or higher by a NRSRO; 25% maximum; 5% max per issuer; 10% max of the outstanding commercial paper of an issuing corporation; 20% max amount invested in CP of any one issuer in combination with any other debt from that issuer; 270 days max maturity; Issuer of the commercial paper shall meet all conditions in either A) (1) Organized and operating in the U.S. as a general corp, (2) Has AUM > $500 million, (3) "A" rated issuer debt (if any) or higher by a NRSRO; or B) (1) Organized in the U.S. as a special purpose corp, trust, LLC, (2) Has program wide credit enhancements including, but not limited to, over collateralization, LOC, or surety bond, (3) "A-1" rated or higher by a NRSRO Complies
Banker’s Acceptances "A-1" short-term rated or higher by a NRSRO; 40% maximum; 5% max per issuer; 20% max amount invested in BA with any one financial institution in combination with any other debt from that financial institution; 180 days max maturity Complies Money Market Mutual Funds and
Mutual Funds
Highest rating or "AAA" rated by two NRSROs; SEC registered adviser with AUM >$500 million and experience > 5 years; 20% maximum in Mutual Funds and Money Market Mutual Funds; 20% max in Money Market Mutual Fund; 10% max per one Mutual Fund Complies Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Maximum permitted by LAIF; Not used by investment adviser Complies California Asset Management Program
(CAMP) Issued by joint powers authority organized pursuant to California Government Code; Not used by investment adviser Complies Prohibited Securities Inverse floaters; Ranges notes, Mortgage-derived, Interest-only strips; Any investment in a security not specifically listed as an Authorized and Suitable Investment in the policy. Complies
Max Per Issuer 5% max per issuer, except US Government, its Agencies and instrumentalities (including agency backed-mortgage pools), Supranational securities, or Money Market Mutual Funds Complies
Maxi mum Maturi ty 5 years, unless otherwise stated in the policy Complies City of Dublin
Assets managed by Chandler Asset Management are in full compliance with state law and with the City's investment policy. 15 77
Portfolio Characteristics
City of Dublin
06/30/22 03/31/22
Benchmark* Portfolio Portfolio
Average Maturity (yrs) 2.61 2.69 2.71
Average Modified Duration 2.51 2.39 2.45
Average Purchase Yield n/a 1.57% 1.52%
Average Market Yield 2.98% 3.20% 2.38%
Average Quality** AAA AA/Aa1 AA/Aa1
Total Market Value 238,517,564 240,783,265
*ICE BofA 1-5 Yr US Treasury & Agency Index
**Benchmark is a blended rating of S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch. Portfolio is S&P and Moody’s respectively.

As of June 30, 2022
16 78
City of Dublin
Sector Distribution
ABS

11.2%
Agency

23.9%
CMO

1.7%
Corporate

26.5%
Money Market
Fund

1.3%
Negotiable CD

1.0%
Supranational

8.2%
US Treasury

26.3%
June 30, 2022 March 31, 2022
ABS

9.5%
Agency

23.9%
CMO

1.7%
Corporate

27.8%
Money Market
Fund

0.3%
Negotiable CD

2.1%
Supranational

8.2%
US Treasury

26.6%
As of June 30, 2022
17 79
Issue Name Investment Type % Portfolio
Government of United States US Treasury 26.28%
Federal National Mortgage Association Agency 9.61%
Federal Home Loan Bank Agency 7.31%
Inter-American Dev Bank Supranational 4.95%
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp Agency 4.24%
Intl Bank Recon and Development Supranational 3.20%
Federal Farm Credit Bank Agency 2.70%
Honda Motor Corporation Corporate 1.86%
Hyundai Auto Receivables ABS 1.78%
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp CMO 1.67%
JP Morgan Chase & Co Corporate 1.67%
Bank of America Corp Corporate 1.51%
Amazon.com Inc Corporate 1.47%
Qualcomm Inc Corporate 1.47%
Royal Bank of Canada Corporate 1.43%
Toronto Dominion Holdings Corporate 1.35%
Toyota Lease Owner Trust ABS 1.28%
First American Govt Oblig Fund Money Market Fund 1.27%
Apple Inc Corporate 1.25%
John Deere ABS ABS 1.25%
Honda ABS ABS 1.23%
Metlife Inc Corporate 1.20%
Morgan Stanley Corporate 1.19%
GM Financial Automobile Leasing Trust ABS 1.11%
US Bancorp Corporate 1.06%
Svenska Handelsbanken NY Negotiable CD 1.04%
Chubb Corporation Corporate 1.04%
Honeywell Corp Corporate 0.99%
Hyundai Auto Lease Securitization ABS 0.95%
Toyota Motor Corp Corporate 0.94%
Bank of Montreal Chicago Corporate 0.93%
PNC Financial Services Group Corporate 0.93%
American Express ABS ABS 0.92%
Berkshire Hathaway Corporate 0.92%
Deere & Company Corporate 0.83%
United Health Group Inc Corporate 0.76%
GM Financial Securitized Term Auto Trust ABS 0.76%
Charles Schwab Corp/The Corporate 0.75%
Issuers
City of Dublin – Account #10198
As of June 30, 2022
18 80
Issue Name Investment Type % Portfolio
BMW Vehicle Lease Trust ABS 0.59%
Target Corp Corporate 0.53%
Bank of New York Corporate 0.51%
Caterpillar Inc Corporate 0.49%
Mercedes-Benz Auto Lease Trust ABS 0.46%
Dominion Resources Inc Corporate 0.42%
BMW ABS ABS 0.35%
Guardian Life Global Funding Corporate 0.31%
Merck & Company Corporate 0.31%
Toyota ABS ABS 0.28%
Nissan ABS ABS 0.23%
Wal-Mart Stores Corporate 0.22%
Salesforce.com Inc Corporate 0.19%
TOTAL 100.00%
Issuers
City of Dublin – Account #10198
As of June 30, 2022
19 81
AAA AA A <A NR
06/30/22 20.4% 56.6% 19.7% 0.4% 3.0%
03/31/22 17.6% 59.1% 19.0% 1.2% 3.0%
Source: S&P Ratings
June 30, 2022 vs. March 31, 2022

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%
AAA AA A <A NR
06/30/22 03/31/22
Quality Distribution
City of Dublin
As of June 30, 2022
20 82

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%
0 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.50 0.50 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 5 5+ City of Dublin ICE BofA 1-5 Yr US Treasury & Agency Index Portfolio Compared to the Benchmark
0 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.50 0.50 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 5 5+ Portfolio 2.3% 1.6% 6.8% 31.5% 28.1% 18.1% 11.6% 0.0%
Benchmark* 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 36.1% 27.6% 20.0% 14.5% 0.0%
*ICE BofA 1-5 Yr US Treasury & Agency Index
Duration Distribution
City of Dublin
As of June 30, 2022
21 83
-5.00%
-4.00%
-3.00%
-2.00%
-1.00%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%
12 months 2 years 3 years 5 years 10 years Since Inception City of Dublin ICE BofA 1-5 Yr US Treasury & Agency Index* Total Rate of Return Annualized Since Inception October 31, 2013 Annualized
TOTAL RATE OF RETURN 3 months 12 months 2 years 3 years 5 years 10 years Since Inception
City of Dublin -0.93% -4.51% -2.18% 0.23% 1.08% N/A 1.09% ICE BofA 1-5 Yr US Treasury & Agency Index* -0.82% -4.60% -2.45% 0.04% 0.91% N/A 0.92% *ICE BofA 1-3 Yr US Treasury & Agency Index to 12/31/14 Total rate of return: A measure of a portfolio’s performance over time. It is the internal rate of return, which equates the beginning value of the portfolio with the ending value; it includes interest earnings, realized and unrealized gains and losses in the portfolio.

Investment Performance
City of Dublin
As of June 30, 2022
22 84
Portfolio Characteristics
City of Dublin Reporting Account
06/30/22
Portfolio
03/31/22
Portfolio
Average Maturity (yrs) 0.00 0.00
Modified Duration 0.00 0.00
Average Purchase Yield 1.23% 0.32%
Average Market Yield 1.23% 0.32%
Average Quality* AAA/NR AAA/NR
Total Market Value 139,791,289 130,122,836
*Portfolio is S&P and Moody’s, respectively.

As of June 30, 2022
23 85
City of Dublin Reporting Account
Sector Distribution
LAIF

36.2%
Local Gov
Investment Pool

63.8%
June 30, 2022 March 31, 2022
LAIF

38.8%
Local Gov
Investment Pool

61.2%
As of June 30, 2022
24 86
Issue Name Investment Type % Portfolio
CAMP Local Gov Investment Pool 63.84%
Local Agency Investment Fund LAIF 36.16%
TOTAL 100.00%
Issuers
City of Dublin Reporting Account – Account #10219
As of June 30, 2022
25 87
SECTION |
Section 3 |
Consolidated Information
26 88
Portfolio Characteristics
City of Dublin Consolidated
06/30/22 03/31/22
Portfolio Portfolio
Average Maturity (yrs) 1.70 1.76
Modified Duration 1.51 1.59
Average Purchase Yield 1.45% 1.10%
Average Market Yield 2.48% 1.66%
Average Quality* AA+/Aa1 AA+/Aa1
Total Market Value 378,308,853 370,906,101
* Portfolio is S&P and Moody’s respectively.

As of June 30, 2022
27 89
City of Dublin Consolidated
Sector Distribution
ABS

7.1%
Agency

15.0%
CMO

1.1%
Corporate

16.7%
LAIF

13.4%
Local Gov
Investment Pool

23.6%
Money Market
Fund

0.8%
Negotiable CD

0.7%
Supranational

5.1%
US Treasury

16.6%
June 30, 2022 March 31, 2022
ABS

6.2%
Agency

15.5%
CMO

1.1%
Corporate

18.1%
LAIF

13.6%
Local Gov
Investment Pool

21.5%
Money Market
Fund

0.2%
Negotiable CD

1.3%
Supranational

5.3%
US Treasury

17.3%
As of June 30, 2022
28 90
SECTION |
Section 4 |
Portfolio Holdings
29 91
Holdings Report
City of Dublin - Account #10198
CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody/S&P
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
ABS
44891VAC5 Hyundai Auto Lease Trust 2021-B A3

0.330% Due 06/17/2024
1,420,000.00 06/08/2021

0.34%
1,419,787.00
1,419,885.59

97.40 3.49%
1,383,106.98
208.27

0.58%
(36,778.61)
Aaa / AAA
NR

1.97 0.83
65479JAD5 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2019-C A3

1.930% Due 07/15/2024
542,427.40 10/16/2019

1.94%
542,398.76
542,415.05

99.70 2.98%
540,808.25
465.28

0.23%
(1,606.80)
Aaa / AAA
NR

2.04 0.29
89237VAB5 Toyota Auto Receivables Trust 2020-C A3

0.440% Due 10/15/2024
688,014.31 07/21/2020

0.44%
687,961.34
687,985.54

98.63 3.28%
678,613.28
134.55

0.28%
(9,372.26)
Aaa / AAA
NR

2.30 0.48
43813KAC6 Honda Auto Receivables Trust 2020-3 A3

0.370% Due 10/18/2024
935,334.46 09/22/2020

0.38%
935,197.06
935,273.86

98.19 3.38%
918,395.55
124.97

0.39%
(16,878.31)

NR / AAA
AAA

2.30 0.60
89239CAC3 Toyota Lease Owner Trust 2021-B A3

0.420% Due 10/21/2024
1,090,000.00 07/27/2021

0.40%
1,089,985.28
1,089,990.72

96.35 3.69%
1,050,260.78
139.88

0.44%
(39,729.94)
Aaa / NR
AAA

2.31 1.13
47787NAC3 John Deere Owner Trust 2020-B A3

0.510% Due 11/15/2024
320,275.78 07/14/2020

0.52%
320,226.97
320,254.18

98.35 3.33%
314,996.67

72.60 0.13%
(5,257.51)
Aaa / NR
AAA

2.38 0.58
58769KAD6 Mercedes-Benz Auto Lease Trust 2021-B A3

0.400% Due 11/15/2024
1,135,000.00 06/22/2021

0.40%
1,134,914.31
1,134,948.13

96.81 3.55%
1,098,819.61
201.78

0.46%
(36,128.52)

NR / AAA
AAA

2.38 1.02
09690AAC7 BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2021-2 A3

0.330% Due 12/26/2024
710,000.00 09/08/2021

0.34%
709,926.73
709,952.21

97.07 3.49%
689,192.04

39.05 0.29%
(20,760.17)
Aaa / NR
AAA

2.49 0.93
44891WAC3 Hyundai Auto Lease Trust 2022-A A3

1.160% Due 01/15/2025
910,000.00 01/11/2022

1.16%
909,979.89
909,983.90

96.61 3.66%
879,118.24
469.16

0.37%
(30,865.66)
Aaa / AAA
NR

2.55 1.37
89238LAC4 Toyota Lease Owner Trust 2022-A A3

1.960% Due 02/20/2025
2,045,000.00 02/23/2022

1.98%
2,044,678.12
2,044,725.08

97.47 3.55%
1,993,189.93
1,224.73

0.84%
(51,535.15)

NR / AAA
AAA

2.65 1.61
36265MAC9 GM Financial Auto Lease Trust 2022-1 A3

1.900% Due 03/20/2025
1,680,000.00 02/15/2022

1.91%
1,679,985.55
1,679,987.90

97.35 3.70%
1,635,417.84
975.33

0.69%
(44,570.06)
Aaa / NR
AAA

2.72 1.50
05601XAC3 BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2022-1 A3

1.100% Due 03/25/2025
755,000.00 01/11/2022

1.05%
754,887.13
754,910.24

96.55 3.84%
728,948.73
138.42

0.31%
(25,961.51)

NR / AAA
AAA

2.74 1.27
36266FAC3 GM Financial Auto Lease Trust 2022-2 A3

3.420% Due 06/20/2025
1,020,000.00 05/03/2022

3.45%
1,019,893.61
1,019,900.38

99.49 3.74%
1,014,790.86
1,065.90

0.43%
(5,109.52)

NR / AAA
AAA

2.98 1.71
47788UAC6 John Deere Owner Trust 2021-A A3

0.360% Due 09/15/2025
800,000.00 03/02/2021

0.37%
799,846.24
799,902.13

96.15 3.93%
769,206.40
128.00

0.32%
(30,695.73)
Aaa / NR
AAA

3.21 1.08
44933LAC7 Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2021-A A3

0.380% Due 09/15/2025
725,000.00 04/20/2021

0.38%
724,923.73
724,953.13

96.59 3.80%
700,271.70
122.44

0.29%
(24,681.43)

NR / AAA
AAA

3.21 1.00
44934KAC8 Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2021-B A3

0.380% Due 01/15/2026
2,065,000.00 07/20/2021

0.39%
2,064,544.25
2,064,678.79

96.00 3.62%
1,982,402.07
348.76

0.83%
(82,276.72)

NR / AAA
AAA

3.55 1.25
43815GAC3 Honda Auto Receivables Trust 2021-4 A3

0.880% Due 01/21/2026
765,000.00 11/16/2021

0.89%
764,838.74
764,868.54

95.37 3.78%
729,605.75
187.00

0.31%
(35,262.79)
Aaa / NR
AAA

3.56 1.62
As of June 30, 2022
30 92
Holdings Report
City of Dublin - Account #10198
CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody/S&P
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
47789QAC4 John Deere Owner Trust 2021-B A3

0.520% Due 03/16/2026
965,000.00 07/13/2021

0.52%
964,913.92
964,936.20

94.89 3.90%
915,720.35
223.02

0.38%
(49,215.85)
Aaa / NR
AAA

3.71 1.53
44935FAD6 Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2021-C A3

0.740% Due 05/15/2026
545,000.00 11/09/2021

0.75%
544,878.36
544,902.16

95.56 3.57%
520,775.84
179.24

0.22%
(24,126.32)

NR / AAA
AAA

3.88 1.59
43815BAC4 Honda Auto Receivables Trust 2022-1 A3

1.880% Due 05/15/2026
1,315,000.00 02/15/2022

1.89%
1,314,802.22
1,314,823.73

96.81 3.55%
1,273,009.42
1,098.76

0.53%
(41,814.31)
Aaa / AAA
NR

3.88 1.94
05602RAD3 BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2022-A A3

3.210% Due 08/25/2026
850,000.00 05/10/2022

3.23%
849,955.80
849,957.51

98.96 4.46%
841,147.25
454.75

0.35%
(8,810.26)
Aaa / AAA
NR

4.16 0.85
362554AC1 GM Financial Securitized Term 2021-4 A3

0.680% Due 09/16/2026
585,000.00 10/13/2021

0.66%
584,985.08
584,988.12

94.95 4.17%
555,429.42
165.75

0.23%
(29,558.70)
Aaa / AAA
NR

4.22 1.47
47787JAC2 John Deere Owner Trust 2022-A A3

2.320% Due 09/16/2026
1,005,000.00 03/10/2022

2.34%
1,004,777.69
1,004,796.29

97.45 3.74%
979,401.65
1,036.27

0.41%
(25,394.64)
Aaa / NR
AAA

4.22 1.82
448977AD0 Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2022-A A3

2.220% Due 10/15/2026
1,080,000.00 03/09/2022

2.23%
1,079,958.42
1,079,962.17

96.92 3.83%
1,046,737.09
1,065.60

0.44%
(33,225.08)

NR / AAA
AAA

4.30 1.95
380146AC4 GM Financial Auto Receivables 2022-1 A3

1.260% Due 11/16/2026
500,000.00 01/11/2022

1.23%
499,956.55
499,962.39

95.68 4.09%
478,385.00
262.50

0.20%
(21,577.39)

NR / AAA
AAA

4.38 1.55
362585AC5 GM Financial Securitized ART 2022-2 A3

3.100% Due 02/16/2027
780,000.00 04/05/2022

3.13%
779,836.98
779,847.27

99.09 3.60%
772,935.54
1,007.50

0.32%
(6,911.73)
Aaa / AAA
NR

4.64 1.90
02582JJT8 American Express Credit Trust 2022-2 A

3.390% Due 05/17/2027
2,205,000.00 05/17/2022

3.42%
2,204,512.25
2,204,529.30

99.89 3.46%
2,202,466.46
3,322.20

0.92%
(2,062.84)

NR / AAA
AAA

4.88 2.68
TOTAL ABS 27,436,051.95 1.46%
27,432,551.98
27,433,320.51 3.66%
26,693,152.70
14,861.71

11.20%
(740,167.81)
Aaa / AAA
Aaa

3.28 1.43
Agency
3135G0T94 FNMA Note

2.375% Due 01/19/2023
2,500,000.00 03/28/2018

2.70%
2,463,675.00
2,495,823.76

99.94 2.48%
2,498,550.00
26,718.75

1.06%
2,726.24
Aaa / AA+
AAA

0.56 0.54
313383QR5 FHLB Note

3.250% Due 06/09/2023
1,500,000.00 08/28/2018

2.87%
1,525,005.00
1,504,915.02
100.30

2.92%
1,504,512.00
2,979.17

0.63%
(403.02)
Aaa / AA+
NR

0.94 0.92
3137EAEN5 FHLMC Note

2.750% Due 06/19/2023
2,000,000.00 07/16/2018

2.88%
1,988,360.00
1,997,714.73

99.74 3.03%
1,994,700.00
1,833.33

0.84%
(3,014.73)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

0.97 0.95
3135G05G4 FNMA Note

0.250% Due 07/10/2023
2,350,000.00 07/08/2020

0.32%
2,344,947.50
2,348,274.31

97.35 2.88%
2,287,769.65
2,790.63

0.96%
(60,504.66)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

1.03 1.01
3133EKZK5 FFCB Note

1.600% Due 08/14/2023
4,000,000.00 08/26/2019

1.54%
4,009,000.00
4,002,542.13

98.53 2.94%
3,941,212.00
24,355.56

1.66%
(61,330.13)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

1.12 1.09
313383YJ4 FHLB Note

3.375% Due 09/08/2023
5,000,000.00 Various

2.90%
5,102,615.00
5,025,954.17
100.51

2.93%
5,025,585.00
52,968.76

2.13%
(369.17)
Aaa / AA+
NR

1.19 1.15
As of June 30, 2022
31 93
Holdings Report
City of Dublin - Account #10198
CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody/S&P
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
3130A0F70 FHLB Note

3.375% Due 12/08/2023
5,000,000.00 Various

2.73%
5,147,870.00
5,043,218.79
100.57

2.97%
5,028,390.00
10,781.25

2.11%
(14,828.79)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

1.44 1.39
3135G0V34 FNMA Note

2.500% Due 02/05/2024
2,000,000.00 02/27/2019

2.58%
1,992,340.00
1,997,518.89

99.36 2.91%
1,987,122.00
20,277.78

0.84%
(10,396.89)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

1.60 1.54
3130A1XJ2 FHLB Note

2.875% Due 06/14/2024
3,795,000.00 Various

1.96%
3,958,639.85
3,859,091.59

99.72 3.02%
3,784,415.75
5,152.24

1.59%
(74,675.84)
Aaa / AA+
NR

1.96 1.88
3133EKWV4 FFCB Note

1.850% Due 07/26/2024
2,500,000.00 08/13/2019

1.65%
2,524,140.00
2,510,093.94

97.97 2.87%
2,449,265.00
19,913.19

1.04%
(60,828.94)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

2.07 2.00
3130A2UW4 FHLB Note

2.875% Due 09/13/2024
2,000,000.00 10/10/2019

1.58%
2,122,020.00
2,054,600.39

99.67 3.03%
1,993,472.00
17,250.00

0.84%
(61,128.39)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

2.21 2.10
3135G0W66 FNMA Note

1.625% Due 10/15/2024
2,000,000.00 11/08/2019

1.80%
1,983,400.00
1,992,276.71

97.00 2.99%
1,939,918.00
6,861.11

0.82%
(52,358.71)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

2.30 2.22
3135G0X24 FNMA Note

1.625% Due 01/07/2025
4,200,000.00 Various

1.18%
4,287,898.80
4,245,841.16

96.64 3.02%
4,058,766.60
32,987.50

1.72%
(187,074.56)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

2.53 2.42
3137EAEP0 FHLMC Note

1.500% Due 02/12/2025
4,200,000.00 Various

1.23%
4,254,786.30
4,229,057.72

96.21 3.02%
4,040,660.40
24,325.00

1.70%
(188,397.32)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

2.62 2.52
3135G03U5 FNMA Note

0.625% Due 04/22/2025
1,825,000.00 04/22/2020

0.67%
1,821,240.50
1,822,885.28

93.60 3.02%
1,708,132.48
2,186.20

0.72%
(114,752.80)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

2.81 2.75
3135G04Z3 FNMA Note

0.500% Due 06/17/2025
3,435,000.00 06/17/2020

0.54%
3,427,889.55
3,430,782.07

92.85 3.04%
3,189,431.85
667.92

1.34%
(241,350.22)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

2.97 2.90
3137EAEU9 FHLMC Note

0.375% Due 07/21/2025
1,745,000.00 07/21/2020

0.48%
1,736,309.90
1,739,683.03

92.34 3.02%
1,611,291.12
2,908.33

0.68%
(128,391.91)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

3.06 2.99
3135G05X7 FNMA Note

0.375% Due 08/25/2025
2,755,000.00 08/25/2020

0.47%
2,742,106.60
2,746,863.87

91.94 3.08%
2,532,869.86
3,615.94

1.06%
(213,994.01)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

3.16 3.08
3137EAEX3 FHLMC Note

0.375% Due 09/23/2025
2,655,000.00 09/23/2020

0.44%
2,647,008.45
2,649,830.03

91.79 3.06%
2,437,143.98
2,710.31

1.02%
(212,686.05)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

3.24 3.16
3135G06G3 FNMA Note

0.500% Due 11/07/2025
2,860,000.00 11/09/2020

0.57%
2,849,761.20
2,853,112.28

91.91 3.06%
2,628,634.58
2,145.00

1.10%
(224,477.70)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

3.36 3.28
TOTAL Agency 58,320,000.00 1.60%
58,929,013.65
58,550,079.87 2.97%
56,641,842.27
263,427.97

23.86%
(1,908,237.60)
Aaa / AA+
Aaa

2.01 1.95
CMO
3137BFE98 FHLMC K041 A2

3.171% Due 10/25/2024
2,000,000.00 07/01/2021

0.72%
2,151,406.25
2,105,420.76

99.53 3.32%
1,990,626.00
5,285.00

0.84%
(114,794.76)
Aaa / AAA
AAA

2.32 2.11
As of June 30, 2022
32 94
Holdings Report
City of Dublin - Account #10198
CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody/S&P
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
3137BSRE5 FHLMC K059 A2

3.120% Due 09/25/2026
2,000,000.00 02/18/2022

1.98%
2,085,625.00
2,079,034.47

98.78 3.41%
1,975,674.00
5,200.00

0.83%
(103,360.47)

NR / AAA
AAA

4.24 3.81
TOTAL CMO 4,000,000.00 1.35%
4,237,031.25
4,184,455.23 3.36%
3,966,300.00
10,485.00

1.67%
(218,155.23)
Aaa / AAA
Aaa

3.28 2.96
Corporate
58933YAF2 Merck & Co Note

2.800% Due 05/18/2023
740,000.00 10/26/2018

3.41%
720,996.80
736,327.50

99.65 3.20%
737,423.32
2,474.89

0.31%
1,095.82
A1 / A+
A+

0.88 0.86
46625HRL6 JP Morgan Chase Callable Note Cont 3/18/2023

2.700% Due 05/18/2023
500,000.00 12/20/2018

3.74%
479,055.00
495,813.61

99.55 3.22%
497,730.50
1,612.50

0.21%
1,916.89
A2 / A-
AA-

0.88 0.86
69353RFL7 PNC Bank Callable Note Cont 5/9/2023

3.500% Due 06/08/2023
2,210,000.00 Various

3.53%
2,206,955.80
2,209,428.82
100.01

3.49%
2,210,179.01
4,941.80

0.93%
750.19
A2 / A
A+

0.94 0.91
02665WCJ8 American Honda Finance Note

3.450% Due 07/14/2023
1,000,000.00 Various

3.54%
996,275.00
999,165.90
100.06

3.39%
1,000,616.00
16,004.17

0.43%
1,450.10
A3 / A-
A

1.04 1.00
06406RAJ6 Bank of NY Mellon Corp Note

3.450% Due 08/11/2023
1,200,000.00 08/24/2018

3.42%
1,201,836.00
1,200,412.06
100.30

3.17%
1,203,616.80
16,100.00

0.51%
3,204.74
A1 / A
AA-

1.12 1.07
06051GHF9 Bank of America Corp Callable Note 1X 3/5/2023

3.550% Due 03/05/2024
2,400,000.00 Various

3.15%
2,434,650.00
2,407,821.63

99.71 3.55%
2,392,987.20
27,453.33

1.01%
(14,834.43)
A2 / A-
AA-

1.68 1.60
89114QCB2 Toronto Dominion Bank Note

3.250% Due 03/11/2024
2,300,000.00 03/26/2019

2.95%
2,331,234.00
2,310,681.68

99.50 3.56%
2,288,403.40
22,840.28

0.97%
(22,278.28)
A1 / A
AA-

1.70 1.62
037833CU2 Apple Inc Callable Note Cont 3/11/2024

2.850% Due 05/11/2024
3,000,000.00 Various

2.56%
3,038,334.00
3,014,021.07

99.37 3.20%
2,980,968.00
11,875.00

1.25%
(33,053.07)
Aaa / AA+
NR

1.87 1.79
023135BW5 Amazon.com Inc Note

0.450% Due 05/12/2024
1,865,000.00 05/10/2021

0.50%
1,862,277.10
1,863,308.13

95.16 3.14%
1,774,676.19
1,142.31

0.74%
(88,631.94)
A1 / AA
AA-

1.87 1.83
24422ETT6 John Deere Capital Corp Note

2.650% Due 06/24/2024
2,000,000.00 Various

1.32%
2,093,680.00
2,051,264.55

98.80 3.28%
1,976,000.00
1,030.56

0.83%
(75,264.55)
A2 / A
A

1.99 1.91
02665WCZ2 American Honda Finance Note

2.400% Due 06/27/2024
1,500,000.00 07/10/2019

2.49%
1,493,742.00
1,497,489.20

97.77 3.57%
1,466,601.00
400.00

0.62%
(30,888.20)
A3 / A-
A

1.99 1.92
79466LAG9 Salesforce.com Inc Callable Note Cont 7/15/2022

0.625% Due 07/15/2024
465,000.00 06/29/2021

0.64%
464,762.85
464,839.24

94.71 3.33%
440,408.01
1,340.10

0.19%
(24,431.23)
A2 / A+
NR

2.04 1.99
78013XZU5 Royal Bank of Canada Note

2.550% Due 07/16/2024
2,500,000.00 09/10/2019

2.28%
2,531,325.00
2,513,209.98

97.73 3.71%
2,443,162.50
29,218.75

1.04%
(70,047.48)
A1 / A
AA-

2.05 1.95
46647PAU0 JP Morgan Chase & Co Callable Note 1X 7/23/2023

3.797% Due 07/23/2024
2,500,000.00 09/12/2019

2.35%
2,632,175.00
2,536,381.03

99.67 3.67%
2,491,827.50
41,661.53

1.06%
(44,553.53)
A2 / A-
AA-

2.07 1.93
02665WEA5 American Honda Finance Note

1.500% Due 01/13/2025
1,075,000.00 01/11/2022

1.53%
1,074,150.75
1,074,281.70

94.97 3.59%
1,020,941.48
7,525.00

0.43%
(53,340.22)
A3 / A-
A

2.54 2.43
As of June 30, 2022
33 95
Holdings Report
City of Dublin - Account #10198
CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody/S&P
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
90331HPL1 US Bank NA Callable Note Cont 12/21/2024

2.050% Due 01/21/2025
2,610,000.00 01/16/2020

2.10%
2,604,440.70
2,607,154.93

96.14 3.64%
2,509,316.64
23,780.00

1.06%
(97,838.29)
A1 / AA-
AA-

2.56 2.44
00440EAS6 Chubb INA Holdings Inc Note

3.150% Due 03/15/2025
2,500,000.00 Various

0.76%
2,753,600.00
2,658,756.07

98.33 3.80%
2,458,165.00
23,187.50

1.04%
(200,591.07)
A3 / A
A

2.71 2.54
14913R2V8 Caterpillar Financial Service Note

3.400% Due 05/13/2025
1,165,000.00 05/10/2022

3.44%
1,163,520.45
1,163,586.60

99.83 3.46%
1,163,046.30
5,281.33

0.49%
(540.30)
A2 / A
A

2.87 2.70
747525AF0 Qualcomm Inc Callable Note Cont 2/20/2025

3.450% Due 05/20/2025
3,500,000.00 Various

1.78%
3,686,490.00
3,662,722.95

99.58 3.60%
3,485,275.50
13,752.09

1.47%
(177,447.45)
A2 / A
NR

2.89 2.72
61747YEA9 Morgan Stanley Callable Note Cont 5/30/2024

0.790% Due 05/30/2025
3,040,000.00 05/26/2021

0.77%
3,041,611.70
3,041,029.78

93.30 3.66%
2,836,368.64
2,068.05

1.19%
(204,661.14)
A1 / A-
A

2.92 2.83
438516CB0 Honeywell Intl Callable Note Cont 5/1/2025

1.350% Due 06/01/2025
2,500,000.00 06/23/2020

0.85%
2,559,500.00
2,534,772.73

94.21 3.45%
2,355,240.00
2,812.50

0.99%
(179,532.73)
A2 / A
A

2.92 2.82
78015K7H1 Royal Bank of Canada Note

1.150% Due 06/10/2025
1,000,000.00 02/22/2021

0.86%
1,012,240.00
1,008,396.94

92.60 3.83%
926,043.00
670.83

0.39%
(82,353.94)
A1 / A
AA-

2.95 2.85
02665WDL2 American Honda Finance Note

1.200% Due 07/08/2025
1,000,000.00 08/10/2021

1.00%
1,007,640.00
1,005,909.48

92.37 3.90%
923,736.00
5,766.67

0.39%
(82,173.48)
A3 / A-
A

3.02 2.90
89114QCK2 Toronto Dominion Bank Note

0.750% Due 09/11/2025
1,000,000.00 02/16/2021

0.81%
997,230.00
998,058.01

90.37 3.99%
903,730.00
2,291.67

0.38%
(94,328.01)
A1 / A
AA-

3.20 3.09
06051GHY8 Bank of America Corp Callable Note Cont 2/13/2025

2.015% Due 02/13/2026
1,250,000.00 03/04/2021

1.14%
1,291,725.00
1,277,797.32

93.81 4.12%
1,172,585.00
9,655.21

0.50%
(105,212.32)
A2 / A-
AA-

3.63 3.40
46647PBH8 JP Morgan Chase & Co Callable Note Mthly 3/13/2025

2.005% Due 03/13/2026
1,000,000.00 04/29/2021

1.20%
1,030,270.00
1,021,122.59

93.72 4.14%
937,248.00
6,015.00

0.40%
(83,874.59)
A2 / A-
AA-

3.70 3.48
808513BR5 Charles Schwab Corp Callable Note Cont 4/13/2026

1.150% Due 05/13/2026
1,370,000.00 05/11/2021

1.20%
1,366,821.60
1,367,542.22

90.32 3.87%
1,237,401.81
2,100.67

0.52%
(130,140.41)
A2 / A
A

3.87 3.71
91324PEC2 United Health Group Inc Callable Note Cont 4/15/2026

1.150% Due 05/15/2026
2,000,000.00 Various

1.90%
1,939,210.15
1,944,034.67

90.77 3.73%
1,815,304.00
2,938.90

0.76%
(128,730.67)
A3 / A+
A

3.88 3.72
89236TJK2 Toyota Motor Credit Corp Note

1.125% Due 06/18/2026
2,485,000.00 06/15/2021

1.13%
2,483,906.60
2,484,132.94

90.43 3.74%
2,247,073.68
1,009.53

0.94%
(237,059.26)
A1 / A+
A+

3.97 3.81
58989V2D5 Met Tower Global Funding Note

1.250% Due 09/14/2026
1,285,000.00 09/07/2021

1.27%
1,283,817.80
1,284,005.55

88.88 4.16%
1,142,129.85
4,774.13

0.48%
(141,875.70)
Aa3 / AA-
AA-

4.21 4.00
06368FAC3 Bank of Montreal Note

1.250% Due 09/15/2026
2,500,000.00 Various

1.29%
2,495,539.50
2,496,245.46

88.70 4.21%
2,217,577.50
9,201.39

0.93%
(278,667.96)
A2 / A-
AA-

4.21 4.00
As of June 30, 2022
34 96
Holdings Report
City of Dublin - Account #10198
CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody/S&P
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
931142ER0 Wal-Mart Stores Callable Note Cont 08/17/2026

1.050% Due 09/17/2026
585,000.00 09/08/2021

1.09%
583,894.35
584,068.13

91.05 3.34%
532,670.00
1,774.50

0.22%
(51,398.13)
Aa2 / AA
AA

4.22 4.05
59217GER6 Metlife Note

1.875% Due 01/11/2027
1,860,000.00 01/03/2022

1.90%
1,857,879.60
1,858,078.17

90.87 4.10%
1,690,215.48
16,468.75

0.72%
(167,862.69)
Aa3 / AA-
AA-

4.54 4.23
87612EBM7 Target Corp Callable Note Cont 12/15/2026

1.950% Due 01/15/2027
1,340,000.00 01/19/2022

1.99%
1,337,722.00
1,337,920.09

92.89 3.66%
1,244,772.90
11,395.58

0.53%
(93,147.19)
A2 / A
A

4.55 4.24
808513BY0 Charles Schwab Corp Callable Note Cont 2/3/2027

2.450% Due 03/03/2027
585,000.00 03/01/2022

2.47%
584,368.20
584,409.72

93.40 4.01%
546,361.34
4,697.88

0.23%
(38,048.38)
A2 / A
A

4.68 4.31
084664CZ2 Berkshire Hathaway Callable Note Cont 2/15/2027

2.300% Due 03/15/2027
2,295,000.00 03/07/2022

2.30%
2,294,563.95
2,294,589.74

94.59 3.56%
2,170,888.69
15,542.25

0.92%
(123,701.05)
Aa2 / AA
A+

4.71 4.37
40139LBF9 Guardian Life Glob Fun Note

3.246% Due 03/29/2027
765,000.00 03/24/2022

3.25%
765,000.00
765,000.00

96.88 3.97%
741,105.23
6,345.93

0.31%
(23,894.77)
Aa2 / AA+
NR

4.75 4.31
023135CF1 Amazon.com Inc Callable Note Cont 3/13/2027

3.300% Due 04/13/2027
1,750,000.00 04/25/2022

3.34%
1,746,972.50
1,747,081.10

98.22 3.71%
1,718,913.00
12,512.50

0.73%
(28,168.10)
A1 / AA
AA-

4.79 4.35
927804GH1 Virginia Electric Power Corp Callable Note Cont. 4/15/2027

3.750% Due 05/15/2027
1,000,000.00 Various

3.75%
999,773.40
999,776.75

99.15 3.94%
991,508.00
3,229.17

0.42%
(8,268.75)
A2 / BBB+
A

4.88 4.40
TOTAL Corporate 65,640,000.00 1.96%
66,449,186.80
66,100,638.04 3.64%
62,892,216.47
372,892.25

26.52%
(3,208,421.57)
A1 / A
A+

2.87 2.72
Money Market Fund
31846V203 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 3,039,481.06 Various

0.97%
3,039,481.06
3,039,481.06

1.00 0.97%
3,039,481.06

0.00 1.27%

0.00 Aaa / AAA
AAA

0.00 0.00
TOTAL Money Market Fund 3,039,481.06 0.97%
3,039,481.06
3,039,481.06 0.97%
3,039,481.06

0.00 1.27%

0.00 Aaa / AAA
Aaa

0.00 0.00
Negotiable CD
86959RTW0 Svenska Handelsbanken NY Yankee CD

0.255% Due 10/14/2022
2,500,000.00 10/15/2021

0.25%
2,500,126.08
2,500,036.37

99.45 2.13%
2,486,275.00
4,586.46

1.04%
(13,761.37)
P-1 / A-1+
F-1+

0.29 0.29
TOTAL Negotiable CD 2,500,000.00 0.25%
2,500,126.08
2,500,036.37 2.13%
2,486,275.00
4,586.46

1.04%
(13,761.37)
Aaa / AAA
Aaa

0.29 0.29
Supranational
4581X0CZ9 Inter-American Dev Bank Note

1.750% Due 09/14/2022
2,500,000.00 11/28/2017

2.18%
2,451,675.00
2,497,927.74

99.93 2.07%
2,498,330.00
13,003.47

1.05%
402.26
Aaa / AAA
AAA

0.21 0.20
As of June 30, 2022
35 97
Holdings Report
City of Dublin - Account #10198
CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody/S&P
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
4581X0DZ8 Inter-American Dev Bank Note

0.500% Due 09/23/2024
3,680,000.00 09/15/2021

0.52%
3,677,276.80
3,677,974.99

94.58 3.03%
3,480,396.80
5,008.89

1.46%
(197,578.19)
Aaa / AAA
NR

2.24 2.18
459058JB0 Intl. Bank Recon & Development Note

0.625% Due 04/22/2025
2,260,000.00 04/15/2020

0.70%
2,251,253.80
2,255,085.65

93.41 3.09%
2,111,038.88
2,707.29

0.89%
(144,046.77)
Aaa / AAA
NR

2.81 2.74
4581X0DN5 Inter-American Dev Bank Note

0.625% Due 07/15/2025
1,685,000.00 01/13/2021

0.53%
1,692,329.75
1,689,954.95

92.70 3.16%
1,561,986.58
4,856.08

0.66%
(127,968.37)
Aaa / AAA
NR

3.04 2.96
459058JL8 Intl. Bank Recon & Development Note

0.500% Due 10/28/2025
6,000,000.00 Various

0.55%
5,986,632.00
5,990,623.73

91.80 3.11%
5,507,772.00
5,250.00

2.31%
(482,851.73)
Aaa / AAA
AAA

3.33 3.25
4581X0DV7 Inter-American Dev Bank Note

0.875% Due 04/20/2026
4,615,000.00 04/13/2021

0.97%
4,593,863.30
4,598,921.75

91.97 3.13%
4,244,263.21
7,964.08

1.78%
(354,658.54)
Aaa / AAA
AAA

3.81 3.68
TOTAL Supranational 20,740,000.00 0.85%
20,653,030.65
20,710,488.81 2.97%
19,403,787.47
38,789.81

8.15%
(1,306,701.34)
Aaa / AAA
Aaa

2.76 2.68
US Treasury
912828R69 US Treasury Note

1.625% Due 05/31/2023
1,500,000.00 05/30/2018

2.67%
1,427,167.97
1,486,678.04

98.85 2.91%
1,482,715.50
2,064.55

0.62%
(3,962.54)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

0.92 0.90
912828U57 US Treasury Note

2.125% Due 11/30/2023
5,000,000.00 Various

2.53%
4,908,242.19
4,973,173.87

98.91 2.91%
4,945,705.00
8,999.32

2.08%
(27,468.87)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

1.42 1.38
912828V80 US Treasury Note

2.250% Due 01/31/2024
5,000,000.00 Various

2.32%
4,983,691.41
4,994,630.31

98.94 2.94%
4,946,875.00
46,926.80

2.09%
(47,755.31)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

1.59 1.53
912828WJ5 US Treasury Note

2.500% Due 05/15/2024
1,750,000.00 06/10/2019

1.91%
1,798,261.72
1,768,339.45

99.18 2.95%
1,735,713.00
5,587.64

0.73%
(32,626.45)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

1.88 1.81
9128282N9 US Treasury Note

2.125% Due 07/31/2024
2,000,000.00 08/30/2019

1.44%
2,064,531.25
2,027,327.93

98.33 2.95%
1,966,640.00
17,727.90

0.83%
(60,687.93)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

2.09 2.00
912828YH7 US Treasury Note

1.500% Due 09/30/2024
3,500,000.00 Various

1.65%
3,474,941.41
3,488,366.75

96.82 2.97%
3,388,847.00
13,196.72

1.43%
(99,519.75)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

2.25 2.18
9128283J7 US Treasury Note

2.125% Due 11/30/2024
3,000,000.00 Various

1.76%
3,051,650.40
3,025,180.13

98.02 2.98%
2,940,585.00
5,399.59

1.24%
(84,595.13)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

2.42 2.33
91282CDZ1 US Treasury Note

1.500% Due 02/15/2025
2,000,000.00 05/06/2022

2.92%
1,925,156.25
1,929,072.06

96.21 3.01%
1,924,296.00
11,270.72

0.81%
(4,776.06)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

2.63 2.53
912828ZC7 US Treasury Note

1.125% Due 02/28/2025
3,500,000.00 03/24/2020

0.52%
3,603,222.66
3,555,766.60

95.27 2.98%
3,334,569.00
13,160.67

1.40%
(221,197.60)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

2.67 2.59
91282CED9 US Treasury Note

1.750% Due 03/15/2025
2,000,000.00 03/15/2022

2.00%
1,985,312.50
1,986,747.72

96.78 3.00%
1,935,624.00
10,271.74

0.82%
(51,123.72)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

2.71 2.60
As of June 30, 2022
36 98
Holdings Report
City of Dublin - Account #10198
CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody/S&P
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
912828ZL7 US Treasury Note

0.375% Due 04/30/2025
4,000,000.00 Various

0.38%
3,998,593.75
3,999,183.11

92.91 3.00%
3,716,248.00
2,527.18

1.56%
(282,935.11)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

2.84 2.78
91282CAM3 US Treasury Note

0.250% Due 09/30/2025
2,500,000.00 10/16/2020

0.32%
2,491,406.25
2,494,354.85

91.46 3.03%
2,286,620.00
1,571.04

0.96%
(207,734.85)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

3.25 3.19
91282CBC4 US Treasury Note

0.375% Due 12/31/2025
1,000,000.00 12/29/2020

0.38%
999,921.88
999,945.28

91.25 3.03%
912,461.00

10.19 0.38%
(87,484.28)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

3.51 3.43
91282CBH3 US Treasury Note

0.375% Due 01/31/2026
4,000,000.00 02/23/2021

0.58%
3,960,625.00
3,971,375.55

91.04 3.03%
3,641,564.00
6,256.91

1.53%
(329,811.55)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

3.59 3.50
91282CBQ3 US Treasury Note

0.500% Due 02/28/2026
2,500,000.00 03/26/2021

0.83%
2,459,960.94
2,470,187.95

91.26 3.04%
2,281,445.00
4,177.99

0.96%
(188,742.95)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

3.67 3.58
91282CBT7 US Treasury Note

0.750% Due 03/31/2026
5,000,000.00 Various

0.85%
4,974,804.69
4,981,047.01

91.96 3.03%
4,598,240.00
9,426.23

1.93%
(382,807.01)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

3.75 3.64
91282CCF6 US Treasury Note

0.750% Due 05/31/2026
2,000,000.00 06/18/2021

0.91%
1,985,000.00
1,988,116.34

91.61 3.04%
1,832,266.00
1,270.49

0.77%
(155,850.34)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

3.92 3.81
91282CCW9 US Treasury Note

0.750% Due 08/31/2026
2,000,000.00 08/30/2021

0.77%
1,998,515.63
1,998,762.75

91.15 3.02%
1,823,046.00
5,013.59

0.77%
(175,716.75)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

4.17 4.04
91282CDG3 US Treasury Note

1.125% Due 10/31/2026
5,000,000.00 Various

1.25%
4,970,498.06
4,973,884.23

92.31 3.03%
4,615,430.00
9,476.91

1.94%
(358,454.23)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

4.34 4.17
912828Z78 US Treasury Note

1.500% Due 01/31/2027
4,500,000.00 Various

2.15%
4,367,285.16
4,372,935.79

93.50 3.03%
4,207,675.50
28,156.08

1.78%
(165,260.29)
Aaa / AA+
AAA

4.59 4.35
91282CEN7 US Treasury Note

2.750% Due 04/30/2027
4,000,000.00 Various

3.04%
3,946,171.88
3,946,509.72

98.80 3.01%
3,951,876.00
18,532.60

1.66%
5,366.28
Aaa / AA+
AAA

4.84 4.48
TOTAL US Treasury 65,750,000.00 1.52%
65,374,961.00
65,431,585.44 2.99%
62,468,441.00
221,024.86

26.28%
(2,963,144.44)
Aaa / AA+
Aaa

3.05 2.94
TOTAL PORTFOLIO 247,425,533.01 1.57%
248,615,382.47
247,950,085.33 3.20%
237,591,495.97
926,068.06
100.00%
(10,358,589.36
)
Aa1 / AA
Aaa

2.69 2.39
TOTAL MARKET VALUE PLUS ACCRUALS 238,517,564.03
As of June 30, 2022
37 99
Holdings Report
City of Dublin Reporting Account - Account #10219
CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody/S&P
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
LAIF
90LAIF$00 Local Agency Investment Fund State Pool 50,464,181.02 Various

0.94%
50,464,181.02
50,464,181.02

1.00 0.94%
50,464,181.02
86,800.11

36.16%

0.00 NR / NR
NR

0.00 0.00
TOTAL LAIF 50,464,181.02 0.94%
50,464,181.02
50,464,181.02 0.94%
50,464,181.02
86,800.11

36.16%

0.00 NR / NR
NR

0.00 0.00
Local Gov Investment Pool
90CAMP$00 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 89,240,307.94 Various

1.40%
89,240,307.94
89,240,307.94

1.00 1.40%
89,240,307.94

0.00 63.84%

0.00 NR / AAA
NR

0.00 0.00
TOTAL Local Gov Investment Pool 89,240,307.94 1.40%
89,240,307.94
89,240,307.94 1.40%
89,240,307.94

0.00 63.84%

0.00 NR / AAA
NR

0.00 0.00
TOTAL PORTFOLIO 139,704,488.96 1.23%
139,704,488.96
139,704,488.96 1.23%
139,704,488.96
86,800.11
100.00%

0.00 NR / AAA
NR

0.00 0.00
TOTAL MARKET VALUE PLUS ACCRUALS 139,791,289.07
As of June 30, 2022
38 100
SECTION |
Section 5 |
Transactions
39 101
Transaction Ledger
City of Dublin - Account #10198
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest
Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss

ACQUISITIONS
Purchase 04/13/2022 362585AC5 780,000.00 GM Financial Securitized ART 2022-2 A3

3.1% Due: 02/16/2027

99.979 3.13% 779,836.98 0.00 779,836.98 0.00
Purchase 04/27/2022 023135CF1 1,750,000.00 Amazon.com Inc Callable Note Cont 3/13/2027

3.3% Due: 04/13/2027

99.827 3.34% 1,746,972.50 2,245.83 1,749,218.33 0.00
Purchase 04/28/2022 912828Z78 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note

1.5% Due: 01/31/2027

94.199 2.81% 1,883,984.38 7,209.94 1,891,194.32 0.00
Purchase 05/09/2022
91282CDZ1 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note

1.5% Due: 02/15/2025

96.258 2.92% 1,925,156.25 6,878.45 1,932,034.70 0.00
Purchase 05/11/2022
36266FAC3 1,020,000.00 GM Financial Auto Lease Trust 2022-2 A3

3.42% Due: 06/20/2025

99.990 3.45% 1,019,893.61 0.00 1,019,893.61 0.00
Purchase 05/13/2022 14913R2V8 1,165,000.00 Caterpillar Financial Service Note

3.4% Due: 05/13/2025

99.873 3.44% 1,163,520.45 0.00 1,163,520.45 0.00
Purchase 05/18/2022
05602RAD3 850,000.00 BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2022-A A3

3.21% Due: 08/25/2026

99.995 3.23% 849,955.80 0.00 849,955.80 0.00
Purchase 05/24/2022 02582JJT8 2,205,000.00 American Express Credit Trust 2022-2 A

3.39% Due: 05/17/2027

99.978 3.42% 2,204,512.25 0.00 2,204,512.25 0.00
Purchase 05/31/2022 927804GH1 660,000.00 Virginia Electric Power Corp Callable Note Cont. 4/15/2027

3.75% Due: 05/15/2027

99.688 3.82% 657,940.80 0.00 657,940.80 0.00
Purchase 05/31/2022
927804GH1 340,000.00 Virginia Electric Power Corp Callable Note Cont. 4/15/2027

3.75% Due: 05/15/2027
100.539 3.63% 341,832.60 0.00 341,832.60 0.00
Purchase 06/07/2022
91282CEN7 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note

2.75% Due: 04/30/2027

98.805 3.01% 1,976,093.75 5,679.35 1,981,773.10 0.00
March 31, 2022 through June 30, 2022
As of June 30, 2022
40 102
Transaction Ledger
City of Dublin - Account #10198
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest
Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss
Purchase 06/30/2022 91282CEN7 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note

2.75% Due: 04/30/2027

98.504 3.08% 1,970,078.13 9,116.84 1,979,194.97 0.00
Subtotal 16,770,000.00 16,519,777.50 31,130.41 16,550,907.91 0.00 TOTAL ACQUISITIONS 16,770,000.00 16,519,777.50 31,130.41 16,550,907.91 0.00

DISPOSITIONS
Sale 04/08/2022
912828L57 750,000.00 US Treasury Note

1.75% Due: 09/30/2022
100.313 2.06% 752,343.75 286.89 752,630.64 3,266.68
Sale 04/27/2022 808513AT2 2,000,000.00 Charles Schwab Corp Callable Note Cont 12/25/2022

2.65% Due: 01/25/2023
100.352 2.74% 2,007,040.00 13,544.44 2,020,584.44 8,275.92 Sale 04/28/2022
912828M49 1,000,000.00 US Treasury Note

1.875% Due: 10/31/2022
100.250 2.47% 1,002,500.00 9,271.41 1,011,771.41 5,357.64 Sale 05/05/2022
912828L57 1,000,000.00 US Treasury Note

1.75% Due: 09/30/2022
100.164 2.06% 1,001,640.63 1,673.50 1,003,314.13 2,681.33 Sale 05/09/2022
912828L57 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note

1.75% Due: 09/30/2022
100.191 2.06% 2,003,828.13 3,729.51 2,007,557.64 5,853.29 Sale 05/13/2022
931142EK5 1,380,000.00 Wal-Mart Stores Callable Note Cont 5/26/2023

3.4% Due: 06/26/2023
101.121 3.41% 1,395,469.80 17,855.67 1,413,325.47 15,550.19 Sale 05/20/2022 9128284D9 1,750,000.00 US Treasury Note

2.5% Due: 03/31/2023
100.449 2.76% 1,757,861.33 5,976.78 1,763,838.11 11,438.32 Sale 05/25/2022
9128284D9 250,000.00 US Treasury Note

2.5% Due: 03/31/2023
100.492 2.76% 251,230.47 939.21 252,169.68 1,733.35
Sale 06/07/2022
9128284D9 1,750,000.00 US Treasury Note

2.5% Due: 03/31/2023
100.316 2.76% 1,755,537.11 8,128.42 1,763,665.53 8,909.70 Sale 06/29/2022
084670BR8 1,865,000.00 Berkshire Hathaway Callable Note Cont 1/15/2023

2.75% Due: 03/15/2023

99.844 3.35% 1,862,090.60 14,816.39 1,876,906.99 4,346.36 Subtotal 13,745,000.00 13,789,541.82 76,222.22 13,865,764.04 67,412.78 March 31, 2022 through June 30, 2022
As of June 30, 2022
41 103
Transaction Ledger
City of Dublin - Account #10198
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest
Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss
Call 05/11/2022 166764AH3 1,000,000.00 Chevron Corp Callable Note Cont 3/24/2023

3.191% Due: 06/24/2023
101.059 3.59% 1,010,593.72 12,143.50 1,022,737.22 0.00
Subtotal 1,000,000.00 1,010,593.72 12,143.50 1,022,737.22 0.00 Maturity 06/23/2022
06417MQL2 2,500,000.00 Bank of Nova Scotia Houston Yankee CD

0.2% Due: 06/23/2022
100.000 2,500,000.00 5,069.45 2,505,069.45 0.00
Subtotal 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 5,069.45 2,505,069.45 0.00 TOTAL DISPOSITIONS 17,245,000.00 17,300,135.54 93,435.17 17,393,570.71 67,412.78 March 31, 2022 through June 30, 2022
As of June 30, 2022
42 104
Transaction Ledger
City of Dublin Reporting Account - Account #10219
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest
Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss

ACQUISITIONS
Purchase 04/15/2022 90LAIF$00 39,735.77 Local Agency Investment Fund State Pool 1.000 0.42% 39,735.77 0.00 39,735.77 0.00 Purchase 06/30/2022 90CAMP$00 80,385.23 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 1.000 1.40% 80,385.23 0.00 80,385.23 0.00 Subtotal 120,121.00 120,121.00 0.00 120,121.00 0.00
Security
Contribution
06/28/2022 90CAMP$00 4,000,000.00 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 1.000 4,000,000.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 0.00 Subtotal 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 0.00 TOTAL ACQUISITIONS 4,120,121.00 4,120,121.00 0.00 4,120,121.00 0.00

DISPOSITIONS
Security
Withdrawal
06/01/2022 90CAMP$00 1,000,000.00 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 1.000 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 0.00 Security
Withdrawal
06/14/2022
90CAMP$00 500,000.00 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 1.000 500,000.00 0.00 500,000.00 0.00 Subtotal 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 TOTAL DISPOSITIONS 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 March 31, 2022 through June 30, 2022
As of June 30, 2022
43 105
Important Disclosures
2022 Chandler Asset Management, Inc, An Independent Registered Investment Adviser.

Information contained herein is confidential . Prices are provided by ICE Data Services Inc (“IDS”), an independent pricing source. In the event IDS does not provide a price or if the price provided is not reflective of fair market value, Chandler will obtain pricing from an alternative approved third party pricing source in accordance with our written valuation policy and procedures . Our valuation procedures are also disclosed in Item 5 of our Form ADV Part 2A.

Performance results are presented gross-of-advisory fees and represent the client’s Total Return. The deduction of advisory fees lowers performance results. These results include the reinvestment of dividends and other earnings. Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Therefore, clients should not assume that future performance of any specific investment or investment strategy will be profitable or equal to past performance levels. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. Economic factors, market conditions or changes in investment strategies, contributions or withdrawals may materially alter the performance and results of your portfolio.

Index returns assume reinvestment of all distributions. Historical performance results for investment indexes generally do not reflect the deduction of transaction and/or custodial charges or the deduction of an investment management fee, the incurrence of which would have the effect of decreasing historical performance results. It is not possible to invest directly in an index.

Source ICE Data Indices, LLC ("ICE"), used with permission. ICE permits use of the ICE indices and related data on an "as is" basis; ICE, its affiliates and their respective third party suppliers disclaim any and all warranties and representations, express and/or implied, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use, including the indices, index data and any data included in, related to, or derived therefrom. Neither ICE data, its affiliates or their respective third party providers guarantee the quality, adequacy, accuracy, timeliness or completeness of the indices or the index data or any component thereof, and the indices and index data and all components thereof are provided on an "as is" basis and licensee's use it at licensee's own risk. ICE data, its affiliates and their respective third party do not sponsor, endorse, or recommend chandler asset management, or any of its products or services.

This re port is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a specific investment or legal advice. The information contained herein was obtained from sources believed to be reliable as of the date of publication, but may become outdated or superseded at any time without notice. Any opinions or views expressed are based on current market conditions and are subject to change. This report may contain forecasts and forward-looking statements which are inherently limited and should not be relied upon as indicator of future results. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This report is not intended to constitute an offer, solicitation, recommendation or advice regarding any securities or investment strategy and should not be regarded by recipients as a substitute for the exercise of their own judgment.

Fixed income investments are subject to interest, credit and market risk. Interest rate risk: the value of fixed income investments will decline as interest rates rise. Credit risk: the possibility that the borrower may not be able to repay interest and principal. Low rated bonds generally have to pay higher interest rates to attract investors willing to take on greater risk. Market risk: the bond market in general could decline due to economic conditions, especially during periods of rising interest rates.

Ratings information have been provided by Moody’s, S&P and Fitch through data feeds we believe to be reliable as of the date of this statement, however we cannot guarantee its accuracy.

Security level ratings for U.S. Agency issued mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) reflect the issuer rating because the securities themselves are not rated. The issuing U.S. Agency guarantees the full and timely payment of both principal and interest and carries a AA+/Aaa/AAA by S&P, Moody’s and Fitch respectively.

As of June 30, 2022
44 106
Benchmark Disclosures
ICE BofA 1-5 Yr US Treasury & Agency Index*
The ICE BofA 1-5 Year US Treasury & Agency Index tracks the performance of US dollar denominated US Treasury and nonsubordinated US agency debt issued in the US domestic market. Qualifying securities must have an investment grade rating (based on an average of Moody’s, S&P and Fitch). Qualifying securities must have at least one year remaining term to final maturity and less than five years remaining term to final maturity, at least 18 months to maturity at time of issuance, a fixed coupon schedule, and a minimum amount outstanding of $1 billion for sovereigns and $250 million for agencies.

The ICE BofA 1-3 Year US Treasury & Agency Index tracks the performance of US dollar denominated US Treasury and nonsubordinated US agency debt issued in the US domestic market. Qualifying securities must have an investment grade rating (based on an average of Moody’s, S&P and Fitch). Qualifying securities must have at least one year remaining term to final maturity and less than three years remaining term to final maturity, at least 18 months to maturity at time of issuance, a fixed coupon schedule, and a minimum amount outstanding of $1 billion for sovereigns and $250 million for agencies.

As of June 30, 2022
45 107
Transaction Ledger
City of Dublin - Account #10198
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest
Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss

ACQUISITIONS
Purchase 04/13/2022 362585AC5 780,000.00 GM Financial Securitized ART 2022-2 A3

3.1% Due: 02/16/2027

99.979 3.13% 779,836.98 0.00 779,836.98 0.00
Purchase 04/27/2022 023135CF1 1,750,000.00 Amazon.com Inc Callable Note Cont 3/13/2027

3.3% Due: 04/13/2027

99.827 3.34% 1,746,972.50 2,245.83 1,749,218.33 0.00
Purchase 04/28/2022 912828Z78 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note

1.5% Due: 01/31/2027

94.199 2.81% 1,883,984.38 7,209.94 1,891,194.32 0.00
Purchase 05/09/2022
91282CDZ1 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note

1.5% Due: 02/15/2025

96.258 2.92% 1,925,156.25 6,878.45 1,932,034.70 0.00
Purchase 05/11/2022
36266FAC3 1,020,000.00 GM Financial Auto Lease Trust 2022-2 A3

3.42% Due: 06/20/2025

99.990 3.45% 1,019,893.61 0.00 1,019,893.61 0.00
Purchase 05/13/2022 14913R2V8 1,165,000.00 Caterpillar Financial Service Note

3.4% Due: 05/13/2025

99.873 3.44% 1,163,520.45 0.00 1,163,520.45 0.00
Purchase 05/18/2022
05602RAD3 850,000.00 BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2022-A A3

3.21% Due: 08/25/2026

99.995 3.23% 849,955.80 0.00 849,955.80 0.00
Purchase 05/24/2022 02582JJT8 2,205,000.00 American Express Credit Trust 2022-2 A

3.39% Due: 05/17/2027

99.978 3.42% 2,204,512.25 0.00 2,204,512.25 0.00
Purchase 05/31/2022 927804GH1 660,000.00 Virginia Electric Power Corp Callable Note Cont. 4/15/2027

3.75% Due: 05/15/2027

99.688 3.82% 657,940.80 0.00 657,940.80 0.00
Purchase 05/31/2022
927804GH1 340,000.00 Virginia Electric Power Corp Callable Note Cont. 4/15/2027

3.75% Due: 05/15/2027
100.539 3.63% 341,832.60 0.00 341,832.60 0.00
Purchase 06/07/2022
91282CEN7 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note

2.75% Due: 04/30/2027

98.805 3.01% 1,976,093.75 5,679.35 1,981,773.10 0.00
March 31, 2022 through June 30, 2022
As of June 30, 2022
40 Attachment 2
108
Transaction Ledger
City of Dublin - Account #10198
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest
Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss
Purchase 06/30/2022 91282CEN7 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note

2.75% Due: 04/30/2027

98.504 3.08% 1,970,078.13 9,116.84 1,979,194.97 0.00
Subtotal 16,770,000.00 16,519,777.50 31,130.41 16,550,907.91 0.00 TOTAL ACQUISITIONS 16,770,000.00 16,519,777.50 31,130.41 16,550,907.91 0.00

DISPOSITIONS
Sale 04/08/2022
912828L57 750,000.00 US Treasury Note

1.75% Due: 09/30/2022
100.313 2.06% 752,343.75 286.89 752,630.64 3,266.68
Sale 04/27/2022 808513AT2 2,000,000.00 Charles Schwab Corp Callable Note Cont 12/25/2022

2.65% Due: 01/25/2023
100.352 2.74% 2,007,040.00 13,544.44 2,020,584.44 8,275.92 Sale 04/28/2022
912828M49 1,000,000.00 US Treasury Note

1.875% Due: 10/31/2022
100.250 2.47% 1,002,500.00 9,271.41 1,011,771.41 5,357.64 Sale 05/05/2022
912828L57 1,000,000.00 US Treasury Note

1.75% Due: 09/30/2022
100.164 2.06% 1,001,640.63 1,673.50 1,003,314.13 2,681.33 Sale 05/09/2022
912828L57 2,000,000.00 US Treasury Note

1.75% Due: 09/30/2022
100.191 2.06% 2,003,828.13 3,729.51 2,007,557.64 5,853.29 Sale 05/13/2022
931142EK5 1,380,000.00 Wal-Mart Stores Callable Note Cont 5/26/2023

3.4% Due: 06/26/2023
101.121 3.41% 1,395,469.80 17,855.67 1,413,325.47 15,550.19 Sale 05/20/2022 9128284D9 1,750,000.00 US Treasury Note

2.5% Due: 03/31/2023
100.449 2.76% 1,757,861.33 5,976.78 1,763,838.11 11,438.32 Sale 05/25/2022
9128284D9 250,000.00 US Treasury Note

2.5% Due: 03/31/2023
100.492 2.76% 251,230.47 939.21 252,169.68 1,733.35
Sale 06/07/2022
9128284D9 1,750,000.00 US Treasury Note

2.5% Due: 03/31/2023
100.316 2.76% 1,755,537.11 8,128.42 1,763,665.53 8,909.70 Sale 06/29/2022
084670BR8 1,865,000.00 Berkshire Hathaway Callable Note Cont 1/15/2023

2.75% Due: 03/15/2023

99.844 3.35% 1,862,090.60 14,816.39 1,876,906.99 4,346.36 Subtotal 13,745,000.00 13,789,541.82 76,222.22 13,865,764.04 67,412.78 March 31, 2022 through June 30, 2022
As of June 30, 2022
41 109
Transaction Ledger
City of Dublin - Account #10198
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest
Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss
Call 05/11/2022 166764AH3 1,000,000.00 Chevron Corp Callable Note Cont 3/24/2023

3.191% Due: 06/24/2023
101.059 3.59% 1,010,593.72 12,143.50 1,022,737.22 0.00
Subtotal 1,000,000.00 1,010,593.72 12,143.50 1,022,737.22 0.00 Maturity 06/23/2022
06417MQL2 2,500,000.00 Bank of Nova Scotia Houston Yankee CD

0.2% Due: 06/23/2022
100.000 2,500,000.00 5,069.45 2,505,069.45 0.00
Subtotal 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 5,069.45 2,505,069.45 0.00 TOTAL DISPOSITIONS 17,245,000.00 17,300,135.54 93,435.17 17,393,570.71 67,412.78 March 31, 2022 through June 30, 2022
As of June 30, 2022
42 110
Transaction Ledger
City of Dublin Reporting Account - Account #10219
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest
Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss

ACQUISITIONS
Purchase 04/15/2022 90LAIF$00 39,735.77 Local Agency Investment Fund State Pool 1.000 0.42% 39,735.77 0.00 39,735.77 0.00 Purchase 06/30/2022 90CAMP$00 80,385.23 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 1.000 1.40% 80,385.23 0.00 80,385.23 0.00 Subtotal 120,121.00 120,121.00 0.00 120,121.00 0.00
Security
Contribution
06/28/2022 90CAMP$00 4,000,000.00 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 1.000 4,000,000.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 0.00 Subtotal 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 0.00 TOTAL ACQUISITIONS 4,120,121.00 4,120,121.00 0.00 4,120,121.00 0.00

DISPOSITIONS
Security
Withdrawal
06/01/2022 90CAMP$00 1,000,000.00 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 1.000 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 0.00 Security
Withdrawal
06/14/2022
90CAMP$00 500,000.00 California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP 1.000 500,000.00 0.00 500,000.00 0.00 Subtotal 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 TOTAL DISPOSITIONS 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 March 31, 2022 through June 30, 2022
As of June 30, 2022
43 111

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 4 ends

Agenda Item 4.7
DATE: August 16, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Dublin Transit Center Parking Garage Public Art Project Prepared by: Shaun Chilkotowsky, Heritage & Cultural Arts Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will receive a report on the public art project planned for the Dublin Transit Center Parking Garage being constructed by Alameda County.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the report.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None. This public art project is funded by the County of Alameda and managed by the Alameda County Arts Commission, a division of the County of Alameda.

DESCRIPTION:

Background
The County of Alameda is building a new parking structure adjacent to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The Dublin Transit Center Parking Garage will have the capacity for more than 500 parking spaces , including priority vanpool parking and electric vehi cle charging stations, to promote and increase commuter ridership. The new parking structure is intended to limit vehicle miles for commuters , reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Livermore and Amador Valley area s, and support the County’s vision for acc essible infrastructure and a healthy environment.

The County is funding a public art pr oject for the parking structure. The public art project is managed by the Alameda County Arts Commission (ACAC), a division of Alameda County. The location for the artwork is a five-story glass wall for the stair tower located at the corner of Campus Drive and Martinelli Way . This will be a highly visible expansive artwork integrated 112

Page 2 of 4 ends

directly into the building. The ACAC will engage an artist to create a new original artwork for this project. The artwork will be digitized and printed onto the glass. The fabrication and installation of the decorative glazing are part of the design-build contract. The decorative glazing and stair tower will meet all building construction and safety standards.

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors passed the Public Art Ordinance in 1994, which requires that all County capital improvement projects include art integrated into the built public environment to support the programs and services provided to the public and to contribute to the overall quality of life of the community. County staff work closely with the appointed members of the ACAC and the Public Art Advisory Committee to provide oversight of the programs and make recommendations for contracts and grant awards to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.

Artist Selection Committee and Artist Selection Process The ACAC is following its standard process to engage community members and select an artist for this project. To start the community engagement phase, the ACAC invited community members to submit information about Dublin through an online survey. They then requested that community members submit an interest form if they wished to serve on the Selection Committee of eight members chosen by the ACAC. Community members serving on the Selection Committee were required to meet the following criteria:
 Live, work, or own a business in Dublin or the Tri-Valley region.  Be willing to work cooperatively as part of a committee.  Be willing to consider opinions beyond their individual interests and the greater community when making recommendations.
 Be interested in art (prior experience evaluating artwork is not necessary).  Be able to attend committee meetings.

Additionally, a stated goal of the ACAC was to have one or some community members with direct art experience and knowledge of visual art and/or design, familiarity with evaluating artwork in terms of style, materials, and concepts, and the ability to share their expertise with others who do not have an art or design background.

Artists considered for this project are part of the 2021 Alameda County Artist Registry, an established list of pre-qualified artists from 14 counties of the greater Bay Area (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, and Yolo). From the Artist Registry, a Project Pool of artists was identified. The ACAC staff considered the following when developing the Project Pool:
 The artists’ professional experience illustrates an ability to fulfill the scope of work for this project.
 Artists who work in various styles and materials that may be appropriate for this large- scale, design-only project.
 Artists who live in Dublin, Pleasanton, or Livermore.

The ACAC staff presented the past work of the 44 artists in the Project Pool to the Artist Selection Committee on April 20 and 27, 2022. The Selection Committee reviewed images of the artists’ past 113

Page 3 of 4 ends

work and selected six semi-finalists for the project. The semi-finalists are: Cece Carpio, Emily Fromm, Robin Gibson, Phillip Hua, Rough Edge Collective (Maria-Jose Lindo-Lawyer and Joshua Lawyer), and t.w.five (Pernilla Andersson and Paula Pereira).

The semi-finalists attended an orientation meeting with the ACAC to learn about the technical aspects of the project during the proposal development period. Each semi-finalist was paid a stipend of $1,000 to create a visual and written artwork proposal.

Community Input in Artwork Design Selection
The six semi-finalists each created a visual and written proposal for this project after their selection. They considered the character of Dublin’s landscape and community and the architectural and site conditions. Dublin community members are invited to review the proposals and provide comments. The proposals and feedback form are available online at https://bit.ly/DublinGarage_Proposals. An informational display is also available at the Dublin Library from August 9-22. The Artist Selection Committee will consider all comments received, both online and in written format provided at the library, through Tuesday, August 23, at 12:00 p.m. The ACAC is promoting this opportunity throughout Dublin via social media.

As part of the ACAC community engagement activities, Arts Commission Director Rachel Osajima presented information about the public art project to the City of Dublin Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission at their meetings of Thursday, May 12, 2022, and Thursday, August 11, 2022.

Next Steps
The semi-finalists will present their proposals and be interviewed by the Artist Selection Committee on Wednesday, August 24. The Selection Committee will choose one artist (or one artist team) for this project. The Selection Committee’s recommendation of the artist will be presented for approval to the Alameda County Public Art Advisory Committee at their meeting on Thursday, August 25, and to the ACAC at their meeting on Wednesday, September 14. The artist’s contract will be presented to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors for final approval in October 2022 (exact date to be determined). All meetings are held via teleconference. The ACAC meeting agendas and Zoom links can be found on their website at www.acgov.org/arts. The Board of Supervisor’s meeting information can be found on the main County website at https://bos.acgov.org/regular-meetings/.

Once the selected artist is under contract, the artist will work closely with ACAC staff to further develop their proposal. The anticipated completion date for the Dublin Transit Center Parking Garage is early 2024. It is anticipated that ACAC staff will provide an update in October 2022 to the Dublin City Council regarding the selected artist and the final design of the artwork.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.
114

Page 4 of 4 ends

ATTACHMENTS:

None.
115

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item 4.8
DATE: August 16, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: First Amendment to the Agreement with All City Management Services Inc.

Prepared by: Nate Schmidt, Captain Dublin Police Services EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider approving an amendment to the agreement with All City Management Inc. to pay for additional crossing guard services rendered in Fiscal Year 2021-22.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Approving Amendment #1 to the Agreement with All City Management Services Inc. for Crossing Guard Services.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The original agreement with All City Management Services Inc. was not to exceed $275,242.64.

The amendment to the agreement adds $27,643.51, for a total not-to-exceed cost of $302,886.15.

There is sufficient funding remaining in the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Police Services budget for this amendment.

DESCRIPTION:

All City Management Services Inc (ACMS), headquartered in Los Angeles and serving numerous cities in northern and southern California, has provided crossing guard services to the City of Dublin since July 1, 1995 via a yearly agreement. The most recent agreement with ACMS was approved on July 20, 2021 and included crossing guard services in 15 locations throughout the City for a not-to-exceed amount of $275,242.64 through June 30, 2022.

Due to staggered start and end times at several Dublin Unified School District schools, unanticipated crossing guard coverage was needed to maintain the same level of service. This increase in service resulted in additional costs and requires an amendment to the contract to finalize the Fiscal Year 2021-22 billings.
116

Page 2 of 2 ends

The proposed amendment adds $27,643.51 to the agreement for a total not-to-exceed amount of $302,886.15 for Fiscal Year 2021-22. There is sufficient funding in the Police Operating budget for this amendment.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Approving Amendment #1 to the Agreement with All City Management Services Inc. for Crossing Guard Services
2) Exhibit A to the Resolution – Amendment #1 to the Contractor Services Agreement Between the City of Dublin and All City Management Services Inc. 3) Contractor Services Agreement Between the City of Dublin and All City Management Services Inc.
117
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-22 Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING AMENDMENT #1 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC. FOR CROSSING GUARD SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin uses All City Management Services Inc. to provide crossing guard services in 15 locations throughout the City; and WHEREAS, on July 20, 2021 City Council approved an agreement with All City Management Services for crossing guard services with a not-to exceed amount of $275,242.64; and
WHEREAS, due to unanticipated staggered start and end times at several schools, additional crossing guard hours were needed to maintain the same level of service and safety to the school community; and
WHEREAS, the increase in service resulted in an additional cost of $27,643.51 with an amended not-to-exceed amount of $302,886.15; and
WHEREAS, there is sufficient funding in the Police Operating budget for this amendment; and
WHEREAS, the amendment will close out the invoices for Fiscal Year 2021-22 for All City Management Services Inc.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve Amendment #1 to the Agreement with All City Management Services Inc. attached hereto as Exhibit A.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the Amendment to the Contract with All City Management Services Inc. and make any necessary minor adjustments to carry out the intent of this Resolution. {Signatures on the following page}
118
Reso. No. XX-22 Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 2 of 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16 th day of August 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
119
Attachment 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution

Page 1 of 3 ends

AMENDMENT #1 TO THE CONTRACTOR SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND
ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC.

WHEREAS, on JULY 20, 2021, the City of Dublin (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and All City Management Services Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR") entered into a Contractor Services Agreement for Crossing Guard Services (hereinafter referred to as the “AGREEMENT”); and
WHEREAS, the existing AGREEMENT expires on June 30, 2022; and WHEREAS, due to unanticipated staggered start and end times at several schools, additional crossing guard services were needed to maintain the same level of service and safety to the school community; and
WHEREAS, THE CITY and CONTRACTOR now wish to amend the
AGREEMENT to increase the not-to-exceed amount by $27,643.51 for a total of $302,886.15 to close out the Fiscal Year 2021-22 invoices.

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valu able consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the AGREEMENT is amended as follows:
1) Section 2 - COMPENSTATION shall be rescinded and replaced with the following:
owing:

City hereby agrees to pay CONTRACTOR a sum not to exceed $302,886.15, notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in CONTRACTOR’s proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and CONTRACTOR’s proposal, attached as Exhibit B, regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay CONTRACTOR for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below shall be the only payments from City to CONTRACTOR for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by City in writing, CONTRACTOR shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person.

CONTRACTOR and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement is based upon CONTRACTOR’s actual costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of CONTRACTOR. Consequently, the Parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which CONTRACTOR and its employees, agents, 120
Attachment 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution

Page 2 of 3 ends

and subcontractors may be eligible. City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement.

SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE

121
Attachment 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution

Page 3 of 3 ends

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be executed as of the date of the City Manager’s signature below.

CITY OF DUBLIN ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICDES
INC.

By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ Linda Smith, City Manager Demetra Farwell, Corporate Security

Dated:

ATTEST:

By: _____
Marsha Moore, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: _____________________________
City Attorney

122
Attachment 3
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 3 ends

Agenda Item 6.1
DATE: August 16, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Dublin Districts— Public Hearing 5: Final Map Selection, Introduction of Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election System
Prepared by: John Stefanski, Assistant to the City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will hold a Public Hearing to give the community an opportunity to provide feedback regarding the boundaries and composition of the Final Map. The City Council will then review and select a Final Map, and introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election System. At the February 15, 2022 meeting, the City Council adopted a Resolution Declaring its Intention to Transition From an At-Large Election System to a District-Based Election System. Under California Elections Code, the City must hold a series of Public Hearings to allow the community to provide input on the composition of districts and communities of interest as well as the potential district boundaries, draft maps, and sequence of elections. Maps considered at this meeting must have been published at least seven days before the Public Hearing.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the presentation, conduct the Public Hearing to receive input, review and select a Final Map, and waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election System.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact associated with the presentation of this information. Costs borne by the City for consultants working on this project were provided in previous Staff Reports to the City Council.
140

Page 2 of 3 ends

DESCRIPTION:

Background
On February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 17-22 Declaring its Intention to Transition from an At-Large Election System to a District-Based Election System in conformance with the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA). The Resolution declares the City’s intent to consider adoption of an ordinance establishing district-based elections beginning with the November 2024 regular municipal election.

Under Elections Code Section 10010, a city is required to hold at least five public hearings during the transition process. In Dublin, the first two public hearings gave the community opportunities to provide input on the composition of the districts before any maps were drawn. Subsequently, draft district maps were drawn by the City’s demographer, and two more public hearings were held for the public to provide input regarding draft maps, sequence of elections, communities of interest, and potential district boundaries, and for the City Council to provide direction on draft maps options and refinements. The maps must be published at least seven days before the public hearing to be considered by the City Council. This is the fifth, and final, public hearing at which the City Council will consider an ordinance that establishes the district-based elections and approves a final map.

District Drawing Factors
Throughout this process the public was asked to provide input regarding communities of interest and other local factors that should be considered while drafting district maps. A community of interest is a neighborhood or group that would benefit from being in the same district because of shared interests, views, or characteristics. Examples of these include, but are not limited to:
- Natural dividing lines such as major roads, hills, or highways. - Areas around parks and other neighborhood landmarks/amenities. - School attendance areas.
- Common issues, neighborhood activities, or legislative/election concerns; and - Shared demographic characteristics, such as:
o Similar levels of income, education, or linguistic insolation. o Languages spoken at home.
o Single-family and multi-family housing unit areas.

The district boundary maps must meet certain criteria. In particular, the districts must be roughly equal in population, excluding persons incarcerated in federal prisons. However, persons incarcerated at Santa Rita Jail are included in the population count for the districts (Elec. Code, § 21601, subd. (a)).

The districts are further subject to the following criteria in order of priority:
- Geographical contiguity.
- Minimize the division of any local neighborhood or local community of interest. - Easily identified and understood by residents.
- Geographical compactness. (Elec. Code, § 21601, subd. (c).) 141

Page 3 of 3 ends

Final Map Selection Process
At the July 19, 2022 Public Hearing, the City Council reviewed draft district maps and provided direction to Staff to return at the fifth public hearing with Map 112 and variations of Map 112 which keep the neighborhood east of Village Parkway and north of Amador Valley Boulevard together in either District 1 or District 2 so long as the population deviation permits.

At this same Public Hearing, the City Council agreed to sequence election such that elections for Districts 1 and 3 would occur at the November 2024 municipal election, and every four years thereafter, and elections for Districts 2 and 4 would occur at the November 2026 municipal election, and every four years thereafter.

Attachment 3 includes the original Map 112, and Map 112B, a variation developed following City Council direction. These are the two final focused maps for the City Council to consider adopting.

Next Steps
Staff is requesting the City Council do the following:

1. Receive the presentation.

2. Conduct the Public Hearing to receive input.

3. Review and select the final map.

4. Waive the reading and introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election System.

At the second reading of the ordinance, the City Council will adopt an accompanying resolution which indicates the final district map. A copy of this resolution can be found in Attachment 2.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City published a Public Hearing Notice in the East Bay Times and posted on www.dublin.ca.gov/dublindistricts on August 10, 2022. Individuals subscribed to the Dublin Districts notification list were emailed regarding this meeting. The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-Based Election System
2) Resolution Adopting the City of Dublin Official District Map 3) Maps 112 and 112B
142
Attachment 1
Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 1 of 4 ORDINANCE NO. XX – 22

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING CHAPTER 2.32 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE

ESTABLISHING A DISTRICT-BASED ELECTION SYSTEM
WHEREAS, members of the City Council of the City of Dublin (“City”) are currently elected in “at-large” elections, in which each City Councilmember is elected by the registered voters of the entire City; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 34886 permits the legislative body of a city to adopt an ordinance to change its method of election from an “at-large” system to a “district-based” system in which each councilmember is elected only by the voters in the district in which the candidate resides; and
WHEREAS, the City received a letter on January 4, 2022, from Kevin Shenkman of the law firm of Shenkman & Hughes, on behalf of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project and its unidentified members residing within Dublin, alleging that the City’s at-large councilmember electoral system violates the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”) and threatening litigation if the City declines to voluntarily change to a district-based election system for electing councilmembers; and
WHEREAS, under Elections Code section 14028(a), a violation of the CVRA is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections. “Racially polarized voting” means voting in which there is a difference in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices that are preferred by voters in a protected class, and in the choice of candidates and electoral choices that are preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate (Elections Code Section 14026, subd. (e)); and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of California Elections Code Section 10010, a city that changes from an at-large city council method of election to a district-based city council method of election must hold a series of public hearings, which includes at least two public hearings regarding potential voting district boundaries prior to the release and consideration of any draft voting district maps, and at least two public hearings following the release of draft voting district maps; and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 17-22 declaring its intention to transition from an at-large election system to a district-based election system in conformance with the CVRA and establishing the timeframe for doing so; and WHEREAS, the City retained the services of a qualified demographer to provide a detailed analysis of the City’s current demographics and to prepare draft maps that divide the City into voting districts in a manner consistent with the intent and purpose of the CVRA and all other applicable laws; and
WHEREAS, as required by California Elections Code Section 10010, the City Council held public hearings on April 19, 2022 and May 17, 2022 to consider input from the public on the composition of the City Council districts and criteria for determining district boundaries; and 143
Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, as required by California Elections Code Section 10010, the City Council held public hearings on June 21, 2022, and July 19, 2022, where the public was invited to provide comments and input on the draft maps and the proposed sequence of elections; and WHEREAS, throughout the foregoing process, the City engaged in a significant amount of public outreach and engagement beyond the public hearings and other procedures required by California Elections Code Section 10010, including but not limited to hosting two community workshop meetings, creating a dedicated district elections web page and a multi-media outreach approach with significant social media engagement. Additional outreach included a Citywide Community Workshop postcard to all Dublin postal customers, several press releases, emails to website districting subscribers, calls and emails to civic and community business organizations, and process flyers posted to the website and distributed at the Dublin Farmers’ Market; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered all oral and written information, testimony, and comments received during the public review process. All draft maps were published more than seven days before the public hearing at which they were discussed; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on July 19, 2022, the City Council agreed to sequence elections such that elections for Districts 1 and 3 would occur at the November 2024 municipal election, and every four years thereafter, and elections for Districts 2 and 4 would occur at the November 2026 municipal election, and every four years thereafter; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on August 16, 2022, the City Council voted to proceed with a final map, identified as _______________; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Ordinance is to enact, pursuant to California Government Code Section 34886, an ordinance providing for the election of members of the City Council of the City of Dublin by district in four single-member districts and this change in the method of electing members of City Council is being made in furtherance of the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001. The City will maintain the at-large election for Mayor.

NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Municipal Code Amendment. Chapter 2.32 (Elections) of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the following:

2.32.030 District Based Electoral System.

A. Subject to Section 2.32.050, Councilmembers shall be elected on a district-based electoral system from four single-member city council districts pursuant to Government Code Sections 34886 and 34871. For purposes of this section, the term “district-based electoral system” shall mean the election of Councilmembers by the voters of the district alone.

B. Except as provided in subsection C, below, each Councilmember elected to represent a district must reside in that district and be a registered voter in that district, and any candidate for City Council must reside in, and be a registered voter in, the district in which they seek election at the time nomination papers are issued, pursuant to Government Code Section 34882 and Elections Code Section 10227. Termination of residency in a district by a Councilmember shall create an immediate vacancy for that district unless a substitute residence within the district is established within thirty (30) days after that termination of residency. 144
Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 3 of 4 C. An at-large Councilmember shall continue in office until the expiration of the full term to which they were elected or appointed and until their successor is qualified. If vacancies in Councilmember offices elected at-large occur before expiration of the full term thereof, such vacancies shall be filled pursuant to California Government Code Section 36512.

D. Upon expiration of the full term of each Councilmember elected at-large, that Councilmember’s successor shall be elected on a by-district basis in the districts established in Section 2.32.040.A and as provided in Section 2.32.050.

2.32.040 City Council Districts Established By Resolution.

A. Subject to Section 2.32.050, Councilmembers shall be elected on a by­district basis from the Council Districts depicted on the Official District Map, as adopted separately by resolution and incorporated by this reference, a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office.

B. The Council Districts specified in 2.32.040 subsection A, above, shall continue in effect until they are amended or repealed in accordance with law. The Council Districts shall be adjusted following each decennial federal census, as required by the Elections Code and other applicable law.

2.32.050 Election Schedule.

Councilmembers shall be elected in Council Districts 1 and 3 beginning at the general municipal election in November 2024, and every four years thereafter. Councilmembers shall be elected in Council Districts 2 and 4 beginning at the general municipal election in November 2026, and every four years thereafter. The term and election schedule for the Mayor is not affected by this Section.

Section 2. Technical Adjustments. If necessary to facilitate the implementation of this Ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized to make technical adjustments to the district boundaries that do not substantively affect the populations in the districts, the eligibility of candidates, or the residence of elected officials within any district. The City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any technical adjustments deemed necessary and shall advise the City Council of any such adjustments required in the implementation of the districts.

Section 3. CEQA. The City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the Dublin Municipal Code are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 4. Severability. If any part of this ordinance is declared invalid by a court, such invalidity shall not affect any of the remaining parts.

Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days following its final adoption.
145
Ord. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 4 of 4 Section 6. Posting. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __th day of _______ 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
5160199.3
146
Attachment 2
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

ADOPTING THE CITY OF DUBLIN OFFICIAL DISTRICT MAP
WHEREAS, members of the City Council of the City of Dublin (“City”) are currently elected in “at-large” elections, in which each City Councilmember is elected by the registered voters of the entire City; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 34886 permits the legislative body of a city to adopt an ordinance to change its method of election from an “at-large” system to a “district-based” system in which each councilmember is elected only by the voters in the district in which the candidate resides; and
WHEREAS, the City received a letter on January 4, 2022, from Kevin Shenkman of the law firm of Shenkman & Hughes, on behalf of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project and its unidentified members residing within Dublin, alleging that the City’s at-large councilmember electoral system violates the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”) and threatening litigation if the City declines to voluntarily change to a district-based election system for electing councilmembers; and
WHEREAS, under Elections Code section 14028(a), a violation of the CVRA is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections. “Racially polarized voting” means voting in which there is a difference in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices that are preferred by voters in a protected class, and in the choice of candidates and electoral choices that are preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate (Elections Code Section 14026, subd. (e)); and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of California Elections Code Section 10010, a city that changes from an at-large city council method of election to a district-based city council method of election must hold a series of public hearings, which includes at least two public hearings regarding potential voting district boundaries prior to the release and consideration of any draft voting district maps, and at least two public hearings following the release of draft voting district maps; and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 17-22 declaring its intention to transition from an at-large election system to a district-based election system in conformance with the CVRA and establishing the timeframe for doing so; and WHEREAS, the City retained the services of a qualified demographer to provide a detailed analysis of the City’s current demographics and to prepare draft maps that divide the City into voting districts in a manner consistent with the intent and purpose of the CVRA and all other applicable laws; and
WHEREAS, as required by California Elections Code Section 10010, the City Council held public hearings on April 19, 2022 and May 17, 2022 to consider input from the public on the composition of the City Council districts and criteria for determining district boundaries; and 147
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, as required by California Elections Code Section 10010, the City Council held public hearings on June 21, 2022, and July 19, 2022, where the public was invited to provide comments and input on the draft maps and the proposed sequence of elections; and WHEREAS, throughout the foregoing process, the City engaged in a significant amount of public outreach and engagement beyond the public hearings and other procedures required by California Elections Code Section 10010, including but not limited to hosting two community workshop meetings, creating a dedicated district elections web page and a multi-media outreach approach with significant social media engagement. Additional outreach included a Citywide Community Workshop postcard to all Dublin postal customers, several press releases, emails to website districting subscribers, calls and emails to civic and community business organizations, and process flyers posted to the website and distributed at the Dublin Farmer’s Market; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered all oral and written information, testimony, and comments received during the public review process. All draft maps were published more than seven days before the public hearing at which they were discussed; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on July 19, 2022, the City Council agreed to sequence elections such that elections for Districts 1 and 3 would occur at the November 2024 municipal election, and every four years thereafter, and elections for Districts 2 and 4 would occur at the November 2026, and every four years thereafter; and
WHEREAS, at a public hearing on August 16, 2022, the City Council voted to proceed with a final map, identified as _______________, and introduced Ordinance No. XX-22 to establish a district-based electoral system.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED after due consideration of the considerable public comment and testimony received, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the map attached as “Exhibit A” to this Resolution as the City of Dublin Official District Map.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , a copy of this Official District Map shall be maintained at all times in the Office of the City Clerk until the map is superseded or replaced by subsequent City Council resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , the City Clerk is directed to provide a copy of the Official District Map to the Alameda County Elections Division.
{Signatures on the following page}
148
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 3 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __th day of _______ 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
5160201.1
149

1.79% Total DeviationProposed Election Sequence:
2024: Districts 1 Gosey & McCorriston) and 3 (Hu)
2026: Districts 2 (Kumagai) and 4 (vacant)
Alternative Election Sequence:
2024: Districts 3 (Hu) and 4 (vacant)
2026: Districts 1 Gosey & McCorriston) and 2 (Kumagai)
Map layers
D Map 112
-- River
Streets
©2021 CALIPER
Map 112
Broder Blvd
Glr-a.s_o.o Dr
Fai1field St "-�----'
Sur
mer Glen Dr
ual '?1<-'i
l'faven Pl cel"I O �
2nd St Dublin Bi'vd 3: � -� I � VJ Ma�tinelle
\
Way ,..,. 3: �ro g ic.:
41,ltamirano Ave 1 �_l_;l,_�:
0 u
Q
Dublin 2022 Districting
Attachment 3
150
Map 112
District 1
Total Pop 17,867
Deviation from ideal
% Deviation 0.00%
% Hisp 15.0%
% NH White 39%
% NH Black 3%
% Asian-American 40%
Total 13,714
% Hisp 14%
% NH White 42%
% NH Black 3%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 37%
Total 10,907
% Latino est. 13%
% Spanish-Surnamed 12%
% Asian-Surnamed 16%
% Filipino-Surnamed 3%
% NH White est. 66%
% NH Black 3%
Total 9,270
% Latino est. 13%
% Spanish-Surnamed 12%
% Asian-Surnamed 16%
% Filipino-Surnamed 3%
% NH White est. 66%
% NH Black 3%
Total 6,726
% Latino est. 12%
% Spanish-Surnamed 12%
% Asian-Surnamed 12%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 71%
% NH Black est. 3%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 16,939
age0-19 25%
age20-60 56%
age60plus 19%
immigrants 27%
naturalized 60%
english 67%
spanish 7%
asian-lang 18%
other lang 8%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 11%
hs-grad 30%
bachelor 37%
graduatedegree 20%
Child in Household child-under18 40%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 69%
income 0-25k 5%
income 25-50k 9%
income 50-75k 8%
income 75-200k 50%
income 200k-plus 28%
single family 87%
multi-family 13%
rented 23%
owned 77%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data.
2 18,057
190

1.06%
18%
32%
7%
39%
14,417
18%
34%
7%
37%
7,581
13%
12%
17%
3%
60%
7%
6,338
12%
11%
17%
3%
61%
7%
3,808
11%
11%
11%
3%
65%
6%
13,304
25%
61%
14%
39%
43%
57%
6%
20%
17%
14%
25%
39%
25%
41%
72%
7%
9%
8%
55%
21%
50%
50%
55%
45%
3 17,737
-130
-0.73%
6%
18%
4%
70%
12,458
7%
20%
4%
66%
7,126
10%
9%
30%
3%
49%
8%
6,013
9%
9%
31%
3%
48%
8%
3,567
10%
9%
26%
3%
52%
8%
16,586
30%
58%
12%
42%
45%
41%
4%
36%
18%
18%
16%
38%
37%
51%
74%
5%
7%
7%
44%
37%
56%
44%
42%
58%
4 17,807
-60
-0.34%
5%
11%
2%
80%
11,794
4%
13%
2%
79%
8,593
7%
7%
45%
3%
37%
6%
7,507
7%
7%
44%
3%
38%
6%
4,134
7%
7%
42%
3%
41%
5%
13,504
32%
56%
12%
50%
57%
40%
3%
34%
23%
17%
13%
38%
38%
63%
74%
5%
1%
2%
36%
55%
90%
10%
15%
85%
Total
71,468
320

1.79%
11%
25%
4%
57%
52,383
11%
28%
4%
54%
34,207
11%
10%
26%
3%
54%
6%
29,128
10%
10%
26%
3%
54%
5%
18,235
10%
10%
21%
3%
59%
5%
60,333
28%
58%
14%
39%
51%
52%
5%
27%
16%
15%
22%
38%
30%
47%
72%
5%
7%
7%
47%
34%
70%
30%
35%
65%
07/07/2022 2:45 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
151

5.91% Total DeviationProposed Election Sequence:
2024: Districts 1 Qosey & McCorriston) and 3 (Hu)
2026: Districts 2 (Kumagai) and 4 (vacant)
Alternative Election Sequence:
2024: Districts 3 (Hu) and 4 (vacant)
2026: Districts 1 Qosey & McCorriston) and 2 (Kumagai)
Map 112B
©2021 CALIPER
Dublin 2022 Districting
152
Map 112B
District 1
Total Pop 17,434
Deviation from ideal -433
% Deviation -2.42%
% Hisp 15.1%
% NH White 40%
% NH Black 3%
% Asian-American 39%
Total 13,241
% Hisp 14%
% NH White 43%
% NH Black 3%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 36%
Total 10,887
% Latino est. 13%
% Spanish-Surnamed 12%
% Asian-Surnamed 15%
% Filipino-Surnamed 3%
% NH White est. 67%
% NH Black 2%
Total 9,276
% Latino est. 13%
% Spanish-Surnamed 12%
% Asian-Surnamed 15%
% Filipino-Surnamed 3%
% NH White est. 67%
% NH Black 2%
Total 6,874
% Latino est. 12%
% Spanish-Surnamed 11%
% Asian-Surnamed 12%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 72%
% NH Black est. 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 16,990
age0-19 26%
age20-60 55%
age60plus 19%
immigrants 26%
naturalized 61%
english 68%
spanish 6%
asian-lang 18%
other lang 8%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 11%
hs-grad 30%
bachelor 36%
graduatedegree 20%
Child in Household child-under18 40%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 69%
income 0-25k 4%
income 25-50k 9%
income 50-75k 8%
income 75-200k 50%
income 200k-plus 28%
single family 89%
multi-family 11%
rented 21%
owned 79%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data.
2 18,490
623

3.49%
17%
31%
7%
40%
14,890
17%
33%
7%
38%
7,601
13%
12%
17%
3%
59%
8%
6,332
12%
11%
17%
3%
59%
8%
3,660
11%
11%
12%
3%
63%
7%
13,253
24%
62%
13%
40%
43%
57%
6%
20%
17%
14%
25%
39%
26%
40%
73%
7%
9%
8%
55%
22%
49%
51%
56%
44%
3 17,737
-130
-0.73%
6%
18%
4%
70%
12,458
7%
20%
4%
66%
7,126
10%
9%
30%
3%
49%
8%
6,013
9%
9%
31%
3%
48%
8%
3,567
10%
9%
26%
3%
52%
8%
16,586
30%
58%
12%
42%
45%
41%
4%
36%
18%
18%
16%
38%
37%
51%
74%
5%
7%
7%
44%
37%
56%
44%
42%
58%
4 17,807
-60
-0.34%
5%
11%
2%
80%
11,794
4%
13%
2%
79%
8,593
7%
7%
45%
3%
37%
6%
7,507
7%
7%
44%
3%
38%
6%
4,134
7%
7%
42%
3%
41%
5%
13,504
32%
56%
12%
50%
57%
40%
3%
34%
23%
17%
13%
38%
38%
63%
74%
5%
1%
2%
36%
55%
90%
10%
15%
85%
Total
71,468
1,056

5.91%
11%
25%
4%
57%
52,383
11%
28%
4%
54%
34,207
11%
10%
26%
3%
54%
6%
29,128
10%
10%
26%
3%
54%
5%
18,235
10%
10%
21%
3%
59%
5%
60,333
28%
58%
14%
39%
51%
52%
5%
27%
16%
15%
22%
38%
30%
47%
72%
5%
7%
7%
47%
34%
70%
30%
35%
65%
07/27/2022 16:41 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
153
Item 6.1
Dublin Districts
Public Hearing 5
August 16, 2022
154
Public Hearing 4 Follow-Up
• City Council previously reviewed draft district
maps at the July 19, 2022, Public Hearing (#4)
• Directed staff to return with Map 112 and
variations of Map 112 which keep the
neighborhood between Village Parkway and the
Iron Horse Trail and north of Amador Valley
Boulevard together in a district.
155
Map 112
(1.79% Deviation)
156
Map 112 B
(5.91% Deviation)
157
Map 112 X
(14.18% Deviation)
158
Election Sequencing
• At the July 19 Public Hearing, the City Council
identified the following as the election sequence:
– November 2024: District 1 and District 3
– November 2026: District 2 and District 4
• The term and election schedule for the Mayor is
not changing.
159
Staff Recommendation

1. Conduct the Public Hearing to receive input

2. Review and select the final map

3. Waive the reading and INTRODUCE the
Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.32 of the
Dublin Municipal Code Establishing a District-
Based Election System
160
Item 6.1
Dublin Districts
Public Hearing 5
John Stefanski
Assistant to the City Manager
161

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 6 ends

Agenda Item 7.1
DATE: August 16, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update
Prepared by: Sai Midididdi, Associate Civil Engineer (Traffic) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will receive an update on the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, which updates and replaces the City’s 2014 Bicycle and PedestrianMaster Plan and will inform future infrastructure and program and policy recommendations.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the report on the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update and provide feedback.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None.

DESCRIPTION:

Background
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is a critical planning, policy, and implementation document that supports the City’s efforts to improve the safety and attractiveness of biking and walking as a means of transportation and recreation. This Plan updates and replaces the City’s 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The Plan assesses existing system conditions through an inventory of existing infrastructure, programs, and policies related to biking and walking, analysis of bicycle level of traffic stress, evaluation of collision data, estimation of bicycle and pedestrian access and demand, and public input. The Plan results in a recommended biking and walking network and a prioritized list of projects to support biking and walking in Dublin.

Summary of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update
Key sections and recommendations of the Plan are summarized in the sections below. 162

Page 2 of 6 ends

Community Engagement:

The community engagement effort included the following virtual and in-person activities:
 Project website and interactive map. The project website can be accessed at https://dublinbikeped.org/. The website provides information about the Plan, including the project timeline, engagement activities, and summaries of technical analyses, along with an interactive map that allows respondents to provide geographic input on key issues and opportunity locations for biking and walking throughout Dublin. Since going live in March 2020, the website received about 1,500 visits and almost 300 unique comments were posted on the map.
 Public workshop. A virtual public workshop was held on September 2, 2020, from 6:00- 7:00 p.m. There were approximately 45 members of the public in attendance. The meeting included a presentation, live polls, and a question-and-answer period. The meeting was recorded and is available online.
 Public survey. A public survey was used to collect information from the public about their personal transportation preferences, travel habits, and issues and opportunities related to biking and walking in Dublin. The 17-question survey was distributed in summer 2020 and received almost 200 responses about travel behavior and mode preference, travel to school, challenges, barriers to access and mobility, and priorities for investments related to biking and walking.
 In-person events. The project team participated in three in-person events as public health guidance due to the COVID-19 pandemic allowed. Flyers with the public survey link were handed out at the Farmers’ Market on May 27, 2021, and people were rewarded with giveaways for participation. The City partnered with Bike East Bay to hear from trail users at the Alamo Creek Trailhead as a part of the National Bike Month Activities in 2021. Draft network recommendations were shared at the St. Patrick’s Day Festival earlier this year.  Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings. A TAC composed of staff from the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, as well as AC Transit, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, BART, Dublin Unified School District, Dublin Police Services, Dublin Fire Services, and Caltrans were engaged at key milestones to provide ongoing input on technical analysis and deliverables. There were four TAC meetings over the course of the project between spring 2020 and 2022.
 Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) meetings. The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) BPAC, which serves as Dublin’s local BPAC, was engaged at key milestones to provide ongoing input on technical analysis and deliverables. There have been five BPAC meetings with the fifth and final meeting held in July 2022.

Plan Vision
The City of Dublin is a vibrant place where walking and biking are safe, comfortable, and convenient ways to travel and connect individuals, inclusive of all ages and abilities, to local and regional destinations.
163

Page 3 of 6 ends

Plan Goals
 Enhance Safety - Prioritize safety in design and implementation of biking and walking facilities.
 Increase Biking and Walking - Support biking and walking as attractive modes of transportation.
 Improve Connectivity - Develop a bicycle and pedestrian network that provides well- connected facilities for users of all ages and abilities.  Enhance Accessibility - Utilize principles of universal design to make biking and walking a viable transportation option for all, including people with disabilities.  Prioritize Investments - Maintain sufficient funding to provide for existing and future bicycle and pedestrian needs, including supporting programs and operation and maintenance. Leverage biking and walking projects to promote economic activity and social equity outcomes among people of all ages and abilities.

Existing Conditions and Needs Analysis
The existing conditions and needs analyses were conducted to set the foundation the policy recommendations and provide the technical analysis to support the development of the prioritization framework and implementation strategy. This analysis covered:
 Program and Policy Inventory. The project team reviewed bike- and pedestrian-related programs and policies from relevant planning documents and conducted benchmarking interviews with staff from seven City departments and the Dublin Unified School District to develop an updated inventory of existing programs and policies relevant to biking and walking and identify gaps or needs that could be addressed by the Plan.  Land Use and Demographic Analysis. The project team gathered and summarized land use and demographic data to provide background and context to inform the Plan development, including the demand analysis and prioritization.
 Collision Analysis. The project team analyzed reported collision data from the six most recently available years (2014-2019) involving bicyclists and pedestrians. A citywide analysis was conducted to identify corridors and locations with the highest concentration of pedestrian and bicycle collisions. These corridors are called high injury networks (HINs) (Figure 25, Page 66 and Figure 26, Page 67 in Attachment 1). The collision data was further analyzed to identify any citywide trends based on temporal characteristics, lighting conditions, location characteristics (intersection versus segment), main cause of the collision, age, and gender.
 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis. The project team analyzed the bicyclist level of traffic stress (LTS) on the City’s existing roadway network (“on-street LTS”) and on the Class I path, or the shared–use path with exclusive right of way for bicyclists and pedestrians away from the roadway like Iron-Horse Regional Trail, network (“path LTS”).

Bicycle LTS methodology considers various roadway characteristics such as the number of vehicle travel lanes, speed of vehicle traffic, and presence and width of a bike facility to measure the stress a bicyclist feels while riding on a given facility. The goal of planning and 164

Page 4 of 6 ends

designing a bicycle network is to enable people of all ages and abilities to feel safe and comfortable riding bicycles throughout the city. These LTS findings are useful for identifying high stress locations where installation of, or upgrades to, bicycle infrastructure would increase bicyclists’ comfort and safety.
 Pedestrian Barriers Analysis. Sidewalk gaps and lack of safe crossing opportunities can create barriers to walking by requiring people to go out of their way to avoid the gap or by forcing people to walk in the street and increase exposure to vehicle traffic. The project team identified and mapped existing barriers to a safe and comfortable walking network in Dublin, including major arterials and freeways with high vehicle speeds and volumes, gaps in the sidewalk network, and locations with long crossing distances and limited street connectivity. The barriers analysis was used as one input into the Access and Demand Analysis.
 Access and Demand Analysis. The ability of people to walk or bike to key walking and biking destinations was analyzed to estimate existing access to key destinations. The outputs from the land use and demographic analysis, collision analysis, barrier analysis, and bicycle LTS analysis were key inputs to estimate the share of the Dublin population that had comfortable access and could be expected to walk or bike to each activity center.

Access to each destination was estimated for existing conditions with the existing network and with network recommendations to understand the potential effect of Plan implementation on walk and bike mode share.

Network Recommendations
Public feedback and findings from the existing conditions and needs analysis contributed to the network recommendations (Figure 3, Page 17 in the Executive Summary section and Figure 35,

Page 80 ends

 Corridor Projects. Corridor projects were identified on high-stress roadways that represented major barriers to biking and walking.
 Point Projects. Point projects were identified at locations that represented major barriers to biking and walking, including freeway crossings, high-stress trail crossings, high-stress intersections, and locations that experienced a high frequency or severity of collisions.

Over 50 centerline miles and 54 point project locations were identified to increase low-stress bicycle connectivity and reduce barriers to walking by improving crossings and closing gaps in the network. A complete streets approach was taken during the development of infrastructure recommendations. Bicycle-, pedestrian-, and transit-supportive investments are considered in each corridor and crossing project. The project recommendations are presented as a package, with concurrent improvements to support all three active and sustainable travel modes. Network recommendations include:
 Shared Lane (Class III): 12.4 miles
 Bike Lane (Class IIA): 4.0 miles
 Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB): 17.4 miles
165

Page 5 of 6 ends

 Path – Shared use path like Iron Horse Regional trail used by bicycles and pedestrians (Class IA): 7.9 miles
 Complete Streets Study
o Upgrade to Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV): 9.2 miles o Improvements to existing shared use paths adjacent to roadway: 4.9 miles o Speed Reduction: 1.3 miles
 Point Projects
o Interchange projects: 16 locations
o Crossing projects: 5 locations
o Intersection projects: 33 locations
Program and Policy Recommendations
Public feedback and findings from the program and policy review and existing conditions and needs analysis contributed to the program and policy recommendations. The recommendations are organized into eight topic areas and supported by specific strategies and actions to guide the work of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian programs and activities and complement infrastructure recommendations to encourage active transportation in the city.

Implementation Strategy
The project team developed and implemented a prioritization framework, prepared cost estimates, and identified funding sources. The prioritization framework considered factors including safety, social equity, connectivity, and network quality as well as previously identified projects and feasibility of implementation to identify the locations where investments should be prioritized. The infrastructure projects were divided into three tiers, representing:
 Tier I Projects. High priority projects with likely funding or implementation sources.  Tier II Projects. High priority projects with no identified funding source.  Tier III Projects. Lower priority investments that support a full low-stress walking, biking, and rolling network across the City.

The total cost of all the projects identified in this Plan is approximately $102 million (low cost) to $207 million (high cost). The low-end cost estimates assume implementation of projects by reorganization of the roadway through restriping and minor, quick-build treatments, such as creating curb extensions using delineators and paint. The high-end cost estimates consider the need to move the curb thereby adding new bicycle facilities, upgrading bicycle facilities, updating or adding pedestrian crossings, updating pedestrian facilities, adding street trees, redesigning interchange ramps, and adding signage. The cost estimates also include soft costs for Staff time, engineering, design support, construction management, and contingency.

Active transportation projects in Dublin have typically been funded through a combination of funding sources, including ballot measure monies (e.g., Alameda County Measure B and BB), the 166

Page 6 of 6 ends

City’s General Fund, developer funds, and State, regional, and federal grants. The Plan identifies potential funding programs and relevant requirements.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance This document (Attachment 2) identifies relevant resources for a variety of design topics relevant to planning and designing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It provides specific planning and design recommendations for several key topics relevant to developing Dublin’s biking and walking infrastructure, including bikeway selection and facility design, bicycle facilities through intersections, accessible pedestrian signals, and crosswalk improvements.

Next Steps and Schedule
The draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan will be presented to both the Planning Commission and the Parks and Community Services Commission for their feedback in fall 2022. The draft Plan will also go through the environmental clearance process and will be brought back to the City Council for adoption near the end of 2022.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
2) Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Supplemental Design Guidance 167

DUBLIN BICYCLE AND DUBLIN BICYCLE AND

PEDESTRIAN PLAN PEDESTRIAN PLAN
August 2022
Draft
168
2 City of Dublin
2 City of Dublin
Draft

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CITY O F D UBLIN
Melissa Hernandez (Mayor)
Jean Josey (Vice Mayor)
Shawn Kumagai (Councilmember)
Sherry Hu (Councilmember)
Michael McCorriston (Councilmember)
Pratyush Bhatia, Transportation Manager
Sai Midididdi, Project Manager
and Associate Civil (Traffic) Engineer
Laurie Sucgang, Assistant
Public Works Director
Andrew Russell, Public Works Director
Bridget Amaya, Parks & Community
Services Assistant Director
Hazel Wetherford, Economic
Development Director
John Stefanski, Assistant to City Manager
Michael Cass, Principal Planner
Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community
Development
Director

CONSULTANT TEAM
Kittelson & Associates—Amanda
Leahy, AICP; Laurence Lewis, AICP;
Camilla Dartnell; Mike Alston, RSP
Winter Consulting—Corinne Winter

TECHNICAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE
Chris Stevens, Dublin Unified School District
Kevin Monaghan, Dublin Police Services
Bonnie S. Terra, Alameda
County Fire Department
Lisa Bobadilla, Transportation Division
Manager at City of San Ramon
Cedric Novenario, Senior Traffic
Engineer at City of Pleasanton
Julie Chiu, Associate Civil Engineer
at City of Livermore
Andy Ross, Assistant Planner
at City of Livermore
Christopher Marks, Associate
Transportation Planner at Alameda CTC
Sergio Ruiz, Branch Chief for Active
Transportation at Caltrans
Jake Freedman, East Alameda County
Liaison at Caltrans District 4
Mariana Parreiras, Project Manager at BART
Cyrus Sheik, Senior Transit Planner at
Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority
Chloe Trifilio, CivicSparks Fellow

ALAMEDA CTC BICYCLE

AND PEDESTRIAN

ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Matt Turner (Chair), Castro Valley
Kristi Marleau (Vice Chair), Dublin
David Fishbaugh, Fremont
Feliz G. Hill, San Leandro
Jeremy Johansen, San Leandro
Howard Matis, Berkeley
Dave Murtha, Hayward
Chiamaka Ogwuegbu, Oakland
Nick Pilch, Albany
Ben Schweng, Alameda
169
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 3
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 3
Draft
Acknowledgments 2
Glossary 4
Executive Summary 6

1. Introduction 19

2. Community & Stakeholder Engagement 37

3. Walking & Biking in Dublin Today 46

4. Recommended Bicycle &
Pedestrian Networks 79

5. Recommended Programs,
Policies, and Practices 97

6. Implementation Strategy 108
Appendix 124

TABLE OF CONTENTS
170
2014 PLAN. The 2014
Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan, which is being
replaced by this plan.

ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION. Active
transportation includes personal
mobility devices of all kinds:
bicycles, wheelchairs, scooters,
rollerblades, skateboards,
hoverboards, e-bikes, e-scooters,
motorized wheelchairs, and
more. Emerging technology
and the availability of personal
mobility devices complicate
the definitions of bicycle and
pedestrian. This Plan recognizes
the high degree of overlapping
policy, programmatic, and
infrastructure needs among
active modes and considers
these a part of the bicycling
and walking ecosystem. Where
necessary, the Plan distinguishes
electric mobility such as e-bikes
and e-scooters to meet their
unique requirements and needs.
1 Roger Geller, “Four Types of Cyclists,” Portland Office of Transportation (2005), https:/ /www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597?a=237507.

BICYCLE. A bicycle (or bike)
is a human-powered or motor-
powered, pedal-driven vehicle
with two wheels attached
to a frame. Bicycles can be
categorized in different ways,
including by function, number
of riders, general construction,
gearing, or means of propulsion.

The more common types include
utility or commuter, mountain,
road or racing, touring, hybrid,
cruiser, BMX, and electric. Less
common types include tandem,
low-riders, tall bikes, fixed gear,
folding, cargo, and recumbents.

Unicycles, tricycles, and
quadracycles are often referred
to as bicycles though they are
not strictly bicycles as they have
fewer or more than two wheels.

BICYCLE LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC STRESS. Bicycle
level of traffic stress (LTS)
is an analysis approach that
quantifies the amount of comfort
and level of stress that people
feel when they bike on certain
streets based on interactions
with other travel modes,
traffic control, and roadway
characteristics. The methodology
was developed in 2012 by the
Mineta Transportation Institute
and San Jose State University.

BICYCLIST TYPOLOGY.

Bicyclist typology was developed
in 2005 in Portland, Oregon
to help understand how people
used bicycles for transportation
and what biking concerns and
needs they had.1 Based on this
research, bicyclists tend to
fall into one of four groups:
(1) Strong and Fearless—
willing to bicycle with limited or
no bicycle-specific infrastructure.
(2) Enthused and Confident—
willing to bicycle if some bicycle-
specific infrastructure is in place.
(3) Interested but Concerned—
willing to bicycle if high-quality
bicycle infrastructure is in place
(4) No Way No How—
unwilling to bicycle even
if high-quality bicycle
infrastructure is in place
COMPLETE STREET.

Complete Streets is an approach
to planning, designing, building,
operating, and maintaining
streets that enables safe access
for all people who need to use
them, including pedestrians,
bicyclists, motorists and transit
riders of all ages and abilities.
https:/smartgrowthamerica.org/
what-are-complete-streets/

COMPLETE STREET
STUDY. A Complete Street
Study is recommended on
constrained corridors with
multiple competing priorities
where Class I or Class IV
facilities were identified as the
suitable facility to provide an
all ages and abilities network.

The Complete Street Study may

GLOSSARY
4 City of Dublin
4 City of Dublin
Draft 171
include data collection, analysis,
concept design development,
and engagement and would be
intended to evaluate conditions
for people walking, biking,
taking transit, and driving
along the corridor and assist
decision-makers and the
public in selecting a preferred
alternative for implementation.

CURBSIDE
MANAGEMENT. An
overarching management
program and/or plan to guide
allocation and regulation of the
curbside for optimized mobility
and safety for people using the
curb space. Curb uses and users
include: bicycle infrastructure,
pedestrians and crossing
infrastructure, vehicle storage,
freight and passenger loading,
parklets, food trucks and mobile
vendors, among others.

ELECTRIC BICYCLE. An
electric bicycle has fully operable
pedals and an electric motor of
less than 750 watts. According to
Section 312.5 of the California
Vehicle Code, there are three
classifications of electric bicycles:
(1) A Class 1 electric bicycle,
or low-speed pedal-assisted
electric bicycle, has a motor
that assists only when the
rider is pedaling. That motor
ceases to provide assistance
when the bicycle reaches the
speed of 20 miles per hour.
(2) A Class 2 electric bicycle,
or low-speed throttle-assisted
electric bicycle, has a motor
that can be used to propel the
bicycle exclusively. The motor
is not capable of assisting
when the bicycle reaches the
speed of 20 miles per hour.
(3) A Class 3 electric bicycle,
or speed pedal-assisted electric
bicycle, has a motor that assists
only when the rider is pedaling.

The motor stops assisting
when the bicycle reaches the
speed of 28 miles per hour.

This class of electric bicycles is
equipped with a speedometer.

END-OF-TRIP FACILITIES.

Designated places—like secure
bicycle parking, locker facilities,
and changing rooms—that
encourage bicyclists, joggers, and
walkers to use sustainable modes
to travel instead of driving.

HIGH INJURY NETWORK.

The collection of worst-
performing street segments based
on severity and frequency of
pedestrian and bicycle collisions.

MICROMOBILITY. Any
small, low-speed, human or
electric-powered transportation
device, including bicycles,
scooters, electric-assist
bicycles (e-bikes), electric
scooters (e-scooters), and
other small, lightweight,
wheeled conveyances.

PEDESTRIAN. People who
travel by walking or jogging
and people who use a mobility
assistive device like walkers,
canes, crutches, wheelchairs,
or mobility scooters.

PERSONAL MOBILITY
DEVICE. Various mechanical
means of transportation
including seated and standing
traditional and electric
scooters, skateboards,
powered wheelchairs,
bicycles, and Segways.

ROLLING. Rolling as
a way to get around can
mean many things, like
bicycling, using a wheelchair,
scooting, skateboarding,
among other methods.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 5
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 5
Draft172

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THE NEED FOR A BICYCLE AND

PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
In Dublin, residents and visitors walk and bike for
transportation and recreation. People walking and biking are vulnerable road users, and the City needs a connected network of quality infrastructure and amenities to support safe travel by these sustainable modes. Walking and biking for transportation improves health and well-being and
provides numerous environmental and economic benefits.

The City of Dublin’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (Plan) is a critical planning, policy, and implementation document that supports City efforts to improve safety
and attractiveness of biking and walking as a means
of transportation and recreation. This Plan builds
on, updates, and replaces the 2014 Dublin Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan (2014 Plan) and makes
recommendations for infrastructure, programs, and
policies that support walking and biking in Dublin.

VISION

STATEMENT
The City of Dublin is a vibrant
place where walking and biking are
safe, comfortable, and convenient
ways to travel. In Dublin, walking
and biking connects individuals,
inclusive of all ages and abilities,
to local and regional destinations.
6 City of Dublin
6 City of Dublin
Draft 173
GOAL 1
GOAL 2
GOAL 3GOAL 3
GOAL 4
GOAL 5GOAL 5
Enhance Safety
Prioritize safety
in design and
implementation
of walking and
biking facilities.

Increase Walking
and Biking
Support biking
and walking as
attractive modes of
transportation.

Improve
Connectivity
Develop a bicycle and
pedestrian network
that provides well-
connected facilities
for users of all ages
and abilities.

Enhance
Accessibility
Utilize principles
of universal design
to make biking and
walking a viable
transportation
option for all,
including people
with disabilities.

Prioritize
Investments
Maintain sufficient
funding to provide
for existing and future
bicycle and pedestrian
needs, including
supporting programs
and operation and
maintenance. Leverage
biking and walking
projects to promote
economic activity and
social equity outcomes
among people of all
ages and abilities.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 7
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 7
Draft174

ORGANIZATION
The Plan document is organized
in the following chapters:

INTRODUCTION—
Outlines the project’s
background, vision, planning
process, timeline, and goals.

COMMUNITY &

STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT—
Summarizes the approach
to, and findings from,
community and stakeholder
engagement activities.

WALKING & BIKING IN
DUBLIN TODAY—Maps
and analyzes physical and
socioeconomic conditions
applicable to improving walking
and biking in Dublin. Evaluates
bicycle level of traffic stress,
collision history, high injury
streets, and other barriers
to walking and biking.

RECOMMENDED

BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN
NETWORK—Summarizes the
approach to developing network
recommendations and presents
the recommended citywide
bicycle and pedestrian network.

RECOMMENDED

PROGRAMS, POLICIES, &
PRACTICES—Summarizes
the approach to developing non-
infrastructure recommendations
and presents the program and
policy recommendations.

IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGY—Summarizes the
prioritization framework and
presents a tiered list of projects
for implementation that considers
resource availability and
funding opportunities. Presents
cost estimates and identifies
potential funding sources for
these recommendations.

LOOKING AHEAD —
Recaps key findings from prior
chapters and discusses next
steps for Plan implementation.

TECHNICAL APPENDIX —
Includes bicycle and pedestrian
facility design guidelines
and provides memorandums
documenting technical analysis
and engagement activities.

PROCESS
FALL 2020
Project
Initiation
Baseline Inventory
& Needs Analysis
Public Participation via In Person Events and Workshops Draft Plan
Final Plan &
Environmental Review
LATE 2021 EARLY 2022 SUMMER 2022
Network Recommendations
& Implementation Plan
8 City of Dublin
8 City of Dublin
Draft 175

COMMUNITY &

STAKEHOLDER

ENGAGEMENT
At the outset of the planning
process, a community
engagement plan was created
to outline activities, methods,
and tools that would be used
for public and stakeholder
engagement. Due to the outbreak
of the coronavirus pandemic
and subsequent stay-at-home
orders, the community and
stakeholder engagement effort
included digital outreach.

In-person events were held
when it was safe to do so.

For more, see
Chapter 2.

PROJECT WEBSITE
BPAC - Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
TAC - Technical Advisory Committee
CCC - City Commission and Council
Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4
20202020
Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4
20212021
Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3
20222022
TAC #1
MAR 4, 2020
TAC #2
SEP 15, 2020
TAC #3
JUN 3, 2021
TAC #4
MAR 15, 2022
CCC
AUG-SEP 2022
Public
Survey
MAY - SEP 2021
Project
Start
Project
End
BPAC #1
SEP 17, 2020
BPAC #2
MAY 25, 2021
BPAC #3
OCT 21, 2021
BPAC #4
FEB 24, 2022
ST PATRICK’S

DAY POP-UP
MAR 12, 2022
BPAC #5
JUL 21, 2022
Online
Workshop &
FAQ Live
SEP 2, 2020
Farmers’
Market Pop-Up
MAY 25, 2021
Alamo Creek
Trailhead
Pop-Up
MAY 27, 2021
Stakeholder
Meetings
APR–MAY 2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 9
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 9
Draft176

WALKING & BIKING IN DUBLIN TODAY

DUBLIN DEMOGRAPHIC SNAPSHOT
Dublin
Population
61,240
Dublin Population by
Race/Ethnicity
Dublin Population by Age
35%
7%
9%
24%
16%
8%
25-44
UNDER 5
65+
45-65
5-14
15-24
6%
2+ RACES

1.1% Hispanic
or L at ino/a/x
49%
<1%
2%
ASIAN
<1% Hispanic or
L at ino/a/x

AMERICAN

INDIAN AND

ALASKA NATIVE
<1% Hispanic
or L at ino/a/x
OTHER

1.6% Hispanic
or L at ino/a/x
4%
BLACK/

AFRICAN

AMERICAN
<1% Hispanic
or L at ino/a/x
39%
WHITE

6.5% Hispanic
or L at ino/a/x
48%
28%
7%
7%
5%
5%

ASIAN-INDIAN

CHINESE
(EXCEPT

TAIWANESE)
OTHER

ORIGINS

FILIPINO
KOREAN

VIETNAMESE
*rounded
Source: US Census American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2015-2019) 10 City of Dublin
10 City of Dublin
Draft 177
23,000
Commute Snapshot

DRIVE ALONE

TAKE PUBLIC TRANSIT,
CAR SHARE (E.G.,

GETAROUND, TURO),

TRANSPORTATION

NETWORK COMPANY
(E.G., LYFT, UBER),

OR A TAXI

EITHER WALK

OR BIKE

OF HOUSEHOLDS

IN DUBLIN DO NOT

OWN A VEHICLE

DUBLINERS

COMMUTE OUTSIDE

THE CITY FOR WORK

MORE THANCARPOOL
69%
13%
2%
3%
& 9%
2015-2019 American Community Survey data
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 11
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 11
Draft178

PROGRAM AND

POLICY NEEDS
• Additional resources,
including staff dedicated
to active transportation.
• Updated design guidance
and standards to incorporate
the innovations and changes
since the 2014 Plan.
• Enhanced coordination
across departments.
• Clearer processes and
stronger policies related
to pedestrian and bicycle
project maintenance, design
review, and implementation.

SAFETY AND

COMFORT

COLLISION ANALYSIS

FINDINGS
• 68 bicycle-involved collisions
over the 6-year period; 3 fatal
and severe injury collisions.
• 81 pedestrian-involved
collisions over the 6-year
period; 12 fatal and
severe injury collisions.
• People 15–24 years old
are overrepresented in
pedestrian and bicycle
collisions. They represent
25% and 18% of pedestrians
and bicyclists involved in
collisions, but make up just
8% of the city’s population
• 62% of the pedestrian
collisions occurred on just

8.4 miles of roadway that
comprise the pedestrian high
injury network (see Figure 25)
• 62% of the bicycle collisions
occurred on just 6.7 miles
of roadway that comprise
the bicycle high injury
network (see Figure 26).

BICYCLE LEVEL OF

STRESS ANALYSIS
• Low-stress on-street
facilities are typically local
residential streets without
dedicated bicycle facilities.
• Arterial streets, such as
Dublin Boulevard, are
typically higher-stress due
to high vehicular speeds,
high traffic volumes, or
multiple travel lanes.
• Sidepaths can be high stress
or low stress, depending on
path width, shoulder width,
and presence of wayfinding.
• Only 37 percent of collectors
and 7 percent of arterials in
Dublin are low stress. Many
businesses and services are
located on or near collectors,
and these desintations can
only be accessed with some
travel along or across the
collectors or arterials.

For more, see
Chapter 3.

Figure 1. Miles of Bikeway Stress by Functional Classification

LOW STRESS

STREETS
HIGH
STRESS

STREETS
Arterial Streets
Collector Streets
Residential Streets
0 30 60 90 120 150
Miles
*Miles do not include paths.
12 City of Dublin
12 City of Dublin
Draft 179

WALKING AND BIKING ACCESS

SCHOOLS
Cottonwood Creek School, Dougherty Elementary,
and Kolb Elementary exhibit the highest
estimated walk access with around 36 percent
of students living within a 10-minute walk.

Access points on high-stress streets create a barrier and reduce the likelihood of students to bike to school.

Figure 2. Bicyclist Typology
Table 18. Pedestrian Typology
Age Typolog y Walking
Characteristics
Under 14 Youth Limited by multilane crossings
14 to
55 Teenage and
Working Age
Adults
Strong and capable, but still limited by
sidewalk gaps, unsignalized crossings at major
roads, and absence of midblock crossings
Over 55 Aging
The limits experienced by young adults and
adults and further limited by the absence of
curb ramps or long multilane crossings
SHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLINSHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLIN • Dublin High,
• Frederiksen
Elementary,
• Murray Elementary,
and
• Wells Middle School.

BART
Approximately 11 percent of Dublin residents are
within a 15-minute walk of either the Dublin/
Pleasanton or West Dublin BART stations.

Less than one percent of “interested and concerned”
bicyclists have a low-stress bicycle route to BART.

JOB CENTERS
Access to job centers is limited by the distance
between employment and residential uses.

Job centers are located on high-stress
streets, which currently limit safe and
comfortable bicycle access to these sites.

PARKS
Almost 62 percent of residents live within
a 15-minute walk of a park.

Nearly 42 percent of residents have a low-stress bicycle route to a park.

For more, see Chapter 3.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 13
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 13
Draft180

NETWORK

RECOMMENDATIONS

BICYCLE FACILITIES
The recommended new facilities
include the following:

Class I: 12.8 miles
Class II: 19.9 miles
Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane 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
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
Class III: 12.4 miles
Class IV: 9.2 miles
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
For more,
see Chapter 4.

PEDESTRIAN

FACILITIES
The recommended pedestrian
and bicycle networks were
developed in tandem using a
complete street approach. A
suite of pedestrian treatments
is recommended along project
corridors so that when concept
designs are developed, bicycle
and pedestrian improvements
can be planned, designed, and
implemented at the same time.

Pedestrian improvements include:
• consistent sidewalk
• buffers with street trees
and green stormwater
infrastructure
• high-visibility crosswalks
• accessible curb ramps
• curb extensions
• reduced corner radii
• signal improvements

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
Intersections and mid-block
locations in the city with
relatively high collision frequency
and severity relative to the rest of
the network have been prioritized
for safety enhancements.

The recommendations for
this Plan include 16 freeway
modernization improvements,
33 intersection improvements,
and 5 crossing improvements.

For more,
see Chapter 4.
14 City of Dublin
14 City of Dublin
Draft 181

PROGRAM AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Coordination and
Collaboration
Emerging
Technologies
Promotion and
Encouragement
Funding and
Implementation
Supporting
Infrastructure and
Amenities
Operations and
Maintenance
Data Collection
Design
For more,
see Chapter 5
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 15
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 15
Draft182

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Table 1. Prioritization Factors and Variables

FACTOR VARIABLE
Safety High-Injury Corridors
Social Equity Youth and Senior Population
Connectivity
Demand Analysis
Proximity to Schools
Quality of
Service
Bicycle Level of
Traffic Stress
Sidewalk Gaps
Major
Barriers Freeway Crossings
Consistency
with Past
Planning
Previously Identified
Projects
TIER I
Near-Term Project Cost
$21,085,000 -
$27,589,000

TIER II AND TIER III
Long-Term Investment Cost
$80,928,000-
$179,692,000
Active transportation projects in Dublin have typically been funded through a combination of ballot measure
monies (e.g., Alameda County Measure B, BB, and
Measure RR), the City General Fund, the Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, developer-
funded projects, and transportation impact fees,
with some funding from state, regional, and federal
grants. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)
or Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA),
signed into law in November 2021, established more
than two dozen competitive grant programs for
infrastructure initiatives. These discretionary grants
and other funding sources are described in Chapter 6.

FUNDING IDENTIFIED IN

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (2022-2027)
$1,879,684
for citywide bicycle and pedestrian projects.
$12,147,565
for street resurfacing.

PRIORITIZATION

FACTORS
COST

ESTIMATES

PRIMARY

FUNDING SOURCES
For more, see
Chapter 6.
16 City of Dublin
16 City of Dublin
Draft 183
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022 Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 3,300 Feet
Proposed Point Project
! Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
! ! ! Shared Lane (Class III)
! ! ! Bike Lane (Class IIA)
! ! ! Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
! ! ! Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
! ! ! Complete Streets Study: Consider
Improvements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
Figure 3. Recommended Projects and Existing Facilities
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022 Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 3,300 Feet
Proposed Point Project
! Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
! ! ! Shared Lane (Class III)
! ! ! Bike Lane (Class IIA)
! ! ! Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
! ! ! Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
! ! ! Complete Streets Study: Consider
Improvements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022 Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 3,300 Feet
Proposed Point Project
! Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
! ! ! Shared Lane (Class III)
! ! ! Bike Lane (Class IIA)
! ! ! Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
! ! ! Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
! ! ! Complete Streets Study: Consider
Improvements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Locations with identified proposed segment projects may also include pedestrian improvements such as consistent sidewalks, buffers with street trees and/or green stormwater infrastructure, high-visibility crosswalks, accessible curb ramps, curb extensions, reduced corner radii, and signal improvements Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 17
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 17
Draft184
2 �
1 185
This chapter introduces the
project, including its background
and need, and sets the stage
for the analysis, findings, and
recommendations detailed
in subsequent chapters.

ABOUT THE PLAN
The City of Dublin’s Bicycle
and Pedestrian Plan is a
critical planning, policy, and
implementation document
that supports the City’s
efforts to improve the safety
and attractiveness of biking
and walking as a means of
transportation and recreation.

This Plan updates and replaces
the City’s 2014 Plan by
building upon the 2014 Plan’s
goals and recommendations
and by using new guidance
documents. The update
will result in infrastructure
and program and policy
recommendations that support
walking and biking in Dublin.

THE 2014

BICYCLE AND

PEDESTRIAN

MASTER PLAN
The 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan, and the following
six goals included in the 2014
Plan, provides a baseline
for the updated Plan.
2014 GOALS
Goal 1: Support bicycling and
walking as practical, healthy,
and convenient alternatives to
automobile use in Dublin.

Goal 2: Implement a well-
connected active transportation
system to attract users of
all ages and abilities.

Goal 3: Incorporate the needs
and concerns of bicyclists and
pedestrians in all transportation
and development projects.

Goal 4: Support infrastructure
investments with targeted
bicycle and pedestrian education,
encouragement, enforcement,
and evaluation programs.

Goal 5: Maximize multi-
modal connections in the
transportation network.

Goal 6: Improve bicycle and
pedestrian safety citywide.

NEW GUIDANCE
Since the 2014 Plan was
adopted, bicycle and pedestrian
planning and design guidance
and standards have evolved to
include innovative treatments
and guidance from local and
national agencies. Best-practice
documents should be considered
when implementing any bicycle
and pedestrian facility. The
latest versions of best-practice
design guides developed by
outside sources should be

1. INTRODUCTION

5. Proposed Bicycle & Pedestrian Networks
100
City of Dublin
TABLE 5-2 PROPOSED BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS
Project Name Proposal (Directions) Class Location Existing Conditions Recommendations Length (miles)
Sierra Court Bicycle Lanes IIA
Sierra Court between
Sierra Lane and Dublin
Boulevard
Existing 50'+ curb-to-curb
distance with limited
parking utilization
Connection between Dougherty
Road/Iron Horse Trail and Civic
Plaza/Alamo Canal Trail

0.12 Sierra Lane Bicycle Lanes IIA
Sierra Lane between
Sierra Court and
Dougherty Road
Existing 50'+ curb-to-curb
distance with limited
parking utilization
Connection between Dougherty
Road/Iron Horse Trail and Civic
Plaza/Alamo Canal Trail

0.3 Silvergate Drive Bicycle Lanes IIA Woodren Court to San Ramon Road
EB Bicycle Lane not striped;
WB bicycle lane striping
starts in channelized SB
right-turn lane
Proposed Class IIA EB between
Woodren Court and San Ramon
Road remove SB right slip lane
and restripe WB Class IIA Bicycle
Lane

0.06 St. Patrick Way Bicycle Lanes IIA
St. Patrick Way from
Regional Street to Essex
Development and
Golden Gate Drive to
Amador Plaza Road
Extends from Amador
Plaza Road to Golden Gate
Drive only; will be extended
to Regional Street with
West Dublin/Pleasanton
BART development.

Proposed Class IIA in both
directions to support “last mile”
connections to West Dublin
BART-Developer-Built Facility

0.25 Stagecoach Park /
Iron Horse Trail
Connector
Shared-Use Path and Bridge I
From Stagecoach Road
along edge of
Stagecoach Park to Iron
Horse Trail
Significant grade issues;
Bridge needed across
Alamo Canal; Crosses land
owned by Southern Pacific.

Proposed Class I in coordination
with proposed Iron Horse Nature
Park.

0.06 Stagecoach Road Bicycle Lanes IIA
Stagecoach Road
between Alcosta
Boulevard and
Stagecoach Park
Low-volume collector
street; existing shoulder
can be re-striped as bicycle
lane.

Proposed Class IIA Bicycle Lanes 0.56
Prepared by:
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Prepared for the:

City of Dublin
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan
Adopted by the City Council on October 7, 2014
Dublin Existing Bikeways
Figure 4-5
Not to Scale
March 2014
U
U
U

DUBLIN BL
I580

FALLON RD
I680

TASSAJARA RD
TA

SSAJARA CREEK
TRAI
L

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

VILLAGE PW

FALLON RD

DOUGHERTY RD

IRON HORSE TRAIL

ALAMO CAN

AL TRAIL

SAN RAMON RD

AMADOR VALLEY BL

ARNOLD RD

VOMAC RD

HACIENDA DR
SIERR
A C
T

POSITANO PW

TAMARACK DR

SILVERGATE DR

STAGECOACH RD

DAVONA DR

PEPPERTREE RD

YORK DR

PENN DR

MARTINELLI WY

REGIONAL ST

STARWARD DR

AMADOR PLAZA RD

DONOHUE DR

MAPLE DR

DUBLIN CT

IRONHORSE PW

GOLDEN GATE DR

CIVIC PZ

GRAFTON ST
U Signalized Trail Crossing
Undercrossing
Exist ing Unsignalized Crossing
Crossing wit h Pedest rian Beacon
Exiting Trail Crossings
Exiting Bikeways
C
Path
Bicycle Lanes
Bicycle Route
lass I
Class II
Class III
BART
C ity Limits
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 19
Draft
186
consulted regularly to ensure
information is up to date.

Relevant guidance includes:
• California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (2018)
• Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)
Bikeway Selection
Guide (2019)
• FHWA Achieving
Multimodal Networks:

Applying Design
Flexibility and Reducing
Conflicts (2016)
• AC Transit Multimodal
Corridor Design
Guidelines (2019)
• National Association of City
Transportation Officials
(NACTO) Urban Bikeway
Design Guide (2014)
• NACTO Transit Street
Design Guide (2016)
• NACTO Urban Street
Stormwater Guide (2016)
Relevant documents and
additional guidance is
presented in the Design
Guide (appendix D).

PROGRESS SINCE
THE 2014 PLAN
Since the 2014 Plan’s adoption,
the City and developers have
built 10.8 miles of the proposed

35.3 miles of bikeways.

They have built 7 of the 25
recommended pedestrian
projects, and 2 more are in
progress. The infrastructure
inventory is presented in
Figure 4. This Plan update
reevaluates recommendations
and carries forward relevant
projects from the 2014 Plan.

RELATIONSHIP TO

OTHER PLANS
Federal, state, and local agencies
develop policies and publish
plans to guide investment and
set transportation priorities.

Understanding how these plans
and policies relate and fit together
helps ensure recommendations
are consistent with and build
on prior planning efforts. This
section describes relevant plans
and policies. Table 2 presents
what aspects of the most relevant
existing policy and planning
documents were used to guide
this Plan’s policies and projects.

FEDERAL POLICIES
USDOT Policy Statement
on Bicycle and Pedestrian
Accommodation Regulations
and Recommendations.

In 2010, the United States
Department of Transportation
(USDOT) issued a policy
directive in support of walking
and bicycling. The policy
encouraged transportation
agencies to go beyond minimum
standards and fully-integrate
active transportation into
projects. As part of the statement,
the USDOT encouraged
agencies to adopt similar policy
statements in support of walking
and bicycling considerations.

Americans with Disabilities
Act—The Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Title III
is legislation enacted in 1990 that
provides thorough civil liberties
protections to individuals with
disabilities with regards to
employment, state and local
government services, and access
to public accommodations,
transportation, and
telecommunications. Title III of
the Act requires places of public
accommodation to be accessible
and usable to all people,
including people with disabilities.
20 City of Dublin
Draft 187

INFRASTRUCTURE INVENTORY
The 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan produced a suite of infrastructure recommendations, including the following:

A recommended walking network consisting
of five main improvement types:
83 bikeway
infrastructure
projects, totaling

35.3 miles
Signalized Tassajara Creek trail crossing at Central Parkway.

The 2014 Plan recommended Tassajara Creek crossing
locations at Dublin Boulevard which have not yet been built.

WALKING NETWORK PROJECT TYPES
A recommended bikeway network with
the following intended focus:

CONNECTIONS TO KEY ACTIVITY CENTERS

COMFORT AND LOW LEVEL OF STRESS

CONNECTIONS TO REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM

CONNECTIONS TO ADJACENT CITIES

BIKEWAY NETWORK PROJECT TYPES
Class IIA bike lane along Tassajara Road,
which was proposed in the 2014 Plan.

INTERSECTION

CROSSING

TREATMENTS

SIDEWA LK

IMPROVEMENTS
ADA

IMPROVEMENTS
SIGNAL

MODIFICATIONS
REMOVE

BARRIERS
Figure 4. Infrastructure Inventory
24 pedestrian
infrastructure
projects
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 21
Draft188

PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT TYPE PROPOSED BUILT IN PROGRESS
Intersection crossing treatments 12 2 0
Sidewalk improvements 2 0 1
ADA improvements 6 1 0
Signal modifications 4 1 0
Remove Barriers 3 3 1
Wayfinding signage 1 0 0
Total 28 7 2
Pedestrian projects proposed and built, by project type Bicycle facilities proposed and built, by mileage
Some projects included multiple types and are double or triple counted into all relevant categories.

PROGRESS:

Proposed mixed facilities are listed by their highest proposed class (e.g., Class IIA/IIIA is listed as Class IIA)

8.1 10.8

16.4 10
8 6
4 2
0 Class IIIA Class IIA Class IIB Class I

0.8 4.0 4.8

2.0 9.2

0.8 2.4

3.3 5.4

2.7 Built To be Built by City To be Built by Developer
Built
To be Built
by City
To be Built
by Developer
22 City of Dublin
Draft 189
!m
!m
!m
!m
!m
!m
!m
!m
!m!m!m
!m
!m!m !m!m!m!m
!m
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR
ARN
OLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL
DOUGH

ERTY RD

POSITANOPW
VILLAG
E PW

DONOHUEDR
SAN
RAMO
N
RD
SIE
RRA
CT
FAL
LON
RDTAS
SA

JARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR
AMADO
R VAL
LEY BL

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROM
W
ELLAV
BARN
ET B
L
CR
OAK RD

RANGERD
FCI

CREEKSIDEDR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON
DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SEBILLERD

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR
12TH ST

TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR

HILLROSEDR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOKDR

EAGLERD

BRODER BL

INSPIRATIONDR

CREEKVIEWDR

HILLTOPRD

DUBLIN BL
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Proposed Bikeways, Built
Class I
Class IIA
Class IIB
Proposed Bikeways, Not Built
Class I
Class IIA
Class IIB
Class IIIA
[
0 1 Mile
Pedestrian Intersection/Crossing Project
!m Not Built
!m Built
Pedestrian Corridor Projects
Not Built
In Progress
Built
Figure 5. 2014 Plan Proposed Bikeway Facilities
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 23
Draft190
Table 2. Relevant Plans and Policies
Plan
Relevance to Current Plan
Bicycle
Policies
Pedestrian
Policies
Facility/
Network Maps
Design
Guidelines
Project
Recommendations
or Concept
Designs
Program
Recommendations

STATE AND REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES
California Green Building Code
Caltrans Toward an Active California (2017)
Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018)
Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan (2020)
Alameda Countywide Active
Transportation Plan (2019)
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) Plan Bay Area 2050 (2021)
MTC Active Transportation Plan
(in progress, anticipated 2022)
East Bay Regional Parks District
Master Plan (2013)

LOCAL CITY PLANS AND POLICIES
Local Roadway Safety Plan (in
progress, anticipated 2022)
Americans with Disabilities Act Transition
Plan (in progress, anticipated 2022)
24 City of Dublin
Draft 191
Plan
Relevance to Current Plan
Bicycle
Policies
Pedestrian
Policies
Facility/
Network Maps
Design
Guidelines
Project
Recommendations
or Concept
Designs
Program
Recommendations

LOCAL CITY PLANS AND POLICIES CONTINUED
Streetscape Master Plan (2009)
Complete Streets Policy (City Council
Resolution 199-12) (2012)
Dublin Boulevard Bikeway Corridor
and Connectivity Studies (2013)
Pedestrian Safety Assessment (2014)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2014)
General Plan
Land Use &
Circulation (2014)
Circulation & Scenic
Highways Element
Schools, Public Lands,
& Utilities Element
Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2022)
Iron Horse Regional Trail
Feasibility Study (2017)
Traffic Safety Study Update (2018)
Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (2020)
Downtown Streetscape Master Plan (2020)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 25
Draft192
Plan
Relevance to Current Plan
Bicycle
Policies
Pedestrian
Policies
Facility/
Network Maps
Design
Guidelines
Project
Recommendations
or Concept
Designs
Program
Recommendations
Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan (2019)
Specific Plans
Dublin Crossing (2013)
Downtown (2014)
Dublin Village
Historic Area (2014)
Eastern Dublin (2016)

FEDERAL PLANS AND POLICIES
USDOT Policy Statement on Bicycle
and Pedestrian Accomodation
Regulations and Recommendations
Americans with Disabilities Act
26 City of Dublin
Draft 193

STATE AND REGIONAL

PLANS AND POLICIES
Complete Streets Act of
2008: California’s Complete
Streets Act of 2008 (Assembly
bill 1358) requires all cities to
modify the circulation element
of their general plan to “plan
for a balanced, multimodal
transportation network that
meets the needs of all users”
when a substantive revision of
the circulation element occurs.

The law went into effect on
January 1, 2011. The law also
directs the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research to amend
its guidelines for the development
of circulation elements to
aid cities and counties in
meeting the requirements of
the Complete Streets Act.

Senate Bill 375/Assembly
Bill 32: California Assembly
Bill 32 requires greenhouse gas
emissions to be reduced by 28
percent by the year 2020 and
by 50 percent by the year 2050.

Senate Bill 375 provides the
implementation mechanisms for
Assembly Bill 32. Senate Bill 375
requires metropolitan planning
organizations and regional
planning agencies to plan for
these reductions by developing
sustainable community strategies
(SCS), which will be a regional
guide for housing, land uses,
and transportation and will
incorporate the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). A
key component of SCS is the
reduction of automobile trips and
vehicle miles traveled. Planning
for increases in walking,
bicycling, and transit use as
viable alternatives to automobile
travel are important components
of these SCS/RTP plans.

California Green Building
Standards Code: According
to Chapter 8.76 of the City
of Dublin’s Municipal Code,
bicycle parking and support
facilities in both residential and
non-residential development
shall conform to the California
Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen). The CALGreen
Code includes both mandatory
and voluntary measures. For
non-residential buildings, it is
mandatory that both short-term
and long-term bicycle parking is
provided and secure. Generally,
the number of long-term bicycle
parking spaces must be at least 5
percent of the number of vehicle
parking spaces. Schools have
additional requirements so both
students and staff have access
to sufficient bicycle parking.

Caltrans Toward an Active
California (2017): Toward an
Active California is Caltrans’s
first statewide policy and plan to
support bicyclists and pedestrians
through objectives, strategies,
and actions. Toward an Active
California introduces 4 new
objectives, 15 strategies, and 60
actions that are specific to active
transportation and serve as the
basis for Plan implementation.

Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan
(2018): This plan evaluates
bicycle needs on and across the
State transportation network
and identifies priority bicycle
projects. Projects are prioritized
as top tier, mid tier, and low
tier. The following projects are
recommended for Dublin:

FINAL MAY 2017
Plan Oversight
The plan was developed with support
from a Technical Advisory Committee ,
that was selected to be broadly repre-
sentative of Caltrans, regional and local
transportation agencies, and partners
in related fields. Committee members
include:
» Representatives of each Caltrans
District
» Representatives of Caltrans Divisions
of Transportation Planning; Design;
Local Assistance; Maintenance;
Traffic Operations; Programming;
Environmental Analysis; Rail and
Mass Transportation; and Research,
Innovation and System Information
» California Highway Patrol
» California Department of Public Health
» California Department of Motor Vehicles
» California Transportation Commission
» California High Speed Rail Authority
» California Office of Traffic Safety
» City of San Luis Obispo
» Southern California Association of
Governments
» Sacramento Regional Transit District
» Rural Counties Task Force
» Nevada County Transportation
Commission
» California Bicycle Coalition
» California Walks
» UC Davis Sustainable Transportation
Center
» Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority
» Federal Transit Administration
Plan oversight was provided by a Policy
Advisory Committee , which included
the:
» Deputy Director of Planning & Modal
Programs
» Deputy Director of Project Delivery
» Deputy Director of Maintenance and
Operations
» Deputy Director of Finance
» Deputy Director of Sustainability
» Deputy Secretary of Housing and
Environment

CALTRANS DISTRICTS
TOWARD AN ACTIVE CALIFORNIA | 4
12 1
2 3
4 5
6 9
8 10
11 7
Ã1
£6
£50
£97
£101
£95
¥80
¥40
¥15
¥5
¥10Long
Beach
Bakersfield
Lancaster
Chico
Monterey Salinas
Santa Cruz
San Bernardino
Santa
Barbara
Fresno
Eureka
San Jose
Sacramento
San Diego
San
Francisco
Los Angeles

TOWARD AN ACTIVE CALIFORNIA
| 12
1996
First bicycle signal head
installed in North America
in Davis, CA
2008
Deputy Directive 64
released, requiring
complete streets integration
into all agency activities
2010
Smart Mobility Framework released
Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan
Complete Intersections Guide
1999
AB 1475 authorizes
the statewide Safe
Routes to School
program.
2007
Statewide Safe
Routes to School
program made
permanent
2009
Pedestrian Safety Improvement Program (PSIP)
launched, identifying and addressing problems
with pedestrian safety in California
The increasing rate of biking and walking has made California roads safer.

However, safety continues to be a concern.

BETWEEN 2005 AND 2014, THERE WERE
13 4 ,12 5 bicyclist-involved collisions and
136,618 pedestrian-involved collisions
across California. That is an average of
37 and
bicyclist-involved 38
pedestrian-involvedcollisions per day collisions per dayTHERE WERE 1,351 bicyclist fatalities across
California. That is more than

2.5 FATALITIES

PER WEEK

AND THERE WERE
6,874 pedestrian fatalities across
California. That is nearly
2 PEDESTRIANS

KILLED EACH DAY
IN 2014, NEARL Y
14 ROADWAY
FATALITIES in involved a pedestrian
Note, collision statistics typically exclude collisions on trails or between bicyclists and/or pedestrians 25%
10%

SAFETY IS IMPROVING
Relative to the number of trips,
bicycle and pedestrian fatalities have declined

PEDESTRIANRITRIA

FATALITIEESS

DECLINEEDD

BICYCLE E

FATALITTIIEEESSS
DECLINENEDD 40%
50%

BUT REMAINS A CHALLENGE
Bicycle and pedestrian fatalities and serious
injuries are an increasing share of the total
ROAD

FATALITIES

DECLINED

PEDESTRIAN

FATALITIES

STAYED THE
SAME

BICYCLE E

FATALITTIIEEESSS

INCREAASSEEDDD
Data from SWITRS, 2005-2014,
California Strategic Highway Safety Plan,
and National Household Travel Survey 2000-2002 & 2010
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 27
Draft194
• Top Tier Project: Santa Rita
Road and I-580 interchange
reconstruction (ramps
only); Class IIB facility
• Mid Tier Project:

Tassajara Creek and I-580
new separated crossing;
Alcosta Boulevard and
I-680 minor interchange
improvements (signage and
striping); Class II facility
• Low Tier Project: Demarcus
Boulevard and I-580 new
separated crossing
Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian
Plan (2020): This plan identifies
and prioritizes pedestrian needs
along and across the State
Highway System to inform future
investments. The plan’s main
output is a prioritized list and
map of location-based pedestrian
needs and a toolkit with
strategies to address those needs.

Alameda Countywide Active
Transportation Plan (2019):

The 2019 Countywide Active
Transportation Plan (CATP)
updates and combines the
Countywide Bicycle Plan and the
Countywide Pedestrian Plan. The
CATP analyzes low-stress bike
networks, identifies a countywide
high injury pedestrian and bicycle
network, evaluates major barriers
to the bicycle and pedestrian
network, and establishes a
framework for prioritizing
projects of countywide
significance to inform
decision-making about active
transportation funding at the
Alameda County Transportation
Commission. At the local level,
the CATP provides resources
to member agencies to help
advance projects that provide
complete, safe, and connected
networks for biking and walking,
including better connections to
the regional transit network.

Connectivity analysis presented
in the CATP indicate that
the east planning area, which
includes the City of Dublin,
generally has poor low-stress
connectivity in the rural and
outlying suburban areas and in
the business park portions of
Dublin and Pleasanton. Based
on the high-injury network
analysis completed in the
CATP, the combined bicycle
and pedestrian high-injury
network miles represent less
than one percent of the total
countywide high-injury network.

In the east planning area, Dublin
Boulevard from Arnold Road
to Hacienda Drive and Village
Parkway from Davona Drive
to Tamarack Drive have the
highest bicycle collision severity
scores. Dublin Boulevard was
identified as the street with the
most miles on the pedestrian
high-injury network.

The 2020 Countywide
Transportation Plan (2020):

The 2020 Countywide
Transportation Plan (2020
CTP) was adopted along
with the Community-Based
Transportation Plan and the
New Mobility Roadmap. The
2020 CTP covers transportation
projects, policies, and programs
out to the year 2050 for Alameda
County. The Community-
Based Transportation Plan is
an assessment of transportation
needs in the county’s low-income
communities and communities
of color with a focus on input
collected via community
engagement activities. The New
Mobility Roadmap provides a
foundation for agency policy,
advocacy, and funding decisions
to advance new mobility
technologies and services for
the Alameda CTC and partner
agencies, as well as the private
sector. The 2020 CTP 10-year
priority project list includes the
following projects in the City
of Dublin: Iron Horse Trail
Crossing at Dublin Boulevard,
Downtown Dublin Streetscape
Plan Implementation, Dublin/
Pleasanton BART Station Active
Access Improvements, Safe
Routes to School Improvements,
Interchange modernizations at
I-580/I-680, I-580/Fallon/El
Charro, and I-580/Hacienda,
widening of Dougherty
Road, Dublin Boulevard,
and Tassajara Road and the
extension of Dublin Boulevard
North Canyons Parkway. To
28 City of Dublin
Draft 195
Bay Area Metro Center – 375 Beale Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 ABAG – Suite 700 – 415.820.6700 – [email protected] – abag.ca.gov MTC – Suite 800 – 415.778.6700 – [email protected] – mtc.ca.gov For more
information visit us
at planbayarea.org.

October 21, 2021
Adopted
FINAL

SUMMARY REPORT

DISTRICT
4 FOR THE BAY AREAPEDESTRIAN PLAN
202 1
DISTRICT 4
MESSAGE FROM THE DISTRICT 4 DIRECTOR
I am pleased to present the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. This Plan furthers the 2017 State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, T oward an Active California, which established statewide policies, strategies and actions to advance active transportation and transit safety, mobility, preservation, and equity. It also builds on the success and ongoing implementation of the 2018 District 4 Bike Plan.

The Caltrans Bay Area team is already working to
incorporate pedestrian elements into our projects, and
embracing a complete streets approach to our planning,
project development, operation, and maintenance activities.

This plan provides valuable guidance by identifying and prioritizing needs informed by our department and our public agency and community partners.

The Pedestrian Plan will guide Caltrans Bay Area investments to support walking and connect people with opportunities, while seeking to reconnect previously divided communities.

Collaboratively working with our partners from local and regional agencies, community organizations, and advocacy groups is central to the development of this plan, and will be central to its implementation. I would like to acknowledge and thank all who participated in this process, with a special recognition of the important role and contribution of the Pedestrian Plan Working Group in guiding the development of the plan.

We look forward to working with our local and regional partners and communities on implementing the Pedestrian Plan.

Dina A. El-T awansy
District Director
District 4 – Bay Area

WHERE IS CAL TRANS
DISTRICT 4?
District 4 covers the Bay Area,
which includes the counties of
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,
Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma.

District 4 Director,
Dina A. El-Tawansy
SR 1 at T am Junction. Photo by Sergio Ruiz.
4 CAL TRANS DISTRICT 4
/ P edestrian Plan for the Bay Area /

SUMMARY REPORT
Plan Bay Area 2050
In summer 2020, MTC and ABAG held 24 public and stakeholder events. Residents were able to provide their feedback via online survey, informal virtual “coffee chats,” email, telephone, a statistically valid telephone poll and an online tribal summit. Over 178,000 comments were received from more than 8,200 residents. Plan Bay Area 2050 “wrapped up” its engagement efforts in summer 2021 following the release of the Draft Plan Bay Area 2050 and the completion of the third round of public and partner engagement.

Photo: Peter Beeler
2 3 4 , 000 + 2 3 , 000 +

TWO-THIRDS

OF EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES
PUBLIC

COMMENTS

RECEIVED
during Horizon and
Plan Bay Area 2050

PARTICIPANTS IN

THE PLANNING

PROCESS

TARGETED TO

EQUITY PRIORITY

COMMUNITIES

AND OTHER

UNDERSERVED
GROUPS
450+

PUBLIC AND

STAKEHOLDER

EVENTS AND

ACTIVITIES
including in-person and
virtual workshops, pop-up
events, and board and
working group meetings,
among others
19 complement these projects,
the 10-Year Priority Projects
and Programs, the 2020 CTP
includes a series of Strategies
that reflect guiding principles,
industry best practices,
and a gaps analysis of areas
that aren’t fully covered by
projects: safe system approach,
complete corridors approach,
partnerships to address
regional and megaregional
issues, transit accessibility
and transportation demand
management, and new mobility
and an automated, low-
emission and shared future.

MTC Plan Bay Area
2050 (2021): This plan
from the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission
(MTC) is the region’s long-
range strategic plan. It is
focused on the interrelated
elements of housing, the
economy, transportation,
and the environment.

MTC Active Transportation
Plan (in progress,
anticipated 2022): This
forthcoming plan will guide
investments in infrastructure
and the development and
implementation of regional
policy. The plan supports the
Plan Bay Area 2050 strategy
to build a complete streets
network and helps to meet
goals to improve safety,
equity, health, resilience,
and climate change.

East Bay Regional Parks
District Master Plan (2013):

This policy document guides
future development of
parks, trails, and services.

LOCAL CITY PLANS

AND POLICIES
Streetscape Master Plan
(2009): This master plan
maximizes opportunities to
craft an urban image unique
to Dublin and opportunities
to maintain existing amenities
like street trees. Among
other goals, the plan aims to
coordinate improvements and
responsibilities for Dublin’s
streets and to strengthening
Dublin Boulevard’s streetscape.

In the context of active
transportation, this plan
is a valuable resource for
identifying and implementing
street improvements that
contribute to Dublin’s image.

Complete Streets Policy
(City Council Resolution
No. 199-12) (2012): The
City of Dublin’s Complete
Streets Policy identifies
complete streets planning
as a critical contributor to:
• Increase walking, biking,
and taking transit
• Reduce vehicle
miles traveled
• Meet greenhouse gas
reduction goals
Together, these targets aim
to benefit public health.

The policy emphasizes
community engagement,
sensitivity to land use and
context, and coordination
with nearby jurisdictions to
connect infrastructure across
city boundaries. The policy
names several improvements
that should be considered to
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 29
Draft196
benefit all users of the street,
including sidewalks, shared use
paths, bike lanes and routes,
and accessible curb ramps.

Dublin Boulevard Bikeway
Corridor and Connectivity
Studies (2013): Completed in
2013, these two studies evaluated
options for improving bicycling
conditions on Dublin Boulevard,
particularly in Downtown
Dublin. A traffic analysis
determined that removing a
vehicle travel lane on Dublin
Boulevard would delay transit
service and worsen traffic during
peak periods. Community
members and local business
owners expressed concern that
this change would be a barrier
to visiting Downtown Dublin
by car. Ultimately, a shared-use
path running alongside Dublin
Boulevard and connecting to the
Alamo Canal Trail became the
long-term vision for bicycling
in Dublin. In the interim, the
City added sharrows (a Class III
facility) to Dublin Boulevard
between Dublin Court and
Tassajara Road and permitted
riding on sidewalks to make
bicycling a more comfortable
experience for all skill levels.

Pedestrian Safety Assessment
(2014): The University of
California, Berkeley Institute
of Transportation Studies
Technology Transfer Program
prepared this assessment for
the City of Dublin in 2014. The
assessment authors compared
different types of collisions that
occurred in Dublin with other
cities in California and found
that Dublin has a relatively high
number of collisions involving
pedestrians—particularly
young and old pedestrians—
and collisions involving high
vehicle speeds. Opportunities to
improve walking conditions in
Dublin include traffic calming
programs, transportation
demand management policies
and programs, and coordination
with health agencies. This
assessment also included
specific areas of Dublin where
improvements could benefit
pedestrian conditions. The
updated bicycle and pedestrian
plan reviewed these key areas.

Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan (2014): Adopted
in 2014, Dublin’s 2014 Plan
established key goals and policies
to maintain and improve biking
and walking infrastructure.

The plan’s goals and policies
support its vision for Dublin.

The 2014 Plan inventoried
the bicycle and pedestrian
network and documented
potential improvements to
specific facilities. The plan
organized infrastructure projects
at key locations into four
tiers by priority and intended
to actualize the proposed
biking and walking network.

Programming opportunities
to attract biking and walking
trips are also identified in the
2014 Plan. In addition to listing
potential funding sources for
project implementation, the
Entrance to Iron Horse Trail
30 City of Dublin
Draft 197
2014 Plan includes bicycle and
pedestrian design guidelines
that apply national resources
and best practices to project
implementation in Dublin.

General Plan Circulation &
Scenic Highways Element
and Schools, Public Lands,
& Utilities Element (2014):

The General Plan’s Land Use
& Circulation elements focus
on meeting the mobility needs
of all roadway users by any
mode and aligns with two key
documents: the City of Dublin’s
Complete Streets Policy and the
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan
(a regional plan). The element
promotes the use of local and
regional trails and emphasize
improving experiences walking
and taking transit. The elements
prioritize two areas for active
transportation investments: the
Eastern Extended Planning
Area and Downtown Dublin.
.The elements’ guiding
policies that are the most
relevant to the Plan include:
• 5.3.1.A.3—Encourage
improvements in the
Enhanced Pedestrian
Areas to improve the
walkability of these areas.
• 5.5.1.A.1—Provide safe,
continuous, comfortable,
and convenient bikeways
throughout the city.
• 5.5.1.A.2—Improve
and maintain bikeways
and pedestrian facilities
and support facilities in
conformance with the
recommendations in
the Dublin Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan.
• 5.5.1.A.3—Enhance the
multimodal circulation
network to better
accommodate alternative
transportation choices
including BART, bus,
bicycle, and pedestrian
transportation.
• 5.5.1.A.4—Provide
comfortable, safe, and
convenient walking
routes throughout the
city and, in particular, to
key destinations such as
Downtown Dublin, BART
stations, schools, parks,
and commercial centers.

Parks and Recreation Master
Plan (2022): The Parks and
Recreation Master Plan (PRMP)
establishes goals, standards,
guiding policies, and an action
plan to guide the City of Dublin
in the acquisition, development,
and management (operations
and maintenance) of Dublin’s
park and recreation facilities
through the ultimate build-out of
the City in accordance with the
General Plan. This PRMP update
addresses the program and
facility needs of the anticipated
future population growth. The
development standards for new
parks and facilities are intended
to provide for quality parks,
trails, sports fields and recreation
and cultural facilities needed
at build-out in a manner that is
fiscally sustainable to operate
and maintain. Relevant goals
and objectives include exploring
improving/adding bike paths and
walking trails, and continuing to
maintain and improve existing
facilities, parks, trails, and
open spaces. The standards
and criteria for the City’s
parks and recreation facilities
include requirements for bicycle
parking, paving, and width.

Iron Horse Regional Trail
Feasibility Study (2017): Based
on a multimodal assessment and
community outreach processes,
this Feasibility Study arrives at
several key preferred alternatives
for the Iron Horse Regional Trail
and its crossings on Dougherty
Road, Dublin Boulevard, and
the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
station. A multi-use trail
separating people walking and
biking was preferred; a bicycle/
pedestrian bridge was preferred
for crossing Dublin Boulevard,
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 31
Draft198
while an at-grade crossing was
preferred for Dougherty Road.

Improvements near the BART
station are intended to both
enhance access to transit and
improve experiences for trail
users passing through the station
area. Improvements to the Iron
Horse Regional Trail contribute
to this Plan by making use of the
Trail easier and more convenient.

Traffic Safety Study Update
(2018): Collisions were studied
in the 2018 Traffic Safety Study
Update (Safety Study) to evaluate
safety performance on specific
street sections and intersections.

Overall, collisions had increased
at the time of the Safety Study,
likely as a result of population
increases and people living and
driving in Dublin, particularly
East Dublin. Recommendations
in the Update include continuous
bicycle lanes at Central Parkway
and Tassajara Road. The
collision analysis included
in this Plan supplements the
findings and recommendations
of the Safety Study.

Climate Action Plan 2030 and
Beyond (2020): The Climate
Action Plan 2030 and Beyond,
establishes the City’s vision for
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions by 2045. The CAP
names transportation as the
largest source of emissions in
Dublin and lays a plan for Dublin
to become carbon neutral by
2045. Zero-emission vehicles
and mode shift to biking,
walking, and transit trips are
key strategies to reduce Dublin’s
GHG emissions and meet
citywide targets. The CAP sets
measures to develop plans and
programs around transportation
demand management, transit-
oriented development, parking
management, and electric
vehicle infrastructure planning
to support mode shift and
electrification of Dublin’s vehicle
fleet. A shift to alternative,
active, shared, and electric
mobility will provide safer routes
between home, transit stops,
and other community amenities,
reduce GHG emissions, reduce
traffic congestion, improve
public health outcomes, and
have economic benefits.

Downtown Streetscape Master
Plan (2020): The Downtown
Streetscape Master Plan provides
direction for public and private
investment, specifically in regard
to the development of the public
realm and Downtown’s identity.

One of the plan’s key goals is
to develop pedestrian-oriented
environments on Commercial
Throughways and on Downtown
Local Streets. On these roadways
as well as on Crosstown
Boulevards and Parkways,
the plan also emphasizes
providing safe and comfortable
facilities and crossings for
people walking and biking.

Recommended improvements
within the Downtown area
are prioritized into four tiers
that can be matched to project
scale, budget, funding source,
and other opportunities. Tier 1
and Tier 2 street and pedestrian
enhancements are illustrated
on Figures 24, 25, and 27 and
include restriping/road diet
evaluation, sidewalk widening,
intersection and mid-block
crossing treatments, as well as art
and wayfinding opportunities.

Notable guidelines include
widening sidewalks to provide a
minimum 12-foot sidewalk with
minimum five- to six-foot clear
throughway zone for walking.

IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Final Report 33
Figure 7a: Precedent BEF Ratings
March 2017
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail
Feasibility Study
Prepared for:

Prepared by:

WC14-3178
Project Partners
In Association with:
section title
34 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Final Report

EXISTING CONDITIONS
05 Figure 7b: Precedent BEF Ratings
Oversized
32 City of Dublin
Draft 199
Specific Plans
Four areas of Dublin have
specific plans that outline
guiding principles, policies,
and design guidance related
to active transportation:

Dublin Crossing, Downtown,
the Dublin Village Historic
Area, and Eastern Dublin.

Dublin Crossing (2013).

This Specific Plan focuses on
improving east-west connectivity
in the Dublin Crossing,
particularly between transit
stops, destinations, and trails. A
relevant guiding principle in this
Specific Plan is to make it easier
and more convenient for people
to access and use the Iron Horse
Regional Trail, the Dublin/
Pleasanton BART station, and
retail destinations without a car.

Downtown Specific Plan (2014):

Guiding principles, pertinent to
biking and walking in Downtown,
aim to create pedestrian-friendly
streets, enhance multimodal travel
options, and cultivate pedestrian
connections to retail destinations.

Transit-oriented development
and lighting should be scaled to
people walking in Downtown.

Pedestrian connectivity
between buildings, parking, and
sidewalks should be maintained
throughout Downtown, and
pedestrian amenities like street
furniture are encouraged.

Dublin Village Historic Area
(2014): Placemaking, creating a
positive experience for people
walking, and attracting people
to this area are key goals of
this Specific Plan. Creating
positive experiences for people
walking includes providing more
crosswalks and median refuges,
calming vehicle traffic, adding
pedestrian amenities or a plaza,
and implementing pedestrian-
scale lighting and wayfinding.

Eastern Dublin (2016): A
key goal in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan is to reduce reliance
on single-occupancy vehicles by
planning the area’s land uses to
naturally promote walking, biking,
taking transit, and ridesharing.

Notably, development with a
higher intensity is encouraged
near transit corridors in Eastern
Dublin. Relevant policies in
this Specific Plan include:
• Providing sidewalks
in the Town Center
and Village Center
• Requiring development to
balance pedestrian, bicycle,
and automobile circulation
• Creating a north-south
trail along Tassajara Creek
and other streams
• Establishing a bike network
that meets both travel needs
and recreational opportunities
• Providing bicycle parking
at key destinations
Green Stormwater
Infrastructure Plan (2019) :

The purpose of the City’s Green
Stormwater Infrastructure Plan
(GSI) is to describe how the
City will meet requirements
specified in the Municipal
Regional Stormwater National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit (MRP), Order
No. R2-2015- 0049, NPDES
Permit No. CAS612008 issued
on November 19, 2015. This GSI
Plan demonstrates how the City is
meeting MRP requirements and
intends to use GSI to enhance
the urban environment.

Local Roadway Safety Plan
(anticipated 2022). The
Local Roadway Safety Plan
(LRSP) provides a framework
to identify, analyze, and
prioritize roadway safety
improvements on local roads.

Americans with Disabilities Act
Transition Plan (anticipated
2022). The ADA Transition Plan
is a formal document outlining
the City’s compliance with ADA.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 33
Draft200

VISION, GOALS,
& PERFORMANCE

MEASURES
To set a clear path forward, City
staff and the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) members outlined
the City’s purpose, vision, and goals
for this Plan.

PROJECT VISION
This Plan sets forth the following vision:

VISION STATEMENT
The City of Dublin is a vibrant
place where walking and biking are
safe, comfortable, and convenient
ways to travel. In Dublin, walking
and biking connects individuals,
inclusive of all ages and abilities, to
local and regional destinations.
1 Enhance Safety
Prioritize safety in design and implementation
of walking and biking facilities.
33 Improve Connectivity
Develop a bicycle and pedestrian network that provides
well-connected facilities for users of all ages and abilities. 4 Enhance Accessibility
Utilize principles of universal design to make
biking and walking a viable transportation option
for all, including people with disabilities.
55 Prioritize Investments
Maintain sufficient funding to provide for existing
and future bicycle and pedestrian needs, including
program support, operation, and maintenance. Leverage
biking and walking projects to promote economic
activity and social equity in the community.
2 Increase Walking and Biking
Support biking and walking as attractive
modes of transportation.

GOALS
This Plan establishes the following five overarching goals related to the vision that guide recommendations:
34 City of Dublin
Draft 201

PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Setting performance measures helps track progress toward goals and document the results of investments in biking, walking, and rolling. The following performance measures and desired trends have been established to track progress towards achieving the goals of this Plan:

Goal Performance Measure (Desired Trend)*
Enhance Safety
• Decrease vehicle travel speed measured at specific locations • Decrease number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions
• Reduce severity of pedestrian and bicycle collisions
• Increase users’ perception of safety
• Decrease average crossing distances
Increase Walking
and Biking
• Increase walk/bike/roll to school mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to work mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to transit mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to recreational facilities
Improve
Connectivity
• Reduce bicycle level of traffic stress
• Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps
• Increase number of crossing opportunities
• Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements • Increase the number of secure bike parking spaces
Enhance
Accessibility
• Increase the number of traffic signals with audible cues • Increase the number of intersections with directional curb ramps and detectable warning surfaces • Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps
• Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements • Decrease length of sidewalks that are broken or in disrepair Prioritize
Investments
• Maintain and increase sustainable funding mechanisms and a dedicated funding source to build a complete streets network
• Maintain a maintenance plan for bicycle and pedestrian facilities • Increase funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects as a percentage of total transportation infrastructure spending
*not in order of importance
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 35
Draft202
2 �
2 203
Inclusive and meaningful
community and stakeholder
engagement is necessary to
create a Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan that is community-
suported and implementable.

A community and stakeholder
engagement plan was developed
at the outset of the planning
process to outline the activities,
methods, and tools that
would be used to engage the
Dublin residents and key
stakeholders. The community
and stakeholder engagement
plan established a framework
and identified opportunities
and specific milestones for
sharing information, soliciting
feedback, and collaborating
with agency stakeholders and
Dublin community members.

ENGAGEMENT
AND COVID-19
Due to the outbreak of
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
and the resulting stay-at-home
order initiated on March 17, 2020
in Alameda County that affected
the ability to conduct in-person
engagement, a hybrid approach
was used. Primarily digital
outreach methods were used
with in-person engagement when
possible to safely and effectively
reach a broad audience.

2. COMMUNITY & STAKEHOLDER

ENGAGEMENT

ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
To better understand Dublin’s walking and bicycling issues and opportunities, stakeholders and community members
were engaged through the following methods:

The engagement timeline is shown in figure 5, and
specific activities are described in this section.
• Project website
• Interactive map
• Public survey
• Public workshop
• Pop-up events
• Stakeholder meetings
• Technical Advisory
Committee meetings
• Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee
meetings
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 37
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 37
Photos from pop-up events at the St Patrick's Day Festival and Alamo Creek Trailhead Draft
204
Figure 6. Public Engagement Timeline

PROJECT WEBSITE
BPAC - Bicycle & Pedestrian
Advisory Committee
TAC - Technical Advisory Committee
CCC - City Commission and Council
Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4
20202020
Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4
20212021
Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3
20222022
TAC #1
MAR 4, 2020
TAC #2
SEP 15, 2020
TAC #3
JUN 3, 2021
TAC #4
MAR 15, 2022
CCC
AUG-SEP 2022
Public
Survey
MAY - SEP 2021
Project
Start
Project
End
BPAC #1
SEP 17, 2020
BPAC #2
MAY 25, 2021
BPAC #3
OCT 21, 2021
BPAC #4
FEB 24, 2022
BPAC #5
JUL 21, 2022
Online
Workshop &
FAQ Live
SEP 2, 2020
Farmers’
Market Pop-Up
MAY 25, 2021
St Patrick’s
Day Pop-Up
MAR 12, 2022
Alamo Creek
Trailhead
Pop-Up
MAY 27, 2021
Stakeholder
Meetings
APR–MAY 2021
38 City of Dublin
38 City of Dublin
Draft 205

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AND FINDINGS
Community feedback and findings are presented in this section.

Select quotes from community members are presented throughout the Plan document. Supporting materials are included in appendix A.

PROJECT WEBSITE AND INTERACTIVE MAP
An interactive website was created to share key project milestones and provide information about the Plan development and events. Since going live in March 2020, the project website has received approximately 1,500 visits (with 2.7 actions per visit), 3,700 page views, and 123 data downloads.

The website also included an interactive online map on which the public could identify desired improvements, gaps, and key destinations in the existing bicycle and pedestrian network.

The online map received a total of 208 comments.

Map feedback was classified into four categories: barriers, ideas, praise, and questions (figure 7). Nearly half of responses indicated a barrier to walking or biking, and another third offered an idea to improve walking and biking conditions. The remaining responses were either praise for actions the City has taken to create a safe and connected active transportation network and promote sustainable transportation options or questions about the Plan or planning process. Responses were analyzed to identify central themes for each of the four categories.

BARRIERS
Themes for each of the response categories were
generated from the subject matter of received
comments to summarize the most common kinds of
community input. The top five themes in the barriers category are shown in figure 8 and listed in ranked order below.

Figure 7. Web Map Comments by Category
47%

BARRIER
33%
IDEA
13%
PRAISE
7%

QUESTION
35%
Figure 8. Barrier Themes in Comments

BIKE SAFETY
17%

BIKE CONNECTIONS
14%

MAINTENANCE
12%

SIGNALS
8%

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
4%

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
4%DRIVING
<1%

SIDEWALK DESIGN
<1%

BIKE RACKS
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 39
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 39
Draft206
35%35%
Bike Safety. Comments
that discussed bike safety
largely focused on a need
for greater separation
between bikes and vehicles,
traffic calming, lack of bike lanes, and
concerns about biking near on- and
off-ramps.
17%17%
Bike Connections.

Comments that discussed
bike connections largely
focused on consistent
connections to paths, across
over and under passes, and main bike
routes.
14%14%
Maintenance.Comments
that discussed maintenance
largely focused on poor
road conditions, debris in the road, and
broken sidewalk.
12%12%
Signals. Comments that
discussed signals largely
focused on issues with
signal bike detection at
intersections.
8%8%
Pedestrian Safety.

Comments that discussed
pedestrian safety largely
focused on dangerous
crossings.

IDEAS
Community members also
offered ideas. The top four
themes of these ideas are shown in
figure 9 and are listed in ranked order:

BIKE SAFETY
24%
26%
BIKE

CONNECTIONS
12% SIGNALS
12%
BIKE

CONNECTIONS
8%

PEDESTRIAN

AMENITIES
6%

SIDEWALK
DESIGN
4%
4%
4%

DRIVING

TRAFFIC

CALMING
BIKE

AMENITIES
Figure 9. Idea Themes in Comments

MOST COMMON BARRIER LOCATIONS MENTIONED
In addition to the most common themes, there were also common locations identified by community comments. The top five locations for comments noted as barriers were:
1 DUBLIN

BOULEVARD
2 TASSAJARA
ROAD
3 FALLON
ROAD
4 AMADOR VALLEY

BOULEVARD
5 DOUGHERTY
ROAD
26%26%
Bike Lanes. Comments that
discussed bike lanes largely focused
on a need for greater connections
between important destinations and
along major roads and trails.
24%24%
Pedestrian Connections. Comments
that discussed pedestrian connections
largely focused on improving specific
sidewalk connections and creating
walking paths.
40 City of Dublin
40 City of Dublin
Draft 207
?

QUESTIONS
Three key question themes
emerged from the online map
responses; they are listed below
and illustrated in figure 11.
56%
Planning
Process.

Questions about
the planning
process had to do
with the reach of the survey, how
funding is being used efficiently,
and how the City plans to finish
certain projects.
33%
Connections.

Comments which
discussed bike and
walk connections
asked about
projects at specific locations,
including whether they were
planned or if they can be added
to the City’s efforts.
11%
Micromobility.

Questions about
micromobility
focused on legal
operating
requirements, including whether
electric scooters are allowed on
bike paths about whether electric
scooters are allowed on bike paths.
12%12%
Signals.

Comments which
discussed signals
largely focused on
safer intersections
through changes to signals timing.
12%12%
Bike Connections
Comments that
discussed bike
connections largely
focused on
connecting bike trails and lanes to
key destinations and each other.
22%22%
The remaining in
the ideas category
covered pedestrian
amenities, sidewalk
design, driving,
traffic calming, and bike
amenities.

PRAISE
Respondents praised
several key features
of Dublin’s existing walking and
biking network as well as the
City’s ongoing efforts to improve
it. The top three themes in the
praise category are shown and
listed in rank order in figure 10.
35%35%
General.

Comments that
were general were
focused on
appreciation for
the City’s efforts to improve bike
and pedestrian facilities.
35%35%
Bike Lanes.

Comments that
discussed bike
lanes were focused
on effective plastic
barriers, separated bike paths,
and green paint.
18%18%
Signals.

Comments that
discussed signals
were focused on
flashing lights at
intersections and well-placed
crossing buttons.
12%12%
The remaining
comments in the
praise category
covered existing
amenities and
connections.
35%
35%
18%
9%
9%

GENERAL

BIKE LANES

SIGNALS

CONNECTIONS

AMENITIES
Figure 10. Praise Themes
in Comments
56%
33%
11%

PLANNING

PROCESS

CONNECTIONS

MICROMOBILITY
Figure 11. Question
Themes in Comments
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 41
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 41
Draft208

PUBLIC SURVEY
A public survey was used to
collect information from the
public about their personal
transportation preferences,
travel habits, and issues and
opportunities related to walking
and biking in Dublin. The public
survey was distributed in Summer
2020 and was promoted on social
media and posted to the website.

A fact sheet with the survey link
and QR code was provided at
the Alamo Creek Trailhead and
Farmers’ Market pop-up events.

Approximately 200 responses
were received to the 17-question
survey, which covered travel
behavior and mode preference;
travel to school; challenges and
barriers to moving around Dublin;
and priorities for investments
related to walking and biking.

SURVEY RESULTS
General Travel Behavior
and Mode Preferences
When asked about modes taken
to work and school prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic, 33 percent
of respondents said they drove
alone, 17 percent used a bike or
scooter, and 17 percent walked.

These numbers stayed relatively
constant when respondents were
asked about the same behaviors
during COVID. The top reason
(22 percent) respondents gave
when asked why driving to work
was the best option was that
driving alone was the quickest
and most convenient option.

Around 10 percent of respondents
indicated safety, irregular work
schedules, and the need to make
additional stops as reasons they
chose to drive alone to work.

Of respondents who use a
combination of travel modes,
there were a similar number of
respondents across modes.

Travel to School
Approximately 38 percent of
respondents had school-age
children. Of those respondents,
approximately 40 percent
indicated that they used a
personal vehicle for school
drop-off/pick-up. Another 26
percent walked to school while
14 percent biked. Respondents
indicated the top three factors
discouraging walking or biking to
school were safety concerns (35
percent), distance or travel time
(18 percent), and lack of sidewalks
or curb ramps (13 percent).

Barriers to Walking
and Biking
When asked about barriers to
walking and biking, respondents
indicated that safety was a primary
consideration, followed by vehicle
speed. Responses were mixed on
the topics of street lighting and
maintenance, with a fairly even
split of people indicating it was
either not important, somewhat
important, or very important.

Most respondents were less
concerned with distance to their
destinations or available shade.

Investment Priorities
When asked what types of
improvements would encourage
walking or biking, 22 percent of
respondents indicated better/more
sidewalks and trails, 14 percent
indicated better/more bicycle
facilities, 11 percent indicated
slower vehicles and more traffic
calming, and 10 percent indicated
better maintenance of existing
facilities. When asked where the
City should prioritize walking
and biking improvements, the
top three responses (about 20
percent each) were high collision
locations; routes connecting
people to schools, libraries, parks,
and other key destinations; and,
along and across busy streets.

PUBLIC WORKSHOP
On September 2, 2020 a digital
workshop was held via Zoom
to inform the public about
the Plan and gather broad
community feedback. Forty-
two people attended the hour-
long Zoom workshop, which
included a presentation and a
question-and-answer period.

This workshop aimed to establish
a community understanding
of the planning process and to
obtain feedback on the project’s
vision and goals. The workshop
also included a poll, which asked

RESPONSES
were received to the
17-question survey
200
42 City of Dublin
42 City of Dublin
Draft 209
participants questions about their
experiences on public streets,
their comfort with various
modes of micromobility, and
their demographic information.

The workshop also included a
poll asking participants about
their experiences walking, biking,
and using micromobility on
public streets, whether they feel
comfortable using these modes in
Dublin, and whether they would
want to see bike and scooter share
programs in Dublin. The poll
received 30 responses. Participants
of the poll were also asked how
they classify themselves in terms
of confidence using a bike in
Dublin, as well as how often they
ride a bike. Of the responses, the
most common confidence level
was Enthused and Confident
(47 percent), followed by
Interested but Concerned (27
percent), Strong and Fearless
(23 percent), and No Way, No
How (3 percent) (see figure 12).

POP UP EVENTS
Feedback was gathered at three
in-person events to understand
where people walk and bike and
what issues, concerns, ideas, and
priorities they have related to
walking and biking in Dublin.

FARMERS’
MARKET —25 MAY, 2021
Feedback was gathered on
existing conditions and needs.

Approximately 40 people
provided input, and participants
were rewarded with Carrot
Cash and giveaways.

ALAMO CREEK
TRAILHEAD —27
MAY, 2021
Dublin partnered with Bike
East Bay in an effort to hear
from trail users at the Alamo
Creek Trailhead as part of
National Bike Month Activities.

Feedback was gathered in real
time and flyers with the public
survey link were handed out.

ST PATRICK’S DAY
FESTIVA L —12
MARCH, 2022
Feedback was gathered on the
draft network recommendations
and additional comments on
program and policy priorities
for walking and biking in
Dublin. The St. Patrick’s Day
Festival in Dublin is one of
the biggest local community
events of the year. This two-
Figure 12. Poll Responses to Classification of
Bicyclist Types by Frequency of Bicycle Use
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 43
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 43
Draft210
day celebration brings out
thousands of engaged residents
and visitors per day, making it an
important opportunity for the
City of Dublin to communicate
its plans and receive feedback.

The celebration had an added
importance this year as this
would be the first in-person
public event of this scale in
Dublin since 2019, making
for an excited and engaged
audience. Approximately
136 community members
provided feedback on possible
infrastructure improvements
for pedestrians and bicyclists in
Dublin, and this pop-up resulted
in 231 unique data points.

BICYCLE AND

PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY

COMMITTEE MEETINGS
The Alameda County
Transportation Commission
(Alameda CTC) Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee
(BPAC) involves interested
community members in Alameda
CTC’s policy, planning, and
implementation efforts related
to bicycling and walking. The
Alameda CTC BPAC includes
representatives from cities in
Alameda County, including
Castro Valley, Dublin, Fremont,
San Leandro, Berkeley, Hayward,
Oakland, Albany, and Alameda
and serves as Dublin’s advisory
body as Dublin does not
currently have a local BPAC.

The Dublin Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan Update was
brought to the Alameda CTC
BPAC five times during the
project. The group provided
feedback on key items throughout
the planning process, including
the technical analysis approach
and findings and program, policy,
and project recommendations.

Comments were addressed
and incorporated into the Plan
document. Meeting summaries
and supporting materials are
included in appendix A.

TECHNICAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE MEETINGS
A Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) was formed to provide
key guidance on the Plan. The
TAC included staff from City
departments, including Planning,
Economic Development, and
Parks & Community Service and
other agency representatives from
Dublin Unified School District,
Dublin Police Services, Alameda
County Fire Department,
San Ramon, Pleasanton,
Livermore, Alameda CTC,
Caltrans, BART, and LAVTA.

The team hosted five TAC
meetings over the course of
the project. The Plan process,
community engagement, existing
conditions and needs analysis,
prioritization framework,
and program, policy, and
project recommendations were
discussed during these meetings.

Comments were addressed
and incorporated into the Plan
document. Meeting summaries
and supporting materials are
included in appendix B.

Alamo Creek Pop Up Event
44 City of Dublin
44 City of Dublin
Draft
211
�
212
This chapter provides an
overview of walking and biking
in Dublin and presents results
of the existing conditions and
needs assessment, which includes
relevant demographic data,
existing walking and biking
infrastructure, high injury bicycle
and pedestrian network, and
bicycle level of traffic stress
analysis. This inventory and
analysis of existing citywide
conditions sets the stage for
identifying strategic pedestrian
and bicycle investments and
informs the prioritization process
and network recommendations
presented in chapter 4.

Dublin
Population:
61,240

LIVING AND

WORKING IN
DUBLIN
This section discusses
demographics and transportation
data including race/ethnicity, age,
gender, mode share, and worker
inflow and outflow patterns.

The purpose of this information
is to provide background and
context describing people living
and working in Dublin as it
relates to walking and biking.

The data presented is obtained
from the California Communities
Environmental Health Screening
Tool (CalEnviroScreen),
Longitudinal Employer-
Household Data (LEHD)
from 2017, and the American
Community Survey five-
year estimates (2015–2019)
from the US Census.

RACE & ETHNICITY
The most common racial
background of Dublin residents
is Asian alone (49 percent)
and White alone (39 percent).

Approximately 6 percent of
Dublin residents identify as
being two or more races, and
4 percent of residents identify
as Black/African American
alone. Approximately 10% of
Dublin residents identify as
hispanic or latino/a/x. Dublin’s
population by race & ethnicity
is illustrated in figure 13.

GENDER
Dublin has an almost 50/50
split of people self reporting
as females vs males. Note
that American Community
Survey data is not available
for gender identity for the
years covered by this Plan.

AGE
The most common ages of
Dublin residents are 25–44 (40
percent) and 45–64 (24 percent).

Combined, ages 25–64 make up
64 percent of the population.

The Dublin population younger
than 15 accounts for 24 percent
of the total population, while
the population over 65 makes up
9 percent. Figure 13 illustrates
Dublin’s population by age.

ZERO-VEHICLE

HOUSEHOLDS
When compared with the
surrounding Alameda County,
Dublin has a lower proportion
of households without vehicles.

Overall in Alameda County,
10 percent of households do
not have a vehicle; in Dublin,
3 percent of households
do not have a vehicle.

3. WALKING & BIKING

IN DUBLIN TODAY
Source: US Census American Community
Survey Five-Year Estimates (2015-2019)
46 City of Dublin
46 City of Dublin
Draft 213
Figure 13. Dublin Population by Race & Ethnicity Figure 14. Dublin Rounded Population by Age 35%
7%
9%
24%
16%
8%
25-44
UNDER 5
65+
45-65
5-14
15-24

OF RESIDENTS

FEMALE AND MALE
*gender identity data is not available
50/50
*
Figure 15. Dublin Population by Gender
6%
2+ RACES

1.1% Hispanic
or L at ino/a/x
49%
<1%
2%
ASIAN
<1% Hispanic or
L at ino/a/x

AMERICAN

INDIAN AND

ALASKA NATIVE
<1% Hispanic
or L at ino/a/x
OTHER

1.6% Hispanic
or L at ino/a/x
4%
BLACK/

AFRICAN

AMERICAN
<1% Hispanic
or L at ino/a/x
39%
WHITE

6.5% Hispanic
or L at ino/a/x
48%
28%
7%
7%
5%
5%

ASIAN-INDIAN

CHINESE
(EXCEPT

TAIWANESE)
OTHER

ORIGINS

FILIPINO
KOREAN

VIETNAMESE
* 10.1% of Dublin's population identify as hispanic or latino/a/x Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 47
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 47
Draft214

WORKERS
Based on the most recent LEHD
data available (2017), the net
inflow and outflow of Dublin
workers is the following:
• 16,042 people live elsewhere
and commute into Dublin
• 23,161 people live in Dublin
and commute elsewhere
• 1,484 people live and
work in Dublin
Only about 6 percent of
workers living in Dublin
also work in Dublin.

COMMUTE

MODE SHARE
Working Dublin residents use
various modes to travel to work
(see figure 17). The commute
data shown below provides a
basic understanding of how
people travel to and from work.

However, because the data comes
from the US Census—which
only provides journey-to-work
data for the primary mode of
transportation—information
on other trips, such as walking
or biking to connect to public
transit, are not represented.

Approximately 76 percent of
Dublin residents commute
to work by car, either alone
(67 percent) or in a carpool (9
percent). Public transportation is
the second most popular way to
commute at 15 percent. Walking
represents approximately 1
percent of commute modes.

Biking and riding a motorcycle
each represent less than
1 percent of all commute
modes. Additionally, about 7
percent of working Dublin
residents worked from home.

COMMUTING &
COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic has
drastically transformed the
commuting and transportation
landscape as restrictions on non-
essential travel forced everyone
into unplanned lifestyle changes.

As we look to the future, it
is unclear how COVID-19
will change commuting and
teleworking patterns. Findings
Figure 16. Workers by Residence and Job Location Figure 17. Commute Mode Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamic (LEHD), 2017. Source: US Census American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates (2015–2019).

CAR/TRUCK/VAN –

DROVE ALONE

PUBLIC TRANSIT (INCLUDING

TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY
(UBER, LYFT) AND TAXI)
CAR/TRUCK/VAN –

CARPOOLED

WORKED AT HOME
WALKED

BICYCLE AND

MOTORCYCLE
67%
15%
9%
7%
1%
1%
People working
in Dublin
16,042
People Living
in Dublin
23,161
People
Living &
working
in Dublin
1,484
48 City of Dublin
48 City of Dublin
Draft 215
from current research indicate
that teleworking will increase
relative to pre-COVID-19
conditions and people will be
more likely to walk/bike/drive
and less likely to take transit.2

BART STATION ACCESS
There are two BART stations in
Dublin: the Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station and the West
Dublin BART Station. Based on
the ridership data presented in
BART’s Station Profile Survey
(2015), there were approximately
8,000 daily station entries at the
2 https:/ /www.kittelson.com/ideas/will-covid-19-permanently-alter-teleworking-and-commuting-patterns-heres-what-1000-commuters-told-us/) Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
and 3,700 daily station entries at
the West Dublin BART Station.

As shown in figure 18, 9 percent
of riders walk and 5 percent of
riders bicycle to the Dublin/
Pleasanton BART Station; 11
percent of riders walk and 4
percent of riders bicycle to the
West Dublin BART Station. A
total of 68 shared-use electronic
lockers operated by BikeLink
are provided at the Dublin/
Pleasanton BART Station, and
56 lockers are provided at the
West Dublin BART Station.

With almost 15 percent
of residents using public
transportation to get to work,
there is an opportunity to
encourage more people to walk
and bike to BART. This can
be accomplished by focusing
on convenient, safe first-mile
and last-mile connections
to these stations and secure
end-of-trip facilities.

PEDESTRIAN

AND BICYCLIST

TYPOLOGIES
People have varying abilities
and tendencies to walk or bike
and different sensitivities to
the presence and quality of
transportation infrastructure
based on age, gender, physical
mobility, and other factors.

A person’s income level,
race, and availability of
parking can help explain their
tendency to walk or bike.

Figure 18. Mode Split for BART Station Access in Dublin Source: BART Station Profile Survey (2015)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 49
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 49
Draft216
Pedestrian and bicyclist
typologies were developed
to understand the ability and
propensity of people living
within Dublin to walk or bike.

These typologies are used to
estimate the population of each
walker and bicyclist type within
the city’s census block groups
and more accurately estimate
the potential for bicycle and
pedestrian investments because
they account for neighborhood
populations rather than uniform
citywide demographics.
3 Roger Geller, “Four Types of Cyclists,” Portland Office of Transportation (2005), https:/ /www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597?a=237507.

PEDESTRIAN

TYPOLOGY
The walking typology presented
in table 3 was determined based
on travel behavior research and
experience working on walking
infrastructure. As shown in table
3, the typology assigns walking
characteristics based on age
(under 14, 14–55, and over 55).

For many people with disabilities
and people over 55, the absence
of curb ramps and presence of
multi-lane crossings can be
barriers to walking.

BICYCLIST TYPOLOGY
The bicyclist typology, or “four
types” categorization, was
developed in Portland, Oregon in
2005 as an organizing principle for
understanding people’s relationship
to bicycling for transportation as
well as their concerns and needs
related to bicycling.3 Based on
this research, bicyclists can be
placed into one of four groups
based on their relationship
to bicycle transportation:
• No Way, No How, or
Non-Bicyclists. People
unwilling or unable to bicycle
even if high-quality bicycle
infrastructure is in place.
• Interested but Concerned.

People willing to bicycle
if high-quality bicycle
infrastructure is in place.

People in this type tend to
prefer off-street, separated
bicycle facilities or quiet
residential streets; they may
not bike at all if facilities
do not meet their needs for
perceived safety and comfort.Table 3. Pedestrian Typology Age Typolog y Walking
Characteristics
Under
14 Youth Limited by multilane
crossings
14 to
55 Teenage and
Working
Age Adults
Strong and capable,
but still limited
by sidewalk gaps,
unsignalized crossings
at major roads,
and absence of
midblock crossings
Over 55 Aging
The limits
experienced by young
adults and adults
and further limited
by the absence of
curb ramps or long
multilane crossings
Figure 19. Bicyclist Typology
SHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLINSHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLIN 50 City of Dublin
50 City of Dublin
Draft 217
• Enthused and Confident. People
willing to bicycle if some bicycle-specific
infrastructure is in place. People in this
type generally prefer separated facilities
and are also comfortable riding in bicycle
lanes or on paved shoulders, if necessary.
• Strong and Fearless, or Highly
Confident. People who are willing
to bicycle alongside vehicle traffic
and on roads without bike lanes.

One end of the spectrum includes people
who are comfortable riding with vehicle
traffic, such as adult regular bike commuters.

These highly confident bicyclists are willing
to ride on roads with little or no bicycle
infrastructure. The other end of the spectrum
includes people who are not comfortable
riding with or adjacent to traffic. This group
often includes children, older adults, and
adults who ride infrequently. Typically, these
riders prefer off-street bicycle facilities or
biking on low-speed, low-volume streets. If
bicycle facilities do not meet their comfort
preferences, they may not to bike at all. The
middle of the spectrum includes bicyclists
who prefer separated facilities but are willing
to ride with or adjacent to traffic when
vehicle volumes and speeds are low enough
and separated facilities are not provided.

Table 4 shows the population share for
each typology and age group. These
population shares were extrapolated
to the City of Dublin population to
estimate the proportion of adults within
the typologies illustrated in figure 19.

EXISTING WALKING AND

BIKING NETWORKS
This section defines the features, conditions,
and types of walking and biking facilities in
Dublin (Figure 20). It includes and explains
maps of existing on-street bikeways, off-street
paths, sidewalks, crossings, and supportive
amenities and infrastructure—like walking-
and biking-oriented wayfinding, bike parking,
drinking fountains, and sidewalk benches.

Table 4. Bike Group Typology— City of Dublin Population Share of Bicyclist Type by Age Bicyclist Type Share of Age Group
Under 5 6–18 18–34 35–54 55+ Dublin adult (18+)
Strong and Fearless 0% 0% 11% 2% 0% 4.1%
Enthused and Confident 0% 0% 7% 12% 7% 10.3%
Interested but Concerned 0% 100% 61% 59% 46% 58.1%
No Way, No How 100% 0% 21% 27% 47% 27.6%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Table developed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. from data presented by Dill and McNeil Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 51
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 51
Draft218
Figure 20. Existing Bicycle Network Map
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Existing facilities_07292022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022 Existing Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 3,300 Feet
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Existing facilities_07292022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022 Existing Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 3,300 Feet
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
52 City of Dublin
52 City of Dublin
Draft 219

MULTI USE PATHS
(CLASS I)
Multi use paths provide a
separate facility designed for
the exclusive use of bicycles,
pedestrians, and other non-
motorized uses with minimal
vehicle crossflows. Generally,
bicycle paths serve corridors not
served by streets or are parallel
to roadways where right of way
is available. These paths provide
bicyclists both recreational and
commute routes with minimal
conflicts with other road users.

Class IA Paths—Multiuse
paths along a separate
alignment. In Dublin, this
bikeway class exists on the
Iron Horse Trail and the
Martin Canyon Creek Trail.

Class IB Sidepaths—
Sidepaths that double as
sidewalks along the side of a
roadway. Examples include
segments along the north side
of Dublin Boulevard and the
west side of San Ramon Road.

Alamo Creek Trail, Dublin,
CA. Source: City of Dublin
Diagram of typical Class
IB path configuration
Class IB Path on San Ramon
Road, Dublin, CA. Source:

Kittelson & Associates, Inc

TYPES OF BIKEWAYS
Dublin’s existing bikeway system consists of a network of bicycle paths, lanes, and routes. There are four types of bikeways as defined by chapter 1000 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2017). In addition, the Alameda County
Transportation Commission (CTC) has adopted a set of sub- classifications for each Caltrans classification. These sub- classifications were designed to correspond with the previously existing system and to incorporate emerging facility typologies.

Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane 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
Dublin Boulevard east of Tassajara Road. Person riding a bike on a Class II facility separated from right-turning traffic.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 53
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 53
Draft220

BICYCLE LANES (CLASS II)
Bicycle lanes are on-street bikeways that provide a dedicated space for the exclusive or semi-exclusive bicycle use. Through- travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians is prohibited; vehicle parking and pedestrian- and motorist-crossflows are permitted.

Class IIA—A conventional one-way striped bicycle lane.

Class IIB—Upgraded bicycle lane with a striped buffer or green conflict markings. In Dublin, this bikeway class exists on Dublin Boulevard from Silvergate Drive to San Ramon Road and on Tassajara Road from Rutherford Drive to Fallon Road.

BICYCLE ROUTES (CLASS III)
Bicycle routes do not provide a dedicated
space for bicycles, but instead, bikes share the
lane with motorists and signs or pavement
markings indicate the bike route.

Class IIIA—Signage-only routes.

Class IIIB—Wide curb
lane or shoulder that may include signage.

Class IIIC—Route with standard shared lane markings (“sharrows”) that can be used to alert drivers of the shared roadway environment with bicyclists. This class of bikeway exists on Davona Drive.

Class IIB Facility on Tassajara Road, Dublin, CA. Source: Google Maps. Class III Facility in Portland, OR. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane 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
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
Diagram of typical Class
III bike lane configuration
Diagram of typical Class IIB bike lane configuration
54 City of Dublin
54 City of Dublin
Draft 221

SEPARATED BICYCLE LANES (CLASS IV)
Separated bicycle lanes are bicycle lanes that provide vertical separation from motorists on roadways. The separation may include grade separation, flexible posts, planters, on-street parking, or other physical barriers. These bikeways provide a greater sense of comfort and security in comparison to standard Class II bike lanes. Class IV facilities are especially relevant for high-speed or high-volume roadways. Separated bike lanes can provide one-way or two-way travel.

SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE
In addition to the on- and off-street facilities, supporting infrastructure is essential to promote walking and biking as viable modes of transportation. Critical elements include end-of-trip facilities, such as bicycle parking, showers, and lockers. Other critical infrastructure elements include wayfinding, drinking fountains, seating, and shade.

BICYCLE PARKING
Secure short-term and long-term bicycle parking that can accommodate a wide range of bicycles including children’s bicycles, electric bicycles, and cargo bicycles, for example, are necessary to support biking. Access to secure bicycle parking is one of the top factors determining whether someone chooses to ride a bike or not.

New development provides key opportunities to ensure Dublin adequately provides both short- and long-term bicycle parking.

Currently, Dublin follows parking requirements in Section 5.106.4 of the 2019 California Green Building Code. This code states that Class IV Facility, San Diego, CA Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.

Class I 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
Bike Parking at Dublin Library Source: City of Dublin
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 55
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 55
Draft222
short-term parking must be provided
for five percent of new visitor motorized
vehicle parking spaces being added, with
a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack.

The bicycle parking must be anchored
within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance.

Long-term bike parking must be provided
for new buildings with tenant spaces with
10 or more tenant-occupants, also at a 5
percent of vehicle parking space rate with a
minimum of one bicycle parking facility.

Short-term bicycle parking refers to
traditional bike racks, which may be
located on public or private property.

Bike racks serve people who need to park
their bikes for relatively short durations
of about two hours or less. Because short-
term bicycle parking does not provide
additional security, locked bicycles and
their accessories may be exposed to theft
or vandalism. However, short-term bike
racks are more numerous and conveniently
located near destinations. To deter theft or
vandalism, short-term parking should be
within eyesight of a building or destination
or located in well-traveled pedestrian areas.

Dublin has short-term bicycle parking in
the Downtown area as well as at many
local parks and community centers.

Long-term bicycle parking is the most
secure form of parking and ideal for
individuals who park their bikes for more
than a few hours or overnight. Because
long-term bike parking requires more
space than short-term racks, facilities may
be located farther away from the ultimate
destination. Long-term parking is also often
more expensive due to added security and
space requirements. Long-term parking
can consist of bike lockers, enclosed bike
cages, bike rooms, and bike stations, each of
which is discussed in the following bullets.
• Bike lockers are fully enclosed and
generally weather-resistant spaces
where a single bicycle can be parked
and secured by key or electronic lock.

Shared-use electronic lockers operated
by BikeLink are provided at the Dublin/
Pleasanton BART Station (68 lockers)
and West Dublin BART Station (56
lockers). The BikeLink system allows
users to pay by the hour for use of the
lockers through a membership card.
• Enclosed bike cages are multiple bike
racks contained by a fence. The enclosure
entrance is secured with a lock or key
code, but within the cage, bicycles are
exposed and secured to racks with
personal locks. Cages can be outdoors
(ideally with a roof for weather resistance)
or located in building parking garages
or utility rooms. Because contents are
visible through the cage and bikes inside
are accessible, the security of a bike
cage depends on good management of
access keys or codes. Bike cages are most
appropriate for closed environments
such as businesses, office buildings, or
multi-family developments with access
limited to owners, tenants, or employees.
• Bike rooms are bicycle racks located
within an interior locked room or a
locked enclosure. Because they house
bikes behind solid walls, bike rooms
are more secure than bike cages, where
bikes remain visible from the outside.

As with bike cages, bike room security
Short Term Racks at the Wave Dublin,
CA Source: City of Dublin
56 City of Dublin
56 City of Dublin
Draft 223
depends on access key and
code management. Bike rooms
are most appropriate where
access is limited to owners,
tenants, or employees.
• Bike stations are full-service
bike parking facilities that
offer controlled access and
other supporting services like
attended parking, repairs,
and retail space. Bike stations
can offer services such as
free valet parking, 24-hour
access-controlled parking,
sales of bike accessories,
bike rentals, and classes.

Other Infrastructure
and Amenities
Skateboard and Scooter
Lockers should be provided
at key destinations with high
levels of skateboard and scooter
activity like schools, transit
stations, parks, and trailheads.

Showers, Lockers, and
Changing Rooms are important
end-of-trip amenities that
encourage bicycle commuting.

Some places of employment in
Dublin may provide showers,
lockers, and changing rooms.

However, the City does not
inventory such facilities. The
Shannon Community Center,
Dublin Civic Center, and the
high school and middle schools
all provide showers and lockers.

Maintenance Stations for
bicycles should be provided
throughout the city at key
destinations with high levels of
bicycle activity like trailheads,
employment centers, transit
stations, parks, and schools.

Maintenance stations may include
a repair stand with tools, such
as screwdrivers, flat wrenches,
pressure gauges, tire pumps,
and other equipment, to allow
people biking the opportunity
to make on-the-go repairs.

Wayfinding helps a high-quality
bicycling and pedestrian network
be easily navigable. Bicycle and
pedestrian wayfinding helps
residents, tourists, and visitors
find key destinations. Modern,
cohesive, multimodal sign
plans and designs distinguish
walking and bicycling routes,
highlight specific destinations,
and facilitate connections to
and from public transit stops.

BikeLink lockers at the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station. Source: Kittelson * Associates. Inc.

Maintenance station on a trail. Source:

Kittelson & Assoicuates, Inc.

Wayfinding signage for West Dublin/
Pleasanton BART Station. Source:

Kittelson & Assoicuates, Inc.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 57
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 57
Draft224
Wayfinding can also define
connections with popular
hiking trails and regional
trails. There is a need for a
comprehensive wayfinding
signage program in Dublin.

Lighting improves safety
and visibility for pedestrians
and bicyclists. Some routes
that are convenient during
the day are unusable in the
dark, limiting their utility and
effectiveness. Illuminating
trails and sidewalks reduces
the possibility of user
collisions with objects or each
other and makes deformities
or unevenness in the surface
more visible which can also
prevent falls and crashes. For
example, pedestrian-scale
lighting improvements on
Dublin Boulevard under the
I-680 overpass are needed to
improve visibility of people
walking along the corridor.

Pedestrian amenities
are a critical part of
pedestrian-focused design,
which prioritizes safety,
comfort, and quality of
service. Amenities like
planters, benches, drinking
fountains, restrooms, and
sidewalk trees all enhance
a walking environment.

Shared mobility allows
for flexible transportation
options and provides
bicycles and scooters to
community members who
would otherwise lack access
to these modes. Dublin
does not currently offer
shared mobility options.

KEY WALKING

AND BIKING

DESTINATIONS
The choice and ability to
walk and bike to essential
destinations greatly benefits
community members through
increased activity and
improved health. Walking
and biking also benefits
the broader community
by reducing in greenhouse
gas emissions and vehicle
congestion. People have
varying abilities and
tendencies to walk or bike
based on infrastructure
presence and quality. Land-
use patterns that determine
the distance between origins
and destinations as well as the
density, diversity, and intensity
of uses also shape people’s
walking and biking habits.

Key walking and biking
destinations were mapped.

Specific points of interest
were selected for consistency
with the Plan’s goals to
increase walking and biking
mode share to school,
transit, trailheads and
parks, and work. These
activity centers are shown
in figure 21 and include:
• Schools: All public K–12
schools within Dublin
Unified School District
• BART: West Dublin/
Pleasanton station and
Dublin/Pleasanton station
• Job Centers: Seven
job centers that include
Dublin’s largest employers
and concentrations
of employment
• Parks: Neighborhood
and community
parks in Dublin
Person with an e-scooter waiting to cross at
Dougherty Road and Amador V alley Road.

Source: Kittelson & Associates. Inc.
58 City of Dublin
58 City of Dublin
Draft 225
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Figure 21. Land Use and Key Destinations Map
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area

WEST DUBLIN/

PLEASANTON

DUBLIN/

PLEASANTON
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 59
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 59
Draft226

EXISTING

PROGRAMS
As shown in table 5, the City,
the school district, the Police
Services, Alameda CTC, and
nonprofit organizations provide
numerous programs that
support walking and biking in
Dublin. These programs play
an important role in promoting
active transportation and
fostering safe walking and
biking in the city. The City of
Dublin recognizes the critical
role that programs and policies
play in complementing physical
infrastructure to promote walking
and biking and will continue to
support and broaden the reach
of these existing programs.

Table 5. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs
Program Description
Managing
Department /
Organization
Offering Services
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Counts
Bicycle and pedestrian counts are included
in the City’s turning movement counts. Bike
counters collect data on the Iron Horse and
Alamo Canal trails. Bicycle and pedestrian
count data is also provided in environmental
documents and traffic studies.

Traffic and
Planning
Safe Routes to
School (SRTS)
SRTS establishes routes which maximize
safety for travel to and from schools as
well as educates school administrators,
parents, and children about vehicle,
bike, and pedestrian safety.

Dublin Unified
School District
(DUSD) with
support from
Alameda CTC;
several City
departments,
including Police,
Planning, and
Traffic
Bicycle Rodeo
and Safety
Program
Dublin Police Services has a Bicycle Safety
Program, which is offered to elementary
schools in Dublin. The program supports
safe bicycle riding and challenges students'
riding abilities in a safe and controlled
environment. Dublin Police Services
promotes bicycling by educating students
about riding safely and properly.

Police
Adult School
Crossing Guards
Crossing guards help children safely cross
the street at key locations on the way to
school. Crossing guards set an example of
how to safely cross the street, and they may
help parents feel more comfortable allowing
their children to walk or bike to school.

Police and Traffic
60 City of Dublin
60 City of Dublin
Draft 227
Program Description
Managing
Department /
Organization
Offering Services
National Bike
Month Activities
Sponsored by the City, National Bike
Month activities encourage people to
bike during the month of May. Promoted
events include cycling workshops, classes,
and giveaways. The City also sponsors
Bike to Work (or Wherever) Day, which
provides energizer stations and self-guided
rides, and Bike to Market Day, which
rewards bicyclists with “carrot cash” to
use at the Dublin Farmers’ Market.

Traffic and
Environmental
Programs
Walk and Roll
to School Week
During October, Walk and Roll to School
Week encourages the Dublin community
to walk, bike, skate, and ride scooters to
school. Dublin schools celebrate walking
and bicycling with promotional assemblies,
walking school buses and bike trains,
giveaways, and prizes. Dublin’s participation
is partially funded by Measure B/BB.

DUSD, Traffic
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Projects
Workshops
The City hosts biannual bicycle and
pedestrian workshops to share information
about new bicycle and pedestrian projects
and solicit feedback on current and future
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

Traffic
Traffic Safety
Committee
The City’s Traffic Safety Committee—
comprised of representatives from Dublin
Police Services’ traffic unit, Public Works’
transportation staff, and City maintenance
staff—meets monthly to discuss public
comments on potential traffic safety issues
and to recommend appropriate actions.

Common inquiries include requests for
traffic calming devices to reduce vehicle
speeds, stop sign installations, and
new signs and pavement markings.

Police, Traffic,
Maintenance
Program Description
Managing
Department /
Organization
Offering Services
Community
Rides and
Bike Clubs
Community rides help build both
community and physical skills among new
and continuing riders. They provide a
guided pathway for new bicyclists to gain
confidence riding and navigating the city
on a bike. Regular rides foster community
among riders, especially for youth looking
for physical and creative outlets outside
of school. During school, nonprofit
organizations also lead bike clubs at middle
and high schools, where staff provide
bikes and safety gear and take students on
group adventure rides. Community rides
can be offered to the entire community
or geared to women, queer-identifying,
or other less-likely-to-ride demographics
that are better served by a safe space that
celebrates and empowers rider identity.

Cycles of Change,
Bay Area Outreach
and Recreation
Program, Bike
East Bay,
Bike Education
Classes
One or more sessions, bike education classes
teach riders bike safety, bike mechanics,
theft prevention, and other useful skills.

Youth Bike Rodeos, Bike Mechanics Classes,
Adult Bike Safety Classes, and Family
Biking Workshops are a few examples
of the variety of different bicycle classes
offered by nonprofit organizations.

Cycles of Change,
Bike East Bay
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 61
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 61
Draft228

BARRIERS

TO WALKING

AND BIKING
Barriers to a safe and
comfortable walking and
biking network in Dublin
take many forms, including
• High-stress streets with
multiple vehicle travel
lanes, high vehicle volumes,
high vehicle speeds, and
lack of separation between
vehicles and other modes.
• Conflicts between bicyclists
and turning or merging
vehicles at intersections
and interchanges.
• Linear barriers such as the
two major state highway
system facilities (Interstate
680 and Interstate 580) that
have limited and poorly-
designed crossings for
people walking and biking.
• Long crossing distances
and limited street
connectivity (e.g., cul-de-
sacs and long block lengths)
for people walking.
• Lack of east-west
connectivity that limits route
options for people walking
and biking and forces travel
along high-stress arterials
like Dublin Boulevard and
Amador Valley Boulevard.
"This stretch is scary for
bicycling when the lane
disappears with lots of traffic."
-community member quote
“A person in a wheel chair or
a parent with a stroller can’t
safety navigate the sidewalk.”
-community member quote
• Incomplete or broken
sidewalks, inadequate
sidewalk widths, missing or
outdated curb ramp designs,
and a limited number of
accessible pedestrian signals.

These conditions discourage
walking and biking and
can increase stress and
discomfort for those who
choose to walk and roll.

This discussion of barriers has
two key parts: first, a discussion
of safety barriers based on
bicyclist and pedestrian collision
statistics and citywide high-
injury networks; and second,
a discussion of pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity based on
the bicycle level of traffic stress
(LTS) analysis and pedestrian
crossing opportunities analysis.

VEHICLE SPEED
& SAFETY
As vehicle speeds increase,
the risk of serious injury or
fatality also increase. Increased
speeds also reduce the driver’s
visual field and peripheral
vision. Managing and reducing
vehicle speeds is imperative
to achieving safer streets.
62 City of Dublin
62 City of Dublin
Draft 229

COLLISION ANALYSIS
Pedestrian and bicyclist
collision data from 2014 to
2019 from local police reports
and the Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System capture
safety trends citywide. This
section describes the location,
severity, circumstances, and
timing of collisions involving
people walking and biking.

Findings from this analysis
will help determine streets to
prioritize to make it safer for
people walking and biking.

COLLISION TRENDS
Available variables in the
collision data helped identify
citywide trends. Pedestrian
and bicycle collisions were
analyzed separately based on
the following characteristics:
• Lighting conditions
• Location characteristics
(specifically intersection
versus segment collisions)
• Primary collision factors
cited by reporting officers
• Age and perceived gender of
people walking and biking
involved in collisions
The small size of each
dataset—68 bicycle collisions
and 81 pedestrian collisions
over six years—limits the
ability to find statistically valid
trends. However, even with
these limitations, the analysis
revealed several patterns that
reflect conditions in Dublin.

LOCATION
Table 6 and table 7 present
pedestrian and bicycle collisions
based on location and severity.

Intersection collisions are those
reported to have occurred
within a 250-foot intersection
influence area—all others are
considered segment collisions.

A majority of both pedestrian
and bicycle collisions happened
at intersections, where there
are more conflicts with motor
vehicle traffic than at other
locations along roadways.

Figure 22. Influence of Vehicle Speed on Driver’s
Cone of Vision & Pedestrian Survival Rates
Higher speeds
decrease the
chance that a
pedestrian will
survive a crash.

Higher speeds affect a driver’s ability to perceive,
focus on, and react to things in their line of vision.
15 mph 20 mph 30 mph 40 mph
75% of
pedestrians will
SURVIVE a crash
at 32 mph.
50% of
pedestrians will
SURVIVE a crash
at 42 mph.
25% of
pedestrians will
SURVIVE a crash
at 50 mph.

Based on the Local Road Safety Analysis, which evaluates all collisions on local roads within the City of Dublin between 2016 and 2020:

Pedestrian collisions
account for 28 percent
of all fatal and serious
injury collisions in
the City—that is more
than 10 percent higher
than the state average.

A disproportionate
share of fatal and
serious injury—
including pedestrian
collisions—occur
in dusk/dawn or
dark conditions.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 63
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 63
Draft230
Table 6. Pedestrian Collisions by Location and Severity Location
Fatal and
Severe Injury
Collisions
Other
Collisions
Total Reported
Collisions
Share of Total
Reported
Intersection 11 63 74 91%
Segment 1 6 7 9%
Total
Reported 12 69 81 100%
Table 7. Bicycle Collisions by Location and Severity
Location
Fatal and
Severe Injury
Collisions
Other
Collisions
Total Reported
Collisions
Share of Total
Reported
Intersection 2 50 52 76%
Segment 1 15 16 24%
Total
Reported 3 65 68 100%
Lighting
Lighting conditions are an
important factor for pedestrian
and bicyclist visibility and
personal security by enabling
people to see each other. Figure
23 presents pedestrian and
bicycle collisions by lighting
conditions. The majority of
bicycle and pedestrian collisions
occurred in daylight conditions.

All reported fatal and severe-
injury bicycle collisions occurred
in daylight conditions. When
collisions occurred in dark
conditions, they happened
primarily under streetlights.

Primary Collision Factors
Primary collision factors
(PCFs) are provided in the
data and aggregated based on
the section of the California
Vehicle Code that the reporting
officer records. For bicycle
collisions, the PCFs were
• Automobile right of way
violation (26 percent of
collisions), which indicates
one of several California
Vehicle Violation codes
regarding a failure to yield
right of way to oncoming
traffic. This action may come
from either the bicyclist
or motorist involved.
• Improper turning (16
percent of collisions),
which indicates a motorist
committed a hazardous
violation while turning.
• Other hazardous movement
(12 percent of collisions),
an aggregated violation
category that indicates a
hazardous movement on the
part of either the bicyclist
or motorist involved.

The PCFs cited most frequently
for pedestrian collisions were
• Pedestrian right of way
violation (27 percent
of collisions), which
indicates a driver violated a
pedestrian’s right of way.
• Other improper driving
(20 percent of collisions)
represents an aggregation
of motorist violations.
• Automobile right of way
violation (14 percent of
collisions), which indicates
Figure 23. Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions by Lighting Conditions NOTE: totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding
Source: 2014-2019 Statewide Integrated Traffic Record Systems collision database. 64 City of Dublin
64 City of Dublin
Draft 231
one of several California
Vehicle Violation codes
regarding a failure to yield
right of way to oncoming
traffic. This action may come
from either the pedestrian
or motorist involved.
• Pedestrian violation (6
percent of collisions), which
indicates a pedestrian violated
laws regarding right of way.

Age of Parties Involved
Figure 24 compares the ages
of people walking or biking
involved in collisions to Dublin’s
population. Age data was
only available for 76 percent
of pedestrians and for 63
percent of bicyclists involved
in collisions. This comparison
reveals that people aged 15–24
are overrepresented in bicycle
and pedestrian collisions.

Although they make up just
eight percent of the city’s
population, people in this age
group represent 25 percent
and 18 percent of pedestrians
and bicyclists involved in
collisions. Similarly, people aged
45–64 are underrepresented
among pedestrian and bicyclist
collisions (at 12 percent each),
despite making up 25 percent
of Dublin’s population.

Gender of Parties Involved
Additionally, gender was reported
for 78 percent of bicyclists
involved in collisions and for
59 percent of pedestrians.

Available data reveals that men
represented approximately 60
percent of pedestrians involved
in collisions and 83 percent of
bicyclists involved in collisions.

HIGH-INJURY

NETWORK
An analysis of the citywide
roadway network was conducted
to identify a set of bicycle
and pedestrian high-injury
streets, together called a high-
injury network (HIN). This
HIN constitutes the worst-
performing segment locations
based on collision severity and
frequency of collisions involving
people walking and biking.

Figure 24. Age of Parties Involved in Collisions
NOTE: totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding
Source: 2014-2019 Statewide Integrated Traffic Record Systems collision database. “Every time I cross here,
I almost get hit by a car
trying to enter the freeway.”
-community member quote
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 65
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 65
Draft232
Figure 25. Pedestrian High-Injury Network Map
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAM
ON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DRAMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROM
W
ELLAV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGERD

CREEKSIDEDR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMM
ON
DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR

HILLROSEDR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK
DR

EAGLERD

BRODER BL

INSPIRATIONDR

CREEKVIEWDR

HILLTOPRD

DUBLIN BL
STERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Collision Analysis\Pedestrian and Bicycle High Injury Network Combined- Final.mxd Date: 5/17/2022 Pedestrian High Injury Network Figure 5
Pedestrian High Injury Network
Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAM
ON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DRAMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROM
W
ELLAV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGERD

CREEKSIDEDR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMM
ON
DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR

HILLROSEDR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK
DR

EAGLERD

BRODER BL

INSPIRATIONDR

CREEKVIEWDR

HILLTOPRD

DUBLIN BL
STERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Collision Analysis\Pedestrian and Bicycle High Injury Network Combined- Final.mxd Date: 5/17/2022 Pedestrian High Injury Network Figure 5
Pedestrian High Injury Network
Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Pleasanton
Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
62 percent of pedestrian collisions occurred
on 4 percent of Dublin's roads (8.4 miles)
71 percent of the pedestrian high injury streets
has four or more vehicle through lanes
66 City of Dublin
66 City of Dublin
Draft 233
Figure 26. Bicycle High-Injury Network Map
Martin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAM
ON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DRAMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROM
W
ELLAV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGERD

CREEKSIDEDR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMM
ON
DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR

HILLROSEDR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK
DR

EAGLERD

BRODER BL

INSPIRATIONDR

CREEKVIEWDR

HILLTOPRD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Collision Analysis\Figure 8- Bicycle High Injury Network - Final_20200623.mxd Date: 5/17/2022 Bicycle High Injury Network
Figure 8
Bicycle High Injury Network
Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Martin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAM
ON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DRAMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROM
W
ELLAV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGERD

CREEKSIDEDR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMM
ON
DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR

HILLROSEDR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK
DR

EAGLERD

BRODER BL

INSPIRATIONDR

CREEKVIEWDR

HILLTOPRD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton
Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Collision Analysis\Figure 8- Bicycle High Injury Network - Final_20200623.mxd Date: 5/17/2022 Bicycle High Injury Network
Figure 8
Bicycle High Injury Network
Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Pleasanton
Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
62 percent of bicycle collisions occurred on

3.5 percent of Dublin’s roads (6.7 miles)
88 percent of the bicycle high injury streets
has four or more vehicle through lanes
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 67
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 67
Draft234
High Injury Streets
Table 8 provides the extents of
each high injury street along with
the total mileage (measured as
centerline miles).

HIGH INJURY

NETWORK

CHARACTERISTICS
• 62 percent of pedestrian
collisions occurred on
4 percent (8.4 miles)
of Dublin’s roads.
• 62 percent of the city’s
bicycle collisions occurred
on 3.5 percent (6.7 miles)
of Dublin’s roads.

Dublin’s pedestrian and bicycle
HINs overlap for many of their
segments. About 10 miles or
just over 5 percent of Dublin’s
roadways appear in either the
bicycle HIN, pedestrian HIN, or
both. This means that 66 percent
of Dublin’s bicycle collisions
and 66 percent of its pedestrian
collisions occur on just 10
percent of streets in the city.

Key Characteristics of
the Pedestrian HIN
• Approximately 40 percent
of the pedestrian HIN has
a speed limit of 35 miles
per hour. Additionally, 32
percent of the HIN mileage
consists of roads with speed
limits of 40 or 45 miles per
hour. The remainder of the
HIN has speed limits of
25 or 30 miles per hour.
• Approximately 55 percent
of the pedestrian HIN
consists of roads classified
as arterial roads; the
remaining roads are collector
or residential streets.
• Approximately 47 percent
of the HIN has five or six
vehicular through lanes.

Another 24 percent of the
network has four vehicular
through lanes. The remainder
of the HIN consists of roads
with two or three lanes.

Table 8. High Injury Streets
Roadway Extents
Pedestrian High Injury Streets
Amador Valley Boulevard I-680 to Burton St.

Arnold Road I-580 to Dublin Blvd.

Bent Tree Drive Fallon Rd to Sugar Hill Terr.

Burton Street Amador Valley Blvd. to Tamarack Dr.

Dublin Boulevard Hansen Dr. to Grafton St.

Hacienda Drive I-580 to Dublin Blvd.

Regional Street Southern extents to Amador Valley Blvd.

Tamarack Drive Canterbury Ln. to Brighton Dr.

Tassajara Road Dublin Blvd. to Gleason Dr.

Village Parkway Dublin Blvd. to Davona Dr.

Total Mileage: 8.4 miles
Bicycle High Injury Streets
Amador Valley Boulevard San Ramon Rd. to Penn Dr.

Dublin Boulevard Silvergate Dr. to Myrtle Dr.

Village Parkway Dublin Blvd. to City Limits (N)
Total Mileage: 6.7 miles
66 percent of bicycle collisions and 66
percent of pedestrian collisions occur
on just 10 percent of streets in the City.
68 City of Dublin
68 City of Dublin
Draft 235
Key Characteristics of
the Bicycle HIN
• Approximately 78 percent
of the bicycle HIN mileage
consists of roads with speed
limits of 35 or 45 miles per
hour. The remainder of
the HIN has a speed limit
of 30 miles per hour.
• The bicycle HIN is nearly
evenly divided between
arterial and collector
roadways, with 54 and 46
percent, respectively.
• Approximately 88 percent of
the HIN has four or more
vehicular through lanes.

BICYCLE LEVEL OF

TRAFFIC STRESS

LTS METHODOLOGY
People on bikes are vulnerable
street users. The presence of
any one of several factors can
make people feel unsafe or
uncomfortable. Bicycle level of
4 This report uses an on-street LTS methodology developed by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) and documented in the Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity report published in 2012. This methodology was further refined by Dr. Peter Furth of Northeastern University in 2017. See Mekuria, Mazza C., “Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity” (2012), All Mineta Transportation Institute Publications., Book 4. http:/ /scholarworks. sjsu.edu/mti_all/4 and http:/ /www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/criteria-for-level-of-traffic-stress/ , specifically “Version 2.0,” published in June 2017. traffic stress (LTS) measures the
stress imposed on bicyclists by a
road segment or crossing.4 The
LTS methodology was used to
classify Dublin’s intersections
and on-street roadway and path
segments as one of four levels
of traffic stress. Classifications
range from LTS 1 to LTS 4, with
1 being the most comfortable/
least stressful and 4 being least
comfortable/most stressful.

ON-STREET ROADWAY

SEGMENT LTS

METHODOLOGY
The on-street roadway segment
LTS methodology provides
criteria for three bicycle facility
types: bike lanes alongside a
parking lane, bike lanes not
alongside a parking lane, and
mixed traffic (i.e., no bike lanes
present). On-street roadway
segment LTS analysis considers
several factors that affect bicyclist
comfort, including the number
of vehicle travel lanes, vehicle
volume, vehicle speed, presence
and width of bike lanes, presence
and width of parking lanes, and
presence and type of separation
between the bike lane and vehicle
travel lanes (see figure 27).

Path LTS Methodology
The path LTS methodology
was created to account for the
various design factors that affect
quality of service and bicyclists’
stress on the Class IA paths and
Class IB sidepaths in Dublin.

The analysis considers segment
characteristics, including path
width, shoulder width and
separation, and wayfinding.

The analysis also considers
intersection/crossing elements,
such as traffic control, crossing
distance, geometric elements,
pavement markings, and signage.

Figure 27. Roadway Characteristics Used to Calculate Bicycle LTS NUMBER

OF LANES

SPEED OF

TRAFFIC

NUMBER OF

VEHCILES

PRESENCE
& WIDTH OF

BIKE LANES

PRESENCE
& WIDTH OF
PARKING +

BIKE LANES

PRESENCE &

PHYSICAL BARRIER

BETWEEN BIKE

LANES & VEHICULAR

TRAFFIC
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 69
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 69
Draft236
Crossing LTS Methodology
A crossing LTS analysis was
conducted for street and path
intersections located along
high-stress facilities (segments
that scored LTS 3 or LTS
4) since it is likely that the
characteristics of a high-stress
segment can affect the bicyclist
experience when crossing
from a low-stress street. The
crossing methodology analyzes
intersections and crossings
for the following situations:
• Intersection approaches
for pocket bike lanes
(bike lanes that are to
the left of a dedicated
right-turn vehicle lane)
• Intersection approaches
for mixed traffic in the
presence of right-turn lanes
• Intersection crossings for
unsignalized crossings
without a median refuge
• Intersection crossings for
unsignalized crossings
with a median refuge
These situations do not describe
all crossing circumstances.

For example, in Dublin,
many Class I facilities cross at
signalized intersections. These
situations are covered in the
path LTS methodology.

LTS RESULTS
The LTS analysis was conducted
using a spatial database with
inputs obtained through a
combination of field review,
Google Earth aerial review,
and City input. Assumptions
were applied to fill data
gaps where necessary.

The on-street and path LTS
results, presented together on
figure 28, illustrate citywide
bicycle level of traffic stress and
network connectivity. To simplify
the level of detail shown, the
directionality of the on-street
LTS has been suppressed. Each
on-street segment is displaying
its highest (i.e., worst) LTS
value. Refer to appendix C
for the full set of LTS maps,
including directional LTS.
• On-Street Level of Traffic
Stress. Low-stress streets
in Dublin are typically local
residential roads without
dedicated bicycle facilities
where vehicle speeds and
volumes are low. Higher
stress streets are often arterial
roads like Dublin Boulevard,
which are less comfortable
for bicyclists, due to the
relatively higher vehicular
speeds, higher traffic
volumes, and the number of
vehicle travel lanes. These
higher stress streets present
barriers to low-stress travel
where they intersect with
low-stress facilities and create
islands isolated by high-stress
segments and crossings.
• Path LTS. Class IA multiuse
paths most frequently score
an LTS 2 given their width,
shoulder, and wayfinding
presence. Class IB side paths
frequently score an LTS 3
with no wayfinding present
along their segments. Path
crossings vary, but they
rarely exceed LTS 3 except at
intersection crossings with
high speeds, high volumes,
and no crossing markings
or signage. Although path
LTS values were assessed
for every path crossing
location, only crossings
with scores lower than their
connecting path segments
are mapped in the results.

In other words, the mapped
crossings are those which
degrade the neighboring
segment path LTS.
• Low Stress Islands. Figure
29 presents Dublin’s network
of low-stress facilities and
highlights where gaps
and islands exist. Fallon
Road, Tassajara Road, San
Ramon Road, and Dublin
Boulevard are prime
examples of low-stress gaps
in the on-street network.

In Dublin, most streets are
residential streets. Nearly all of
those streets (98 percent) are low
stress because of their low speeds
and volumes. With generally
higher speeds and volumes,
70 City of Dublin
70 City of Dublin
Draft 237
Figure 28. On Street and Path LTS Combined Map
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAMON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DR

AMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROM
W
ELLAV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGERD

CREEKSIDEDR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMM
ON
DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD SYRAH
DR

HILLROSEDR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK
DR

EAGLERD

BRODER BL

INSPIRATIONDR

CREEKVIEWDR

HILLTOPRD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING RD
Martin Canyon Creek Trail
Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park

FALLCREEKRD
CROM
W
ELLAV
H AVEN
PL

BARNET BL

CROAKRD
FCI
6TH ST
ASPEN
ST

DIANALN

SEBILLERD

QUARTZCI

RANGE RD

SCHAEFER LN
12TH ST

ALBROOKDR

VALLEY VISTA DR

DUBLIN BL

PENNDRVILLAGEPW
W
ILDW
OODRD

CENTRAL PW

BENTTREEDR

DOUGHERTYRD

POSITANO PW

FALLON RD

TASSAJARARD

VITTORIA LP

INSPIRATIONDR
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\13 All LTS COmbined.mxd Date: 5/17/2022 On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Shared Use Path
(Class IA)
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Sidepaths
(Class IB)
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Path Crossings
! LTS 1
! LTS 2
! LTS 3
! LTS 4
Existing Bicyclist Level of Traffic Stress
Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Figure 13
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAMON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DR

AMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROM
W
ELLAV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGERD

CREEKSIDEDR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMM
ON
DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD SYRAH
DR

HILLROSEDR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK
DR

EAGLERD

BRODER BL

INSPIRATIONDR

CREEKVIEWDR

HILLTOPRD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING RD
Martin Canyon Creek Trail
Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park

FALLCREEKRD
CROM
W
ELLAV
H AVEN
PL

BARNET BL

CROAKRD
FCI
6TH ST
ASPEN
ST

DIANALN

SEBILLERD

QUARTZCI

RANGE RD

SCHAEFER LN
12TH ST

ALBROOKDR

VALLEY VISTA DR

DUBLIN BL

PENNDRVILLAGEPW
W
ILDW
OODRD

CENTRAL PW

BENTTREEDR

DOUGHERTYRD

POSITANO PW

FALLON RD

TASSAJARARD

VITTORIA LP

INSPIRATIONDR
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580
Pleasanton
Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\13 All LTS COmbined.mxd Date: 5/17/2022 On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Shared Use Path
(Class IA)
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Sidepaths
(Class IB)
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Path Crossings
! LTS 1
! LTS 2
! LTS 3
! LTS 4
Existing Bicyclist Level of Traffic Stress
Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Figure 13
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 71
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 71
Draft238
Figure 29. Low Stress Islands Map
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAM
ON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DRAMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROM
W
ELLAV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGERD

CREEKSIDEDR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON
DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR

HILLROSEDR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOKDR

EAGLERD

BRODER BL

INSPIRATIONDR

CREEKVIEWDR

HILLTOPRD

DUBLIN BL
STERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Dublin
Sports
Grounds
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty
Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Pleasanton
Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Level of Traffic Stress Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
Class IA Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
Class IB Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2 Existing Low-Stress Network and Modeled Activity Centers Dublin, California
[
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_Existing low-stress network + all activity centers.mxd Date: 6/9/2022 §¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAM
ON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DRAMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROM
W
ELLAV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGERD

CREEKSIDEDR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON
DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR

HILLROSEDR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOKDR

EAGLERD

BRODER BL

INSPIRATIONDR

CREEKVIEWDR

HILLTOPRD

DUBLIN BL
STERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Dublin
Sports
Grounds
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty
Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Pleasanton
Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Level of Traffic Stress Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
Class IA Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
Class IB Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2 Existing Low-Stress Network and Modeled Activity Centers Dublin, California
[
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_Existing low-stress network + all activity centers.mxd Date: 6/9/2022 Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
72 City of Dublin
72 City of Dublin
Draft 239
collector and arterial roadways
are higher stress for bicyclists
unless they have appropriate
facilities. Only 37 percent of
collectors and 7 percent of
arterials in Dublin are low stress
(see figure 30). Many businesses
and services are located on
or near collectors, and these
desintations can only be accessed
with some travel along or across
the collectors or arterials.

The goal of planning and
designing a low-stress bicycle
facility network is to enable
people of all ages and abilities
to feel safe and comfortable
riding bicycles throughout the
city. These LTS findings are
useful for determining and
locating appropriate low-stress
bicycle facilities in the city.

Dublin’s extensive network
of low-speed and low-volume
local neighborhood streets
already create a backbone for
a low-stress biking network;
however, these streets are isolated
pockets throughout the city and
remain separated by high-stress
arterial and collector streets.

By enhancing low-stress streets
and adding separated bicycle
facilities on targeted segments
of higher-speed and higher-
volume collectors and arterials,
Dublin can support a more
connected, low-stress bicycle
network that better serves key
destinations throughout the city.

PEDESTRIAN

CONNECTIVITY
Sidewalk gaps and lack of safe
crossing opportunities can create
barriers to walking by requiring
people to go out of their way
to avoid the gap or by forcing
people to walk in the street and
increase their exposure to vehicle
traffic. These barriers to walking
were mapped in figure 31.

Figure 30. Miles of Bikeway Stress by Functional Classification

LOW STRESS

STREETS

HIGH STRESS

STREETS
Arterial Streets
Collector Streets
Residential Streets
0 30 60 90 120 150
Miles
*Miles does not include paths.
"You can't use the sidewalk
without tripping on a
jagged piece of concrete."
-community member quote
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 73
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 73
Draft240
!èéëìí!èéëìí !èéëìí
./0""$
!èéëìí
!èéëìí
!èéëìí
89:m89:m
89:m 89:m89:m
89:m
89:m
89:m
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAM
ON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DRAMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROM
W
ELLAV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGERD

CREEKSIDEDR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMM
ON
DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR

HILLROSEDR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK
DR

EAGLERD

BRODER BL

INSPIRATIONDR

CREEKVIEWDR

HILLTOPRD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Pedestrian Crossing Barriers_updated for Plan.mxd Date: 7/29/2022 !èéëìí Major street barrier - signal with no major street crossings
./0""$ Major street barrier -- all-way stop, no marked
crossings
Major street barrier - side-street stop control
Not a barrier - full accessibility
89:m Not a barrier- RRFB
Roadways/Paths
Major Street (crossing barriers exist along street)
Paths
Other streets - full crossing accessibility assumed at
nodes
Sidewalk gap on major road
Pedestrian Demand Analysis Framework
Crossing Barriers
Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Figure 7
Figure 31. Pedestrian Crossing Barriers Map
!èéëìí!èéëìí !èéëìí
./0""$
!èéëìí
!èéëìí
!èéëìí
89:m89:m
89:m 89:m89:m
89:m
89:m
89:m
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAM
ON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DRAMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROM
W
ELLAV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGERD

CREEKSIDEDR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMM
ON
DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR

HILLROSEDR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK
DR

EAGLERD

BRODER BL

INSPIRATIONDR

CREEKVIEWDR

HILLTOPRD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Pedestrian Crossing Barriers_updated for Plan.mxd Date: 7/29/2022 !èéëìí Major street barrier - signal with no major street crossings
./0""$ Major street barrier -- all-way stop, no marked
crossings
Major street barrier - side-street stop control
Not a barrier - full accessibility
89:m Not a barrier- RRFB
Roadways/Paths
Major Street (crossing barriers exist along street)
Paths
Other streets - full crossing accessibility assumed at
nodes
Sidewalk gap on major road
Pedestrian Demand Analysis Framework
Crossing Barriers
Dublin, California
[
0 1 Mile
Figure 7
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
74 City of Dublin
74 City of Dublin
Draft 241

WALKING AND

BIKING ACCESS
The ability of people to walk or
bike to key walking and biking
destinations was analyzed to
estimate existing access to key
destinations. This analysis was
used to identify barriers in the
existing network and highlight
locations where investments
would have the greatest potential
to close gaps in the network and
increase access and mode share.

The share of the Dublin
population that could be
expected to walk or bike to each
activity center was estimated
based on pedestrian and bicyclist
typology, distance to the
destination, and the quality of
available infrastructure . These
estimates of walk and bike access
were determined by four inputs:
• Demographic data: Dublin
residents were grouped
into walking and biking
typology groups based on
age. Groups exhibit different
propensities to walk or bike
and respond differently to
supportive infrastructure.
• Network distance to
destination: The actual
network distance between
city parcels and each activity
center was calculated using
the shortest available route.
• Barriers and impediments:

For walking, uncontrolled
crossings of major roads
were identified as blocking
or impeding an available
walking route. For biking,
a high LTS score (3 or
4) blocks or impedes
available routes. Barriers
block access and require a
different route; impediments
increase the perceived travel
distance, which decreases
the likelihood of walking
or biking. Populations
experience barriers and
impediments differently.

For example, uncontrolled
crossings of major roads
can create inaccessible
routes for young children
and older adults, but are
merely inconvenient for
teenagers and adults who
are more likely to be able
to cross. Pedestrian and
bicyclist typologies were
used to capture such
differences in experiences.
• Mode share data: Kittelson
used data from the National
Household Travel Survey
(NHTS), BART station
profile surveys, the American
Community Survey (ACS),
and Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) mode share surveys
to estimate the percentage of
people walking and biking
and the relationship between
mode share and destination
distance. The percentage of
the population estimated to
walk or bike varies based on
the perceived distance to the
destination. For example,
more people walk for a half-
mile trip than a one-mile trip.

The analysis was conducted
using a four-step process
illustrated in figure 32.

WALKING AND

BIKING DEMAND

ANALYSIS PROCESS
The methodology analyzes
existing walking and biking
access to key destinations using
historical travel pattern and
count data, demographic data,
and infrastructure data. This
analysis did not consider other
factors that influence mode
choice decisions like access or
ability to ride a bicycle, income
and wealth, disability, and trip
chaining characteristics. This
analysis indicates the magnitude
of existing and potential
latent demand for walking
and biking based on a set of
informed assumptions about
the known relationship between
infrastructure and mode choice.

Existing demand is summarized
in this section, and the detailed
methodology and outcomes
are presented in appendix D.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 75
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 75
Draft242

WALK ACCESS
• Schools: Cottonwood Creek School, Dougherty Elementary, and Kolb Elementary exhibit the highest estimated walk shares with around 36 percent of students living within walking distance. Other schools similarly exhibit high estimated walk shares, due in part to the localized nature of their student population compared to middle and high schools.
• Transit: Approximately 11 percent of Dublin residents are within a 15-minute walk of either the Dublin/Pleasanton or West Dublin BART stations. Over 40 percent of Dublin residents live more than two miles from either BART station. • Job Centers: The walk share estimates range from 4 to 9 percent for each job center. The limited walkability
of these sites is largely the result of the distance
between the employment and residential uses.
• Parks and Open Space: Access for each resident was determined by the nearest City park. The analysis measured perceived distance to any park for each resident rather than to a specific park. Almost 25 percent of Dublin residents live within one- eighth of a mile from a park, and 62 percent of residents live within a one-mile perceived walking distance of a park.

Figure 32. Walking and Biking Demand Analysis Process
Categorize
city
population
into walking
and biking
typologies
at Census
block level
Assign and
apportion
population
by typology
to residential
buildings
Calculate
network
distance to
points of
interest and
percieved
distance
based on
Infrastructure
factors and
walking and
biking typology
Using a
distance/
mode split lookup
table, estimate
the mode share to
points of interest.

Calibrate based on
existing mode split
and travel data
04 Aggregate Results
03 Network Analysis
02 population Assignment to Buildings
01 Demographic Analysis
Youth Walk Access to
Cottonwood Creek School
Walk Access
for Adults
to BART
Walk Access to BART for
Youth, Older Adults, and
People with Disabilities
Figure 33. Walk Access
Note: Full size graphics are
included in the appendix.
76 City of Dublin
76 City of Dublin
Draft 243

BIKE ACCESS
• Schools: Access points to
Dublin High, Frederiksen
Elementary, Murray
Elementary, and Wells
Middle School are provided
on high-stress streets
(streets with LTS scores of
3 or 4). High-stress streets
create an access barrier and
reduce the propensity of
students to bike to school.

Amador Elementary and
Kolb Elementary exhibit
the highest estimated bike
share with 14 percent
of students having low-
stress bicycle access.
• Transit: Based on the
bicyclist typology and
available infrastructure,
approximately 12 percent
of Dublin residents have
a bike route matching
their stress tolerance and
can access one of the two
BART stations within an
approximately 15-minute
ride at a 10-mile per hour
pace. Less than one percent
of interested and concerned
bicyclists have a low-stress
bicycle route to BART.
• Job Centers: The share of
population with an available
and acceptable bicycle route
varies from 18 percent to
37 percent; the resulting
bike share estimates range
between 1 and 3 percent for
each job center. Limitations
to bicycle access at these
sites is primarily the result
of being located on major
arterials, which are typically
high-stress streets.
• Parks and Open Space:

Access for each resident
was determined by the
nearest City park. The
analysis measured perceived
distance to any park for each
resident rather than to a
specific park. In Dublin, 42
percent of Dublin residents
have an acceptable bicycle
route to a park. Nearly 40
percent have no available
low-stress route, and the
remaining residents would
not choose to bike if a low-
stress route were available.

Bike access to BART for (left to right)
“interested but concerned”, “enthused and
confident”, and “strong and fearless” riders.

Illustrates the barriers to access for the
“interested and concerned” group, Dublin’s
largest population of bicyclists. Note: Full
size graphics are included in the appendix.

Figure 34. Bike Access to BART
Bike access to BART for
“interested but concerned”
Bike access to BART for
“enthused and confident”
Bike access to BART for
“strong and fearless”
BART BART access pointsaccess points
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 77
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 77
Draft244

4 245
This chapter presents the recommended
citywide bicycle and pedestrian networks.

These networks represent the City’s vision
for walking and biking infrastructure in
Dublin, with new and improved facilities
to create safe and comfortable connections
to key destinations for users of all ages
and abilities. Public feedback and findings
from the existing conditions assessment,
high-injury network, bicycle level of traffic
stress, pedestrian connectivity, and demand
analysis contributed to developing the
recommended network shown in figure 35.

NETWORK DEVELOPMENT
The network was developed in three phases:
• Phase 1: Network Framework
• Phase 2: Network Evaluation
• Phase 3: Network Refinement
The following sections describe the
process and outputs of each phase.

PHASE 1: NETWORK PHASE 1: NETWORK

FRAMEWORKFRAMEWORK
The active transportation network
framework includes a variety of sources of
data and information including community
feedback, related plans and projects,
existing conditions and needs analysis,
and evaluation of destinations and barriers
documented in the preceding chapters.

PHASE 2: NETWORK PHASE 2: NETWORK

EVALUATIONEVALUATION
The Plan’s vision includes creating a safe and
comfortable walking and biking network
that can be enjoyed by all. Ultimately,
the goal of the low-stress network is to
enable a wider cross section of the city’s
population to feel comfortable and safe
while making trips by bike and on foot.

With the vision of an all ages and abilities
active transportation system in mind, criteria
from the Federal Highway Administration’s
Bikeway Selection Guide were used to select
initial low-stress facility recommendations
for all streets in Dublin. These initial
recommendations will help the largest
segment of the population to feel comfortable
while walking and biking (see figure 35).

Speed and volume roadway operational
characteristics were used to determine the
appropriate low-stress bicycle facility type.

4. RECOMMENDED BICYCLE 4. RECOMMENDED BICYCLE
& PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS& PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS
“Bike lanes and
separate pedestrian
path are great”
-community
member quote
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 79
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 79
Draft
246
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022 Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 3,300 Feet
Proposed Point Project
! Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
! ! ! Shared Lane (Class III)
! ! ! Bike Lane (Class IIA)
! ! ! Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
! ! ! Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
! ! ! Complete Streets Study: Consider
Improvements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
Figure 35. Recommended Projects and Existing Facilities ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022 Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 3,300 Feet
Proposed Point Project
! Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
! ! ! Shared Lane (Class III)
! ! ! Bike Lane (Class IIA)
! ! ! Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
! ! ! Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
! ! ! Complete Streets Study: Consider
Improvements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Locations with identified proposed segment projects may also include pedestrian improvements such as consistent sidewalks, buffers with street trees and/or green stormwater infrastructure, high-visibility crosswalks, accessible curb ramps, curb extensions, reduced corner radii, and signal improvements 80 City of Dublin
80 City of Dublin
Draft 247
Figure 36. Preferred Bikeway Type
PHASE 3: NETWORK PHASE 3: NETWORK

REFINEMENTREFINEMENT
Once the low-stress facility
was determined, a high-
level feasibility assessment of
each corridor was conducted
to evaluate the potential
implications of installing the
low-stress facility. For example,
assessments considered whether
vehicle parking or vehicle travel
lanes would need to be removed
to install a low-stress facility. For
locations where implementation
of the all ages and abilities low-
stress facility would be more
challenging, potential parallel
routes were sought to provide
similar quality of access as the
constrained corridor. Constrained
or challenging corridors were
identified and recommended
for further evaluation as part
of a complete streets study.

The resulting project list was
refined to address feedback
from City staff, TAC, BPAC,
and community members.
23 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE  | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION
Figure 9: Preferred Bikeway Type for Urban, Urban Core, Suburban and Rural Town Contexts
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Separated Bike Lane
or Shared Use Path
Bike Lane
(Buffer Pref.)
Shared Lane
or Bike
Boulevard
10k
9k
8k
7k
6k
5k
4k
3k
2k
1k
0 1 Chart assumes operating speeds are similar to posted speeds. If they differ, use operating speed rather than posted speed. 2 Advisory bike lanes may be an option where traffic volume is <3K ADT. 3 See page 32 for a discussion of alternatives if the preferred bikeway type is not feasible.

Notes
Source: US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Bikeway Selection Guide, FHW A-SA-19-077, February 2019, https:/ / safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf. "Would love to see separated
bike lanes with street trees
and widened sidewalks."
-community member quote
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 81
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 81
Draft248

NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS

COMPLETE STREET APPROACHCOMPLETE STREET APPROACH
A Complete Street approach was taken during the development of infrastructure recommendations. Bicycle-, and pedestrian- supportive investments are included in each corridor and crossing project and transit-supportive elements will be further considered along transit corridors as part of design development. The following list illustrates the range of treatments that may be applied to corridor and crossing projects:
• Advance yield markings
• Curb extensions
• Median refuges or crossing islands
• Centerline hardening5
• Intersection daylighting6
• Narrow vehicle travel lanes
• Traffic control modifications (e.g., stop sign, signal) • Signal timing and phasing modifications
(e.g., restrict right turn on red)
5 Centerline Hardening. A left-turn traffic-calming treatment that features a vertical element, such as a bollard, rubber curb, or concrete curb installed along the centerline at intersection departures to force drivers to approach the turn at a steeper angle and slower speed. 6 Intersection Daylighting. A strategy to increase visibility at intersections by prohibiting parking (e.g., installing red painted curb) at least 20 feet in advance of a crossing. • Sidewalk widening
• Added or upgraded bike facility
The project recommendations are presented as a
package, with concurrent improvements to support
all three active and sustainable travel modes.

CORRIDOR PROJECTS CORRIDOR PROJECTS
Corridor projects were identified on high-stress roadways that represented barriers to walking and biking.

Recommended corridor projects are summarized in table 9 and presented by location in table 10.

Table 9. Project Type by Length
Project Type Miles
Shared Lane (Class III) 12.4
Bike Lane (Class IIA) 4.0
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) 17.4
Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV) 9.2
Complete Streets Study: Consider Improvements
to Existing Sidepaths (Class IB) 4.9
Path (Class IA) 7.9
Speed Reduction Evaluation 1.3
Total 55.6*
* Corridor projects are not double counted in this total if they represent multiple project types.
82 City of Dublin
82 City of Dublin
Draft 249
Table 10. Recommend Projects by Location
Project ID Project Location From To Project Description

SEGMENT PROJECTS
S-1
Various locations for Class III facilities/neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack Drive, Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street, Brighton Drive, Grafton Street, Antone Way, South Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street Study opportunities and create designs for traffic calming, striping, and signs to create Class III bikeways
S-2 Gleason Drive Arnold Road Brannigan Street
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future S-3 Hacienda Drive Southern City Limits Gleason Drive
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future S-4 Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Tassajara Road
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future S-5 Arnold Road Dublin Boulevard Altamirano Ave
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-6 Grafton Street Kohnen Way Antone Way Convert to a Class IIB bikeway through restriping S-7 Tassajara Road, Dougherty
Road, and Hacienda Drive Southern City Limits Dublin Boulveard Convert to a Class IIB bikeway by restriping travel lanes on Tassajara, Dougherty, and Hacienda at the I-580 overcrossings
S-8 Tassajara Road North Dublin
Ranch Drive Rutherford Drive
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future S-9 Village Parkway Amador Valley Boulevard Northern City Limits Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
S-10
Various locations for Class III facilities/neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack Drive, Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street, Brighton Drive, Antone Way, South Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street Implement the traffic calming, striping, and signs plans and designs created in project S-1 to create Class III bikeways S-11 Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard Amador Valley
Boulevard
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-12 Tassajara Road Palisades Drive North Dublin
Ranch Drive Evaluate opportunities to reduce speed limit along this corridor Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 83
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 83
Draft250
Project ID Project Location From To Project Description S-13 Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
S-14 Amador Valley Boulevard Stagecoach Road Dougherty Road Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
S-15 Tassajara Road Gleason Drive Southern City Limits
Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. This project is anticipated to be implemented after the lower cost solution in S-7.

S-16 Dublin Boulevard Inspiration Drive San Ramon Road
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
S-17 Dublin Boulevard Inspiration Drive Western extent
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
S-18 Fallon Road Gleason Drive Southern city limits
Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment.

S-19 Fallon Road Gleason Drive Tassajara Road
Make improvements to adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed.

S-20 Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road Eastern city limits Add buffered bike lanes along the Dublin Boulevard Extension S-21 Tassajara Road Palidsades Drive Northern City Limits Work with Contra Costa County to design and implement Class IIB facilities S-22
Various locations: N Dublin Ranch Drive, S Dublin Ranch Drive, Hansen Drive, Starward Drive, San Sabana Road, Southwick Drive, Hibernia Drive, Donohue Drive, Keegan Street, Peppertree Road, Madden Way, Kohnen Way, York Drive, Maple Drive, Inspiration Drive, and Vomac Road Study opportunities, create designs, and implement traffic calming and signs to create Class III Bikeways along the identified roadways S-23 Lockhart Street Central Parkway Dublin Boulevard Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-24 John Monego Court Dublin Boulevard Southern extent Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-25 Sierra Lane Sierra Court Dougherty Road Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-26 York Drive Amador Valley Boulevard Poplar Way Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-27 Hibernia Drive Dublin Boulevard Summer Glen Drive Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists 84 City of Dublin
84 City of Dublin
Draft 251
Project ID Project Location From To Project Description S-28 Shannon Avenue Vomac Road Peppertree Road Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-29 Glynnis Rose Drive Central Parkway Dublin Boulevard Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-30 Central Parkway 500' west of Croak Road Croak Road Extend bike lanes and sidepaths along Central Parkway to Croak Road S-31 Croak Road/
Volterra Drive Volterra Court Dublin Boulevard
If Croak Road is improved south of S Terracina Drive, add low stress bicycle facilities based on anticipated speeds, volumes, and FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide recommendations
S-32 Central Parkway Iron Horse Parkway Tassajara Road Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-33 Central Parkway Tassajara Road Fallon Road Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-34 Gleason Drive Fallon Road Brannigan Road Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-35 Amador Plaza Road Southern Extent Amador Valley
Boulevard
Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-36 Silvergate Drive San Ramon Road Peppertree Road Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-37 Arnold Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
S-38 Dougherty Road Scarlett Drive Northern City Limits Improve wayfinding and signage for parallel path on east side; restripe to upgrade Class IIA facilities to Class IIB facilities S-39 Lockhart Street Central Parkway Gleason Drive
Add a Class IIB bike lane where no bike lane currently exists or improve adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed.

S-40 Stagecoach Road Amador Valley Boulevard Northern City Limits Add a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-41 Sierra Ct Dublin Boulevard Northern extent Add a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-42 Amador Valley Boulevard Village Parkway Stagecoach Road Upgrade from Class IIA to Class IIB Bicycle Lane S-43 Bent Tree Drive Fallon Road East Sugar Hill
Terrace Restripe to a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-44 Hacienda Drive Gleason Road Dublin Boulevard As a follow up to S-3, evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility
S-45 Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 85
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 85
Draft252
Project ID Project Location From To Project Description S-46 Dublin Boulevard Dougherty Road Scarlett Drive
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
S-47 Hacienda Drive Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. This project is anticipated to be implemented after the lower cost solution in S-7.

S-48 San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, and conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment S-49 Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Tassajara Road
Make improvements to adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed.

S-50 Clark Ave/Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard Upgrade from Class IIB to Class IV Bicycle Lane S-51 Dublin Boulevard San Ramon Road Dougherty Road
Upgrade to separated Class I facilities providing sufficient space to reduce conflicts between people walking and biking; evaluate opportunities to improve walkability by reducing obstructions; enhance median and lighting along Dublin Boulevard under I-680; improve sidewalk connection across commercial driveway and at bus stop (east of Regional Street); add pedestrian-scale lighting under I-680 Overpass.

Install barrier in median underneath overcrossing to prohibit pedestrian crossings.

S-52 Martinelli Way and
Iron Horse Parkway
BART Station on Iron
Horse Parkway Hacienda Drive
Add Class I facilities on both sides of the road on Martinelli Way and support the Class I facilities by adding signage, wayfinding, and crossing improvements at the intersections; connect to the BART Station by providing continuous Class I or Class IIA facilities along Iron Horse Parkway.

S-53 Golden Gate Drive Dublin Boulevard Amador Valley
Boulevard Add bike lanes with the implementation of the Golden Gate extension project Trail Projects
T-1 Iron Horse Regional Trail Implement Phase I and II of the Iron Horse Nature Park Master Plan to create park space and trail access and connectivity improvements T-2 Downtown Dublin Regional Street Amador Plaza Road Add trail connection from Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road T-3 East of Tassajara
approximately 500 ft Dublin Boulevard Central Parkway With development, add Class I connection between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway, just east of Tassajara Road 86 City of Dublin
86 City of Dublin
Draft 253
Project ID Project Location From To Project Description T-4 Dublin Creek Trail Amador Plaza Road San Ramon Road Add trail connection along Dublin Creek along the Zone 7 channel, to connect at San Ramon Road
T-5 San Ramon Bike Path Shannon Community
Center Create connection to Shannon Community Center from the San Ramon Bike Path T-6 Alamo Canal Trail Dublin High School
and Village Parkway
Alamo Canal Trail
between Cedar Lane
and Ebensburg Lane
Add Class I facility along east side of Village to connect to the Alamo Canal Trail T-7 Dublin Boulevard Amador Plaza Road Village Parkway
As recommended in the 2014 plan, widen existing sidewalk and add signing and striping treatments to create a shared use path on the south side of Dublin Boulevard.

T-8 Alamo Canal Trail/
Civic Plaza
Village Parkway/
Clark Avenue Alamo Canal Trail
Add a bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the canal to create Class I connection between Village Parkway/Clark Avenue at Alamo Canal Trail at the Dublin Public Safety Complex Site
T-9 Dublin Boulevard
Extension Fallon Road Collier Canyon
Park (Livermore)
Create Class I connection along the future Dublin Boulevard Extension corridor from Fallon Road to Collier Canyon Parkway (Livermore) T-10 Brannigan Street Central Parkway Gleason Boulevard Through development, add Class I facility on the west side of Brannigan St. from Central Parkway to Gleason Boulevard T-11 Central Parkway Emerald Glen Park/
Tassajara Road Brannigan Street Add Class I connection and street crossing enhancements on the north side of Central Parkway from Emerald Glen Park/Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street T-12 Dublin High School Iron Horse Trail Village Parkway Add Class I connection along the south side of the school grounds and Dublin Swin Center from Iron Horse Trail to Village Parkway T-13 Tassajara Creek Dublin Boulevard Pleasanton
Study options for gap closure to provide a bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing and shared use path from Tassajara Creek at Dublin Boulevard south over I-580 into Pleasanton
T-14 Nielson Elementary
School Amarillo Road Mape Memorial
Park Path
Add Class I connection along the southern edge of Nielson Elementary to connect Amarillo Road with the existing path along Mape Memorial Park to san Ramon Road
T-15 Altamirano Street Dublin BART station Martinelli Way Add Class I connection along Altamirano Street between the Dublin BART station and Martinelli Way
T-16 Croak Road Dublin Boulevard Positano Parkway Add Class I connections along Croak Road from Dublin Boulevard to Positano Parkway
T-17 Positano Parkway Croak Road La Strada Drive Add or improve trails along Positano Parkway to connect to the trail on Croak Road
T-18 Tassajara Creek Trail Tassajara Road Trailhead Wallis Ranch development trails
Add Class I connection between the existing Tassajara Creek trailhead on Tassajara Road and trails in the Wallis Ranch development Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 87
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 87
Draft254

POINT PROJECTSPOINT PROJECTS
Crossing projects were identified at locations that represented major barriers to walking and biking, including freeway crossings, high-stress trail crossings, high-stress intersections, and locations that experienced a high frequency or severity of collisions.

The recommended crossing projects are
presented in table 11 and includes:
• Interchange projects to modernize and improve multimodal access and traffic safety, lessening the barriers to walking and biking that are posed by the I-580 and I-680 freeways.
• Crossing projects to improve connections to and along existing Class I paths and trails or to provide mid-
block connections across existing roadways.
• Intersection projects to improve safety for people
walking and biking by modifying intersection
signal timing, geometry, signing, or striping.

Table 11 outlines the recommended crossing projects by location.

Table 11. Recommended Crossing Projects by Location
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
Freeway Crossing Projects
FC-1
San Ramon Road
at southbound
I-580 westbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-2
San Ramon Road
at northbound
I-580 westbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
FC-3
San Ramon Road
at I-580 westbound
ramp terminal
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-4
St. Patrick Way at
I-580 ramp terminal
and entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-5
Dougherty Road at
I-580 westbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-6
Dougherty Road at
I-580 westbound
ramp terminal
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-7
Dougherty Road
at I-580 eastbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-8
Hacienda Drive at
I-580 westbound
ramp terminal
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-9
Hacienda Drive at
I-580 eastbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-10
Hacienda Drive at
I-580 westbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-11
Tassajara Road at
I-580 westbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-12
Tassajara Road at
I-580 westbound
ramp terminal
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-13
Tassajara Road at
I-580 eastbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-14
Fallon Road at I-580
westbound ramp
terminal and entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
88 City of Dublin
88 City of Dublin
Draft 255
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
FC-15
Fallon Road at
I-580 eastbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-16 Village Parkway at I-680
NB ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
Pedestrian Crossing Projects
C-1
Regional Street
between Dublin
Boulevard and Amador
Valley Boulevard
Provide mid-block crossing (RRFB
or other actuated treatment)
C-2 Dublin Boulevard and
Iron Horse Trail
Provide pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing
to connect to Don Biddle Community Park
C-3 Sierra Court cul-de-sac Add connection from Sierra Court to the Alamo Canal/Iron Horse Trail network
C-4 Tassajara Creek Trail
and Dublin Boulevard
Study the feasibility of improving the crossing
of Tassajara Creek Trail at Dublin Boulevard
by providing better connections to the existing
crossing at John Monego Court. Provide
wayfinding and signs to direct people biking and
walking between the trail and the intersection.

C-5 Tassajara Creek Trail
and Tassajara Road
Improve connections to nearby crossings or
add crossing at Tassajara Road and Tassajara
Creek Trail (south of Rutherford Drive) to
provide access to the trailhead; improve
general access to and connectivity from the
trail to Tassajara Road and local destinations
Intersection Projects
I-1 Central Parkway/
Aspen Street
Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other
actuated treatment) to provide more visibility
of people walking/biking, especially to school
I-2 Grafton Street/
Antone Way
Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other
actuated treatment) to provide more visibility
of people walking/biking, especially to school
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
I-3 Amador Valley
Boulevard/Burton Street
Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other
actuated treatment) to provide more visibility
of people walking/biking, especially to school
I-4 Village Parkway/Amador
Valley Boulevard
Improve safety for people walking and biking
by implementing strategies like protected
intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip
striping through the intersection, bike boxes,
leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating
bicyclists and pedestrians from turning
movements. Remove slip lanes; reduce curb radii
on all corners; install curb extensions on the SE
and SW corners; install directional curb ramps.

I-5 Village Parkway/
Tamarack Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.

I-6 Village Parkway/
Brighton Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.

I-7 Dublin Boulevard/
Hibernia Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.

I-8 Dublin Boulevard/
Arnold Road
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 89
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 89
Draft256
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
I-9 Dublin Boulevard/
Hacienda Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.

I-10 Dublin Boulevard/
Village Parkway
Improve safety for people walking and biking
by implementing strategies like protected
intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip
striping through the intersection, bike boxes,
leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating
bicyclists and pedestrians from turning
movements. Reduce width of SB right-turn lane
and reduce turning radii; remove NB right-turn
slip lane and reduce curb radii; reduce curb radii
on NE and SE corners; straighten crosswalks.

I-11 Grafton Street/Madden
Way/Kohnen Way
Provide higher visibility crossing treatments,
especially to support access to the school
I-12 Antone Way/
Bridgepointe Lane
Provide higher visibility crossing treatments,
especially to support access to the school
I-13 S Dublin Ranch Drive/
Woodshire Lane
Provide higher visibility crossing treatments,
especially to support access to the school
I-14 Tassajara Road and
Palisades Drive
Add Class I signage, striping, and signal
changes to create visibility of people walking
and biking across the existing Tassajara Road
and Palisades Drive signalized crossing
I-15 Martin Canyon Creek
Trail at Silvergate Drive
Provide Class I facilities on the west side of
Silvergate Drive and make intersection changes
at Hansen Drive and Bay Laurel Street to
provide comfortable connectivity to the existing
stop controlled intersection at Hansen Drive
I-16 Gleason Drive/
Grafton Street
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.

Project
ID Project Location Project Description
I-17 Gleason Drive/
Brannigan street
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.

I-18 Central Parkway/
Brannigan street
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.

I-19 Dublin Boulevard/
Brannigan street
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.

I-20 Central Parkway/
Hibernia Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.

I-21 Central Parkway/
Hacienda Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
90 City of Dublin
90 City of Dublin
Draft 257
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
I-22 Dublin Boulevard/
Regional Street
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.

I-23 Tassajara Road/
Gleason Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.

I-24 Fallon Road /
Central Parkway
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.

I-25 Dublin Boulevard/
Golden Gate Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.

I-26 Fallon Road /
Dublin Boulevard
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.

Project
ID Project Location Project Description
I-27 Dublin Boulevard/
San Ramon Road
"Reduce curb radii on all corners; install
directional curb ramps at all corners
Subject to further analysis, remove NB overlap
phase; install pedestrian countdown signals and
audible warning signs
Stripe crosswalk on south leg
subject to further analysis"
I-28
San Ramon Road/
Amador Valley
Boulevard
Consider adding leading pedestrian intervals
for all approaches; Consider removing slip
lanes on NW and NE corners and add curb
extensions on SW, NW, and NE corners
pending additional engineering analysis;
Consider striping crosswalk on south leg
pending additional engineering analysis
I-29 Regional Street/Amador
Valley Boulevard
Consider modifying signal to include
leading pedestrian interval on EB and
WB approaches; Consider protected left-
turn phasing for NB and SB traffic.

I-30
Amador Valley
Boulevard/
Amador Plaza
Mark crosswalk on east leg of intersection;
Widen median and add median tips as feasible to
provide 6' pedestrian refuge; Reduce curb radii
I-31 Dublin Boulevard/
Amador Plaza Road
Improve safety for people walking and biking
by implementing strategies like protected
intersection treatments, signing, bike lane
skip striping through the intersection, bike
boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by
separating bicyclists and pedestrians from
turning movements. Reduce curb radii on all
corners and install directional curb ramps.

I-32 St. Patrick Way/
Golden Gate Drive
Install wayfinding signage to West Dublin
BART; install bulb-outs at all corners;
construct directional curb ramps
I-33
Amador Valley
Boulevard/
Donohue Drive
Reduce curb radii on all corners; widen
medians and add median tips; install
directional curb ramps on all corners
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 91
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 91
Draft258

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONSOTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to this Plan’s specific recommendations for projects, there are a number of steps that the City can undertake to improve walking and biking in Dublin. The City should implement the program and policy recommendations and the best practices described in the engineering and design guide. Additionally, the City can continue to implement projects from other previous or parallel planning efforts, including those shown in figure 37 and listed below:
• Dublin Downtown Streetscape Plan
• BART Station Access Projects
• Iron Horse Regional Trail Projects
• Dublin Safe Routes to School Projects
• Local Road Safety Plan Projects

INCREASED ACCESS TO DESTINATIONS
With implementation of the network recommendations, low- stress biking and comfortable walking and rolling access to key destinations would increase. Existing biking access to BART was compared to biking access with the implementation of the project recommendations. Bicycle access to BART with the existing network and implementation of network recommendations
is summarized in table 12 and shown in figure 39.

As demonstrated by this analysis, network recommendations would increase potential bicycle access to BART by almost 600 percent, providing 71 percent of Dublin residents with a travel route along streets that match their stress tolerance.

Table 12. BART Access by Bicyclist Type
Bicyclist Type
Share of Bicyclist Type with
Suitable Access to BART
Existing
Network
Recommended
Network
No Way, No How 0% 0%
Interested but Concerned 0% 8%
Enthused and Confident 36% 51%
Strong and Fearless 52% 52%
Total Across all Biker Types 6% 12%
Share of population with bicycle
routes available that are suitable
to their Traffic Stress tolerance
12% 71%
92 City of Dublin
92 City of Dublin
Draft 259
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAM
ON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DRAMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Martin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\PastPlan Locations.mxd Date: 5/17/2022 Projects from Other Plans
Dublin, California
[
0 3,000 FeetSchools
BART Stations
Class IA Multi-use Path
Class IA Multi-use Path -
Under Construction
Class IB Sidepath
Class IB Sidepath -
Under Construction
Iron Horse Regional Trail Project Locations
BART Station Access Project Locations
Downtown Dublin Plan Project Locations
District 4 Freeway Ramp Crossing Project Locations
Safe Routes To School Project Locations
Figure 37. Recommended Projects from Other Plans Map
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAM
ON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DRAMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Martin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\PastPlan Locations.mxd Date: 5/17/2022 Projects from Other Plans
Dublin, California
[
0 3,000 FeetSchools
BART Stations
Class IA Multi-use Path
Class IA Multi-use Path -
Under Construction
Class IB Sidepath
Class IB Sidepath -
Under Construction
Iron Horse Regional Trail Project Locations
BART Station Access Project Locations
Downtown Dublin Plan Project Locations
District 4 Freeway Ramp Crossing Project Locations
Safe Routes To School Project Locations
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 93
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 93
Draft260
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
k kkk
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAM
ON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DRAMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROM
W
ELLAV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGERD

CREEKSIDEDR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON
DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR

HILLROSEDR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOKDR

EAGLERD

BRODER BL

INSPIRATIONDR

CREEKVIEWDR

HILLTOPRD

DUBLIN BL
STERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Dublin
Sports
Grounds
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty
Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_bart bike ex polygons_interested_5-2022.mxd Date: 6/13/2022 Level of Traffic Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IA Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IB Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
BART Biking Access - "Interested but Concerned"
Existing Network
Dublin, California
[
k Bart access points
Access Distance
0 - 1/4 miles
1/4 - 1/2 miles
1/2 - 1 mile
1 - 1-1/2 miles
1-1/2 - 2 miles
2+ miles
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
k kkk
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAM
ON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DRAMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROM
W
ELLAV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGERD

CREEKSIDEDR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON
DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR

HILLROSEDR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOKDR

EAGLERD

BRODER BL

INSPIRATIONDR

CREEKVIEWDR

HILLTOPRD

DUBLIN BL
STERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Dublin
Sports
Grounds
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty
Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Pleasanton
Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_bart bike ex polygons_interested_5-2022.mxd Date: 6/13/2022 Level of Traffic Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IA Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IB Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
BART Biking Access - "Interested but Concerned"
Existing Network
Dublin, California
[
k Bart access points
Access Distance
0 - 1/4 miles
1/4 - 1/2 miles
1/2 - 1 mile
1 - 1-1/2 miles
1-1/2 - 2 miles
2+ miles
Figure 38. Existing Bike Access to BART Network
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
94 City of Dublin
94 City of Dublin
Draft 261
k kkk
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAM
ON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DRAMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROM
W
ELLAV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGERD

CREEKSIDEDR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON
DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR

HILLROSEDR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOKDR

EAGLERD

BRODER BL

INSPIRATIONDR

CREEKVIEWDR

HILLTOPRD

DUBLIN BL
STERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Dublin
Sports
Grounds
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty
Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Pleasanton
Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_bart bike Recommended network polygons ibc_5-2022.mxd Date: 6/13/2022 Level of Traffic Stress Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IA Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IB Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
BART Biking Access - "Interested but Concerned"
Recommended Network
Dublin, California
[
Figure X
k Bart access points
Access Distance
0 - 1/4 miles
1/4 - 1/2 miles
1/2 - 1 mile
1 - 1-1/2 miles
1-1/2 - 2 miles
2+ miles
k kkk
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAM
ON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DRAMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROM
W
ELLAV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGERD

CREEKSIDEDR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON
DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR

HILLROSEDR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOKDR

EAGLERD

BRODER BL

INSPIRATIONDR

CREEKVIEWDR

HILLTOPRD

DUBLIN BL
STERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Dublin
Sports
Grounds
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty
Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Pleasanton
Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_bart bike Recommended network polygons ibc_5-2022.mxd Date: 6/13/2022 Level of Traffic Stress Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IA Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IB Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
BART Biking Access - "Interested but Concerned"
Recommended Network
Dublin, California
[
Figure X
k Bart access points
Access Distance
0 - 1/4 miles
1/4 - 1/2 miles
1/2 - 1 mile
1 - 1-1/2 miles
1-1/2 - 2 miles
2+ miles
Figure 39. Recommended Bike Access to BART Network
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Dublin residents with a bicycle route along streets
that match their level of traffic stress tolerance
would increase from 12 percent to 71 percent.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 95
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 95
Draft262
�
5 263
This chapter presents the Plan’s recommended
programs, policies, and practices. It provides
recommendations for new programs,
continuation of existing programs, or expansion
of existing programs to encourage active
transportation in the city. It also discusses
recommended policies that the City should
implement as well as best practices that the
City can undertake in developing programs
to encourage active transportation in the city.

The recommendations are organized into
the following categories, which consist of
focused topic areas and recommendations:

This chapter also references the Engineering
and Design Guide, which was developed as part
of this project, as a resource for recommended
practices. The guide is included in appendix E.

5. RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS, 5. RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS,

POLICIES, AND PRACTICESPOLICIES, AND PRACTICES
Coordination and
Collaboration
Emerging
Technologies
Promotion and
EncouragementFunding and
Implementation
Supporting
Infrastructure and
Amenities
Operations and
Maintenance
Data Collection Design
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 97
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 97
Draft
264
A walk- and bike-friendly Dublin requires investing
in infrastructure as well as ongoing programs that
encourage and support more people to choose sustainable transportation options. To advance the vision and mission of this Plan, the City of Dublin must envision new policy and program initiatives and expand existing ones.

The following program and policy recommendations
are based on feedback from stakeholder interviews
as well as guidance from the technical advisory
committee, the bicycle and pedestrian advisory
committee, a public survey, and online and in-
person public engagement. Recommendations are
organized into eight topic areas, each of which are
supported by specific strategies and actions.
• A strategy is a high-level approach to reach an
outcome that works toward larger goals.
• An action is a specific step that advances the strategy.

These strategies and their actions will guide the
work of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian programs
and activities and complement the infrastructure
recommendations presented in the previous section.

Many factors contribute to the success of a specific
action, or strategy—including partner agency
support, funding opportunities, and alignment with
technological advancement and industry change.

Dublin, CA Source: City of Dublin
98 City of Dublin
98 City of Dublin
Draft 265

STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Establish protocols and procedures
for coordination of bicycle and
pedestrian projects with external
agency stakeholders. Utilize existing
regional channels, such as the Tri-
Valley Transportation Council, to
coordinate bicycle and pedestrian
improvement projects that abut or
intersect jurisdictional boundaries.

Coordinate with the East Bay Regional
Park District (EBRPD) to provide
park access opportunities with local
trails and bike paths and promote green
transportation access and compliant
accessibility from public transit stops
to the regional parks and trails. This is
consistent with Public Access 5 and Public
Access 7 in the EBRPD Master Plan.

Designate a City staff member and
work with DUSD to designate a district
staff person who is responsible for
coordinating issues related to school
connectivity and Safe Routes to School.

Develop language for implementing
easements and private property paths
and coordinate with developers to advance
completion of bicycle and pedestrian
connections through and along private
property. While the Plan includes specific
recommendations for Class I multi-use
paths, there is a larger need to highlight
the opportunities that new development
provides to create active transportation
and greenway connections. Future
developments should identify how trails can
be implemented to complete connections
with existing neighborhoods and across
barriers. The City should consider how
easements can be developed for the use
of paths on private property as part of
the development review process. Future
development sites, especially along Dublin
Boulevard, should be evaluated to include
or contribute to paths that provide better
linkages along and across the street.

Partner with advocacy groups and
community-based organizations to
increase awareness of and build support
for pedestrian and bicycle projects.

Advocacy groups and community-based
organizations are trusted partners that can
highlight and elevate community voices.

These alliances promote stronger, more
meaningful collaborations that can be
crucial to advancing active transportation
projects and improving project outcomes.

Work with Dublin Police Services to
develop priorities and strategies to
promote traffic safety (e.g., focused
enforcement), particularly on high-
injury streets and near schools.

COORDINATION AND

COLLABORATION
Establish effective coordination
processes and partnerships
to advance bicycle and
pedestrian projects.

The City cannot reach its goals without the
support of other key agencies: those who own,
operate, and manage streets and trails, those
who provide transit service within the city,
and the agencies who fund plans, projects, and
programs that advance transportation goals and
objectives. The Alameda County Transportation
Commission, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, Caltrans, East Bay Regional Parks
District (EBRPD), Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART), Livermore Amador Valley Transit
Authority (LAVTA), Alameda County Flood
Control District (ACFCD), United States
Army Parks Reserve Forces Training Area
(Camp Parks), Dublin Unified School District
(DUSD), and adjacent jurisdictions all play
critical roles in how streets and trails function.

Because the reach of this Plan covers all city
streets and trails regardless of ownership, the
jurisdictional roles and responsibilities of agency
partners at both the project and system-wide
planning level are important and invaluable.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 99
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 99
Draft266

STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Develop and maintain a spatial
database and inventory of pedestrian
and bicycle facilities and amenities,
including pedestrian-oriented lighting, curb
ramps, crosswalks, traffic control devices,
bicycle parking, maintenance stations, and
multimodal count and vehicle speed data.

Develop a data collection plan and
standard operating procedures for
collection of (1) speed survey data, especially
along high-injury segments and other priority
locations, such as streets near schools, and
(2) bicycle and pedestrian counts, especially
at activity centers and other priority
locations, such as streets near schools.

Complement the City’s bi-annual
bicycle and pedestrian workshops
with a written summary documenting
progress implementing pedestrian and
bicycle projects in the City. Post the
newsletter online, through social media
channels, and provide a subscription option
to facilitate distribution of information
to interested community members.

Ensure that transportation impact
analysis (TIA) conducted for new
development adheres to the City’s TIA
Guidelines (2021), addresses safety
and comfort of people walking and
biking, and includes the collection
of bicycle and pedestrian counts. The
safety analysis should be data-driven and
generally follow best practices outlined in
the FHWA’s Incorporating Data-Driven
Safety Analysis in Traffic Impact Analysis:

A How-To Guide. https:/ /safety.fhwa.dot.
gov/rsdp/downloads/fhwasa19026.pdf.

DATA

COLLECTION
Routinely collect trip and
facility information to track
trends, evaluate projects,
and prioritize investments.

Data is crucial to make an evidence-
based case for active transportation.

Surveys, counts, and infrastructure
data provide essential information
about the built environment and user
habits and experiences. This data can
then help explain how projects affect
neighborhoods and work toward
achieving City and agency goals. By
collecting location-specific data related
to transportation behaviors, project
design elements can be analyzed for
their effectiveness and take advantage
of opportunities to refine a project’s
design. Data can also help communicate a
project’s effects to the public and decision
makers as well as track trends over time.
100 City of Dublin
100 City of Dublin
Draft 267

STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Adhere to recommendations in the
Design Guide as part of the Plan.

Additionally, the City should incorporate best
practice design guidance coinciding with Plan
updates (at a minimum) and make updates as
needed to reflect changes in transportation
options, local, State, and national best
practices, and new information as a result
of research and evaluation of available
data. Require new infrastructure projects
to adhere to the Design Guide established
by this Plan by implementing a design
review process that ensures compliance,
including for construction work zones. This
recommendation is consistent with Climate
Action Plan 2030 Measure SM-7: Develop
a Built Environment that Prioritizes Active
Mobility and supporting actions that improve
the pedestrian experience and create a built
environment that prioritizes active mobility.

Develop design standards for the
incorporation and use of pedestrian-scale
lighting on new and reconstructed public
streets, private streets, and within private
development projects. Lighting can enhance
the built environment and increase safety
and security of people walking and biking.

Pedestrian-oriented facility and intersection
lighting helps motorists to see people walking
and biking and avoid collisions. Pedestrian
walkways, crosswalks, transit stops, both sides
of wide streets, and streets in commercial
areas should be well lit with uniform
lighting levels to eliminate dark spots.

Establish a list of approved traffic
calming strategies and devices to be
routinely considered with restriping and
other roadway improvement projects.

Continue to include bicycle and
pedestrian considerations during review
of new development. Follow best practices
for site access and driveway design. example:
consolidate or eliminate existing curb cuts
and minimize new curb cuts; improve
driveway sightlines; and, require parking
ramps to include mirrors and messaging
to prioritize people walking and biking.

Rather than alerting people walking
and biking that a car is approaching,
messaging should alert drivers that a
pedestrian or bicyclist is approaching.

Coordinate pedestrian and bicycle design
with the City’s Climate Action Plan and
Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan .

DESIGN
Go beyond minimum
design standards to
incorporate safe walking
and biking facilities into
transportation projects.

Upcoming capital projects should be Upcoming capital projects should be influenced by the Design Guide, which influenced by the Design Guide, which references the priority networks defined in references the priority networks defined in this Plan, namely the pedestrian priority this Plan, namely the pedestrian priority network and the all ages and abilities network and the all ages and abilities network (for biking and micromobility). network (for biking and micromobility).

Design decisions are often most difficult Design decisions are often most difficult where these two priority networks overlap where these two priority networks overlap with major arterials, particularly when the with major arterials, particularly when the public right of way is constrained. While public right of way is constrained. While challenging, these corridors, provide the challenging, these corridors, provide the greatest opportunity to make bold changes greatest opportunity to make bold changes that will advance mode shift goals, that will advance mode shift goals, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and decrease vehicles miles travelled (VMT). decrease vehicles miles travelled (VMT).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 101
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 101
Draft268

STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Develop flexible policies to support
development of emerging technologies
and alternative modes of transportation,
including shared autonomous vehicles,
connected vehicles, and micromobility-share
services. Policy topics to consider include
general provisions, operations, equipment
and safety, parking and street design,
equity, communications and community
engagement, data, and metrics. Consistent
with Strategy 3—Sustainable Mobility and
Land Use in the Climate Action Plan 2030,
the City will work with micromobility
and last-mile transportation providers to
allow the use of scooters and bike share
programs in specific Dublin locations.

Monitor and evaluate the impact of
emerging transportation technologies,
such as bikeshare, scooter share, and electric
bikes, on walking and biking in Dublin.

Formulate partnerships to advance
implementation of innovative,
ambitious, and scalable pilots, such as
micromobility services and mobility hubs.

Leverage, manage, monitor, and design
for new and emerging technologies
that increase visibility and comfort of
pedestrians and bicyclists. For example,
assess digital wayfinding tools that provide
real time information, explore emerging
technology such as adaptive lighting, and
test new technologies related to pedestrian
and bicycle detection and data collection.

Build a culture of continuous
improvement in knowledge, education,
and communications around technologies
that advance transportation options. Support
and create opportunities for staff training
and capacity building through payment of
professional memberships and participation
in conferences, webinars, and trainings.

Develop policy for use of e-bikes and
personal mobility devices on multi-
use paths and trails, and conduct public
safety, education, and outreach campaigns
to raise awareness of path etiquette.

EMERGING

TECHNOLOGIES

AND INNOVATIONS
Leverage emerging
transportation technologies
to support travel by
sustainable modes.

Today’s rapidly advancing technology
simultaneously provides opportunities
for transformational change and
introduces new challenges. Adapting
to such change requires anticipating
and keeping pace with technology and
being responsive to community needs.

The greatest challenge is to safely,
efficiently, and equitably transition
to a transportation future in which
everyone benefits from transformational
transportation technologies, including
ride-hailing, car-sharing, micromobility
options, mobile fare payment apps,
multimodal trip planning apps,
real-time travel information apps,
e-commerce apps, and grocery or meal
delivery services, just to name a few.
102 City of Dublin
102 City of Dublin
Draft 269

STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Incorporate proposed bicycle and
pedestrian projects identified in this
Plan into the development review processes.

Develop clear direction for City staff and the
development community for implementing
bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Continue to apply for local, state,
and federal grants to support
active transportation network
improvements and programming.

Leverage potential grant and
alternative funding strategies. Utilize
dedicated funding for bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure projects.

Add priority bicycle and pedestrian
projects identified in this Plan to the
Capital Improvement Program.

Develop strategies for rapid network
implementation and interim, or quick-
build, design treatments. Utilize a
quick-build approach, focusing on signing,
striping, and markings and lower cost
infrastructure modifications to implement
near-term treatments that improve safety
outcomes for people walking and biking.

Broaden public involvement efforts
and seek to engage the community
and solicit feedback on an ongoing
basis. The City strongly encourages public
comment, input, and involvement in a
wide range of transportation issues. To
increase opportunities for community
engagement, the City should continue
to - provide multiple opportunities and
various forums for feedback throughout
the project process, provide regular/routine
communication with the community on
upcoming, in progress, and completed
projects and proactively involve the
public in the decision-making process.

FUNDING AND

IMPLEMENTATION
Increase investment
in walking and biking
infrastructure and
supporting programs.

Identify and allocate
resources to implement
Plan recommendations.

Walkable and bikeable communities
have considerable economic
benefits. In addition to capital
gains, investment in placemaking
and active transportation yield
intangible, societal benefits. However,
investments in active transportation
infrastructure and supporting
programs consistently fall short of
other transportation investments,
and there is a demonstrated need to
increase the funding and resources
allocated to walking and biking.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 103
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 103
Draft270

STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Utilize flexibility created through the
passage of Assembly Bill 43 to set safe
speed limits in key areas within the
city. The City should implement changes
authorized in AB 43 and utilize guidance
outlined in City Limits from the National
Association of City Transportation Officials
(NACTO) to reduce default speed limits
(1) on streets designated as safety corridors
or high injury corridors (streets that have
the highest number of serious injuries and
fatalities); (2) in designated slow zones; and
(3) on other designated corridors using
a safe speed study. Under the provision
that went into effect in January 2022, the
City should move to lower speed limits
by 5 miles per hour (from 25 mph to 20
mph or from 30 mph to 25 mph) in key
business activity districts, streets where
at least half of the property uses are
dining or retail. Under the provision that
goes into effect in June 2024, the City
should reduce speeds by 5 mph on streets
designated as safety corridors according
to a definition that will be established by
Caltrans’s roadway standards manual.

Develop policy and guidance for
modifications to traffic signal operations,
including implementing leading pedestrian
intervals, providing automatic recall,
installing accessible pedestrian signals,
implementing no right turn on red, and
implementing protected-only left-turn phases.

Establish, update, and implement
maintenance policies and standards
for bicycle and pedestrian facilities on
City right of way. Review the existing
Class I Facility Maintenance Plan (2015),
and develop a standard maintenance plan
for bicycle facilities of all types in the city
that accounts for factors such as signing
and striping maintenance and sweeping
protocols. Continue to collaborate with
East Bay Regional Parks District to
coordinate maintenance efforts for off-
street facilities in the city. When deciding
which facilities to maintain first, prioritize
facilities with the highest ridership and those
that provide access to schools, business
districts, major employers, major transit
centers, and other important destinations.

OPERATIONS

AND MAINTENANCE
Prioritize operations and
maintenance of walking
and biking infrastructure to
make walking and biking
safe and attractive options.

When people decide to walk and bike,
the condition of sidewalks, crosswalks,
signals, bike lanes, bikeways, and
trails are key factors. Inadequately
maintained sidewalks and bicycle
facilities create hazardous conditions
and disrupt network connectivity.

Facility quality also influences travel
choice and behavior. Implementation of
pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly signal
timing operations and maintaining good
sidewalk, street, and trail conditions
are critical components of an accessible
bicycle and pedestrian network.
104 City of Dublin
104 City of Dublin
Draft 271

STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Continue to create a digital and
printed citywide pedestrian and
bike network and amenities map.

Coordinate with local organizations to
create programs and events that support
active transportation and enhance the
built environment. Sample topics include
open streets, slow streets, temporary
street closures, and pavement to parks,
parklets, and plazas. This recommendation
is consistent with the Downtown Dublin
Streetscape Plan Guideline 3.2.6 Parklets
and Guideline 3.2.7 Street Closures.

Continue to partner with Alameda
CTC and DUSD to deliver Safe Routes
to School assessments and programs.

Encourage all Dublin schools to participate.

Consider steps to becoming a Bicycle
Friendly Community through the
League of American Bicyclists. The
program provides a roadmap to improving
conditions for bicycling and guidance
to help make a community’s vision for a
better, bikeable community a reality. A
Bicycle Friendly Community welcomes
bicyclists by providing safe accommodations
for bicycling and encouraging people to
bike for transportation and recreation.

Encourage businesses to be recognized
as Bicycle Friendly Businesses through the
League of American Bicyclists. The program
recognizes employers for their efforts to
encourage a more welcoming atmosphere
for bicycling employees, customers, and the
community. Interested business can apply
here: https:/ /www.bikeleague.org/business.

Develop and implement a citywide
transportation demand management
(TDM) program to support additional
transportation options, incentives to choose
sustainable modes, and supplemental
infrastructure improvements identified
in this Plan. The TDM program should
include guidance for staff on requirements
for new development, including bicycle
parking and policy strategies (such
as density bonus for vehicle parking
reductions) and vehicle parking strategies
(such as shared and priced parking).

This recommendation is consistent with
(1) Measure 3: Develop a Transportation
Demand Management Plan in Strategy 3:

Sustainable Mobility and Land Use Measure
and (2) Measure ML-2: Reduce Municipal
Employee Commute GHG Emissions; and
(3) the Climate Action Plan 2030. The TDM
Plan will identify strategies to help facilitate
the move from single-occupancy vehicles
to less carbon intensive transportation
modes, like walking and biking.

PROMOTION AND

ENCOURAGEMENT
Encourage and promote
increased use of sustainable
travel modes, especially
walking and biking.

Active travel, including walking and
biking, benefits physical and mental
health as well as the environment. To
promote active travel, the City must
provide convenient, safe, and connected
walking and biking infrastructure. But
implementing programs and campaigns
that provide targeted information or
incentives can also motivate people to
walk or bike. The recommendations focus
on non-infrastructure or programmatic
elements that emphasize active travel
as a convenient and healthy option.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 105
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 105
Draft272

STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Require short-term and long-term parking
that accommodates various types of
bicycles, skateboards, and scooters. Install
new short- and long-term parking to meet
the recommendations and requirements
outlined in the Design Guide (appendix #).

Consider adding or improving
bicycle parking and other bicycle
amenities, such as maintenance stations,
in City parks, at trailheads, at community
centers, and in high travel areas.

Develop a bicycle and pedestrian
wayfinding plan and install wayfinding
throughout the city. The plan should refer
to and coordinate with recommendations
identified in the Public Art Program and
Downtown Dublin Streetscape Master
Plan. This recommendation is consistent
with the Downtown Dublin Streetscape
Plan Guideline 4.2.2 Wayfinding.

SUPPORTING

INFRASTRUCTURE

AND AMENITIES
Provide supportive
infrastructure and amenities
to make walking and biking
convenient and comfortable.

On any given street, careful and thoughtful
design of the built environment affects
accessibility, legibility, a sense of place,
and security. The features that give a
street character are often found in the
frontage or amenity zones; key elements
include supporting infrastructure like
lighting, wayfinding, bicycle parking,
benches, green stormwater infrastructure,
transit stops, and mobility hubs.
106 City of Dublin
106 City of Dublin
Draft
273
�
6 274
This Plan’s infrastructure and
programmatic recommendations
provide strategies and actions
to help Dublin become a
more walkable and bikeable
city. Implementation of these
recommendations will occur over
time, depending on available
resources and funding sources.

This chapter provides an
overview and outcomes of the
prioritization process, estimated
project costs, and a matrix of
applicable funding sources to
advance implementation.

PRIORITIZATION

PROCESS
The project recommendations
include a total of 55.6 miles
across 53 segment projects; 18
trail projects; 16 freeway crossing
7 Peter A. Lagerwey, et al. Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Along Existing Roads— ActiveTrans Priority Tool Guidebook, NCHRP Report 803, Project No. 07-17 (2015), http:/ /onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_803.pdf. projects; 5 pedestrian crossing
projects; and 33 intersection
projects. Prioritizing these
projects is essential to optimize
use of staff time and resources.

The National Cooperative
Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Report 803:

ActiveTrans Priority Tool
(APT) prioritization process
was used to identify priority
locations for pedestrian and
bicycle projects that improve
conditions for people walking,
biking, and rolling in Dublin. 7
The prioritization process and
outcomes are summarized in this
section and additional discussion
is provided in appendix F.

The APT methodology uses
a standard set of terms and
definitions to describe the
different steps in the process.

The following definitions
apply within the APT:
• Factors are categories used
to express community or
agency values considered in
the prioritization process and
contain groups of variables
with similar characteristics.
• Weights are the numbers
used to indicate the relative
importance of different
factors based on community
or agency values.
• Variables are characteristics
of roadways, households,
neighborhood areas, and
other features that can be
measured, organized under
each factor. The terms
variables and evaluation criteria
may be used interchangeably.
• Scaling is the process
of making two variables
comparable to one another
(e.g., number of collisions
versus population density).

The prioritization factors and
evaluation criteria (or variables)
shown in table 13 align with
the Plan’s goals, and they were
developed in collaboration
with the City, the Technical
Advisory Committee and the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee. Variables were given
equal weight in the analysis.

6. IMPLEMENTATION 6. IMPLEMENTATION

STRATEGYSTRATEGY
108 City of Dublin
Draft 275
Table 13. Prioritization Factors and Variables

FACTOR VARIABLE NOTES PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE
Safety High-injury
corridors
Prioritize locations identified along the bicycle and pedestrian high- injury networks. This variable aligns with the goal enhance safety.

Social Equity
Youth
and senior
population
Prioritizes locations with high scores indicating where investment would promote positive outcomes for vulnerable road users (youth and senior populations). This variable aligns with the goals improve connectivity and enhance accessibility.

Connectivity
Demand
analysis
Prioritize locations with high potential for walking
and biking to unlock latent demand. This variable
aligns with the goal improve connectivity.

Proximity
to schools
Prioritize locations within one mile of schools to provide increased opportunities to bike and walk to school. This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity.

Quality of Service
Bicycle level of
traffic stress
Prioritize locations based on the presence of existing high-stress riding facilities. This variable aligns with the goal increase walking and biking.

Sidewalk gaps Prioritize locations with sidewalk gaps that may create barriers for people walking. This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity.

Major Barriers Freeway
crossings
Prioritize improving safety and quality of service for
ramp terminal intersection and freeway crossings. This
variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity.

Consistency with
Past Planning
Previously
identified projects
Prioritize locations of pedestrian and bicycle projects that were identified in the previous plan. This variable aligns with the goal prioritize investments.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 109
Draft276

IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN
After applying the evaluation
criteria and conducting the
prioritization analysis, three tiers
of recommendations emerged.

The infrastructure projects
were divided into three tiers,
representing the following:
• Tier I: High priority projects
with likely funding or
implementation sources
• Tier II: High priority
projects with no identified
funding source
• Tier III: Lower priority
investments that support
a full low-stress walking,
biking, and rolling
network across the City

TIER I PROJECTS
Nine segment projects, one trail
projects, two crossing project,
and three intersection projects
were identified as Tier I projects.

The Tier I projects include a
complete streets study, striping
and signage for high-stress streets
scheduled for repaving over
the next three years, four new
actuated crossings near schools,
and a bicycle and pedestrian
overcrossing bridge. Tier I
projects, those most likely to be
implemented in the next several
years, are shown in figure 40.

TIER II PROJECTS
Ten segment projects, one
crossing project, and seven
intersection projects were
identified as Tier II projects. Tier
II projects were identified using
the same prioritization criteria
and framework as Tier I projects,
with input from City staff and
through public engagement.

Tier II projects are high priority
projects that may require
additional feasibility analysis
and concept design development
prior to implementation. The list
of Tier II projects is presented in
Table 15 and the comprehensive
prioritized list of projects is
presented in Appendix C.

TIER III PROJECTS
Tier III projects include the
remaining recommendations
that increase the safety and
comfort of people walking,
biking, and rolling in the city.

While Tier III projects are not
listed in the implementation
plan projects in Table 15, they
can be found in the full list of
projects provided in Table 6 in
the Recommended Bicycle and
Pedestrian Networks section.
110 City of Dublin
Draft 277

CITYWIDE

POLICIES AND

PROGRAMS
A total of 41 strategies and
actions were recommended in one
of eight policy and program topic
areas. These recommendations
will guide the City’s bicycle
and pedestrian programs and
activities and complement the
infrastructure recommendations.

COST ESTIMATES
The total cost of all the
projects identified in this Plan
is between $102 and $207
million (see table 14). This
cost includes adding bicycle
facilities, upgrading bicycle
facilities, updating or adding
pedestrian crossings, updating
pedestrian facilities, adding street
trees, redesigning interchange
ramps, and adding signage.

Table 14 shows the estimated
cost for all projects, including
planning-level costs and soft costs
for engineering, design support,
and contingency. Although the
cost estimates vary most based
on bicycle facility type and how
that facility will be implemented,
pedestrian and transit costs are
equally important and included
on a per-mile basis in each cost
as well. Costs for the individual
corridors can be found in the full
project list in appendix G. Cost
estimates’ high ends consider a
need to move the curb, therefore
upgrading all pedestrian facilities
(sidewalks, street trees, ADA
ramps, etc.) while the low costs
can be implemented through
restriping the roadway. If all
segment projects were able to be
implemented through roadway
reorganization, restriping, or
minor additional treatments,
it would cost approximately
$102 million to implement the
Plan. If reconstructing the curb
to implement each segment
project, the Plan is expected
to cost about $207 million.

Planning-level cost estimates
vary depending on project
context, which includes type
of facility, existing conditions,
right of way acquisition, and
desired functional and aesthetic
improvements like landscaping
or hardscaping. Project costs
were adjusted to include variable
costs for engineering, design
support, and contingency.

Cost estimates were calculated
using a combination of inputs
from the City and the Federal
Highway Administration
(FHWA) Pedestrian and Bicycle
Safety Guide. Moving forward,
the City will need to develop
detailed estimates during the
preliminary engineering stage to
calculate more accurate project
costs. These more-detailed
estimates are important due to
the varying costs of obtaining
right of way, construction,
drainage, and grading. Right of
way should also be considered
in preliminary engineering, as
the listed cost estimates do not
include right of way costs. Many
projects can be implemented
without purchasing additional
right of way by reallocating space
within the existing right of way.

Cost estimates for support
programs are not provided, as
the costs to implement these
programs can vary greatly.

Prior to implementing support
programs, the City should outline
the necessary element of each
program and establish a cost.

For example, to understand
what an open streets or slow
streets program would need, the
City could consider questions
such as how often streets would
need to close and how much
those closures would cost.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 111
Draft278
Table 14. Total Project Costs

PROJECT TYPE MILES LOW COST HIGH COST
Shared Lane (Class III) 12.4 miles $1,698,000 $1,698,000 Bike Lane (Class IIA) 4.0 miles $4,177,000 $17,757,000 Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) 17.4 miles $3,239,000 $39,421,000 Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV) 9.2 miles $12,118,000 $45,161,000 Complete Streets Study: Consider Improvements
to Existing Sidepath (Class IB) 4.9 miles $5,460,000 $8,307,000 Shared Use Path/Paved Trail (Class IA) 7.9 miles $40,428,776 $40,550,480 Speed Reduction Evaluation (exclusively) 1.3 miles $139,000 $2,753,000 Freeway Crossing Projects 16 $17,840,000 $17,840,000
Pedestrian Crossing Projects 5 $9,520,000 $9,520,000
Intersection Projects 33 $7,393,000 $24,274,000
Total $102,013,000 $207,281,000
112 City of Dublin
Draft 279
Table 15. Implementation Plan List: Tier I and Tier II Projects

PROJECT

NUMBER TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT

LOCATION FROM TO COST -
LOW
COST-
HIGH
S-1 Tier I Study opportunities and create designs for traffic calming, striping, and signs to create Class III bikeways
Various locations for Class III facilities/
neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack Drive,
Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street,
Brighton Drive, Grafton Street, Antone Way,
South Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street
$25,000
(Study)
$25,000
(Study)
S-2 Tier I
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future Gleason Drive Arnold Road Brannigan
Street $239,000 $239,000
S-3 Tier I
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future Hacienda Drive Southern
City Limits Gleason Drive $106,000 $106,000
S-4 Tier I
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Tassajara
Road $229,000 $229,000
S-5 Tier I
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility Arnold Road Dublin
Boulevard
Altamirano
Ave $53,000 $53,000
S-6 Tier I Convert to a Class IIB bikeway through restriping Grafton Street Kohnen Way Antone Way $42,000 $42,000 S-7 Tier I Convert to a Class IIB bikeway by restriping travel lanes on Tassajara, Dougherty, and Hacienda at the I-580 overcrossings Tassajara Road,
Dougherty
Road, and
Hacienda Drive
Southern
City Limits
Dublin
Boulveard $150,000 $150,000
S-8 Tier I
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future Tassajara Road North Dublin
Ranch Drive
Rutherford
Drive $138,000 $2,784,000
S-9 Tier I
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Village Parkway Amador Valley
Boulevard
Northern
City Limits $945,000 $4,803,000
S-10 Tier II Implement the traffic calming, striping, and signs plans and designs created in project S-1 to create Class III bikeways Various locations for Class III facilities/
neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack Drive,
Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania
Street, Brighton Drive, Antone Way, South
Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street
$691,000 $691,000
S-11 Tier II
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities
and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit
or provide Class IV or Class I facility
Village Parkway Dublin
Boulevard
Amador
Valley
Boulevard
$91,000 $1,826,000
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 113
Draft280

PROJECT

NUMBER TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT

LOCATION FROM TO COST -
LOW
COST-
HIGH
S-12 Tier II Evaluate opportunities to reduce speed limit along this corridor Tassajara Road Palisades Drive North Dublin Ranch Drive
$18,000
(Study)
$18,000
(Study)
S-13 Tier II
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dougherty Road Dublin
Boulevard
Southern
city limits $274,000 $1,393,000
S-14 Tier II
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Amador Valley
Boulevard
Stagecoach
Road
Dougherty
Road $331,000 $1,680,000
S-15 Tier II
Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. This project is anticipated to be implemented after the lower cost solution in S-7.

Tassajara Road Gleason Drive Southern
City Limits $505,000 $2,567,000
S-16 Tier II
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dublin Boulevard Inspiration
Drive
San Ramon
Road $1,212,000 $6,161,000
S-17 Tier II
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dublin Boulevard Inspiration
Drive
Western
extent $1,653,000 $8,401,000
S-18 Tier II
Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete
streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV
facilities are most appropriate for this location, and
implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment.

Fallon Road Gleason Drive Southern
city limits $1,322,000 $6,721,000
S-19 Tier II
Make improvements to adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed.

Fallon Road Gleason Drive Tassajara
Road $238,000 $1,583,000
S-20 Tier II Add buffered bike lanes along the Dublin Boulevard Extension Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road Eastern city limits $80,000 $1,640,000
S-21 Tier II Work with Contra Costa County to design
and implement Class IIB facilities Tassajara Road Palidsades Drive
Northern
City Limits $80,000 $1,640,000
T-1 Tier I
Implement Phase I and II of the Iron Horse Nature
Park Master Plan to create park space and trail
access and connectivity improvements
$11,560,000 $11,560,000
T-2 Tier II Add trail connection from Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road Downtown Dublin Regional Street Amador
Plaza Road $764,767 $764,767
114 City of Dublin
Draft 281

PROJECT

NUMBER TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT

LOCATION FROM TO COST -
LOW
COST-
HIGH
T-3 Tier II With development, add Class I connection between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway, just east of Tassajara Road East of Tassajara
approximately
500 ft
Dublin
Boulevard
Central
Parkway $620,753 $620,753
C-1 Tier I Provide mid-block crossing (RRFB or other actuated treatment) Regional Street
between Dublin
Boulevard and
Amador Valley
Boulevard
$320,000 $320,000
C-2 Tier I Provide pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing to connect to Don Biddle Community Park
Dublin Boulevard
and Iron
Horse Trail
$6,318,000 $6,318,000
C-3 Tier II Add connection from Sierra Court to the
Alamo Canal/Iron Horse Trail network
Sierra Court
cul-de-sac $2,132,000 $2,132,000
C-4 Tier III
Study the feasibility of improving the crossing of Tassajara Creek Trail at Dublin Boulevard by providing better
connections to the existing crossing at John Monego Court.

Provide wayfinding and signs to direct people biking
and walking between the trail and the intersection.

Tassajara Creek
Trail and Dublin
Boulevard
$123,000 $123,000
C-5 Tier III
Improve connections to nearby crossings or add crossing at Tassajara Road and Tassajara Creek Trail (south of
Rutherford Drive) to provide access to the trailhead;
improve general access to and connectivity from the
trail to Tassajara Road and local destinations
Tassajara Creek
Trail and
Tassajara Road
$627,000 $627,000
I-1 Tier I
Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other
actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of
people walking/biking, especially to school
Central Parkway/
Aspen Street $320,000 $320,000
I-2 Tier I
Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other
actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of
people walking/biking, especially to school
Grafton Street/
Antone Way $320,000 $320,000
I-3 Tier I
Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other
actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of
people walking/biking, especially to school
Amador Valley
Boulevard/
Burton Street
$320,000 $320,000
I-4 Tier II
Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Remove slip lanes;
reduce curb radii on all corners; install curb extensions on the SE and SW corners; install directional curb ramps.

Village Parkway/
Amador Valley
Boulevard
$123,000 $972,000
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 115
Draft282
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAM
ON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DRAMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROM
W
ELLAV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGERD

CREEKSIDEDR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMM
ON
DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR

HILLROSEDR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK
DR

EAGLERD

BRODER BL

INSPIRATIONDR

CREEKVIEWDR

HILLTOPRD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!!!
! ! !
!!
! ! !! ! !
!!!
!!!
! ! !
! ! !!
!
!
! ! !
!!!
!!!
! ! !
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
! ! !
!!!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\TierI Projects_05202022.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Tier I Projects
Dublin, California
[
0 3,300Feet
Proposed Point Project
! Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
! ! ! Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
! ! ! Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Figure 40. Priority Projects Map
§¨¦
680
§¨¦
580

BRIGHTON DRVOMACRD

STAGECOACH
RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVONA DR

SILVERGATEDR

BANDONDR

SIERRA LN

HANSENDR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHARTST

YORK DR
KEEGAN
ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANOPW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUEDR

SAN RAM
ON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DRAMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROM
W
ELLAV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGERD

CREEKSIDEDR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMM
ON
DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR

HILLROSEDR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK
DR

EAGLERD

BRODER BL

INSPIRATIONDR

CREEKVIEWDR

HILLTOPRD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
! !
!
! !! !
!!
!!
! !
! !!
!
! !
!!
!!
! !
!
! !!
!
!
! !
! !
!!
!
!
!!
! !
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\TierI Projects_05202022.mxd Date: 5/20/2022 Tier I Projects
Dublin, California
[
0 3,300 Feet
Proposed Point Project
! Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
! ! ! Shared Lane (Class III)
! ! ! Bike Lane (Class IIA)
! ! ! Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
! ! ! Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
! ! ! Complete Streets Study: Consider
Improvements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing Facilities Dublin, California
[
0 1Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
116 City of Dublin
Draft 283

PROJECT

NUMBER TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT

LOCATION FROM TO COST -
LOW
COST-
HIGH
I-5 Tier II
Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike
boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating
bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements.

Village Parkway/
Tamarack Drive $123,000 $972,000
I-6 Tier II
Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike
boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating
bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements.

Village Parkway/
Brighton Drive $123,000 $972,000
I-7 Tier II
Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike
boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating
bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements.

Dublin
Boulevard/
Hibernia Drive
$123,000 $972,000
I-8 Tier II
Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike
boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating
bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements.

Dublin
Boulevard/
Arnold Road
$123,000 $972,000
I-9 Tier II
Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike
boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating
bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements.

Dublin
Boulevard/
Hacienda Drive
$123,000 $972,000
I-10 Tier II
Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Reduce width
of SB right-turn lane and reduce turning radii; remove
NB right-turn slip lane and reduce curb radii; reduce curb radii on NE and SE corners; straighten crosswalks.

Dublin
Boulevard/
Village Parkway
$123,000 $972,000
Total Tier I $21,085,000 $27,589,000
Total Tier II and Tier III $80,928,000 $179,692,000
Total (all tiers) $102,013,000 $207,281,000
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 117
Draft284

FUNDING SOURCES
Active transportation projects in Dublin have typically been funded through a combination of ballot measure monies (e.g., Alameda County Measure B and BB), the City General Fund, developer-funded projects, and State, regional, and federal grants. There are many funding sources and programs available at the federal, state, regional, countywide, and local levels for pedestrian and bicycle projects. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) alone identifies almost 20 different sources across United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) funding programs that can be used to support active transportation improvements such as bike racks for transit vehicles and new sidewalks and separated bike lanes.

On November 15, 2021, President Joe Biden signed into law the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), also called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The law authorizes $1.2 trillion for federal investments in transportation, broadband access, clean water, and electric grid renewal.

The USDOT will distribute funds over five years through more than two dozen targeted competitive grant programs for initiatives like better roads and bridges, investments in public transit, and resilient infrastructure.

This program and other relevant funds are summarized in table 16 along with current funding levels, applicable project type, and limitations.

Table 16. Funding Sources

FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY &

LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
LOCAL
General Fund Capital improvements without
other funding sources regularly
available. Relevant projects receiving
funding through the General Fund
as identified in the 2022-2027
Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) include Citywide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Improvements, Downtown
Dublin Street Grid Network, and
San Ramon Trail Lighting.

Approximately $700,000
was allocated to projects
that included bicycle and
pedestrian enhancements
in 2021-2022 and a total
of $342,000 has been
allocated over the 2022-
2027 period, per the CIP.

Impact Fees
& Developer
Mitigation
Capital improvements, including
streetscape enhancements, that
would improve conditions for
people walking and biking.

Current impact fees include Eastern
Dublin Transportation Impact Fee,
Western Dublin Transportation
Impact Fee, Dublin Crossing
Transportation Fee, Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fee,
and Dublin Crossing Fund.

Impact fees contributed
$2,400,000 in 2021-2022
and are anticipated to
fund almost $1,000,000
of pedestrian and bicycle-
related projects 2022-2027.

The St Patrick Way Extension
is a developer-funded
project (about $3,750,000)
that includes pedestrian
and bicycle facilities.

COUNTYWIDE AND REGIONAL
118 City of Dublin
Draft 285

FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY &

LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
Measure B and
Measure BB
Bicycle and Pedestrian Program:

Capital project, programs, and
plans that directly address
bicycle and pedestrian access,
convenience, safety, and usage.

Cannot be used for repaving an
entire roadway or for programs
that exclusively serve city staff.

Local Streets and Roads Program:

Capital projects, programs,
maintenance, or operations that
directly improve local streets and
roads and local transportation.

Cannot be used for programs
that exclusively serve city staff.

MEASURE B: $1,400,000
allocated in 2021-2022
& $300,000 allocated in
2022-2027 to Annual Street
Repaving, Citywide Bicycle
and Pedestrian Improvements
and the Iron Horse Trail
Bridge at Dublin Boulevard.

MEASURE BB: $6.5 million
of Measure BB funds was
allocated to bicycle and
pedestrian projects in 2021-
22, including $5.2 million
from Measure BB Grants.

Approximately $4.7 million
has been allocated in 2022-27.

Measure RR Projects are required to make
the BART system safer, more
reliable, and to reduce traffic.
$1,500,000 allocated to Iron
Horse Bridge at Dublin
Boulevard in 2021-22 and
no funding is allocated
to bicycle or pedestrian
projects in 2022-27.

One Bay Area
Grant (OBAG)
Local street and road maintenance,
streetscape enhancements, bicycle
and pedestrian improvements,
Safe Routes to School projects,
and transportation planning.

Most projects must be in a
priority development area (PDA)
or have a connection to one.
$916 million in OBAG
2 regionwide8
$750 million in OBAG 3 for
projects from 2023-26 with
additional funds anticipated
through the 2021 Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law.9
8 https:/ /mtc.ca.gov/funding/federal-funding/federal-highway-administration-grants/one-bay-area-grant-obag- 2 9 https:/ /mtc.ca.gov/funding/federal-funding/federal-highway-administration-grants/one-bay-area-grant-obag-3 10 https:/ /mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/investment-strategies-commitments/transit-21st-century/funding-sales-tax-and-0. 11 https:/ /www.dublin.ca.gov/1955/Pavement-Management-Program

FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY &

LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
Transportation
Development
Act (TDA)
Article 310
Design and construction of
walkways, bike paths, bike lanes,
and safety education programs.

Project must be in an adopted
plan. All projects must be
reviewed by Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee (BPAC).
$3 million annually every
2–3 years regionwide

STATEWIDE
Statewide Gas
Tax Revenue
Construction, engineering,
and maintenance.

Ineligible expenses include
decorative lighting, transit facilities,
park features, and new utilities.
$2 million allocated in
2021-22 and $3.7 million
allocated in 2022-27.

Road
Maintenance
and
Rehabilitation
Account
(RMRA)
Road maintenance and rehabilitation,
safety improvements, railroad grade
separations, traffic control devices,
and complete streets components.

If it has a pavement condition index
(PCI) of 80 or more, a city may
spend its RMRA funds on other
transportation priorities. Dublin
has a PCI greater than 80.11

1.8 million in 2021-22 and
$5.6 million in 2022-27 for
Annual Street Resurfacing
and Iron Horse Bridge
at Dublin Boulevard
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 119
Draft286

FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY &

LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
Active
Transportation
Program
(ATP)12
Infrastructure projects and plans,
including bicycle and pedestrian
projects, active transportation plans,
quick build projects, and Safe Routes
to School Plans, as well as education
and encouragement activities.

Funding cannot be used for funded
projects or for cost increases. Scoring
criteria favors projects located
in or benefiting equity priority
(disadvantaged) communities.
$1.65 billion for Cycle
6 (2023) up from $223
million in Cycle 5.

The State budget bill added
$1 billion in June 2022 after
applications were submitted.

Biannual program
Sustainable
Communities
Multimodal transportation and
land use planning projects that
further the region’s Sustainable
Communities Strategy.

Requires 11.47 percent local match.
$29.5 million, split between
statewide and regional
competitive funds
Strategic
Partnerships
Planning efforts that identify and
address statewide, interregional, and
regional transportation deficiencies
on the state highway system in
partnership with Caltrans.

Requires 20 percent local match.

Would require Dublin to apply
as sub-applicant to Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC).
$4.5 million, $3 million
of which is dedicated to
projects related to transit
12 https:/ /catc.ca.gov/programs/active-transportation-program 13 http:/ /www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/SHOPP/2018_shopp/2018-shopp-adopted-by-ctc.pdf 14 https:/ /catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/stip/2022-stip/2022-adopted-stip-32522.pdf

FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY &

LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
State Highway
Operation and
Protection
Program
(SHOPP)13
Repair and preservation, emergency
repairs, safety improvements,
and some highway operational
improvements. Elements include
pavement, bridges, culverts, and
transportation management systems.

Projects must be on the California
State Highway System.
$18 billion statewide
for 4 years
Portfolio updated
every 2 years
State
Transportation
Improvement
Program
(STIP)
Any transportation project
eligible for State Highway
Account or federal funds.

Projects need to be nominated
in Regional TIP, but MTC may
nominate fund categories.
$71 million for
Alameda County14
Updated every 2 years

FEDERAL
Active
Transportation
Infrastructure
Investment
Program
Projects that connect active
transportation infrastructure.
$1 billion nationally
Highway
Safety
Improvement
Program
(HSIP)
Focuses on infrastructure treatments
with known crash reduction
factors, such as countermeasures
at locations with documented
collision and safety issues.
$263 million allocated
statewide for 2022
Rebuilding
American
Infrastructure
with
Sustainability
and Equity
(RAISE)
Major infrastructure projects,
especially with road, bridge, transit,
or intermodal components.

Minimum grant size of $5 million.

It is possible to propose a program
(or network) of projects that address
the same transportation challenge.
$2.275 billion nationally
120 City of Dublin
Draft 287

FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY &

LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
Safe Streets
& Roads for
All (SS4A)
Comprehensive safety action plan
development and implementation.
$6 billion nationally

PROTECT
Resilience
Grants
Transportation resilience planning
and project implementation.
$1.4 billion nationally
Reconnecting
Communities
Removing or retrofitting highways
to restore community connectivity.
$1 billion nationally
SMART
Grants
Demonstrating projects utilizing
innovative technology to improve
transportation efficiency and safety.
$1 billion nationally
National
Infrastructure
Project
Assistance
grants
program
(Mega)
Highway or bridge project, including
grade separation or elimination
project. Supports large, complex
projects that are difficult to fund
through other means and that are
likely to generate national or regional
economic, mobility, or safety benefits.

Minimum grant size of $100 million.

It is possible to propose a program,
or network, of projects that address
same transportation challenge.
$5 billion nationally
(2022–2026)
Nationally
Significant
Multimodal
Freight and
Highways
Projects grants
program
(INFRA)
Multimodal freight and highway
projects of national or regional
significance to improve the safety,
efficiency, and reliability of the
movement of freight and people in
and across rural and urban areas.

Minimum project size of $100
million. A network of projects
can be proposed that address
same transportation problem.
$7.25 billion nationally
(FY 2022–2026)
15 https:/ /www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/stbgfs.cfm.

FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY &

LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
Healthy Streets
Program
Projects that reduce the urban heat
island and improve air quality.
$500 million
Bridge
Investment
Program
Bridge replacement, rehab,
preservation, and protection.
$15.8 billion
Congestion
Management
& Air Quality
(CMAQ)
Transportation projects or programs
that contribute to attainment of
national air quality standards.

Must reduce air pollution and
be included in the regional
transportation plan.

Estimated $2.54 billion
nationally in 2022,
$506 million of which
apportioned to California
Surface
Transportation
Block Grant
(STBG)
Improve conditions and performance
on any federal-aid highway,
bridge, or tunnel projects on a
public road; includes pedestrian
and bicycle infrastructure.

In general, funds aren’t used
on local roads, but there are
many exceptions to this.15
$13.835 billion estimated
nationally in 2022;
$1.2 billion of which is
apportioned to California
Divided into population-
based and statewide funds.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 121
Draft288

PERFORMANCE

MEASURES
Setting performance measures
helps track progress toward goals
and document the results of
investments in biking, walking, and
rolling. Performance measures and
monitoring also helps to identify
opportunities for improvement.

Table 17 presents the performance
measures and desired trends that have
been established to track progress
toward achieving this Plan’s goals.

Table 17. Goals and Performance Measures

GOAL PERFORMANCE MEASURE

AND DESIRED TREND
Enhance Safety
• Decrease vehicle travel speed measured at specific locations • Decrease number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions
• Reduce severity of pedestrian and bicycle collisions
• Increase users’ perception of safety
• Decrease average crossing distances
Increase Walking
and Biking
• Increase walk/bike/roll to school mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to work mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to transit mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to recreational facilities
Improve Connectivity
• Reduce bicycle level of traffic stress
• Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps
• Increase number of crossing opportunities
• Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements • Increase the number of secure bike parking spaces
Enhance Accessibility
• Increase the number of traffic signals with audible cues • Increase the number of intersections with directional curb ramps and detectable warning surfaces
• Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps
• Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements • Decrease length of sidewalks that are broken or in disrepair Prioritize Investments
• Maintain and increase sustainable funding mechanisms and a dedicated funding source to build a complete streets network
• Maintain a maintenance plan for bicycle and pedestrian facilities • Increase funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects as a percentage of total transportation infrastructure spending
122 City of Dublin
Draft 289

LOOKING AHEAD
Walking and biking allow residents and visitors of Dublin to travel throughout the city in a way that promotes a sustainable, healthy, and vibrant community. This Plan helps foster a safe and connected multimodal transportation network and establishes Dublin’s vision and comprehensive approach to improving walking, biking, and rolling.

The ultimate goal is a universally-accessible, safe, convenient, and integrated system that promotes active and sustainable transportation as a convenient alternative to motor vehicles. The Plan’s performance measures allow for the ongoing tracking of progress towards implementation of the following goals:

GOAL 1
GOAL 2
GOAL 3GOAL 3
GOAL 4
GOAL 5GOAL 5
Enhance Safety
Increase Walking
and Biking
Improve
Connectivity

Enhance
Accessibility
Prioritize
Investments
The Plan provides for both near-term and long-term infrastructure investments to achieve the Plan’s vision and goals as well as policy and programmatic recommendations that encourage and support walking, biking, and rolling.

Together, these components create a comprehensive approach that will guide, prioritize, and implement a network of quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities to improve mobility, connectivity, and public health in Dublin.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 123
Draft290
�

APPENDIX
A. Community Engagement Summary
B. Existing Conditions
a. Program and Policy Review
b. Demographic Analysis
c. Collision Analysis & High Injury Network
d. Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
e. Demand Analysis
C. Network Recommendations
a. Prioritization Framework
b. Project List
c. Cost Estimates
D. Engineering & Design Guide
291

DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN
AND BICYCLE PLAN: AND BICYCLE PLAN:

SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLEMENTAL

DESIGN GUIDANCE DESIGN GUIDANCE
June 2022
Draft
Attachment 2
292
2 City of Dublin
Draft

INTRODUCTION
This guide was developed as a reference document
for best practices in planning and designing bicycle
and pedestrian facilities. It first provides resources
relevant to planning and designing pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, including a list of specific design topics and guidance document recommendations to
consult. It then provides specific planning and design
recommendations for several key topics relevant to
developing Dublin’s biking and walking infrastructure.

RESOURCES 3
DESIGN TOPICS AND RELEVANT GUIDANCE 4
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE 14
BIKEWAY SELECTION ...................................15 ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS ........ 25
CROSSING SELECTION .................................27

BICYCLE FACILITIES THROUGH
INTERSECTIONS ............................................31 293
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 3 Draft
Draft

KEY RESOURCES
• AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, Fourth Edition (2012) – likely to be replaced by the Fifth Edition in 2022 • NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Second Edition (2014) • NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013)
• FHW A Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at
Uncontrolled Crossing Locations (2018)
• CalTrans Highway Design Manual (2018)
• FHW A Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015) • FHW A Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009) • California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Revision 4 (2019)

SUPPLEMENTAL

RESOURCES
• TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562: Improving
Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings.

Washington D.C.: TCRP and NCHRP, 2006.
• Routine Accommodations of Pedestrians and Bicyclists in the Bay Area, Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
Available: https:/ /mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/A-08_ RES-3765_complete_streets.pdf 2006.
• Complete Streets Checklist Guidance Resolution 4493, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Available: h t t p s ://m t c . ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-05/MTC-
Administrative-Guidance-CS-Checklist.pdf (2022)

RESOURCES
The following resources should be used as references for best practices in planning and design for pedestrian facilities. 294
Draft
2 DESIGN TOPICS AND

RELEVANT GUIDANCE
295
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 5 Draft
Draft

DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
Sidewalks and
Sidewalk Zones
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013) h t t p s ://
nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
Guide for the Planning Design and
Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004)
https:/ /onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/
nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf
Pages 37– 44; https:/ /nacto.org/publication/urban-
street-design-guide/street-design-elements/sidewalks/
Chapter 3.2; Pages 54 - 70
Pedestrian
Wayfinding
Seamless Seattle Pedestrian Wayfinding Strategy (2019)
Global Street Design Guide (2016)
Global Street Design Guide | Global
Designing Cities Initiative
Wayfinding Strategy_July2019_
SDOT Edit.pdf (seattle.gov)

6.3.9; Page 91;
https:/ /globaldesigningcities.org/wp-content/uploads/
guides/global-street-design-guide-lowres.pdf
Street Furniture Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-way (2013)
https:/ /www.access-board.gov/
prowag/preamble-prowag/

Page 70 ends
← All documents from this meeting