Dublin City Council
January 10, 2023

351
ADDENDUM: MECHANICAL DRAWINGS
April 7, 2016 Page 31 Project # 31548 – Emerald Glen Aquatic Center 352
i
w
◄
Q.
2 w
i
w"
w ►
<
1 [ ]
w 11/
4• 4•
Q
a
I
a
N
z
a
in
w
Q

SLIDE AD DRAIN

CHANNEL BELOW BOWL
s· s· n
j
11 L

SLIDE AE

SHUTDOWN
LANE n
- 11
SLIDE f,f

SHUTDOWN
n LANE n 11 =- 11 I T.O. DECK
EL 371.56'

TO SLIDE AD

CHAMPAGNE BOWL ENTRY BOX
Fl.OW RA1£: 400 GPM
4•
TO SLIDE f,f

SPEEDSLIDE ENTRY BOX
300 GPM
4•
T.O. PLATFORM
EL 414.51'

TO SLIDE AE

LAUNCH AREA O PLATFORM
ELEV.+7FT
...

1.3 L/S

PUMP DATA
_J l j L c_
' '
_J l
SUPPLIED BY WHITEWATERt
(§ FLOW RATE : 730 GPM
TllH : 63 FT
10·
w
I"
I
10· ,o·
. ... END SUMP lYP.
►
TO CHAMPAGNE BOWL 2•

SPRAY PIPE
FLOW RATE: 30 GPM
--,,H><l---lf6"

DRY AIR
3 CFM
100 PSI
POWER : 20 HP
lYPE : END SUCTION CENTRIFUGAL
QUANTITY : 1
@ FLOW RATE : 370 GPM
8 TllH : 70 FT
a:' i POWER : 10 HP
;;l Ii, lYPE : END SUCTION CENTRIFUGAL
0 QUANTITY : 1
ls
z ► 6" ►
c.-i
LAUNCH AREA 0 PLATFORM ELEV. 414.51'
w ► 8" r[J,
0 z HAIR & LINT
6"
c.-i
N "
PNEUMATIC COMPRESSOR DATA ®
""
iii
ti:
0 X
w
a
w
I15
,.J
1 ;;l!il
8" ►

STRAINER DRAIN
r 6" r[J, 6"
c.-i

TO SLIDE AE
INJECTORS O AE23
FLOWRA1£: 350 GPM
\
112
- AIR AND WATER PIPING ROUTED

THROUGH CENTER REAR OF LAUNCH
ROUGH OPENING IN DECK. PIPING IS

CONCEALED IN FRP LAUNCH
0 0 ENCLOSURE.

FLOW RATE

PRESSURE
POWER

QUANTITY
3 CFM
100 PSI
3 HP
1 >z-
<
z
a
0 w
m
0 0
w
0 0
0 Q
w
m
w
0 z
J
J<

HAIR & LINT

STRAINER
N !1/2"
DRAIN

SUPPLIED BY WWI
ASSEMBLED WITH 6"
PVC TEE.

TO BE INSTALLED WITHIN
(10'-15') OF LAUNCH
CAPSULE.
er 1 1/2"
SUPPLI

BY WHIT
0 ENSURE SLIDE IS
ASSEMBLED WITH 4"

PVC INJECTORS

ORIENTED AS SHOWN
/2"
1/2"

AIR LINE
I
m
0 z
< 1/2"
w
w PNEUMATIC COMPRESSOR '-..-.._
AIR LINE ►
I" SUPPLY BY OTHERS "I r.:;-,7
0 L_ _J
I
Q
0 0

R I REVISED AS NOTED

G I REVISED AS NOTED
0 I ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION
l

ISSUED FOR INFORMATION
2018-03-14
MAY 2012016
DEC 0112015
AUG 20/2015
0 z
<
/::

REV I REVISION DESCRIPTION/ISSUE RECORD I DATE
"
roESIGNED BY DATE PROJ, ENG, CHECK DATE
AE AUG 13/2015
_Qw
oO
<Q
m
w
I

DRAWN BY
AE
SCALE
DATE
AUG 13/2015

AS NOTED

DRAFTING CHECK

ARCHIVE
FILE No.

DATE
31548A601
J
w
,.
!,I <
<Zm
WQ z
'<: SLIDE AD, AE, & AF

NOTE,- IMPERIAL DIMENSIONS

ALL ELEVATIONS AND CO-ORDINATES ARE IN FEET

ALL OTHER DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES
r
'
::o:!
C:
..Q
-m
..
0 z
!,I <
m
0 J
0 Q<

PUMPING FLOW DIAGRAM
N. T. S.

WHITE WATER
WhiteWater West Industries Ltd
6700 McMillanWay, Richmond,B.C. Canada V6W 1J7
Tel (604) 273-1068 Fax (604) 273-4518
'
r
J
0 w
w
ic
I .
o
ow
I m w
-
aw
m
N

GROUP A
'

SLIDE AD, AE, & AF

SLIDE PUMPING FLOW DIAGRAM

EMERALD GLEN AQUATIC CENTER

DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES
'
w
<I
0"
OJ JJ
Q<
0031,548 )[ GS>WWG"' A601
)[ eeRo,
w
----Cl0
------cJ--
er
®
--
-----i.tj-- BUTTERflY VALVE
PUMP

REDUCER/ INCREASER

PRESSURE/ VACUUM GAUGE

FLOW METER

FLEXIBLE PIPE CONNECTOR

BALL VALVE

CHECK VALVE
4• 4•
LEGEND
NOTES:

1. THE SCHEMATIC SHOWN ILLUSTRATES THE INTENDED FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MECHANICAL OPERATION OF THE WATERSLIDES.

LOCAL PROJECT ENGINEERS MAY DESIGN SITE-SPECIFIC SYSTEMS

THAT DIFFER FROM THIS WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DESIGN RESTING WITH THE LOCAL ENGINEER.

2. PUMP PERFORMANCE, DISCHARGE PIPE SIZE & DISCHARGE BUTTERFLY VALVE ARE ESSENTIAL FOR PROPER SLIDE OPERATION.

3. PROVIDE THRUST BLOCKS OR RIGID CLAMPS AT ALL BENDS AND AS REQUIRED ALONG THE LENGTH OF SUCTION AND DISCHARGE PIPING.

4. PUMP SUCTION FLANGE SHOULD BE BELOW POOL WATER LEVEL

5. PIPE HAS TO BE RIGIDLY CLAMPED TO UNDERSIDE OF TOWER WITHIN 4 FEET OF FLEXIBLE PIPE CONNECTOR.

6. DOUBLE SUCTION INTAKES ARE SHOWN AS A Sf,fETY PRECAUTION TO ELIMINATE ENTRAPMENT HAZARDS CAUSED BY THE PUMP SUCTION. -
I
">-
-
-
S:

J
® ®
r
'
[" 353
106
354
107
Attachment D – Facility Photos
355
Budget Change Reference #:

From Un-Appropriated Reserves X Budget Transfer Between Funds From Designated Reserves Other
Account Amount Account Amount
10017610-64001 $37,593
1/10/2023
Posted By: Date:

CITY OF DUBLIN
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

BUDGET CHANGE FORM
City Council's Approval Required

DECREASE BUDGET AMOUNT INCREASE BUDGET AMOUNT

REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE
Higher than budgeted slide and pool maintenance costs
As Presented at the City Council Meeting
**********Finance Use Only**********
EXP: General Fund - PCS - Contract Services
https://dublinca-my.sharepoint.com/personal/dustin_stene_dublin_ca_gov/Documents/Desktop/Slide Maintenance_01102023 Slide Maintenance_01102023
Attachment - 5
356

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 4.5
DATE: January 10, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Work – Project No. GI0119, Civic Center HVAC and Roof Replacement Project
Prepared by: Michael Boitnott, Capital Improvement Program Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider the acceptance of the Civic Center HVAC and Roof Replacement Project, CIP No. GI0119. The project included the replacement of the flat roof assembly, roofmounted HVAC equipment, modifications to the existing HVAC duct system, HVAC controls, minor structural upgrades, fire alarm panel and ancillary devices, T-bar ceilings and recessed lighting, interior painting, and new ethernet data cable drops.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Accepting the Civic Center HVAC and Roof Replacement Project, CIP No.

GI0119.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The Civic Center HVAC and Roof Replacement Project, CIP No. GI0119, is complete and the project funding and cost were as follows:

Project Funding Source
General Fund $2,387,634
IT Fund $200,000
Internal Service Fund - Facilities $2,587,366
Total Funding $5,175,000
Estimated Expenditures
Design-Build Contract with Change Orders $4,377,973
Contract Services, Design, Salary, and Testing $732,027 Total Expenditures $5,110,000
357

Estimated Project Balance $65,000
Upon the City Council’s acceptance of the project, the capital improvement project will be closed at the end of this fiscal year and all unspent funds will be returned to their funding sources.

DESCRIPTION:

On July 21, 2020, the City of Dublin awarded a Design/Builder Agreement to ADC Construction Management, Inc., for the Civic Center HVAC and Roof Replacement project (CIP No. GI0119) for $3,836,831. The project consisted of the replacement of the City Hall side of Civic Center’s flat roof assembly, roof-mounted HVAC equipment, modifications to the existing HVAC duct system, HVAC controls, minor structural upgrades, fire alarm panel and ancillary devices, T-bar ceilings and recessed lighting, interior painting, and new ethernet data cable drops. On May 4, 2021, the City Council approved an additional $165,000 of work to furnish and install additional heating hot water piping, heating boiler, and modifications to the Civic Center building to accommodate the future Cultural Arts Center improvements. The project also included the temporary relocation of City staff and offices to the Cultural Arts Center side of Civic Center to allow for the improvements to be constructed.

Staff has determined that the project is complete and ADC Construction Management, Inc. has completed the warranty period requirements of the agreement and recommends that the City Council accept the project and release the maintenance bond. The capital improvement project will be closed at the end of this fiscal year and all unspent funds will be returned to their funding sources.

The balance of the Civic Center HVAC and roof replacement improvements for the Cultural Arts Center side of the building are included within the Cultural Arts Center project, which is currently under construction.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted. A copy of this report was sent to ADC Construction Management, Inc.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Accepting the Civic Center HVAC and Roof Replacement Project, CIP No. GI0119 2) CIP No. GI0119
358
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted 01/10/23 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ACCEPTING THE CIVIC CENTER HVAC AND ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CIP No.

GI0119
WHEREAS, on July 21, 2020, the City of Dublin entered into a Design/Builder Agreement with ADC Construction Management, Inc., to perform the work to replace HVAC and roof on the City Hall side of Civic Center, Project No. GI0119; and WHEREAS, on May 4, 2021, the City Council approved additional improvements to furnish and install additional heating hot water piping, heating boiler, and modification to the Civic Center building to accommodate the future Cultural Arts Center; and WHEREAS, said improvements have been completed in accordance with plans and specifications, and any approved modifications thereof, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, said improvements have been in place for more than one year, thus completing the obligation of the one-year warranty period allowing the maintenance bond to be released after the Notice of Completion is filed.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby accept the Civic Center HVAC and Roof Replacement improvements, Project No.

GI0119 and authorize Staff to file a Notice of Completion with Alameda County.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby authorize the City Manager or designee to release the retention, if after 35 days of filing the Notice of Completion there are no subcontractor claims. {Signatures on the following page}
359
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted 01/10/23 Page 2 of 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
360
Number GI0119 Program GENERAL

ESTIMATED COSTS
PRIOR
YEARS
2021-2022
BUDGET 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 FUTURE

YEARS TOTALS
9100 $81,422 $7,678 $89,1009200 $556,875 $49,025 $605,9009400 $3,613,331 $161,769 $3,775,1009500 $771 $4,129 $4,9009600 $700,000 $700,000 $4,952,398 $222,602 $5,175,000

FUNDING SOURCE
PRIOR
YEARS
2021-2022
BUDGET 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 FUTURE

YEARS TOTALS
1001 $2,365,032 $22,602 $2,387,6346605 $200,000 $200,0006205 $2,587,366 $2,587,366 $4,952,398 $222,602 $5,175,000

ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT
MiscellaneousEquipment

CIVIC CENTER HVAC AND ROOF REPLACEMENT
2022-2027 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
TOTAL
IT Fund
TOTAL
General FundInternal Service Fund - FacilitiesSalaries & BenefitsContract ServicesImprovements

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project provides for the design and replacement of the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system and controls, roof replacement, associated building modifications, and code compliance upgrades for the City Hall portion of the Civic Center complex. The existing HVAC and roof systems are at the end of their useful life and are due for replacement. A new HVAC system and controls will be more energy efficient and have a greater ability to be adjusted. Additionally, the project will provide the heating hot water boilers for the entire Civic Center complex. With the roof replacement, the project will also upgrade communications infrastructure for new data connections to offices, workstations, and conference rooms. The project will be completed in several phases to minimize disruption to the public and to Staff working within the buildings.The HVAC and roof improvements for the future Cultural Arts Center portion of the Civic Center complex will be completed with the renovation of the Cultural Arts Center Project, CIP No. GI0120.

This project is funded by $2 million in a General Fund Reserve set aside for this purpose in addition to the Internal Service Fund for Facilities Replacement.

ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT: None
MANAGING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
361

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 4.6
DATE: January 10, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Avalon West/St. Patrick’s Way Development Public Art Prepared by: Shaun Chilkotowsky, Heritage & Cultural Arts Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider approving AvalonBay Communities proposal for public art at the Avalon West/St. Patrick’s Way development project that is now under construction. The proposed artwork, designed by artist Norie Sato, is adjacent to the new residential building and would parallel the north side of St. Patrick’s Way, between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the artwork proposal by AvalonBay Communities for the Avalon West/St. Patrick’s Way development project.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no impact on City funds as this is developer-installed artwork. AvalonBay Communities’ public art obligation for this project is estimated at $775,000.

DESCRIPTION:

Background
At its May 1, 2018, meeting, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolutions 40-18 and 41-18, authorizing the development of an 8.53-acre site within Downtown Dublin, the construction and extension of St. Patrick’s Way between Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road, and the construction of a 499-unit residential building.

Artist Selection
AvalonBay Communities (Developer) hired a public art consultant (Consultant) to assist with developing and managing the project's public art component. The Consultant assisted with identifying potential sites for the artwork and the development of a project scope. The Consultant 362

developed a pool of 15 artists that were presented to the Developer for review and selection. The artist’s experience, mediums used, geography, and fit within the established scope were considered. Following a review of the artists, three were selected as semi-finalists to develop sitespecific proposals. Following the Developer’s review of the site-specific proposals and artist interviews, the Developer selected artist Norie Sato and the proposal “ACROSSROADSACROSS.” Design Proposal
“ACROSSROADSACROSS” is a series of approximately 140 painted, perforated, and curved aluminum panels that span about 400 feet along the north side of St. Patrick’s Way in Downtown Dublin. The panels are between 5 feet and 7 feet high, on top of an 18-inch-tall seating wall, making the total height approximately 6.5 feet to 8.5 feet tall. The panels, of various radii, shapes, and orientations, are waterjet cut with perforations forming different patterns that create a moire effect and shifting views as one travels the length of the adjacent road or sidewalk. In addition, 11 column lights and three flower lights provide accent lighting incorporated into the project. The artwork layout includes a number of gaps ranging from 6 feet to 16 feet wide, allowing for seating along the length of the piece.

The artwork is intended to tell a nonlinear story of Dublin's history and geography which unfolds as one travels along the artwork. Imagery and symbols of clovers, shamrocks, and indigenous plants and flowers are abstracted and used in the panels. A detailed proposal is included with this Staff Report as Attachment 1.

Additionally, the proposed artwork will be in the public right-of-way. Through a Public Art Installation and Maintenance Agreement and Long-Term Encroachment Agreement, the Developer would remain fully responsible for the long-term care and maintenance of the piece.

Staff Review and Community Outreach
On August 25, 2022, the Developer attended the Farmers’ Market at Emerald Glen Park to present the proposal to the community and solicit feedback. More than 30 responses were received, with the community overall supportive of the project. One project goal was to help create a sense of place, with comments addressing the impact the artwork would have on the character and feel of the Downtown street.

Staff from Public Works, Economic Development, Community Development, Parks and Community Services, and Dublin Police Services have reviewed the artwork proposal. Staff has no concerns with the proposed artwork’s safety or design and determined that it aligns with the City’s Public Art Master Plan.

Heritage & Cultural Art Commission Review
At its November 10, 2022 meeting, the Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission reviewed the proposal. The artwork received positive feedback, but some concerns and questions were raised not directly related to the artwork that needed clarification. At the meeting, the Commission voted not to recommend the artwork. The following summarizes the Commission’s concerns:
 Uncertainty of future Downtown development adjacent to the proposed project location 363

 Potential security concerns that may arise from the proposed project  Lack of clarity on the goals the Developer and City have for this project  Inability to visualize the proposed project and coinciding site improvements Staff and the Developer worked to address the concerns raised and at its December 8, 2022, meeting, the Commission reconsidered the artwork proposal. Staff and the Commission addressed initial concerns, which are outlined below:
 Concern #1 Uncertainty of future Downtown development adjacent to the proposed project location
Staff does not expect conflict with future projects in the short or mid term. The Avalon West project is surrounded by the existing shopping center to the north, a future 113-unit senior residential project to the west, and Connolly Station to the east. These planned development projects will benefit from the extension of St. Patrick’s Way and the community gathering space the new street will provide. The adjacent shopping center continues to be improved with a recent proposal by H-Mart to occupy the commercial storefront formerly occupied by Orchard Supply Hardware. While there are no current plans to redevelop the shopping center, should it occur at some point, the artwork could be modified, relocated, or completely decommissioned and a new piece installed elsewhere.

Any future modifications to the artwork would be presented to the Commission for consideration.
 Concern #2 Potential security concerns that may arise from the proposed project Staff believes that the roadway, landscaping, and other pedestrian friendly improvements, including decorative light poles, string lights, a variety of seating options, and entry monuments, required as part of the improvement of St. Patrick Way, will bring more traffic and visibility to the project site. The proposed artwork will also enhance the lighting by including columns and decorative pathway lights. The proposed artwork is transparent and includes perforated metal panels with gaps in selected areas. Lastly, the artwork was presented to Dublin Police Services for review, and no concerns were noted.  Concern #3 Lack of clarity on the goals the Developer and City have for this project Prior to the Developer approaching the City with the proposed artwork, the City had planned improvements to make St. Patrick Way a future civic gathering space. These improvements included a seat wall, electrical infrastructure, overhead lighting, entry monuments, safety bollards, and contrasting crosswalks that helped create a sense of place.

The City has envisioned the project site as a location for future Downtown events and entered into a Community Benefit Program Agreement with the Developer to ensure these desired improvements come to fruition. In coordination with the artist, the Developer’s proposal adds another element to further enhance this vision.  Concern #4 Inability to visualize the proposed project and coinciding site improvements This is a unique type of project that the Commission had not been presented with previously, including a new street, sidewalk, and landscaping that have not yet been built.

In coordination with the artist and Developer, a more detailed artwork proposal was developed that included details such as site plans, enhanced renderings, artwork samples, source images, and angled views. This enhanced presentation, included as Attachment 1, 364

helped to further clarify the project.

Following discussion and deliberations, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend the artwork to the City Council for approval. The Commission appreciated the more thorough and comprehensive presentation that allowed for an informed decision and ensured the project met the criteria that guide the City’s Public Art Program. This includes enhancing pedestrian friendly places, incorporating artwork into the built environment, and strengthening the character of the Downtown corridor and neighborhood.

Next Steps
If approved by the City Council, the Developer and the City must enter into a Public Art Installation and Maintenance Agreement and a Long-Term Encroachment Agreement. These agreements ensure the art is installed as proposed and the Developer properly maintains the artwork for its full lifespan according to City requirements. Staff will return to the City Council at a future meeting for approval of these agreements, including a detailed scope of work and schedule for completion.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted, and a copy of the Staff Report was provided to Developer.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Artwork Design Proposal by Artist Norie Sato
365
Avalon West Dublin
Public Art

ACROSSROADSACROSS
Norie Sato
Attachment 1
366

ACROSSROADSACROSS
Norie Sato
A nonlinear story of the history,
geography, nature and symbols of
Dublin, an important crossroads
for the region, which unfolds as
one travels along the artwork.
367
The Artwork:

1.A Series of curved painted aluminum panels waterjet cut with various patterns create layering, moire pattern movement and shifting views as one moves along the length of the road. Depending on the speed and location, different combinations and legibility of various images emerge, disappear, become abstract, pull into focus. These panels will create the bulk of the screening and a backdrop to the street. The curves soften the effect of the screen, while layering images and allowing interesting juxtapositions between different panels.

The panels will be created in collaboration with AZahner Company, a fabricator based in Kansas City, using their ImageLines system of transforming images into perforations. This “standardization” allows for a more cost effective method of producing dynamic and unique image effects. They have a great deal of expertise, capability and options for materials and other fabrication techniques. I have worked with them on other recent projects and feel them unique- ly well-suited for this project and complexities.

The proposed material is painted aluminum, which will be bent and cut as necessary for structure and attachment. The attachment to the concrete seat- ing wall will be with an added angle for attachment, which will be mechanical, using expansion anchor fasteners. These will allow for strength, permanence, yet replaceability.

The height of the screens are 5’ -7’ X various radii. When placed on an 18” high seating wall, the height of the screens will be at least 6’8” above grade. In the proposed layout, approximately 140 panels are included.

2.Lighting will be incorporated in 2 ways: A): Cylindrical colums out of the same panel materials and colors with perforated patterns and up lights at bot- tom B): “Flower” lights are whimsical sculptural interpretations of a flower, continuing the thematic connection emanate light from the “petals” For more information about the capabilities of this
system, please go to:
https://www.azahner.com/labs/imagelines/
Attachment 1
368
Norie Sato
369
Patterns may be placed on single panels or over several to create a rhythm across the wall 370 Source Images
371
Artwork Samples
372
Lighting elements:
2 Types of lighting elements
Cylndrical structure made
of perforated panels
is uplit by an LED bulb at the base.

Light will be seen through the perforations as well as “leaks” of light toward the panels next to them.

Approximately 13 are currently included.
“Clover Flower” Light Concept
Creates a sculptural counterpoint to the
geomety of the panels and cylindrical
lighting elements. Currently, 3-4 are inLED light fixtures will be used, with the same fixtures used in both types of lights.

Attachment 1
373
374
375
View from above of the central portion of the artwork
Sidewalk in front of artwork
Walking along the sidewalk, the artwork
unfolds in layers and colors depending on
one’s direction.

Curved panels vary by their “radius” and heights:
32” x 5’
28” x 5’           28” x 6’
25” x 5’           25” x 6’            25” x 6’6”
22” x 5’           22” x 6’            22” x 6’ 6”       22” x 7’ 18” x 5’            18” x 6’            18” x 7’
376
Streetscape Improvement Enhancements:

1.     Seatwall

2.     Decorative paving

3.     String lights

4.     Drop-down manual bollard sleeves

5.     Electrical outlets
377
Attachment 1
378
Seating openings in artwork vary from 6’ to 16’ long
379
Layout and colors of the panels over the nearly 400’ length of the site 380
381

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 4.7
DATE: January 10, 2023
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.
382

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.
383

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, July 19, August 16, September 6, 2022, October 18, 2022, November 1, 2022, November 15, 2022, December 6, 2022, and December 20, 2022 meetings, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 39-22, 48-22, 65-22, 84-22, 92-22, 101-22, 104-22, 120-22, 127-22, 130-22, 144-22, and 148-22 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 continues to be 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
384
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2023 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. xx-23

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 385
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2023 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, continue to occur in Alameda County and require quarantine periods for exposure; 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 ongoing existence 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 cases apparently resulting from the Omicron variant, directly 386
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2023 Page 3 of 3 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, 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 10th day of January 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
387

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 4.8
DATE: January 10, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Authorize the City Manager to Execute Parcel Map 10999 as Property Owner Prepared by: Kan Xu, Senior Civil Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider authorizing the City Manager to execute Parcel Map 10999 as property owner to allow for the merger and subdivision of parcels for Don Biddle Community Park.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Owner’s Statement of Parcel Map 10999 on Behalf of the City of Dublin.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no impact on the General Fund. All Staff and consultant costs associated with the review of the parcel map are borne by the developer.

DESCRIPTION:

Dublin Crossing, LLC (Developer) owns certain real property as part of the Boulevard development project (Project). The Project includes approximately 189 acres of land located north of Dublin Boulevard, west of Arnold Road, and east of Scarlett Drive. As part of the Project conditions of approval and Development Agreement, Developer was required to dedicate parkland to develop Don Biddle Community Park. The parkland was dedicated as separate parcels on Final Maps for Tracts 8368, 8382, and 8416, which were approved by the City Engineer.

Parcel Map 10999 (Attachment 2) will merge existing parcels and subdivide to create three new parcels and to dedicate public right-of-way required for Don Biddle Community Park, Scarlett Drive, and Horizon Parkway. Newly created Parcels A and C will be dedicated in fee to the City of Dublin for public park purposes subject to improvements. Parcel B, primarily Chabot Creek, is 388

reserved for future dedication to Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 for flood control purposes by separate instrument.

Two existing parcels within the subdivision that are within the boundary of Parcel Map 10999 are owned in fee by the City of Dublin. The two parcels owned by the City are known as Assessor’s Parcel Number 986-0001-003-02 and a portion of Dublin Boulevard right-of-way, as shown in Figure 1. The parcels are located at the southeast corner of Scarlett Drive and Horizon Parkway, and along Dublin Boulevard between Scarlett Drive and Columbus Street, respectively. Dublin Municipal Code 9.24.040(L) and Gov. Code section 66445(e), require a statement, signed, and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the real property subdivided to consent to the preparation and recordation of the parcel map. To facilitate the subdivision, the City is required to be a signatory on the map. Staff recommends the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute Parcel Map 10999 to allow the merger and subdivision of parcels for Don Biddle Community Park.

Figure 1: Aerial photo showing two City owned properties. (Aerial dated 2020).

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.
389

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Owner’s Statement of Parcel Map 10999 on Behalf of the City of Dublin
2) Parcel Map 10999
390
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2023 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE OWNER’S STATEMENT OF PARCEL MAP 10999 ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
WHEREAS, Dublin Crossing, LLC (Developer) owns certain real property as part of the Boulevard development project; and
WHEREAS, the project conditions of approval and Development Agreement required Developer to dedicate parkland to develop the Don Biddle Community Park; and WHEREAS, the parkland was dedicated as separate parcels on Final Maps for Tracts 8368, 8382, and 8416, which were approved by the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, Parcel Map 10999 will merge existing parcels, create three new parcels, and dedicate public right-of-way required for Don Biddle Community Park, Scarlett Drive, and Horizon Parkway; and
WHEREAS, Parcels A and C of Parcel Map 10999 are dedicated in fee to the City of Dublin for public park purposes subject to improvement and Parcel B (Chabot Creek) of Parcel Map 10999 is reserved for future dedication to Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 for flood control purposes by separate instrument; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin owns two existing parcels within the boundaries of Parcel Map 10999 in fee, including Assessor’s Parcel No. 986-0001-003-02 and a portion of Dublin Boulevard right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, Dublin Municipal Code 9.24.040(L) and Gov. Code section 66445(e), require a statement, signed, and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the real property subdivided to consent to the preparation and recordation of the parcel map; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is required to be a signatory on Parcel Map 10999.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute the Owner’s Statement of Parcel Map 10999 on behalf of the City of Dublin. {Signatures on the following page}
391
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2023 Page 2 of 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
392
ovtJERS' STATEMENT
THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY STATE THAT THEY ARE THE OWNERS OF All THE LANDS DELINEATED ANO EMBRACED \\ITHIN THE TRACT BOUNDARY LINE OF THIS PARCEL MAP ENTITLED "PARCEL MAP 10999, CITY OF DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", CONSISTING OF FlVE (5) SHEETS, THIS STATEMENT BE1NG UPON SHEET ONE (1) THEREOF; THAT THEY CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION ANO FlLING OF SAID MAP; THAT SAID MAP PARTICULARLY SETS FORTH ANO DESCRIBES ALL THE LOTS INTENDED FOR SALE BY THE1R NUMBER ANO PRECISE _,OTH ANO LENGTH; ANO THAT SAID

MAP PARTICULARLY SETS FORTH ANO DESCRIBES THE PARCELS OF GROUND RESERVED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES BY THEIR BOUNDARIES, COURSES. AND EXTENT.

THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW IS DEDIC A TED IN FEE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, THOSE PORTIONS OF SAID LANDS DESIGNATED ON THIS MAP AS SCARLETT DRIVE AND HORIZON PARKWAY AS PUBLIC STREETS.

THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW IS DEDICATED IN FEE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES; PARCELS A ANO C AS SHOWN UPON THIS MAP AS A PUBLIC PARK.

THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW IS OEOICA TEO AS AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, THE AREAS IN, UNDER, ALONG, ANO ACROSS ANY AREA OR STRIP OF LANO DESIGNATED AS PUBLIC SER'llCE EASEMENTS (PSE), AS

DELINEATED ANO EMBRACED IIITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE HEREIN EMBODIED MAP, DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN FOREVER FOR THE "PURPOSES OF PUBLIC SER'llCES" (AS HEREIN OEFlNED). THE "PURPOSES OF PUBLIC SERVICES" SHALL INCLUDE TI-IE CONSlRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, REMOVING, REPLACING, REPAIRING, MAINTAINING, OPERATING, AND USING "PUBLIC SER'llCE FACILITIES" (AS OEFlNED HERE1N), ANO ACCESS THROUGH THE PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT FOR THESE PURPOSES. "PUBLIC SER'v'lCE F ACIUTIES" SHALL INCLUDE PUBLIC UTILITIES, FIRE HYDRANTS, ELECTROLIERS, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS. SIGNS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS, AND ALL NECESSARY APPURTENANCES THERETO SUCH AS BRACES, CONNECTIONS. FASTENINGS, APPLIANCES. AND FIXTURES FOR USE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. ALL PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS SHALL BE KEPT OPEN ANO FREE FROM BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES OF ANY KIND, _,TH THE SOLE EXCEPTION OF PUBLIC SER'llCE FA Cl LI TIES. ALL PUBLIC SER'llCE EASEMENTS SHALL BE CONSIDERED PUBLIC "WAYS" AS THAT TERM IS USED IN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION 6202, ANO ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES HOLDING A VALID FRANCHISE FROM THE CITY SHAU. HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THE PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE _,TH THE TERMS OF THE FRANCHISE.

THE REAL PROPERTY DESl�AlED AS •PARCEL s• IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR FUTURE DEDICATION, TO BE CONVEYED TO ZONE 7 OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ANO WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN FEE BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF THIS PARCEL MAP.

THIS MAP SHOWS ALL EASEMENTS ON THE PREMISES AND/OR OF RECORD, \\ITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE HEREIN EMBODIED MAP.

AS OWNERS:

CITY OF DUBLIN
BY: __________ _
NAME: _________ _
TITLE: _________ _

DUBLIN CROSSING, LLC, A OELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY BY; BROOKCAL DUBLIN LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ITS; MEMBER
BY: ___________ _ BY: ___________ _
NAME: __________ _ NAME: ___________ _
TITLE; __________ _ TITLE; ___________ _
BY; SPIC DUBLIN, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ITS; MEMBER
BY, STANDARD PAClFlC INVESTMENT CORP .. A DELAWARE CORPORATION ITS: SOLE MEMBER
BY: __________ _ BY: ___________ _
NAME: NAME: ___________ _
TITlE: ___________ _ TITlE: ___________ _
P\\NER'S ACKNO)n,E]lGEMENT
A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFlCATE VERIFlES ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THE INDl'llOUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFlCA TE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT. ���OF�------
� N-�oT
=
A
-=RY�P
"'
UB,,.

LI=c-. =pE
=
R
=so
°"
NAii<(:'1�pp��foE "--------------
ANO ______________ WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS
OF SATISFACTORY E'llOENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE \\ITHIN INSTRUMENT ANO ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/ SHE/ THEY EXECUTED

THE SAME IN HIS/ HER/ THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), ANO THAT BY HIS /HER /THEIR SIGNA TURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY ON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PER..URY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
\\ITNESS MY HANO,
SIGNATURE; ____________ _
PRINT NAME: ___________ _

NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY ANO STATE
MY COMMISSION NUMBER: ________ _
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES, ________ _
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS; ______ _
P\\NER'S ACKNO'M,EDGEMENT
A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFlCATE VERIFlES ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THE INDl'llOUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFlCATE IS ATTACHED, ANO NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT. ���TY
OFOF�------
� N-�oT
=
A
-=R
,.,.Y ""P
""uB
"°
LI=c-,
""PE=
R
=so
°"
NAii<;:'1�pp��foE "--------------
AND ______________ WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS
OF SATISFACTORY E'llOENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ ARE SUBSCRIBED

TO THE IIITHIN INSTRUMENT ANO ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/ SHE/ THEY EXECUTED

THE SAME IN HIS/ HER/ THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), ANO THAT BY HIS /HER /THEIR SIGNA TURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY ON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PER..URY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE ANO CORRECT.

WITNESS MY HAND,
SIGNATURE: ____________ _
PRINT NAME:�-������-�=�

NOTARY PUBLIC IN ANO FOR SAID COUNTY ANO STATE
MY COMMISSION NUMBER, ________ _
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ________ _
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: ______ _

COUNTY RECORDER'S STATEMENT
FlLED FOR RECORD THIS __ DAY OF ___ 2023, AT __ .../,t., IN BOOK __ OF MAPS AT PAGES ____ AT THE REQUEST OF FlRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

FEE, $, ___ _ DOCUMENT NO. _______ _

MELISSA WILK
COUNTY RECORDER IN AND FOR TfiE

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BY, __ �D=E=Pu�TY�c=o"'uN�TY=R=Ec=OR=o=E=RDUBLIN
CENIIIAL i

PARKWAY
1%. <fl. ... I ¢''
PLEASANTON � -NI VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCAL£
ovtJER's ACJ<NP'b\EPGEMENT
A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFlCER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFlCATE VERIFIES ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THE IN011110UAL WHO SIGNED THE OOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFlCATE IS ATTACHED, ANO NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS. ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT OOCUMENT. �i��rv°�F�------
�
N
NO
"'T
,.,.AR"'Y"""'Pu"B,.,Ll
7 C,""'P"'
E
=RSON
=
Aii°,,22.i,p���
E
-
M
�.::.::.::.::.::.::.::;.::.::;.::;.::.::.::.::.::;.::.::.::.:::

ANO ______________ WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS
OF SATISFACTORY E\/1DENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE \\ITHIN INSTRUMENT ANO ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/ SHE/ THEY EXECUTED

THE SAME IN HIS/ HER/ THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), ANO THAT BY HIS /HER /THEIR SIGNA TURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY ON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
\\ITNESS MY HANO,
SIGNATURE: ____________ _
PRINT NAME:�-������-�=�

NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY AND STATE
MY COMMISSION NUMBER, ________ _
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ________ _
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: ______ _
PARCEL MAP 10999

NUIIBERS

BEING A SUBDIVISION OF THE PARCEL DEEDED PER DOCUIIENT
2017-066990 AND 1994-312570, PARCEL 4C PER DEED
OOCUIIENT NO. 2018-106891, PARCEL A AS SHOWN ON TRACT llAP S.16, Fil.ED IN BOOK 357 OF llAPS AT PAGE 88, LOT 7 AS SHOWN ON TRACT llAP 8382, Fil.ED IN BOOK 351 OF llAPS AT PAGE 60, AND PARCEL K AS SHOWN ON TRACT llAP 8388, Fil.ED IN BOOK 357 OF llAPS AT PAGE 77, omcw. RECORDS OF ALAIIEDA COUNTY

ALAMEDA

CITY OF DUBLIN

COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR

CIVIL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS, SURVEYORS

PLEASANTON, CAIJFORNIA
DECEIIBER 2022
JOB NO. 061076Pll2 SHEET 1 OF 5 SHEETS
Attachment 2
393
394
395
396
397

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 4.9
DATE: January 10, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Annual Proclamation
Prepared by: Cierra Fabrigas, Executive Aide
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will review the Official Proclamation List and consider approval of the Annual Proclamation.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the Official Proclamation List and approve the Annual Proclamation.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None.

DESCRIPTION:

At its meeting on September 20, 2022, the City Council reviewed the Official List of Proclamations and the proclamation process. The City Council approved the List and the process, with the request that the List be re-approved each January with the adoption of the Annual Proclamation.

Attached is the List for 2023, updated with any proclamations not previously included but found on the Federal Register. Staff asks that the City Council accept this as the new City of Dublin Official Proclamation List and approve the Annual Proclamation.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.
398

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Official List of Proclamations
2) City of Dublin Annual Proclamation
399
City of Dublin
Official List of Proclamations (2023)
January
Mentoring Month
Stalking Awareness Month
Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month
February
Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month
African American History Month/ Black History Month
American Heart Month
Career and Technical Education Month
Lunar New Year
March
Women's History Month
Irish-American Heritage Month
Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month
American Red Cross Month
Meals on Wheels
Disabilities Awareness Month
April
Arbor Day
Bike Month and Bike to Work Day
Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month
Donate Life Month
Cancer Month
Financial Capability Month
Child Abuse Prevention Month
Second Chance Month
Fair Housing Month
Crime Victims' Rights Month
Month of the Military Child
May
Small Business Week
Public Works Week
Affordable Housing Week
Lupus Awareness Month
Mental Health Awareness Month
Physical Fitness and Sports Month
Building Safety Month
Foster Care Month
Older Americans Month
Jewish American Heritage Month
Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month
Correctional Workers Week
Job's Daughters International Day
Municipal Clerk's Week
Attachment 1
400
June
LGBTQ+ Pride Month and Flag Raising
Flag Day and National Flag Week
National Oceans Month
Carribbean-American Heritage Month
Homeownership Month
Great Outdoors Month
African American Music Appreciation Month
Juneteenth
Gun Violence Awareness Day and Month
World Elder Abuse Month
Immigrant Heritage Month
July
Pledge to America's Workers Month
August
National Night Out
American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month
September
Suicide Prevention Awareness Month
Hispanic Heritage Month
Childhood Cancer Awareness Month
Wilderness Month
Prostate Cancer Awareness Month
Preparedness Month
Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month
Childhood Obesity Awareness Month
Recovery Month
Constitution Week
Sickle Cell Awareness Month
October
Walk and Roll to School
Fire Prevention Week
Red Ribbon Week
Bullying Prevention Month & Unity Day Energy Action Month Breast Cancer Awareness Month
Domestic Violence Awareness Month
Youth Justice Awareness Month
Disability Employment Awareness Month
Cybersecurity Awareness Month
Arts and Humanities Month
Global Diversity Awareness Month
Manufacturing Day
Children's Environmental Health Month
Diwali
Hindu American Awareness and Appreciation Month
Clean Energy Action Month
Substance Abuse Awareness Month
November
401
Native American Heritage Month
Family Caregivers Month
Diabetes Month
Entrepreneurship Month
Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience Month
College Application Month
Alzheimer's Disease Awareness Month
Adoption Month
Veterans and Military Families Month
United Against Hate - Oral Communications
American History and Founders Month
Lung Cancer Awareness Month
December
Impaired Driving Prevention Month
Total Proclamations - 95
402
Attachment 2

A PROCLAMATION OF THE

CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
“Annual Proclamation 2023”
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin wishes to recognize organizations within the City by publicly and formally declaring notable occasions by the issuance of proclamations; and
WHEREAS, at its September 20, 2022 meeting, the City Council adopted an Official List of Proclamations for the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin invites organizations to ceremonially receive proclamations throughout the year; and WHEREAS, 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.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED in support of the City of Dublin mission, the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim the following in 2023 throughout the City of Dublin:

January
Mentoring Month
Stalking Awareness Month
Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention
Month
April
Arbor Day
Bike Month and Bike to Work Day
Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention
Month
Donate Life Month
Cancer Month
Financial Capability Month
Child Abuse Prevention Month
Second Chance Month
Fair Housing Month
Crime Victims' Rights Month
Month of the Military Child
February
Teen Dating Violence Awareness and
Prevention Month
African American History Month/ Black
History Month
American Heart Month
Career and Technical Education Month
Lunar New Year
May
Small Business Week
Public Works Week
Affordable Housing Week
Lupus Awareness Month
Mental Health Awareness Month
Physical Fitness and Sports Month
Building Safety Month
Foster Care Month
Older Americans Month
Jewish American Heritage Month
Asian American and Pacific Islander
Heritage Month
Correctional Workers Week
Job's Daughters International Day
Municipal Clerk's Week
March
Women's History Month
Irish-American Heritage Month
Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month
American Red Cross Month
Meals on Wheels
June
LGBTQ+ Pride Month and Flag Raising
Flag Day and National Flag Week
National Oceans Month
Caribbean-American Heritage Month
Homeownership Month
Great Outdoors Month
African American Music Appreciation
Month
Juneteenth
Gun Violence Awareness Day and Month
World Elder Abuse Month
Immigrant Heritage Month
403
Attachment 2
July
Pledge to America's Workers Month
October
Walk and Roll to School
Fire Prevention Week
Red Ribbon Week
Bullying Prevention Month & Unity Day
Energy Action Month
Breast Cancer Awareness Month
Domestic Violence Awareness Month
Youth Justice Awareness Month
Disability Employment Awareness
Month
Cybersecurity Awareness Month
Arts and Humanities Month
Global Diversity Awareness Month
Manufacturing Day
Children's Environmental Health Month
Diwali
Hindu American Awareness and
Appreciation Month
Clean Energy Action Month
Substance Abuse Awareness Month
August
National Night Out
American Muslim Appreciation and
Awareness Month
November
Native American Heritage Month
Family Caregivers Month
Diabetes Month
Entrepreneurship Month
Critical Infrastructure Security and
Resilience Month
College Application Month
Alzheimer's Disease Awareness Month
Adoption Month
Veterans and Military Families Month
United Against Hate
American History and Founders Month
Lung Cancer Awareness Month
September
Suicide Prevention Awareness Month
Hispanic Heritage Month
Childhood Cancer Awareness Month
Wilderness Month
Prostate Cancer Awareness Month
Preparedness Month
Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month
Childhood Obesity Awareness Month
Recovery Month
Constitution Week
Sickle Cell Awareness Month
December
Impaired Driving Prevention Month
Mayor Melissa Hernandez Vice Mayor Michael McCorriston
_______ Councilmember Sherry Hu Councilmember Jean Josey Councilmember Kashef Qaadri 404

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 6.1
DATE: January 10, 2023
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 hold a public hearing to review and consider adopting the proposed update to the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. This includes an exemption from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed Plan updates and replaces the 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and will inform future infrastructure, program, and policy recommendations.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and adopt the Resolution Adopting the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Finding the Plan Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

All Staff costs and consultant costs associated with the preparation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan are funded in the approved 2022-2027 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project, Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements, CIP No. ST0517. The City received $210,000 in funding from the Transportation Development Act Article Three funds to assist with the preparation of the Plan.

Any improvement projects implementing the proposed recommendations in the Plan will also be covered under the approved CIP No. ST0517 or will be brought forward to the City Council with a recommendation for funding.
405

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. The Plan includes an assessment of existing system conditions through an inventory of 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 updated Plan results in a recommended biking and walking network and a prioritized list of projects to support biking and walking in Dublin. This Plan replaces the City’s 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Summary of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update
Key sections and recommendations of the Plan are summarized in the sections below.

Community Engagement
The community engagement effort included the following virtual and in-person activities:
 Project Website and Interactive Map. The project website, accessed at https://dublinbikeped.org/, 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 approximately 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 with 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 on the project website.
 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 in 2022. 406

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.

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 wellconnected 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 for 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 64 and Figure 26, page 65 of the Plan, provided as Attachment 3). 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 407

Class I path, or the shared–use path network (“path LTS”) with exclusive right of way for bicyclists and pedestrians away from the roadway like the Iron Horse Regional Trail.

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 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 destinations was analyzed to estimate existing access to key destinations. The output 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 15 in the Executive Summary section and Figure 35,

include:
 Corridor Projects. Corridor projects were identified on high-stress roadways that represented major barriers to biking and walking.
 Point Projects. Point projects were identified at locations that represented major barriers to biking and walking, including freeway crossings, high-stress trail crossings, high-stress intersections, and locations that experienced a high frequency or severity of collisions.

Over 50 centerline miles and 54-point project locations were identified to increase low-stress bicycle connectivity and reduce barriers to walking by improving crossings and closing gaps in the network. A complete streets approach was taken during the development of infrastructure recommendations. Bicycle-, pedestrian-, and transit-supportive investments are considered in each corridor and crossing project. The project recommendations are presented as a package, with concurrent improvements to support all three active and sustainable travel modes. Network recommendations include:
408

 Shared Lane (Class III): 12.4 miles
 Bike Lane (Class IIA): 3.1 miles
 Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB): 17.0 miles
 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): 10.4 miles o Improvements to existing shared use paths adjacent to roadway: 4.9 miles o Speed Reduction: 1.3 miles
 Point Projects
o Freeway Interchange projects: 16 locations
o Trail Crossing projects: 5 locations
o Street 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 draft 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, as follows:
 Tier I Projects. High priority projects with secured 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 with no identified funding source.

The total cost of all the projects identified in this Plan is approximately $104 million to $215 million. The low-end of the cost estimate assumes 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 of the cost estimate considers the need to move the curb to add new bicycle facilities, upgrade bicycle facilities, update or add pedestrian crossings, update pedestrian facilities, add street trees, redesign freeway interchange ramps, and 409

add 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 City’s General Fund, funds collected through developer fees, and State, regional, and federal grants.

The Plan identifies potential funding sources and relevant requirements. A few of the projects identified in Tier I are partially funded by the above-mentioned funding sources and will be implemented through various projects in the adopted 2022-2027 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance The draft Supplemental Design Guidance document (Page 270 of Attachment 4 – Appendix D) identifies relevant resources for a variety of design topics applicable to planning and designing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Specifically, it includes topics in developing Dublin’s biking and walking infrastructure, including bikeway selection and facility design, bicycle facilities through intersections, accessible pedestrian signals, and crosswalk improvements.

REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES:
 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 (DUSD), Caltrans, and various City departments 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.
 City Council Information Session. The Plan was presented to the City Council on August 16, 2022. The majority of the feedback was positive. The Mayor and Councilmembers supported the vision of an all-ages and -abilities network and appreciated the recommendations identified in the Plan. Most of the discussion was related to the potential funding sources and implementation timelines for Tiers I, II, and III projects. There were several comments about the importance of coordination with adjacent jurisdictions and other agencies (e.g., Caltrans, BART, DUSD). The City Council’s comments have been addressed and incorporated into the Plan.
 Parks and Community Services Commission. The Plan was presented to the Parks and Community Services Commission on September 19, 2022. The majority of the feedback was positive. The Commissioners supported the vision of an all-ages and -abilities network and appreciated the recommendations identified in the Plan. Most of the comments were about specific projects, priorities, or policies. For example, one Commissioner suggested prioritizing enhanced connections around the future Emerald High School and SCS 410

Property, while another suggested considering a requirement to provide e-bike charging locations. The Parks Commission’s comments have been addressed and incorporated into the Plan.
 Planning Commission: The Plan was presented to the Planning Commission on November 8, 2022. Staff responded to questions from Commissioners about proposed improvements in Downtown Dublin, the percentage of pedestrian injuries, progress towards completing bike lanes identified in the current plan, e-bikes and how proposed improvements will be funded. There were three public speakers who were supportive of the Plan but provided comments and suggested changes. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Plan to the City Council and requested that Staff return in two years with a report on the Plan implementation and challenges (PC Resolution No. 22-15, Attachment 5).

To address some of the common concerns heard at the above-mentioned public meetings regarding the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure around the future Emerald High School and the SCS Property, a new recommendation that would allow a complete streets study on Dublin Boulevard east of Tassajara Road was added to the proposed project list. Additionally, the proposed project in the vicinity of the future Emerald High School on Central Parkway along with a proposed project in the Downtown area on Dublin Boulevard was moved to a higher tier. Staff will also continue to monitor the impact of emerging trends such as e-bikes as mentioned under the Emerging Technologies and Innovations Policy in Section 5 - Recommended Policies Programs, Policies and Practices in the Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The Plan is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements pursuant to Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 21080.20 Bicycle Transportation Plans because it consists of bicycle and pedestrian transportation improvements for the urbanized City of Dublin. The plan focuses on restriping streets and highways, signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles, and signal timing to improve intersection operations. Recommended projects within the Plan that do not fall strictly within the project types described under PRC Section 21080.20 include feasibility studies, a project previously approved following CEQA review, projects that would be statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to PRC Section 21080.25, and projects that would be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land. Such projects would be subject to independent environmental review prior to implementation. The CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memo (Attachment 2) discusses these exemptions in further detail.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE
Strategy 1: Downtown Dublin and Economic Development
Objective A: Continue support of the Downtown Preferred Vision and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan including improving visual and environmental quality and evaluating specific business uses. 411

Strategy 5: Safe and Accessible Community
Objective E: Support existing and innovative public safety efforts.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The Plan, along with the Plan’s Supplemental Design Guidance was posted on the City’s website prior to the City Council meeting on August 16, 2022, was sent via e-mail on September 8, 2022 to parties who signed up for notification through the Dublin Outreach website “dublinbikeped.org” and the City’s “Notify Me” system, and was posted on the City’s social media channels on September 12, 2022.

A public notice regarding this public hearing was published in the East Bay Times. A copy of this Staff Report was sent to Alameda County Transportation Commission’s Independent Watchdog Committee. The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Adopting the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Finding the Plan Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act
2) Exhibit A to the Resolution - CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memo 3) Exhibit B to the Resolution - Draft Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 4) Appendices to Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
5) Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-15 - Recommending that the City Council Adopt the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Find the Plan Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
412
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted 01/10/2023 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 23-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

ADOPTING THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN AND FINDING THE PLAN EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the City Council adopted the Bikeways Master Plan (2007 Bikeways Master Plan) and associated amendments to the Dublin General Plan and various Specific Plans for consistency with the Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2014, the City Council adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2014 Plan) that combined the update to the 2007 Bikeways Master Plan and the City's first Pedestrian Plan into a comprehensive document that provides policies, network plans, prioritized project lists, support programs and best practice design guidelines for bicycling and walking in Dublin; and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2014, the City Council also adopted amendments to the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Historic Village Area Specific Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, and Dublin Zoning Ordinance to ensure that the text and maps remain consistent with the 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update; and WHEREAS, Policy 1-3 of the 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan recommends an update every five years to reflect best practices in bicycle and pedestrian policy and design, changing community interests and needs, and remain eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding; and
WHEREAS, this Bicycle and Pedestrian 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 resulted in infrastructure, program, and policy recommendations that support walking and biking in Dublin; and
WHEREAS, it was determined that no further amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Specific Plans are required at this time; and
WHEREAS, the update to the 2014 Plan has been renamed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Plan); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) certain projects require review for environmental impacts and, when applicable, environmental documents to be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the Plan was examined to determine if the environmental review is required. The analysis concluded that the Plan is exempt from CEQA review as follows (Exhibit A - CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memorandum, dated October 2022):

Attachment 1
413
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted 01/10/2023 Page 2 of 3  The Plan qualifies for the statutory exemption pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21080.20 Bicycle Transportation Plans because it consists of bicycle and pedestrian transportation improvements for the urbanized City of Dublin.  Some of the implementation measures and projects identified in the Plan are also statutorily exempt under Public Resources Codes section 21080.25.  In addition, the Plan and some implementation projects under the Plan qualify for the following categorical exemptions and none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines 15300.2 apply: CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land; and WHEREAS, following a noticed public hearing on November 8, 2022, the City of Dublin Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-15 recommending that the City Council find that the Plan is exempt from CEQA and that the City Council adopt the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, attached here to as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Plan and CEQA exemptions, on January 10, 2023, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider the Plan and CEQA exemptions and related comments and responses, all said reports, recommendations and testimony at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings for the Plan is the City of Dublin Public Works Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that on the basis of the findings above and the record as a whole (including Exhibit A - the CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memo), the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby find that the project is exempt from CEQA and directs Staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the Office of Planning and Research, Alameda County Clerk.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Exhibit B).
414
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted 01/10/2023 Page 3 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
City Clerk
415
Exhibit A
Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
City Project No. ST0517
CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memorandum
prepared by
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
Contact: Sai Midididdi, Associate Civil Engineer (Traffic) prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
October 2022
Attachment 2
416
Table of Contents
CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memorandum i
Table of Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

2. Plan Location and Description ............................................................................................ 1

3. Senate Bill 288..................................................................................................................... 1

4. Statutory Exemption Consistency Analysis......................................................................... 2

5. Additional Exemption Eligibility .......................................................................................... 3

6. Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 4

7. References .......................................................................................................................... 4 417
1 1. Introduction
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this Exemption Eligibility Memorandum for the City of Dublin’s Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update (Plan). The purpose of this memorandum is to assess whether the Plan meets the provisions of Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.20, which provides a Statutory Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This exemption recognizes that CEQA does not apply to a bicycle transportation plan for an urbanized area that includes restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing to improve street and highway intersection operations, and related signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles. This memorandum also identifies other statutory and categorical exemptions that are applicable to specific projects recommended within the Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update, including PRC Section 21080.25; CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities; CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land. This memorandum accompanies the Notice of Exemption in determining the Plan qualifies for an exemption from CEQA.

2. Plan Location and Description
The Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update would be implemented in the City of Dublin.

Dublin is 14.59 square miles in area, located in Alameda County along I-580, approximately 350 miles north of Los Angeles and 35 miles east of San Francisco. The City of Dublin is generally bounded by the City of San Ramon to the north, Castro Valley to the west, the City of Pleasanton to the south, and the City of Livermore to the east.

The Plan would update the City of Dublin’s 2014 Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and would reflect current conditions and changes in community demographics, the physical environment, and public policy. The Plan would reflect a comprehensive citywide effort to guide, prioritize, and implement a network of quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities to improve mobility, connectivity, public health, physical activity, and recreational opportunities. The Plan would also assess existing system conditions, analyze community needs, and evaluate demographic data.

3. Senate Bill 288
Senate Bill (SB) 288, signed into law at the end of the 2020 legislative session, facilitates projects that broaden California’s development of sustainable transportation facilities through streamlining of CEQA review requirements. Specifically, SB 288 amends PRC Section 21080.20, which exempts bicycle transportation plans (including those with pedestrian improvements) for urbanized areas, to extend exemption eligibility through the end of 2029. SB 288 also repeals the requirement for lead agencies to conduct traffic and safety impact assessments. Lead agencies must file a notice of exemption when pursuing the exemption for one of these project types.

SB 288 also added CEQA exemptions under PRC Section 21080.25 for the following project types:
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit prioritization, conversion of roadways to bus-only lanes, expansion of bus or light rail service, charging stations for zero-emission transit buses, or projects that reduce minimum parking requirements. This exemption expires at the end of 2022 but may be replaced by SB 922, which would extend CEQA exemptions under PRC Section 21080.25 until the end of 2029. SB 922 was enrolled in August 2022 but has not yet been signed into law. PRC Section 418
Exemption Eligibility Memorandum
Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update
21080.25 specifically details exemptions for new pedestrian and bicycle facilities including, but not limited to, bicycle parking, bicycle sharing facilities, and bikeways, as long as certain conditions are met. Therefore, individual projects recommended within the Plan would be further eligible for statutory exemption from CEQA at the project level under PRC Section 21080.25, should SB 922 be signed into law.

4. Statutory Exemption Consistency Analysis
The Plan qualifies for the SB 288 exemption under PRC Section 21080.20 as a bicycle and pedestrian transportation plan for an urbanized area. A bicycle transportation plan exempt from CEQA must be in conformance with the requirements of SB 288, as articulated in PRC Section 21080.20. The following analysis assesses how the Plan meets each of the SB 288 stipulations. (1) The plan is located in an urbanized area.

The term “urbanized area,” as defined by the general CEQA classification in PRC Section 21071, is an incorporated City that either has a population of at least 100,000 persons or has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons. The City of Dublin is an incorporated city with a population of 72,932 in 2022 (California Department of Finance 2022). The City of Pleasanton is also an incorporated city, is contiguous with the City of Dublin, and has a population of 77,609 in 2022.

The City of Dublin and the City of Pleasanton are two contiguous incorporated cities with a combined population of approximately 150,541 in 2022. Therefore, the Plan meets this requirement.
(2) The plan consists of restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing to improve street and highway intersection operations, and related signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles.

The Plan contains approximately 125 recommended projects that primarily focus on the restriping of streets and highways; signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles; and signal timing to improve intersection operations. Therefore, the Plan meets this requirement. (3) The lead agency shall hold one noticed public hearing in the area affected by the bicycle transportation plan to hear and respond to public comments prior to determining that a project is exempt. The notice must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project.

The Draft Plan, the Plan’s Design Guidelines, and the Staff Report were made available to the public through the City of Dublin website when the Draft Plan was taken to the Dublin City Council as an informational item on August 16, 2022. Furthermore, the Draft Plan was sent via email on September 8, 2022, to parties who signed up for notification through the Dublin Outreach website (dublinbikeped.org) and the City’s Notifyme system. The Draft Plan was posted on the City of Dublin’s social media channels (NextDoor, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter) on September 12, 2022. The Draft Plan was also presented to Parks and Community Services Commission on September 19, 2022. In addition, the Plan will be considered at a noticed public hearing by both the Planning Commission and the Dublin City Council, where members of the public will have an opportunity to comment. Therefore, the Plan meets this requirement. 419
3 5. Additional Exemption Eligibility
Some trail and trail connection projects recommended in the Plan may not fall within the project types described under PRC Section 21080.20. However, most of these projects are located within existing paved areas and rights-of-way, would be built out with other proposed development projects requiring independent environmental review, and/or would be undertaken by a different lead agency., Many of these projects would be eligible for a categorical exemption at the project level, as described below. In addition, two projects (bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the Alamo Canal at Civic Plaza and bicycle and pedestrian connection to Alamo Canal and Iron Horse Trail at Sierra Court Cul-de-sac (T-8 and C-3)) recommended in the Plan identify specific projects for future study. These projects are unfunded, are not included in the City’s current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and would require independent environmental review after future study and project design, prior to implementation. Furthermore, Project C-2 (Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project) is not listed in the exemption criteria but was previously approved following CEQA review (State Clearinghouse No. 2012062009) and is currently under construction.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 details Class 1 exemptions that consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features. These projects must involve negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Examples of projects eligible for a Class 1 exemption under subsection (c) include, but are not limited to, existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and other similar alterations that do not create additional automobile lanes. The addition of trails and trail connections to existing roadways, trails, and paths would be eligible for exemption under CEQA Section 15301(c), as such projects would constitute negligible expansion of existing use and would not create additional automobile lanes.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 details Class 3 exemptions for projects that consist of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. Examples of projects eligible for a Class 3 exemption under subsection (d) include, but are not limited to, water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions, including street improvements, of a reasonable length to serve such construction. The addition of some trail connections would be eligible for exemption under CEQA Section 15301(d), as they would consist of the construction of a limited number of new small street improvements.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 Minor Alterations to Land CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 details Class 4 exemptions that consist of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples of projects eligible for a Class 4 exemption under subsection (h) include, but are not limited to, the creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way. Many of the trail projects recommended in the Plan would 420
Exemption Eligibility Memorandum
Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update
take place within existing rights-of-way and would therefore be eligible for exemption under CEQA Section 15304(h).

6. Conclusion
Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, the proposed Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update would meet the requirements for an exemption from CEQA. Therefore, it is concluded that the Plan is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to PRC Section 21080.20.

Recommended projects within the Plan that do not fall strictly within the project types described under PRC Section 21080.20 include feasibility studies, a project previously approved following CEQA review, projects that would be statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to PRC Section 21080.25, and projects that would be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land. Such projects would be subject to independent environmental review prior to implementation.

7. References
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2022. "Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State - January 1, 2021 and 2022"
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e4-2010-2020/ (accessed September 2022).

California Legislative Information. 2020. SB-288 California Environmental Quality Act: exemptions:
transportation-related projects. Published September 30, 2020. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB288 (accessed September 2022).
421

DUBLIN BICYCLE AND

PEDESTRIAN PLAN
October 2022
Draft
Attachment 3
422
2 City of Dublin Draft

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CITY OF DUBLIN
Melissa Hernandez (Mayor)
Jean Josey (Vice Mayor)
Shawn Kumagai (Councilmember)
Sherry Hu (Councilmember)
Michael McCorriston (Councilmember)
Pratyush Bhatia, Transportation
and Operations 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 the City Manager
Michael P. 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
423
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 3
Acknowledgments 2
Executive Summary 4

1. Introduction 17

2. Community & Stakeholder Engagement 35

3. Walking & Biking in Dublin Today 44

4. Recommended Bicycle &
Pedestrian Networks 77

5. Recommended Programs,
Policies, and Practices 95

6. Implementation Strategy 106
Glossary 122
Appendix

TABLE OF CONTENTS
424

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THE NEED FOR A BICYCLE

AND PEDESTRIAN 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 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 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.
4 City of Dublin Draft 425
GOAL 1 GOAL 2 GOAL 3 GOAL 4 GOAL 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 wellconnected 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.

Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 5 426

ORGANIZATION
The Plan document is organized
in the following chapters:

1. INTRODUCTION—
Outlines the project’s
background, vision, planning
process, timeline, and goals.

2. COMMUNITY
& STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT—
Summarizes the approach
to, and findings from,
community and stakeholder
engagement activities.

3. 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.

4. RECOMMENDED

BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN
NETWORK—Summarizes the
approach to developing network
recommendations and presents
the recommended citywide
bicycle and pedestrian network.

5. RECOMMENDED

PROGRAMS, POLICIES, &
PRACTICES—Summarizes
the approach to developing noninfrastructure recommendations and presents the program and
policy recommendations.

6. 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.

7. LOOKING AHEAD—
Recaps key findings from prior
chapters and discusses next
steps for Plan implementation.

8. TECHNICAL
APPENDIX—Includes
bicycle and pedestrian
facility design guidelines
and provides memorandums
documenting technical analysis
and engagement activities.

PROCESS
FALL 2020 WINTER
2022
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
6 City of Dublin Draft 427

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
CC - City Council
PC - Planning Commission
Parks - Parks Commission
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2020
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2021
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2022
TAC #1
MAR 4, 2020
TAC #2
SEP 15, 2020
TAC #3
JUN 3, 2021
TAC #4
MAR 15, 2022
Parks
Sept. 19, 2022
CC
August 16, 2022
Public
Survey
MAY - SEP 2021
Project
Start
CC Aproval
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
PC
Nov 8 2022
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
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 7 428

WALKING & BIKING IN DUBLIN TODAY

DUBLIN DEMOGRAPHIC SNAPSHOT
Dublin
Population
61,240
Dublin Population by
Race/Ethnicity
Dublin Population by Age
35%
7%
9%
24%
16%
8%
25-44
UNDER 5
65+
45-65
5-14
15-24
6%
2+ RACES

1.1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
49%
<1%
2%
ASIAN
<1% Hispanic or
Latino/a/x

AMERICAN

INDIAN AND

ALASKA NATIVE
<1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
OTHER

1.6% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
4%
BLACK/

AFRICAN

AMERICAN
<1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
39%
WHITE

6.5% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
48%
28%
7%
7%
5%
5%

ASIAN-INDIAN

CHINESE
(EXCEPT

TAIWANESE)
OTHER

ORIGINS

FILIPINO
KOREAN

VIETNAMESE
*rounded
Source: US Census American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2015-2019) 8 City of Dublin Draft 429
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

CARPOOL MORE THAN
67%
15%
2%
3%
& 9% 2015-2019 American Community Survey data
Others worked from home or took other modes to work
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 9 430

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.
10 City of Dublin Draft 431

WALKING AND BIKING ACCESS

SCHOOLS
Cottonwood Creek School, Dougherty Elementary,
and Kolb Elementary exhibit the highest
estimated walk access with around 36 percent
of students living within a 10-minute walk.

Access points on high-stress streets create a barrier and reduce the likelihood of students to bike to school.

Figure 2. Bicyclist Typology
Table 18. Pedestrian Typology
Age Typology Walking
Characteristics
Under 14 Youth Limited by multilane crossings
14 to
55 Teenage and
Working Age
Adults
Strong and capable, but still limited by sidewalk
gaps, unsignalized crossings at major roads, and
absence of midblock crossings
Over 55 Aging The limits experienced by young adults and adults and further limited by the absence of curb ramps or long multilane crossings
SHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF 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.

Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 11 432

NETWORK

RECOMMENDATIONS

BICYCLE FACILITIES
The recommended new facilities
include the following:

Shared Lane
(Class I): 12.8 miles
Standard or Buffered
Bicycle Lane
(Class II): 19.9 miles
Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Bu
ered Bike Lane
Bike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
cility Class II Facility
hese: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him) Class III Facility Class IV Facility
Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Bu
ered Bike Lane
Bike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
Class II Facility
YI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him) Class III Facility Class IV Facility
With Shared Lane
(Class III): 12.4 miles
Separated Bicycle Lane
(Class IV): 10.4 miles
Bike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
bicycle facilities
Class II Facility
got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him) Class III Facility Class IV Facility
For more,
see Chapter 4.

PEDESTRIAN

FACILITIES
The recommended pedestrian
and bicycle networks were
developed in tandem using a
complete street approach. A
suite of pedestrian treatments
is recommended along project
corridors so that when concept
designs are developed, bicycle
and pedestrian improvements
can be planned, designed, and
implemented at the same time.

Pedestrian improvements include:
• consistent sidewalk
• buffers with street trees
and green stormwater
infrastructure
• high-visibility crosswalks
• accessible curb ramps
• curb extensions
• reduced corner radii
• signal improvements

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
Intersections and mid-block
locations in the city with
relatively high collision frequency
and severity relative to the rest of
the network have been prioritized
for safety enhancements.

The recommendations for
this Plan include 16 freeway
modernization improvements,
33 intersection improvements,
and 5 crossing improvements.

For more,
see Chapter 4.
12 City of Dublin Draft 433

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
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 13 434

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
$82,250,000-
$186,580,000
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, developerfunded 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.
14 City of Dublin Draft 435
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 10/13/2022 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
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities a
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: 10/13/2022 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
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.

Refer to Table 6 for detailed project descriptions.

Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 15 436
21 437
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
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 wellconnected 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 multimodal 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

TASSAJARA CREEK TRAIL

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

VILLAGE PW

FALLON RD

DOUGHERTY RD

IRON HORSE TRAIL

ALAMO CANAL TRAIL

SAN RAMON RD

AMADOR VALLEY BL

ARNOLD RD

VOMAC RD

HACIENDA DR

SIERRA CT

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
E xisting Unsignalized Crossing
Crossing with Pedestrian Beacon
Exiting Trail Crossings Exiting Bikeways
C
Path
Bicycle Lanes
Bicycle Route
lass I
Class II
Class III
BART
City Limits
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 17 438
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 2014
proposal of 35.3 miles of
bikeways. They have built
seven of the 25 recommended
pedestrian projects, and two
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.
18 City of Dublin Draft 439

INFRASTRUCTURE INVENTORY
The 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan produced a suite of infrastructure recommendations, including the following:

A recommended walking network consisting
of five main improvement types:
83 bikeway
infrastructure
projects, totaling

35.3 miles
Signalized Tassajara Creek trail crossing at Central Parkway.

The 2014 Plan recommended Tassajara Creek crossing
locations at Dublin Boulevard which have not yet been built.

WALKING NETWORK PROJECT TYPES
A recommended bikeway network with
the following intended focus:

CONNECTIONS TO KEY ACTIVITY CENTERS

COMFORT AND LOW LEVEL OF STRESS

CONNECTIONS TO REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM

CONNECTIONS TO ADJACENT CITIES

BIKEWAY NETWORK PROJECT TYPES
Class IIA bike lane along Tassajara Road,
which was proposed in the 2014 Plan.

INTERSECTION

CROSSING

TREATMENTS

SIDEWALK

IMPROVEMENTS
ADA

IMPROVEMENTS
SIGNAL

MODIFICATIONS
REMOVE

BARRIERS
Figure 4. Infrastructure Inventory
24 pedestrian
infrastructure
projects
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 19 440

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
20 City of Dublin Draft 441
m
!
m
!m
!m
!
m
!
m
!
m
!
m
!
m
!
m
!
m
!
m
! m
!
m
!
§¨¦680
§¨¦580

BRIGHTON DR

VOMAC RD

STAGECOACH RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVO NA DR

SI VL ERGATE DR

BANDON DR

SIERRA LN

HANSEN DR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHART ST

YORK DR

KEEGAN ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANO PW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUE DR

SAN RAMON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

AMADOR VALLEY BL

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST

CROMWELL AV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGE RD

FCI CREEKSIDE DR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SEBILLE RD

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR
12TH ST

TOWER RD

SYRAH DR

HILLROSE DR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK DR

EAGLE RD

BRODER BL

INSPIRAT I ON DR

CREEKVIEW DR

HILLTOP RD

DUBLIN BL
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Proposed Bikeways, Built
Class I
Class IIA
Class IIB
Proposed Bikeways, Not Built
Class I
Class IIA
Class IIB
Class IIIA
[ 0 1Mile
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
Training Area
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 21 442
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)
22 City of Dublin Draft 443
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 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)
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 23 444
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
24 City of Dublin Draft 445

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 7.94 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 representative 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
¥10 Long
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
134,125 bicyclist-involved collisions and
136,618 pedestrian-involved collisions
across California. That is an average of
37 and
bicyclist-involved
38 pedestrian-involved
collisions per day collisions per day

THERE WERE
1,351 bicyclist fatalities across
California. That is more than

2.5 FATALITIES

PER WEEK

AND THERE WERE
6,874 pedestrian fatalities across
California. That is nearly
2 PEDESTRIANS

KILLED EACH DAY
IN 2014, NEARLY
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,
pedestrian fatalities have declined
bicycle and

PEDESTRIAN

FATALITIES

DECLINED

BICYCLE

FATALITIES
DECLINED 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

FATALITIES

INCREASED
Data from SWITRS, 2005-2014,
California Strategic Highway Safety Plan,
and National Household Travel Survey 2000-2002 & 2010
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 25 446
• 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 CommunityBased Transportation Plan is
an assessment of transportation
needs in the county’s lowincome 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, West 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
26 City of Dublin Draft 447
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 October 21, 2021
Adopted
FINAL

SUMMARY REPORT

DISTRICT
4 FOR THE BAY AREA PEDESTRIAN PLAN
2021
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, Toward 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-Tawansy
District Director
District 4 – Bay Area

WHERE IS CALTRANS
DISTRICT 4?
District 4 covers the Bay Area,
which includes the counties of
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,
Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma.

District 4 Director,
Dina A. El-Tawansy
SR 1 at Tam Junction. Photo by Sergio Ruiz.
4 CALTRANS DISTRICT 4 / Pedestrian 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
234,000+ 23,000+ 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 North Canyons Parkway. To
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, lowemission and shared future.

MTC Plan Bay Area
2050 (2021): This plan
from the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission
(MTC) is the region’s longrange 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
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 27 448
that should be considered to
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
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
Entrance to Iron Horse Trail
28 City of Dublin Draft 449
project implementation, the
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 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 West 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,
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 29 450
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, transitoriented 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.

City of Dublin 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
30 City of Dublin Draft 451
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 West 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 pedestrianscale 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.

Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 31 452

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.
3 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.
5 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:
32 City of Dublin Draft 453

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
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 33 454
22 455
Inclusive and meaningful
community and stakeholder
engagement is necessary to create
a Bicycle and Pedestrian 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 35
Photos from pop-up events at the St Patrick's Day Festival and Alamo Creek Trailhead Draft 456
Figure 6. Public Engagement Timeline

PROJECT WEBSITE
BPAC - Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
TAC - Technical Advisory Committee
CC - City Council
PC - Planning Commission
Parks - Parks Commission
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2020
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2021
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2022
TAC #1
MAR 4, 2020
TAC #2
SEP 15, 2020
TAC #3
JUN 3, 2021
TAC #4
MAR 15, 2022
Parks
Sept. 19, 2022
CC
August 16, 2022
Public
Survey
MAY - SEP 2021
Project
Start
CC Aproval
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
PC
Nov 8 2022
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
36 City of Dublin Draft 457

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
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 37 458
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%
Bike Connections.

Comments that discussed
bike connections largely
focused on consistent
connections to paths, across
over and under passes, and main bike
routes.
14%
Maintenance. Comments
that discussed maintenance
largely focused on poor
road conditions, debris in the road, and
broken sidewalk.
12%
Signals. Comments that
discussed signals largely
focused on issues with
signal bike detection at
intersections.
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%
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%
Pedestrian Connections. Comments
that discussed pedestrian connections
largely focused on improving specific
sidewalk connections and creating
walking paths.
38 City of Dublin Draft 459
? 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%
Signals.

Comments which
discussed signals
largely focused on
safer intersections
through changes to signals timing.
12%
Bike Connections
Comments that
discussed bike
connections largely
focused on
connecting bike trails and lanes to
key destinations and each other.
22%
Other
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%
General.

Comments that
were general were
focused on
appreciation for
the City’s efforts to improve bike
and pedestrian facilities.
35%
Bike Lanes.

Comments that
discussed bike
lanes were focused
on effective plastic
barriers, separated bike paths,
and green paint.
18%
Signals.

Comments that
discussed signals
were focused on
flashing lights at
intersections and well-placed
crossing buttons.
12%
Other
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
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 39 460

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. Fortytwo people attended the hourlong 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
40 City of Dublin Draft 461
participants questions about their
experiences on public streets,
their comfort with various
modes of micromobility, and
their demographic information.

The workshop also included a
poll asking participants about
their experiences walking, biking,
and using micromobility on
public streets, whether they feel
comfortable using these modes in
Dublin, and whether they would
want to see bike and scooter share
programs in Dublin. The poll
received 30 responses. Participants
of the poll were also asked how
they classify themselves in terms
of confidence using a bike in
Dublin, as well as how often they
ride a bike. Of the responses, the
most common confidence level
was Enthused and Confident
(47 percent), followed by
Interested but Concerned (27
percent), Strong and Fearless
(23 percent), and No Way, No
How (3 percent) (see Figure 12).

POP UP EVENTS
Feedback was gathered at three
in-person events to understand
where people walk and bike and
what issues, concerns, ideas, and
priorities they have related to
walking and biking in Dublin.

FARMERS’
MARKET—25 MAY, 2021
Feedback was gathered on
existing conditions and needs.

Approximately 40 people
provided input, and participants
were rewarded with Carrot
Cash and giveaways.

ALAMO CREEK
TRAILHEAD—27
MAY, 2021
Dublin partnered with Bike
East Bay in an effort to hear
from trail users at the Alamo
Creek Trailhead as part of
National Bike Month Activities.

Feedback was gathered in real
time and flyers with the public
survey link were handed out.

ST. PATRICK’S DAY
FESTIVAL—12
MARCH, 2022
Feedback was gathered on the
draft network recommendations
and additional comments on
program and policy priorities
for walking and biking in
Dublin. The St. Patrick’s Day
Festival in Dublin is one of
the biggest local community
events of the year. This twoFigure 12. Poll Responses to Classification of Bicyclist Types by Frequency of Bicycle Use
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 41 462
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
42 City of Dublin Draft 463
3 464
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 EmployerHousehold Data (LEHD)
from 2017, and the American
Community Survey fiveyear 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)
44 City of Dublin Draft 465
Figure 13. Dublin Population by Race & Ethnicity Figure 14. Dublin Rounded Population by Age 35%
7%
9%
24%
16%
8%
25-44
UNDER 5
65+
45-65
5-14
15-24

OF RESIDENTS

FEMALE AND MALE
*gender identity data is not available
50/50*
Figure 15. Dublin Population by Gender
6%
2+ RACES

1.1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
49%
<1%
2%
ASIAN
<1% Hispanic or
Latino/a/x

AMERICAN

INDIAN AND

ALASKA NATIVE
<1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
OTHER

1.6% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
4%
BLACK/

AFRICAN

AMERICAN
<1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
39%
WHITE

6.5% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
48%
28%
7%
7%
5%
5%

ASIAN-INDIAN

CHINESE
(EXCEPT

TAIWANESE)
OTHER

ORIGINS

FILIPINO
KOREAN

VIETNAMESE
* 10.1% of Dublin's population identify as hispanic or latino/a/x Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 45 466

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 nonessential 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
46 City of Dublin Draft 467
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.1

BART STATION ACCESS
There are two BART stations
in Dublin: the West 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
1 https://www.kittelson.com/ideas/will-covid-19-permanently-alter-teleworking-and-commuting-patterns-heres-what-1000-commuters-told-us/) station entries at the West
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 West 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 West 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)
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 47 468
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.
2 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.2 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
Table 3. Pedestrian Typology perceived safety and comfort.

Age Typology Walking
Characteristics
Under
14 Youth Limited by multilane crossings
14 to
55 Teenage and
Working
Age Adults
Strong and capable,
but still limited
by sidewalk gaps,
unsignalized crossings
at major roads, and
absence of midblock
crossings
Over 55 Aging
The limits
experienced by young
adults and adults and
further limited by the
absence of curb ramps
or long multilane
crossings
Figure 19. Bicyclist Typology
SHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLIN
48 City of Dublin Draft 469
• 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 walkingand 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 Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 49 470
Figure 20. Existing Bicycle Network Map
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Existing facilities_10052022.mxd Date: 10/5/2022 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
Public Schools
BART Stations
Parks
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Existing facilities_10052022.mxd Date: 10/5/2022 Existing Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walk
Dub
0 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
Public 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: 10/7/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public 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
Training Area
50 City of Dublin Draft 471

MULTI USE PATHS
(CLASS I)
Multi use paths provide a
separate facility designed for
the exclusive use of bicycles,
pedestrians, and other nonmotorized 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 subclassifications for each Caltrans classification. These subclassifications were designed to correspond with the previously existing system and to incorporate emerging facility typologies.

Class I Facility
Dublin Boulevard east of Tassajara Road. Person riding a bike on a Class II facility separated from right-turning traffic.

Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 51 472

BICYCLE LANES (CLASS II)
Bicycle lanes are on-street bikeways that provide a dedicated space for the exclusive or semi-exclusive bicycle use. Throughtravel 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 Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin, CA. Source: City of Dublin. Class III Facility in Portland, OR. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. ility Class II Facility
ese: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him) Class III Facility Class IV Facility
dentify complementary bicycle facilities
Class I Facility Class II Facility
KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him) Class III Facility Class IV Facility
Diagram of typical Class
III bike lane configuration
Diagram of typical Class IIB bike lane configuration
52 City of Dublin Draft 473

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.

Bike parking should be added to new developments as well as key destinations like BART
New development provides key opportunities to ensure Dublin adequately provides both short- and long-term bicycle parking.

Class IV Facility, San Diego, CA Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. you have questions, please reach out to him)
cility Class IV Facility
Bike Parking at Dublin Library Source: City of Dublin
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 53 474
Currently, Dublin follows parking
requirements n Section 5.106.4 of the
California Green Building Code. This
code states that 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 shortterm 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 and is necessary
for most workplaces, residences, transit
stations, park and ride lots, and other
locations where individuals 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. Longterm parking can consist of bike lockers, enclosed bike cages, bike rooms, and bike
stations, each of which is discussed in
the following bullets. Long term parking
should also support charging for e-bikes.
• 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 West
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
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
54 City of Dublin Draft 475
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. 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.

BikeLink lockers at the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station. Source: Kittelson * Associates. Inc.

Maintenance station on a trail.

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Wayfinding signage for West Dublin/
Pleasanton BART Station. Source:

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 55 476
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. Landuse patterns that determine
the distance between origins
and destinations as well as the
density, diversity, and intensity
of uses also shape people’s
walking and biking habits.

Key walking and biking
destinations were mapped.

Specific points of interest
were selected for consistency
with the Plan’s goals to
increase walking and biking
mode share to school,
transit, trailheads and
parks, and work. These
activity centers are shown
in Figure 21 and include:
• Schools: All public K–12
schools within Dublin
Unified School District
• BART: West Dublin/
Pleasanton station and
Dublin/Pleasanton station
• Job Centers: Seven
job centers that include
Dublin’s largest employers
and concentrations
of employment
• Parks: Neighborhood
and community
parks in Dublin
Person with an e-scooter waiting to cross at
Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Road.

Source: Kittelson & Associates. Inc.
56 City of Dublin Draft 477
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: 10/7/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public 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, Key Destinations, and Existing Facilities Map Pleasanton
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Elean
Fallo
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 10/7/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public 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 Us
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: 10/7/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public 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
Training Area

WEST DUBLIN/

PLEASANTON

DUBLIN/

PLEASANTON
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 57 478

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
58 City of Dublin Draft 479
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 lesslikely-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
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 59 480

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 poorlydesigned crossings for
people walking and biking.
• Long crossing distances
and limited street
connectivity (e.g., cul-desacs 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
“A person in a wheel chair or
a parent with a stroller can’t
safety navigate the sidewalk.”
— community member
• 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 highinjury 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.
60 City of Dublin Draft 481

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.

Souce: Tefft, 2013
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 61 482
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 severeinjury 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. 62 City of Dublin Draft 483
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
recorded by the reporting officer
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 highinjury network (HIN). This HIN constitutes the worstperforming 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
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 63 484
Figure 25. Pedestrian High-Injury Network Map
§¨¦680
§¨¦580

BRIGHTON DR

VOMAC RD

STAGECOACH RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVO NA DR

SI VL ERGATE DR

BANDON DR

SIERRA LN

HANSEN DR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHART ST

YORK DR

KEEGAN ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANO PW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUE DR

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

CROMWELL AV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGE RD

CREEKSIDE DR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD

SYRAH DR

HILLROSE DR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK DR

EAGLE RD

BRODER BL

INSPIRAT I ON DR

CREEKVIEW DR

HILLTOP RD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING R
Ma
D
rtin 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 DR

VOMAC RD

STAGECOACH RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVO NA DR

SI VL ERGATE DR

BANDON DR

SIERRA LN

HANSEN DR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHART ST

YORK DR

KEEGAN ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUE DR

SAN RAMON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DR

AMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD
8TH ST

CROMWELL AV

BARNET BL

RANGE RD

CREEKSIDE DR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD

SYRAH DR

HILLROSE DR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK DR

EAGLE RD

BRODER BL

INSPIRAT I ON DR

CREEKVIEW DR

HILLTOP RD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING R
Ma
D
rtin 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
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
Ped
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: 10/7/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public 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
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
64 City of Dublin Draft 485
Figure 26. Bicycle High-Injury Network Map
Martin Canyon Creek Trail
Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trai
§¨¦ l
680
§¨¦580

BRIGHTON DR

VOMAC RD

STAGECOACH RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVO NA DR

SI VL ERGATE DR

BANDON DR

SIERRA LN

HANSEN DR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHART ST

YORK DR

KEEGAN ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANO PW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUE DR

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

CROMWELL AV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGE RD

CREEKSIDE DR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD

SYRAH DR

HILLROSE DR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK DR

EAGLE RD

BRODER BL

INSPIRAT I ON DR

CREEKVIEW DR

HILLTOP RD

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 Trai
§¨¦ l
680
§¨¦580

BRIGHTON DR

VOMAC RD

STAGECOACH RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVO NA DR

SI VL ERGATE DR

BANDON DR

SIERRA LN

HANSEN DR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHART ST

YORK DR

KEEGAN ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANO PW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUE DR

SAN RAMON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DR

AMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD
8TH ST

CROMWELL AV

BARNET BL

RANGE RD

CREEKSIDE DR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD

SYRAH DR

HILLROSE DR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK DR

EAGLE RD

BRODER BL

INSPIRAT I ON DR

CREEKVIEW DR

HILLTOP RD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton
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
Bicy
0 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: 10/7/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public 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
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
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 65 486
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.
66 City of Dublin Draft 487
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
3 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.3 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
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 67 488
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,
68 City of Dublin Draft 489
Figure 28. On Street and Path LTS Combined Map
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
§¨¦680
§¨¦580

BRIGHTON DR

VOMAC RD

STAGECOACH RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVO NA DR

SI VL ERGATE DR

BANDON DR

SIERRA LN

HANSEN DR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHART ST

YORK DR

KEEGAN ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANO PW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUE DR

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

CROMWELL AV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGE RD

CREEKSIDE DR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD

SYRAH DR

HILLROSE DR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK DR

EAGLE RD

BRODER BL

INSPIRAT I ON DR

CREEKVIEW DR

HILLTOP RD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING R
Ma
D
rtin Canyon Creek Trail
Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park

FALL CREEK RD

CROMWELL AV

H AV EN L P

BARNET BL

CROAK RD
FCI
6TH ST

ASPEN ST

DIANA LN

SEBILLE RD

QUARTZ CI

RANGE RD

SCHAEFER LN
12TH ST

ALBROOK DR

VALLEY VISTA DR

DUBLIN BL
PENND
V
R

ILLAGE PW

WILDWOOD RD

CENTRAL PW

BENT TREE DR

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANO PW

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

VITTORIA LP

INSPIRATION DR
§¨¦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: 10/5/2022 Path LTS Scores
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
On-Street and Path LTS
Dublin, California
[ 0 1Mile
Figure 13
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
§¨¦680
§¨¦580

BRIGHTON DR

VOMAC RD

STAGECOACH RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVO NA DR

SI VL ERGATE DR

BANDON DR

SIERRA LN

HANSEN DR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHART ST

YORK DR

KEEGAN ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANO PW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUE DR

SAN RAMON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DR

AMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD
8TH ST

CROMWELL AV

BARNET BL

RANGE RD

CREEKSIDE DR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD

SYRAH DR

HILLROSE DR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK DR

EAGLE RD

BRODER BL

INSPIRAT I ON DR

CREEKVIEW DR

HILLTOP RD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING R
Ma
D
rtin Canyon Creek Trail
Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park

FALL CREEK RD

CROMWELL AV

H AV EN L P

BARNET BL
FCI
6TH ST

ASPEN ST

DIANA LN

SEBILLE RD

QUARTZ CI

RANGE RD

SCHAEFER LN
12TH ST

ALBROOK DR

VALLEY VISTA

DUBLIN BL
PENND
V
R

ILLAGE PW

WILDWOOD RD

CENTRAL PW

BENT TREE DR

DOUGHERTY RD
P

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

VITTORIA LP

INSPIRATION DR
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
Pleasanton
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\13 All LTS COmbined.mxd Date: 10/5/2022 Path LTS Scores
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
On
0 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: 10/7/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public 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
Training Area
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 69 490
Figure 29. Low Stress Islands Map
§¨¦680
§¨¦580

BRIGHTON DR

VOMAC RD

STAGECOACH RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVO NA DR

SI VL ERGATE DR

BANDON DR

SIERRA LN

HANSEN DR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHART ST

YORK DR

KEEGAN ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANO PW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUE DR

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

CROMWELL AV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGE RD

CREEKSIDE DR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD

SYRAH DR

HILLROSE DR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK DR

EAGLE RD

BRODER BL

INSPIRAT I ON DR

CREEKVIEW DR

HILLTOP RD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING R
Ma
D
rtin 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\LTS Analysis - low stress.mxd Date: 10/5/2022 On-Street LTS
1 2
Shared Use
Path (Class IA)
LTS 1
LTS 2
Class IB
Sidepath
LTS 1
LTS 2 Figure 8
Level of Traffic Stress - Low Stress Facilities
Dublin, California
[ 0 1 Mile
§¨¦680
§¨¦580

BRIGHTON DR

VOMAC RD

STAGECOACH RD

TAMARACK DR

DAVO NA DR

SI VL ERGATE DR

BANDON DR

SIERRA LN

HANSEN DR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

YORK DR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUE DR

SAN RAMON RD

SIERRA CT

TASSAJARA RD

HACIENDA DR

AMADOR VALLEY BL

SCHAEFER RANCH RD
8TH ST

CROMWELL AV

BARNET BL

RANGE RD

CREEKSIDE DR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

TOWER RD

HILLROSE DR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK DR

EAGLE RD

BRODER BL

INSPIRAT I ON DR

CREEKVIEW DR

HILLTOP RD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING R
Ma
D
rtin Canyon Creek Trail
Alamo Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\LTS Analysis - low stress.mxd Date: 10/5/2022 On-Street LTS
1 2
Shared Use
Path (Class IA)
LTS 1
LTS 2
Class IB
Sidepath
LTS 1
LTS 2
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: 10/7/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public 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
Training Area
70 City of Dublin Draft 491
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 highervolume 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. The current barriers to
walking are 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
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 71 492
! !
èéëìí èéëìí !èéëìí

0./"$
!èéëìí
!èéëìí
!
èéëìí
89:m89:m
89:m 89:m
89:m
89:m
89:m
89:m
§¨¦680
§¨¦580

BRIGHTON DR

VOMAC RD

STAGECOACH RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVO NA DR

SI VL ERGATE DR

BANDON DR

SIERRA LN

HANSEN DR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHART ST

YORK DR

KEEGAN ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANO PW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUE DR

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

CROMWELL AV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGE RD

CREEKSIDE DR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR

TOWER RD

SYRAH DR

HILLROSE DR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK DR

EAGLE RD

BRODER BL

INSPIRAT I ON DR

CREEKVIEW DR

HILLTOP RD

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
89:m89:m
89:m 89:m
89:m
89:m
89:m
89:m
§¨¦680
§¨¦580

BRIGHTON DR

VOMAC RD

STAGECOACH RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVO NA DR

SI VL ERGATE DR

BANDON DR

SIERRA LN

HANSEN DR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

YORK DR

KEEGAN ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUE DR

SAN RAMON RD

SIERRA CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

HACIENDA DR

AMADOR VALLEY BL

BRANNIGAN ST

SCHAEFER RANCH RD
8TH ST

CROMWELL AV

BARNET BL

RANGE RD

CREEKSIDE DR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SCARLETT DR
PALISA

TOWER RD

SYRAH DR

HILLROSE DR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK DR

EAGLE RD

BRODER BL

INSPIRAT I ON DR

CREEKVIEW DR

HILLTOP RD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton
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
Pedestr
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: 10/7/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public 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
Training Area
72 City of Dublin Draft 493

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 analysis
assumed that people used
the shortest available route
to get to the destinations
• 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 halfmile 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.

Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 73 494

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 elementary 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 oneeighth 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
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.
74 City of Dublin Draft 495

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 lowstress 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 mode 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 lowstress 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 access points
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 75 496
4 497
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

FRAMEWORK
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

EVALUATION
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.

The identified facility types should be
considered a minimum. In cases where
more space is available, the City will
increase the level of separation between
people driving and people biking.

4. RECOMMENDED BICYCLE
& PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS
“Bike lanes and
separate pedestrian
path are great”
— community member
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 77 498
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 10/13/2022 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 ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and
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: 10/7/2022 Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public 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
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.

Refer to Table 6 for detailed project descriptions.
78 City of Dublin Draft 499
Figure 36. Preferred Bikeway Type
PHASE 3: NETWORK

REFINEMENT
Once the low-stress facility
was determined, a highlevel 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 lowstress facility would be more challenging, potential parallel
routes were sought to provide
similar quality of access as the
constrained corridor. Constrained
or challenging corridors were
identified and recommended
for further evaluation as part
of a complete streets study.

The resulting project list was
refined to address feedback
from City staff, TAC, BPAC,
and community members.
23 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION
Figure 9: Preferred Bikeway Type for Urban, Urban Core, Suburban and Rural Town Contexts
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Separated Bike Lane
or Shared Use Path
Bike Lane
(Buffer Pref.)
Shared Lane
or Bike
Boulevard
10k
9k
8k
7k
6k
5k
4k
3k
2k
1k
0 1 Chart assumes operating speeds are similar to posted speeds. If they differ, use operating speed rather than posted speed. 2 Advisory bike lanes may be an option where traffic volume is <3K ADT. 3 See page 32 for a discussion of alternatives if the preferred bikeway type is not feasible.

Notes
Source: US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Bikeway Selection Guide, FHWA-SA-19-077, February 2019, https:// safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf. “Would love to see separated bike
lanes with street trees and widened
sidewalks.”
— community member
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 79 500

NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS

COMPLETE STREET APPROACH
A Complete Street approach was taken during the development of infrastructure recommendations. Bicycle-, and pedestriansupportive 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 hardening4
• Intersection daylighting5
• Narrow vehicle travel lanes
• Traffic control modifications (e.g., stop sign, signal) • Signal timing and phasing modifications
(e.g., restrict right turn on red)
4 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. 5 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 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) 3.1
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) 17.0
Complete Streets Study: Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV) 10.4
Complete Streets Study: Consider Improvements to Existing Sidepaths (Class IB) 4.9
Path (Class IA) 7.9
Speed Reduction Evaluation 1.3
Total 56.8*
* Corridor projects are not double counted in this total if they represent multiple project types, like speed reduction and buffered bike lanes. 80 City of Dublin Draft 501
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; as a future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) 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; as a future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) 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; as a future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) 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; if speeds are not lowered, as a future phase provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV)
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; as a future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) 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: