2026 REGULAR MEETING - CITY COUNCIL / LINCOLN REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY / LINCOLN PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY*
September 22, 2026
CITY OF LINCOLN
2026 REGULAR MEETING - CITY COUNCIL /
LINCOLN REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY
/ LINCOLN PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY*
September 22, 2026
AS A COURTESY, PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & ELECTRONIC DEVICES DURING THE MEETING -COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA-
6:00 PM
Mayor Richard Pearl
Mayor Pro Tem Whitney Eklund Councilmember Holly Andreatta Councilmember Ben Brown Councilmember John Reedy City Hall (Extremely Limited Seating Capacity)
3rd Floor Council Chambers
600 Sixth Street
Lincoln, CA 95648
or attend via
ZOOM
register by using this link:
https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_L1sVeRjjSwaygN5OEfk5ew or participate by calling US: +1 (669) 900-6833
use ID #842 1355 6096
and use *9 to raise hand to speak
600 Sixth Street
◆
Lincoln, CA 95648
◆
www.lincolnca.gov
◆
916-434-2400 1
1. CLOSED SESSION - 5:00pm
EXECUTIVE TEAM
Sean Scully, City Manager
Douglas White, Special Counsel
Nita Wracker, Asst. City Manager / Finance Director
Matt Alves, Police Chief
Jennifer Brown, Chief Innovation & Tech. Officer
Vin Cay, City Engineer
Erin Frye, Econ. Dev. & Communication Specialist
Kathryn Hunt, Library Services Director
Hope Ithurburn, City Clerk
Matthew Medill, Public Works Director
Veronica Rodriguez, Human Resources Director
Anthony Mejia, Fire Chief
MISSION STATEMENT:
To provide the highest level of service responsive to our community’s expectations and to enhance the quality of life and economic vitality.
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO ASSIST WITH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
In compliance with the ADA, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting or other services in conjunction with this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 434-2490. The meeting room is wheelchair accessible and disabled parking is available. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist City staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
Agenda Availability:
The main posting location of the City Council Agenda pursuant to the Brown Act, Government Code § 54954.2(a) is on the public kiosk outside the entrance of City Hall, 600 6th Street, Lincoln, California. City Council Agenda Packets are available for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 600 6th Street, Lincoln, California, and “Live and Archived” meetings, minutes and videos are available on the City’s website at www.Lincolnca.gov. City Council Meetings are televised live 6:00PM on Cable channel 18.
Public Input:
Persons wishing to address the City Council are asked to voluntarily complete and submit a speaker card to City staff. Speaker cards are available near the entrance of the meeting location. Persons wishing to address the City Council on an item appearing on this agenda will be called upon at the appropriate time during the item’s consideration. Persons wishing to address the City Council on an item not appearing on the agenda will be called upon during “Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items.” In either case, please stand to be recognized by the Mayor when your name is called. Please note:
comments from the audience without coming to the podium may be disregarded or ruled out of order. All speakers' time will be limited to three (3) minutes, unless extended by the Mayor. All comments or questions should be addressed to the Mayor and in most cases, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, but may engage in brief discussion, provide direction to City staff, or schedule items for future meetings.
Special Meeting Public Input:
Only issues listed on a special meeting agenda may be addressed pursuant to the Brown Act’s regulation of Special Meetings.
Consent Agenda
: All matters on the Consent Agenda are considered routine business and will be enacted by one motion.
There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the City Council requests a specific item be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate action. Any items removed will be considered after the remainder of the Consent Agenda.
Judicial Review
: Pursuant to applicable laws and regulations, including without limitation, California Government Code § 65009 and/or California Public Resources Code § 21177, if you wish to challenge in court any of the decisions made by the City Council, including any action regarding planning, zoning or environmental decisions, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice/agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.
1.A
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9
Name of Case: (City of Lincoln v. The Gathering Inn, et al., Placer Superior Court Case No. S- CV-0053711)
1.B
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(4): Two (2) potential cases
1.C
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9
Name of Case: (Dickman, et al. v. City of Lincoln, et al., United States District Court, Eastern 600 Sixth Street
◆
Lincoln, CA 95648
◆
www.lincolnca.gov
◆
916-434-2400 2
2. CALL TO ORDER
3. ROLL CALL
4. PUBLIC COMMENT (CLOSED SESSION AGENDA ITEMS ONLY)
5. CALL TO ORDER
6. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION (if any)
7. ROLL CALL
8. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
9. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS
10. PRESENTATIONS
11. INFORMATION ITEMS AND DISCLOSURES
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE COUNCIL *
All speakers' time will be limited to three (3)
minutes, unless extended by the Mayor. All comments or questions should be addressed to the Mayor and in most cases, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, but may engage in brief discussion, provide direction to City staff, or schedule items for future meetings.
13. CONSENT
District of California Case No. 25-cv-02096)
GENERAL SESSION - 6:00pm
INSPIRATION OR INVOCATION
10.A
Proclamation Recognizing the Week of September 28 to October 4, 2026 as Frontotemporal Degeneration Awareness Week. (Mayor Pearl)
13.A
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Task Order with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. for the Lakeview Farms Volumetric Storage Phase 1 Project (CIP 181) in the Amount of $224,500. (Roland Neufeld)
13.B
Adopt a Resolution Approving the Notice of Completion for the Joiner Ranch East - Joiner Park Renovation Improvements. (Kaylie Tavenner)
13.C
Adopt a Resolution for Placer County Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Grant Acceptance and Creation of CIP 725 - Pantograph Charging Station at Twelve Bridges Library Transit Stop. (Araceli Cazarez)
13.D
Adopt a Resolution Approving the Fourth Amendment to the City of Lincoln Bikeways Master Plan 2026 Update. (Jonnelyn Espartero)
13.E
Adopt a Resolution Approving the Liberty At Lincoln Phase 2 Large Lot Final Map 600 Sixth Street
◆
Lincoln, CA 95648
◆
www.lincolnca.gov
◆
916-434-2400 3
14. PUBLIC HEARINGS
15. GENERAL BUSINESS
16. CITY MANAGER REPORTS
17. COUNCIL INITIATED BUSINESS
18. COMMITTEE REPORTS
19. ADJOURNMENT
And Authorizing the Recording of the Final Map. (Kaylie Tavenner)
13.F
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase of a Skeeter Type 5 Wildland Fire Engine for the Fire Department and rescind Resolution 2024-041 previously approved by City Council on March 12, 2024. (Mike Osborne)
15.A
Adopt a Resolution Creating CIP 728; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with West Coast Netting in an Amount not to Exceed $125,000 for the Design, Purchase, and Installation of Additional Protective Netting in the Outfield of McBean Stadium, and Authorizing a Budget Augmentation in the Amount of $150,000. (Scott Boynton)
15.B
Adopt a Resolution Approving the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with White Brenner, Legal Services. (Sean Scully)
NOTE:
Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council/Redevelopment Successor Agency after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office at 600 Sixth Street, Lincoln, CA during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City of Lincoln's website at
https://www.lincolnca.gov/
subject to staff's availability to
post the documents before the meeting.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, the City will provide special assistance for disabled members of the public. The meeting room is wheelchair accessible and disabled parking is available. If you have a disability and need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (916) 434-2490. As a courtesy, please make every effort to inform the Clerk of your needs at least 24 hours prior to the meeting so the City may make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Pursuant to applicable laws and regulations, including without limitation, California Government Code Section 65009 and/or California Public Resources Code Section 21177, if you wish to challenge in court any of the above decisions (including any action regarding planning, zoning and/or environmental decisions), you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice/agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Levine Act Provisions --
The Levine Act requires a party (or the party's agent(s)) to a proceeding before the City of Lincoln that involves any action or consideration to their contract, license, permit, or other entitlement for use, to disclose any campaign contribution made to City elected or appointed officer totaling more than $500 within the 12 months before the City decision. This includes contributions to Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners and members of other City boards and commissions.
600 Sixth Street
◆
Lincoln, CA 95648
◆
www.lincolnca.gov
◆
916-434-2400 4
600 Sixth Street
◆
Lincoln, CA 95648
◆
www.lincolnca.gov
◆
916-434-2400 5
SUBJECT:
Proclamation Recognizing the Week of September 28 to
October 4, 2026 as Frontotemporal Degeneration Awareness Week. (Mayor Pearl)
SUBMITTED BY:
City Clerk
DEPARTMENT:
City Manager's Office
DATE:
September 22, 2026
Item Number 10.A
ATTACHMENTS:
Proclamation FRONTOTEMPORAL DEGENERATION AWARENESS WEEK.docx
STAFF REPORT
6 PROCLAMATION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINCOLN RECOGNIZES THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 28 TO OCTOBER 4, 2026, AS
FRONTOTEMPORAL DEGENERATION AWARENESS WEEK
WHEREAS, the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration (AFTD) reports that Frontotemporal Degeneration (FTD) is a terminal and incurable neurodegenerative disease affecting the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain, causing impairments to speech, personality, behavior, and motor skills; and
WHEREAS, FTD can affect people as young as 21, with many individuals diagnosed between the ages of 45 and 64, making it one of the most common forms of dementia among people under 60; and
WHEREAS, FTD is difficult to diagnose and often takes an average of 3.6 years from the beginning of symptoms to receive an accurate diagnosis; and
WHEREAS, FTD has a profound impact on individuals, families, caregivers, and communities, with significant emotional, social, and financial costs; and
WHEREAS, greater awareness, education, research, and support are needed to improve the lives of those affected by FTD and their families; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lincoln recognizes the importance of raising awareness of FTD and supporting individuals and families living with this devastating disease; and
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICHARD PEARL, MAYOR, AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF LINCOLN, do hereby proclaim September 28 , 2026 through October 4, 2026, as Frontotemporal Degeneration Awareness Week in the City of Lincoln and encourage all residents to learn more about FTD and support those affected by this disease.
Attest: ____________________________ Hope Ithurburn, City Clerk Richard Pearl, Mayor September 22, 2026 September 22, 2026
7 SUBJECT:
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Task Order with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. for the Lakeview Farms Volumetric Storage Phase 1 Project (CIP
181) in the Amount of $224,500. (Roland Neufeld)
SUBMITTED BY:
Roland Neufeld
DEPARTMENT:
Engineering
DATE:
September 22, 2026
Item Number 13.A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Task Order with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. for the Lakeview Farms Volumetric Storage Phase 1 Project (CIP 181) in the amount of $224,500.
BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION:
The 2025/27 Biennium Budget includes $3,815,179 for CIP 181: Lakeview Farms Volumetric Storage Phase 1.
The scope of work of Phase 1 will bring the Lakeview Farms Volumetric Storage Facility into operation. Phase 1 of the project includes contour grading a 150 acre basin, placement of stockpiled topsoil along with the installation of weir structures and piping that would allow the City to channel waters of Racoon Creek into the storage basin during heavy rain events and then pump the water out after the storm event has passed. The project is located on City of Lincoln property located on Waltz Road between North Dowd Road and Wheatland Road.
In October of 2017, Civil Engineering Solutions, Inc. (Civil Solutions) was awarded a Task Order for engineering design services related to the project in an amount not to exceed $125,800. Civil Solutions sub-contracted with Au Clair Consulting Engineers to prepare the project plans and specifications.
Following the conclusion of preliminary design but prior to proceeding with final design, the preparation and submittal of a report to the U.S Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board was necessary to identify applicable environmental requirements and obtain the necessary environmental permits for the project.
Civil Solutions contacted Cardno, an environmental engineering firm, who had performed
STAFF REPORT
8 previous environmental services for the Lakeview Farms Project and requested a scope and fee to perform the necessary environmental permitting services as a sub-contractor to Civil Solutions.
On August 11, 2020, City Council authorized Task Order Amendment No. 1 with Civil Solutions to secure environmental compliance for Lakeview Farms Phase 1 through their sub- consultant Cardo in the amount of $48,980.
In 2021, applications were filed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board requesting environmental permitting authorization to proceed with construction activities related to Phase 1 of the Lakeview Farms project.
Cardo, the sub-consultant to Civil Solutions, was acquired by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. in 2022.
On July 18, 2025 staff received a letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stating that the Lakeview Farms Phase 1 project is authorized for construction under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) per Regional General Permit 16, Aquatic Habitat Restoration
And Enhancement Activities.
See Attachment A.
On September 15, 2025 staff received a letter from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board stating that the Lakeview Farms Phase 1 project is covered under the General Certification Order pursuant to Section 3838 of the California Code of Regulations, and is therefore authorized for construction under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
See Attachment B.
In the years that it took to receive environmental clearance, the sub-consultant to Civil Solutions in charge of preparing the Lakeview Farms project plans and specifications, Au Clair Consulting Engineers, retired. In June of 2026, staff received the preliminary project design files from Au Clair Consulting Engineers.
Staff requested a scope and fee from Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. through their on-call contract with the City to finalize the project plans, create the project specifications, conduct Boundary Survey, Survey of Record and provide bid period and engineering support services during construction. Stantec are uniquely qualified to finalize the project design given their historical involvement in the project and their extensive understanding of the project having undertaken the environmental permitting for the project.
Staff received a scope and fee from Stantec on August 27, 2026 in the amount of $224,500.
FINDINGS/ANALYSIS:
The scope and fee provided by Stantec was reviewed by City staff and found to be reasonable and acceptable given the nature of the work required. See Attachment C.
Civil Solutions will remain under their separate, existing contract with the City to provide historical project knowledge and aid City staff with project review.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
9 The project has received environmental clearance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for NEPA compliance and from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for CEQA compliance. See Attachments A & B.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project is funded within the CIP Budget for FY 2026/27.
Project Funding:
Fund 2470 – Public Facilities Element: Drainage $1,173,000 Fund 2750 – Storm Water Retention Basin Fund (CFD2004-1) $2,515,248 Fund 5400 – Capital Improvements Fund $ 126,931 Total Funding
$3,815,179
Project Expenses:
Task Order Design (Civil Engineering Solutions, Inc.) $ 174,780 Task Order Design (Stantec) $ 224,500
Total Expenses $ 399,280
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution.doc
Attachment A - US Army Corps of Engineers Compliance Letter.pdf Attachment B - Regional Water Quality Control Board Compliance Letter.pdf Attachment C - Task Order.pdf
10 Resolution No. 2026-XXX
RESOLUTION 2026 – XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINCOLN AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A TASK ORDER WITH STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN RELATED TO THE LAKEVIEW FARMS VOLUMETRIC STORAGE PHASE 1 PROJECT (CIP 181) IN THE AMOUNT OF $224,500
WHEREAS, the City entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Civil Engineering Solutions, Inc. on September 27, 2017 for engineering design services for the Lakeview Farms Volumetric Storage Phase 1 Project; and
WHEREAS, as part of the Professional Services Agreement, Civil Engineering Solutions, Inc. sub -contracted with Au Clair Consulting Engineers to create the plans and specifications for the project; and
WHEREAS, Au Clair Consulting Engineers have re cently retired requiring a new consulting firm to be hired to finish the design and creation of the project construction documents; and
WHEREAS, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. submitted a scope and fee to provide the required design work through their on-call contract with the City of Lincoln ; and
WHEREAS, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. are uniquely qualified to finalize the project design given their historical involvement in the project and their extensive understanding of the project including their work in managing environmental permitting for the project; and
WHEREAS, City Staff determined the scope and fee for the work to be reasonable and acceptable given the nature of the work required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the City Council of the City of Lincoln does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute a Task Order agreement with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. in the amount of $224,500.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of September, 2026 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
11 Resolution No. 2026-XXX
Richard Pearl, Mayor
ATTEST:
Hope Ithurburn, City Clerk
12 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DISTRICT
1325 J STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922
July 18, 2025
Regulatory Division (SPK-2005-00462)
City of Lincoln
Attn: Mr. Roland Neufield
600 Sixth Street
Lincoln, California 95648-1825
[email protected]
Dear Mr. Neufeld:
We are responding to your May 8, 2025, request for a Department of the Army permit for the Lakeview Farms project. This approximately 165-acre project involves activities, including discharges of dredged or fill material, in waters of the United States for wetland restoration.
The project site is located near Coon Creek, Latitude 38.94463°, Longitude -121.39586°, within Placer County, California.
Based on the information you provided to this office, the Lakeview Farms project involves the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into 113.4 acres of waters of the U.S. for the restoration of wetlands subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The specific activities that require DA authorization are the replacement of stockpiled topsoil from past grading and recontouring and fine grading of the basin floor to provide diverse wetland habitat. The project is part of an ongoing restoration project that began in 2009. The site has been previously graded as part of Phase I of the restoration project, but work has not been completed for Phase I. The work within Phase I includes final restoration activities and the stabilization of the inlet/outlet structures onsite. The project will also include inlet/outlet weir stabilizations from the placement of an interlocking matrix of cellular concrete blocks over the two existing weir notches on the berm at the southern perimeter of the basin. Once the grading and stabilization of the inlet/outlet weirs is complete, seeding of the basin floor, weirs, and any disturbed areas will take place. The project will permanently impact approximately 113.4 acres of lacustrine wetland. The project will result in the creation and preservation of 113.4 acres of seasonal wetland and marsh habitat as a result of the permanent impacts. The activities will be conducted in accordance with the Lakeview Farms Storage Facility plans and Lakeview Farms Preserve Phase I Mitigation Plan plans provided to the Corps on May 8, 2025 (Enclosure 1).
Based on the information you provided, the activity is authorized by Regional General Permit 16, Aquatic Habitat Restoration And Enhancement Activities (Enclosure 2).
Your work must comply with the terms and conditions of Regional General Permit 16, which are available on our website at
http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Permitting/Regional-and-Programmatic- General-Permits/. In addition, your work must comply with the following special conditions:
13 -2-
1. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you shall immediately notify this office of what you have found. This office will initiate the Federal and state coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
2. Prior to initiation of construction activities in waters of the U.S. authorized by this verification, you shall notify this office in writing of the anticipated start date for the work. No later than 10 calendar days following completion of construction activities in waters of the U.S. authorized by this verification, you shall notify this office in writing that construction activities have been completed.
You must sign the enclosed Compliance Certification and return it to this office within 30 days after completion of the work in waters of the U.S. authorized by this permit.
This verification is valid for four years from the date of this letter or until the Regional General Permit is modified, reissued, or revoked, whichever comes first. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions, including project-specific Special Conditions of this authorization, may result in the suspension or revocation of your authorization.
We would appreciate your feedback on this permit action including your interaction with our staff and processes. For more information about our program or to complete our Regulatory Program national customer service survey, visit our website at www.spk.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx.
Please refer to identification number SPK-2005-00462 in any correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact me by email at [email protected], or telephone at 916-557-5120.
Sincerely,
Gabriel Leggieri
Project Manager
CA North Section
Enclosures
cc: (w/ encls)
Shannon Karvonen, Stantec, [email protected] Carter Cook, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, [email protected]
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, [email protected] 14 COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION
Permit File Number: SPK-2005-00462
Regional General Permit Number: 16, Aquatic Habitat Restoration And Enhancement Activities
Permittee: City of Lincoln
Attn: Mr. Roland Neufeld
600 Sixth Street
Lincoln, California 95648-1825
County: Placer County
Date of Verification: July 18, 2025
Within 30 days after completion of the activity authorized by this permit, sign this certification and return it to the following address:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Sacramento District
1325 J Street, Room 860, Sacramento, CA 95814
[email protected]
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit your authorization may be suspended, modified, or revoked. If you have any questions about this certification, please contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
* * * * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above-referenced permit, including all the required mitigation, was completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit verification.
Signature of Permittee Date
15 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
15 September 2025
Vin Cay
City of Lincoln
600 6th Street
Lincoln, CA, 95648
[email protected]
NOTICE OF APPLICABILITY FOR COVERAGE UNDER ORDER WQ 2022-0048- DWQ, ORDER FOR CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 401 WATER QUALITY
CERTIFICATION AND WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTORATION PROJECTS STATEWIDE, LAKEVIEW FARMS PHASE 1 PROJECT
(WDID#5A31CR00616), PLACER COUNTY
On 8 May 2025, the City of Lincoln submitted a Notice of Intent (NOI) to enroll under and comply with State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Order No.
WQ 2022-0048-DWQ, Order for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Waste Discharge Requirements for Restoration Projects Statewide (Order).
The Central Valley Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed your enrollment materials and finds the Lakeview Farms Phase 1 Project (Project) meets the requirements of, and is hereby enrolled under, Order No. WQ 2022- 0048-DWQ. You may proceed with your Project in accordance with the Order. This Notice of Applicability is being issued under the General Certification Order pursuant to Section 3838 of the California Code of Regulations.
A copy of Order No. WQ 2022-0048-DWQ
(https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2022/ wqo2022-0048-dwq.pdf) can be found on the State Water Resources Control Board’s General Orders webpage.
Please familiarize yourself with the requirements of Order No. WQ 2022-0048-DWQ.
You are responsible for complying with all applicable Order requirements. Coverage under the Order is no longer valid if the Project (as described) is modified. Failure to comply with Order No. WQ 2022-0048-DWQ constitutes a violation of the California Water Code and may result in enforcement action or termination of enrollment under the Order.
16 City of Lincoln -2- 15 September 2025
Lakeview Farms Phase 1 Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The 160-acre Lakeview Farms Phase 1 Project consists of enhancing wetland habitat within a previously excavated basin. The Lakeview Farms Project was previously permitted in 2008 (WDID # 5A31CR00240) and work that previously occurred within the Phase 1 Project site included the excavation of a basin to address flooding due to regional development. The overall Lakeview Farms Project, as originally authorized, was separated into three phases of work that would be completed based on the need for flood protection. Work on the Phase 1 Project site began in May 2009 and consisted of the full excavation of the Phase I basin and stockpiling of Phase 1 basin topsoil on the Phase 2 area. Work on the wetland complex on the floor of the Phase 1 basin started during the initial grading activities, but was delayed, and previously issued permits for the Project have since expired. As a result, the final condition of the wetland complex in the Phase 1 basin was not established.
The proposed work within the Phase 1 basin includes final restoration activities and the stabilization of inlet and outlet structures. Restoration work will include the replacement of stockpiled topsoil and recontouring and fine grading of the basin floor to provide diverse wetland habitat. Inlet and outlet weir stabilization will include the placement of an interlocking matrix of cellular concrete blocks over the two existing weir notches on the berm at the southern perimeter of the basin. The matrix has a 20 percent open area which allows for full vegetation of the entire surface. The basin floor, inlet and outlet weirs, and all disturbed areas will be seeded with a native seed plant mix.
Temporary impacts to 113.4 acres of lacustrine wetlands from grading and recontouring activities will occur in order to enhance the functions of the wetland complex. The habitat will be enhanced through the addition of soils more suitable to support vegetation and increased wetland type diversity. All acreage currently inundated will continue to be inundated. Following the proposed work, the City of Lincoln will re-initiate monitoring outlined in the Lakeview Farms Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to ensure establishment of wetland habitat.
PROJECT LOCATION:
The Project is located along Walz Road between North Dowd Road and Brewer Road in Placer County.
Latitude 38.9446° and longitude -121.3958°.
PROJECT SCHEDULE:
Construction activities will take place between April and November annually from 2025 through 2030.
APPLICATION FEE RECEIVED:
$1,123.00 was received on 26 June 2025. The fee amount was determined as required by California Code of Regulations, title 23, sections 3833(b)(3) and 2200(a)(3), and was calculated as category D - Ecological Restoration and Enhancement Projects (fee code 85) with the dredge and fill fee calculator.
17 City of Lincoln -3- 15 September 2025
Lakeview Farms Phase 1 Project
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
On 28 November 2006, the City of Lincoln, as lead agency, adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2006062059) for the Project and filed a Notice of Determination (NOD) at the SCH on 20 June 2007. The Central Valley Water Board is a responsible agency under CEQA (Public Resources Code, section 21069) and in making its determinations and findings, must presume that City of Lincoln’s adopted environmental document comports with the requirements of CEQA and is valid. (Public Resources Code, section 21167.3.) The Central Valley Water Board has reviewed and considered the environmental document and finds that the environmental document prepared by the City of Lincoln addresses the Project’s water resource impacts. (California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15096, subd. (f).) The environmental document includes the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) developed by the City of Lincoln for all mitigation measures that have been adopted for the Project to reduce potential significant impacts. (Public Resources Code, section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1); California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15074, subd. (d).)
Incorporation by Reference
Pursuant to CEQA, these Findings of Facts (Findings) support the issuance of this Notice of Applicability (NOA) based on the Project IS/MND, the application for this NOA, and other supplemental documentation.
All CEQA project impacts, including those discussed in subsection C below, are analyzed in detail in the Project Final IS/MND which is incorporated herein by reference.
The Project IS/MND is available at: Lincoln City Hall, 640 Fifth Street, Lincoln, CA 95648.
Requirements under the purview of the Central Valley Water Board in the MMRP are incorporated herein by reference.
The Permittee’s application for this NOA, including all supplemental information provided, are incorporated herein by reference.
Findings
The IS/MND states that there are no potentially significant environmental effects to water resources after the mitigation measures imposed by the lead agency.
Having considered the whole of the record, including comments received during the public review process, the Central Valley Water Board makes the following findings:
Mitigation measures have been required in the Project which avoid or mitigate to a less than significant level the potentially significant environmental effect as described in the IS/MND.
Potential Significant Impact:
• The Proposed project could violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. 18 City of Lincoln -4- 15 September 2025
Lakeview Farms Phase 1 Project
• The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. • The proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding:
• To reduce erosion, the Cityls contractor shall apply for and comply with the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit prior to project construction. Permit applicants are required to prepare and retain at the construction site a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that identifies erosion control measures. The stormwater quality management program contained in the SWPPP shall address project construction and specify control measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to minimize erosion during construction. Consistent with the City of Lincoln Grading Ordinance, BMPs that could be implemented as part of the SWPPP could include, but would not be limited to
o Measures to reduce the area and length of time that the site is cleared and graded.
o Measures to revegetate (via hydroseeding) and stabilize cleared areas as soon as possible.
o Measures for comprehensive erosion, dust, and sediment control. o A program to control potential pollutants (resulting from construction activity) such as cement, mortar, paints and solvents, fuel and lubricating oils, pesticides and herbicides.
o A hazardous materials spill prevention, control, and cleanup program.
• In order to achieve avoidance, the project applicant shall establish a minimum 50-foot buffer around the wetland feature that shall be identified by exclusionary fencing. No excavation shall occur within this 50-foot buffer area. In addition, no equipment staging, soils storage, or other project related activities shall occur within the feature or the 50-foot buffer area.
If the wetland area cannot be avoided during the construction, the project applicant or their agent shall acquire all appropriate wetland permits prior to construction of the project. These permits include a Section 404 Wetlands Fill Permit from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Wetland mitigation shall be developed as a part of the section 404 CWA permitting process. Mitigation is to be provided prior to construction related impacts on the existing wetlands. The exact mitigation ratio is variable, based on the type and value of the wetlands affected by the 19 City of Lincoln -5- 15 September 2025
Lakeview Farms Phase 1 Project
project, but will be a minimum of 1:1 for preservation and 1:1 for construction of new wetlands. Wetland mitigation can be conducted on- site, or at an approved mitigation site.
• If evidence of soils or groundwater contamination is found during grading, excavation, or construction activities, the project contractor shall stop work in the affected area until the problem is resolved. If, at any time during construction or operation of the Proposed Project, evidence of soil groundwater contamination by hazardous materials as a direct result of the Proposed Project is encountered, the City shall require the contractor to stop work in the affected area immediately and contact the City for further instructions. The City may require a site assessment and coordination with Placer County Environmental Health Services.
Construction activities in the affected area will remain stopped until the contamination problem has been resolved to the satisfaction of the City.
Determination
The Central Valley Water Board has determined that the Project, when implemented in accordance with the MMRP and the conditions in this NOA and Order No. WQ 2022- 0048-DWQ, will not result in any significant adverse water resource impacts. (California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15096, subd (h).) The Central Valley Water Board will file a NOD with the SCH within five (5) working days from the issuance of this NOA. (California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15096, subd. (i).)
REPORTING AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The Permittee shall follow notification and reporting requirements described in this Notice of Applicability (NOA), and those found in Attachment D of the Order WQ 2022- 0048-DWQ, unless specified as an optional requirement and excluded from this NOA.
1. Annual Reporting
The Permittee shall submit an Annual Report each year within one month of the anniversary of the effective date of this Notice of Applicability. Annual reporting shall continue until the active discharge period is complete and the project enters the post-construction monitoring phase where upon the Permittee shall annually submit a Post-Construction Monitoring Report (Report Type 2) The Post- Construction Monitoring Report shall be submitted on the anniversary of the date that the project restoration activities were completed.
The Annual Report and Post Construction Monitoring Report shall include the information specified in Attachment D, Part A of Order No. WQ 2022-0048-DWQ.
The Permittee shall submit the report in accordance with the report submittal instructions in Attachment D of Order No. WQ 2022-0048-DWQ and email it to [email protected] and cc Nicholas Savino at [email protected].
2. Notification for In-Water Work and Diversions
20 City of Lincoln -6- 15 September 2025
Lakeview Farms Phase 1 Project
The project proponent shall notify the Water Board at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to initiating work in flowing or standing water or stream diversions.
Notification may be via e-mail, delivered written notice, or other verifiable means.
3. Environmental Monitoring
Per General Protection Measure 5 (GPM-5) of the Order, a resource specialist shall ensure that all applicable protective measures are implemented during project construction. The resource specialist shall have authority to stop any work if they determine that any permit requirement is not fully implemented. The resource specialist shall prepare and maintain a monitoring log of construction site conditions and observations, which will be kept on file.
ADDITIONAL CONDITION:
The Applicant shall obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended for discharges to surface waters comprised of storm water associated with construction activity, including, but not limited to, demolition, clearing, grading, excavations, and other land disturbance activities of one of more acres, or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres.
NOTICE OF COMPLETION:
Upon completion of the Project, you shall submit a Notice of Completion (NOC) no later than 30 days after Project completion. The NOC shall demonstrate the Project was carried out in accordance with the Project description, include a map of the Project location with final boundaries of the restoration area, and include post-project photographs. More information on the NOC is listed in section B.6 of the Order.
If you have questions, please contact Nicholas Savino by phone at (916) 464-4920 or by email at [email protected].
Patrick Pulupa
Executive Officer
Attachments: Figure 1 – Project Location
Figure 2 – Project Site Impacts
cc: Distribution List, page 7
21 City of Lincoln -7- 15 September 2025
Lakeview Farms Phase 1 Project
DISTRIBUTION LIST
[Via email only]
Gabriel Leggieri (SPK-2005-00462)
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Sacramento District Office
Regulatory Division
[email protected]
United States Environmental Protection Agency
[email protected]
CWA Section 401 WQC Program
State Water Resources Control Board
[email protected]
Richard McHenry
CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance
[email protected]
Shannon Karvonen
Stantec Consulting
[email protected]
22 City of Lincoln -8- 15 September 2025
Lakeview Farms Phase 1 Project
Figure 1: Project Location
23 City of Lincoln -9- 15 September 2025
Lakeview Farms Phase 1 Project
Figure 2: Project Site
24 Engineering Department
On-Call Contract for Professional Services
Consultant: STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.
Project Name:
Lakeview Farms Design Task Order
Date Requested: August 31, 2026
Purchase Order No. :
This Task Order, authorized through the On-Call Contract by and between the City of Lincoln (“CITY”), and Stantec Consulting Services, Inc . (“CONSULTANT”), was approved on June 9, 2026, per Resolution No. 2026-084. This Task Order is being requested for the following services (see attachment for the full detailed scope of work).
1. Sub-task 1: Engineering Services to finalize the Lakeview Farms project design as described in the attached scope of work.
Consultant shall perform services on the project described above. This Task Order shall not be binding until it has been properly signed by both parties. Upon execution, this Task Order shall supplement the Contract as it pertains to the project described above.
Project Budget
Project Budget: $224,500
Account Code(s): CIP181-650-80070-5400 ($112,101)
CIP181-804-85010-2750 ($ 60,570)
CIP181-804-85050-2750 ($ 51,829)
The work described above and herein attached as the Scope of Work is hereby authorized by the following agency representatives.
Approved by: Approved by:
City of Lincoln Stantec
Signature: _____________________ Signature: _____________________ Name: Roland Neufeld Name: _____________________
Title: Project Manager Title: _____________________ Date: 8/31/2026 Date: _____________________
Signature: _____________________
Name: _____________________
Title: Department Head
Date: _____________________
This Task Order is executed this 22
nd day of September, 2026.
Steven L. Beck, P.E>
Senior Principal
8/31/2026
25 Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
2250 Douglas Boulevard Suite 260, Roseville CA 95661-4207
August 27, 2026
File: 184032563
Attention: Roland Neufeld
City of Lincoln, Engineering Department
600 6th Street
Lincoln, CA 95648
Dear Mr. Neufeld,
Reference: City of Lincoln Lakeview Farms Final Design
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Task 102 City of Lincoln Lakeview Farms Project
The following scope is for Task Order No. 2 for the Lakeview Farms Project.
Task 102.001: Control Survey
All survey activities shall be performed under the supervision and direction of a Professional Land Surveyor licensed in the State of California, (Registrant). Control for this project shall be established based on local CORS and NGS monuments and their published values. The horizontal datum for this survey shall be the North American Datum of 1983, 2010.00 Epoch. The vertical datum for this survey shall be the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).
Aerial targets will be set in the approximate locations illustrated below by Stantec Survey crews. Primary site control will also be set by the Stantec Survey Crew. Post-processed, static GPS solutions will be used to establish the control network for the project.
Task 102.002: Aerial Topography
Current aerial topography and existing planimetrics data will be obtained for the site. The photography will be flown for use at a scale of 1” = 40’, with contours compiled at 1-foot intervals. Spot elevations and existing site features identifiable from photography will also be compiled. To provide sufficient coverage for design, the aerial limits will extend to cover the Proposed Aerial Limits (attached). A color digital ortho- photo will be prepared from the photography. The ortho-photo will be a rectified image to closely match the compiled topography, providing the capability to prepare accurate, color exhibits on subsequent efforts.
Deliverables:
• A digital CAD file containing the resulting data
26 August 27, 2026
Roland Neufeld
Reference: City of Lincoln Lakeview Farms Final Design
• Digital TIFF image(s) of the ortho-photography along with corresponding geo-referenced World files to allow for seamless integration of the photo into the compiled topography and other drawings.
Task 102.003 – Boundary Survey
A current boundary survey will be conducted of the subject property. The survey will be based on a current preliminary title report and support documents provided by the client. Existing survey monuments will be located and compared against the record documents to confirm the property limits. In addition, existing easements referenced in said title report will be plotted in relation to the boundary, as applicable. Time will be budgeted for the necessary public document research.
Deliverables:
• A digital CAD file containing the resulting data
• PDF file with the controlled boundary for inclusion in the engineering plan set.
Task 102.004 - Record of Survey
Based on initial research, it does not appear that Section 26 has not been mapped in its current configuration on any previously recorded subdivision map, official map, or record of survey filed with the County. Therefore, in accordance with Section 8762 of the State of California Business and Professions Code (The Land Surveyor’s Act) it is anticipated that a Record of Survey will be required. In compliance with California State Law, this is a non-discretional item.
Deliverables:
The Record of Survey will be prepared and filed with the County and will serve as an added benefit in memorializing the boundary survey as a matter of public record. No new monuments are budgeted in this effort as it is anticipated that sufficient monuments exist to control this site for boundary purposes.
Task 102.005 – Final Design
The 90 percent design submittal will include all drawings, specifications, and other documents planned to be included in the final bidding documents. It is anticipated that the City or their representative will provide comments at a progress meeting occurring within two weeks to one month after receiving the submittal.
The comments will be returned to the City once they have been incorporated into the design documents with a brief explanation indicating how the comments were addressed.
After the final internal QA/QC, incorporation of changes agreed to as part of the 90 percent submittal review by the City and the QA/QC team, drawings and specifications will be stamped and signed by the engineering team. Stantec will prepare an opinion of probable constructions costs or the project.
27 August 27, 2026
Roland Neufeld
Reference: City of Lincoln Lakeview Farms Final Design
Deliverables:
• Three sets of design plans (11x17) and electronic files (PDF) of the design plans, technical specifications, and cost estimate for 90% milestone submittal. • Three sets of design plans (11x17) and electronic files (ACAD and PDF) of the design plans, technical specifications (MS Word and PDF), and cost estimate (Excel Spreadsheet).
Task 102.006 - Bid Period Services
Stantec will assist the City with preparing the advertisement for bidding and distribution of the bid documents to the building exchanges. During the bidding period, the tasks identified below will be completed.
Assist in Bid Advertisement
Stantec will assist the City advertising the project. Contract documents will be electronically distributed to the Building Exchanges. The City will arrange advertisement and sale of bid documents to the Contractors.
Costs of the newspaper advertisement of the project will be paid directly by the City.
Conduct Pre-Bid Meeting
Stantec will conduct a pre-bid meeting and job site tour with the contractors to explain the project and requirements for bidding.
Respond to Questions from Bidders
Stantec will respond to questions from bidders. A written log will be kept to document the questions and responses received during the bid period.
Prepare Addenda
Stantec will prepare addenda, as required to change or clarify the project. Addenda will be provided to City, for posting and distribution to plan holders.
Evaluate Bid Results
Stantec will evaluate the bid results and provide a recommendation to the City regarding award of the construction contract.
Deliverables:
Presentation materials for pre-bid, formal responses to bidders’ questions, formal addenda as required, and a bid evaluation letter.
Task 102.007 - Engineering Support Services During Construction
Our engineering support services during construction are for general support services and do not include on-site inspection services.
Prepare Conformed Contract Documents
Stantec design staff will prepare, reproduce, and issue conformed contract documents, incorporating all addenda revisions and bid options selected by the City. The conformed documents are intended to provide 28 August 27, 2026
Roland Neufeld
Reference: City of Lincoln Lakeview Farms Final Design
a clear consolidation of project requirements for use by the construction management team and the Contractor to reduce the need for clarification requests and the potential for misunderstandings. Three half- sized (11x17) sets of drawings will be prepared along with the specifications for Contractor and City use.
Utility Coordination
Stantec will provide utility coordination including submittal of A & B letters to all pertinent utility companies.
Pre-Construction Meeting
Stantec’s project manager and project technical lead will attend the pre-construction meeting, for which an agenda will be prepared and distributed. Stantec’s staff will document the proceedings and distribute meeting minutes within five working days of the meeting to all meeting participants.
Attend On-Site Meetings
During construction, Stantec design staff will attend on-site meetings held periodically with the City staff, Construction Manager, and the Contractor to enable timely and effective resolution of important matters as they materialize and to confirm compliance of constructed work with the design intent. We have assumed attendance at 2 onsite meetings based on a 6-month construction period and as-requested weekly progress meetings (12 meetings) will be attended virtually. During the final stages of construction, the Design Engineer will help the City in preparation of punch list items.
Review Contractor Submittal
Upon receipt from the Contractor and in coordination with City staff, Stantec design staff will review material, equipment, and operation manual submittals for compliance with the contract documents and the design intent. Review comments will be conveyed to the Construction Manager for processing and distribution. Up to 10 separate submittals (8 original submittals and 2 re-submittals) are included in the scope. Submittals will be reviewed and comments will be returned to the Construction Manager. Stantec shall respond to submittals in writing within 30 calendar days, unless an earlier reply is requested on selected submittals.
Respond to Requests for Information and Clarifications
Stantec design staff will respond in writing and in a timely manner to requests for information (RFIs) from the contractor. The number and nature of RFIs and the time needed in responding to them depends to a large degree on the contractor’s experience and diligence. We anticipate approximately 15 RFIs for this project. RFIs will be reviewed and responses will be returned to the Construction Manager. Stantec shall respond to RFIs in writing within 15 calendar days, unless an earlier reply is requested on selected RFIs.
Assist in Preparation of Change Orders
Stantec design staff will provide technical (drawing/specification revisions) and cost estimating input in the consideration and execution of change orders, as necessary. We have assumed up to two change orders will be necessary.
29 August 27, 2026
Roland Neufeld
Reference: City of Lincoln Lakeview Farms Final Design
Prepare As-Built Record Drawings
Stantec design staff will prepare final record drawings incorporating construction details and modifications recorded by the contractor. Drawings will be provided to the City in electronic format (PDF files) and hard copy (one full size and two half-size drawing sets). We note that the completeness and accuracy of record drawing information depends in large part on the diligence of the contractor and construction management team. Our estimated effort assumes this information will be kept current by the contractor and will be clear and readily available. The record drawings will be completed within three months of receipt of field drawings from the construction manager/Contractor.
Task 102.008 – Project Management
Stantec will provide management and administrative services including the monitoring and control of the work and expenses during the project. Stantec will proactively manage its team, review work progress, schedule work assignments, and maintain budget through the duration of the project.
Stantec will conduct a project kickoff meeting and monthly progress meetings.
Deliverables:
• Meeting agenda and meetings notes submitted electronically.
FEE ESTIMATE
Our services will be performed on time and expenses basis not to exceed $224,500. Attached is a work breakdown structure (WBS) of our fee estimate which includes our estimate of labor hours to conduct and complete each task in the scope of services. The fee estimate is broken out for each team member and subconsultant in a matrix format showing hours and charge rates per team member. Also included is our Standard Billing Rates for 2026 showing hourly rates by skill classification.
Regards,
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Steven L. Beck , P.E.
Senior Principal
Phone: (916) 826-3665
[email protected]
Attachment: Fee Estimate and Billing Rate Schedule
30 Name Beck, Steven Vakulchik, Alex Cohen, Beth Cuomo, Anthony Woltz, Philip Tidd, Cat Driscoll, Tim Rancadore, Brett
Mohammadi,
Mohsin Herrera, Olivia ODCs Aerial Topo
Billing Level Level 18 Level 12 Level 17 Level 15 Level 12 Level 09 Level 11 Level 08 Level 09 Level 07 Project Billing Rate (T&M) $314.00 $240.00 $313.00 $285.00 $240.00 $203.00 $228.00 $194.00 $203.00 $186.00 $1.00 $1.10 Total Units (T&M) 119 536 16 14 34 4 12 24 45 24 2,466.16 8,342 Project Summary Hours Labour Expense Subs Total Fee (T&M) $37,366.00 $128,640.00 $5,008.00 $3,990.00 $8,160.00 $812.00 $2,736.00 $4,656.00 $9,135.00 $4,464.00 $2,466.16 $9,176.20 Fixed Fee 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Escalation (T&M) $1,722.15 $5,795.44 $183.63 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $189.43 $0.00 $0.00 Time & Material 828 $212,857.64 $2,466.16 $9,176.20 $224,500.00 Total Fee (T&M) $39,088.15 $134,435.44 $5,191.63 $3,990.00 $8,160.00 $812.00 $2,736.00 $4,656.00 $9,135.00 $4,653.43 $2,466.16 $9,176.20 Total 828 $212,857.64 $2,466.16 $9,176.20 $224,500.00 Task Code Task Name Units Task Type Hours Labour Expense Subs Total 102 Lakeview Farms Time & Material 828 $212,857.64 $2,466.16 $9,176.20 $224,500.00 102.001 Control Survey 1 6 6 2 9 8 2 100 Time & Material 34 $7,880.00 $100.00 $0.00 $7,980.00 102.002 Aerial Topography 8,342 Time & Material 0 $0.00 $0.00 $9,176.20 $9,176.20 102.003 Boundary Survey 1 2 4 20 1 3 16 16 277 Time & Material 63 $13,973.00 $277.00 $0.00 $14,250.00 102.004 Record of Survey 1 2 4 8 1 27 262 Time & Material 43 $9,538.00 $262.00 $0.00 $9,800.00 102.005 Final Design 28 318 16 8 500 Time & Material 370 $94,966.96 $500.00 $0.00 $95,466.96 102.006 Bid Period Services 16 30 200 Time & Material 46 $12,957.44 $200.00 $0.00 $13,157.44 102.007 Engineering Services During Construction 16 160 497.16 Time & Material 176 $46,029.44 $497.16 $0.00 $46,526.60 102.008 Project Management 56 24 16 630 Time & Material 96 $27,512.80 $630.00 $0.00 $28,142.80 FEE ESTIMATE - Lincoln On-Call Services - Lakeview Farms 31 SCHEDULE OF BILLING RATES – 2026 (USD)
Billing
Level
Hourly
Rate Description
Junior Level position
❑ Independently carries out assignments of limited scope using standard procedures, methods and techniques 3 $138 ❑ Assists senior staff in carrying out more advanced procedures 4 $147 ❑ Completed work is reviewed for feasibility and soundness of judgment 5 $164 ❑ Graduate from an appropriate post-secondary program or equivalent ❑ Generally, one to three years’ experience
Fully Qualified Professional Position
❑ Carries out assignments requiring general familiarity within a broad field of the respective profession 6 $172 ❑ Makes decisions by using a combination of standard methods and techniques 7 $186 ❑ Actively participates in planning to ensure the achievement of objectives 8 $194 ❑ Works independently to interpret information and resolve difficulties ❑ Graduate from an appropriate post-secondary program, with credentials or equivalent ❑ Generally, three to six years’ experience
First Level Supervisor or first complete Level of Specialization ❑ Provides applied professional knowledge and initiative in planning and coordinating work programs 9 $203 ❑ Adapts established guidelines as necessary to address unusual issues 10 $212 ❑ Decisions accepted as technically accurate, however may on occasion be reviewed for soundness of judgement 11 $228 ❑ Graduate from an appropriate post-secondary program, with credentials or equivalent ❑ Generally, five to nine years’ experience
Highly Specialized Technical Professional or Supervisor of groups of professionals ❑ Provides multi-discipline knowledge to deliver innovative solutions in related field of expertise 12 $240 ❑ Participates in short and long range planning to ensure the achievement of objectives 13 $251 ❑
14 $271
❑ Reviews and evaluates technical work
❑ Graduate from an appropriate post-secondary program, with credentials or equivalent ❑ Generally, ten to fifteen years’ experience with extensive, broad experience Senior Level Consultant or Management
❑ Recognized as an authority in a specific field with qualifications of significant value 15 $285 ❑ Provides multi-discipline knowledge to deliver innovative solutions in related field of expertise 16 $304 ❑ Independently conceives programs and problems for investigation 17 $313 ❑ Participates in discussions to ensure the achievement of program and/or project objectives ❑ Makes responsible decisions on expenditures, including large sums or implementation of major programs and/or projects
❑ Graduate from an appropriate post-secondary program, with credentials or equivalent ❑ Generally, more than twelve years’ experience with extensive experience Senior Level Management under review by Vice President or higher ❑ Recognized as an authority in a specific field with qualifications of significant value 18 $314 ❑ Responsible for long range planning within a specific area of practice or region 19 $326 ❑ Makes decisions which are far reaching and limited only by objectives and policies of the organization 20 $337 ❑ Plans/approves projects requiring significant human resources or capital investment 21 $358 ❑ Graduate from an appropriate post-secondary program, with credentials or equivalent ❑ Generally, fifteen years’ experience with extensive professional and management experience Makes responsible decisions on all matters, including policy recommendations, work methods, and financial controls associated with large expenditures
Expert Witness Services carry a 50% premium on labor. Overtime will be charged at 1.5 times the standard billing rate. All labor rates will be subject to annual increase.
T-3 2026 32
SUBJECT:
Adopt a Resolution Approving the Notice of Completion for the Joiner Ranch East - Joiner Park Renovation Improvements. (Kaylie Tavenner)
SUBMITTED BY:
Kaylie Tavenner
DEPARTMENT:
Engineering
DATE:
September 22, 2026
Item Number 13.B
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution accepting the Joiner Park Renovations Improvements as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the Placer County Recorder (see Attachment 2).
The landscaping and irrigation will be owned and maintained by the City.
BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION:
On October 29, 2025, the City Manager executed a Public Improvement Agreement with JEN California 24, LLC for the Joiner Ranch East – Joiner Park Renovation Public Improvements Project (see Attachment 3). As part of the Joiner Ranch East subdivision project, two lots were dedicated to the City. These two lots slightly expanded the existing park and created a connection between the subdivision and the park. The Joiner Ranch East – Joiner Park Renovation Project involved improving this newly added park area by installing irrigation and landscaping, including turf and trees.
FINDINGS/ANALYSIS:
Final inspection of the improvements was performed on July 10, 2026. Staff has determined that work performed by JEN California 24, LLC is complete and in conformance with the terms of the agreement.
JEN California 24, LLC has paid for all construction inspection and administration costs associated with the project. JEN California 24, LLC has provided a warranty bond in the amount of $29,775 in accordance with the amounts specified in the Public Improvement Agreement, guaranteeing the work for a period of one year from date of the filing of the Notice of Completion (see Attachment 4).
FISCAL IMPACT:
The irrigation and landscaping will be owned and maintained by the City. This subdivision is part of CFD 2018-1 that funds the maintenance of City infrastructure such as landscaping,
STAFF REPORT
33 parks, open space, streetlighting, street maintenance, traffic signals, stormwater quality, and drainage facilities. This subdivision is also part of CFD 2018-2 that funds City public services such as police and fire protection.
ATTACHMENTS:
Joiner Park Renovation NOC.Doc2-Attach 1 Resolution.20260922.docx Joiner Park Renovation NOC.Doc3-Attach 2 NOC.20260922.pdf Joiner Park Renovation NOC.Doc4-Attach 3 PIA.20260922.pdf Joiner Park Renovation NOC.Doc5-Attach 4 Warranty Bond.20260922.pdf 34 Resolution No. 2026-XXX
RESOLUTION 2026-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINCOLN ACCEPTING THE JOINER RANCH EAST – JOINER PARK RENOVATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AS
COMPLETE AND AUTHORIZING THE RECORDING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
WHEREAS, on October 29, 2025, the City of Lincoln entered into a Public Agreement with JEN California 24, LLC for the Joiner Ranch East – Joiner Park Renovation Public Improvements Project; and
WHEREAS, all work with the above agreement was completed on July 10, 202 6, in accordance with the agreement; and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends to the City Council that said completed project be accepted and a Notice of Completion be filed by the City.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1. Construction on the above -mentioned public improvement agreement is hereby accepted as being complete in accordance with the plans and specifications.
Section 2. The City Clerk is directed to execute and record the Notice of Completion on said agreement and project on behalf of the City of Lincoln.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of September, 2026 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
___________________________
Richard Pearl, Mayor
ATTEST:
Hope Ithurburn, City Clerk
35 RECORDING REQUEST BY:
City Clerk
City of Lincoln
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City Clerk
City of Lincoln
600 Sixth Street
Lincoln, California 95648
(Exempt from recording fees Govt. Code 27383)
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Joiner Ranch East’s Joiner Park
Renovations Public Improvements
Owner: City of Lincoln
600 6 th Street
Lincoln, CA 95648
County of Placer
State of California
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the 10 th day of July, 2026, a Final Inspection on the Joiner Ranch East’s Joiner Park Renovations Public Improvements of the certain work approved on the improvement plans was performed, and all work was found to be in accordance with the Public Improvement Agreement of said work filed with the City Clerk and adopted by the City Council of said City.
That said work of the Joiner Ranch East’s Joiner Pa rk Renovations Public Improvements was completed on July 10, 2026, and ac cepted by the City Council of the City of Lincoln on September 22, 2026.
That the name of the surety on the developer’s bond for payment on said contract is XL Specialty Insurance Company. The scope of wor k for this project consisted of landscaping improvements in the City of Lincoln, California, for the City of Lincoln.
CITY OF LINCOLN
BY:
Hope Ithurburn, City Clerk
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date Signature
City of Lincoln
600 6
th Street
Lincoln, CA 95648_________
Place
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
62 63
SUBJECT:
Adopt a Resolution for Placer County Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Grant Acceptance and Creation of CIP 725 - Pantograph Charging Station at Twelve Bridges Library Transit Stop. (Araceli Cazarez)
SUBMITTED BY:
Araceli Cazarez
DEPARTMENT:
Public Works
DATE:
September 22, 2026
Item Number 13.C
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to (1) execute the Placer County Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Grant Agreement and any subsequent amendments, (2) enter into an agreement with Placer County Transit for $1,000,000 in SB 125 funds, (3) create CIP 725 – Pantograph Charging Station at Twelve Bridges Library Transit Stop Project, (4) authorize a budget augmentation of $1,300,000 of revenue and expense accounts in Fund 7400 for Fiscal Year 2026/27, (5) execute all necessary PG&E agreements for the Rule 29 implementation, (6) execute License Agreement for Use of Real Property between the City and Western Placer Unified School district (WPUSD), and (7) execute administrative documentation necessary to facilitate the project.
BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION:
The Clean Air Grant Program managed by Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) provides monetary grants to private companies and public agencies to clean up their heavy-duty engines beyond that which is required by law or regulation through repowering, replacing, or retrofitting their engines, vehicles, or equipment. Grants may also fund infrastructure projects to support California’s transformation toward zero and near-zero emission technologies. The City applied for the Clean Air Grant in May 2026. The grant application proposed installing one 300 kW overhead pantograph charging system at the existing transit stop along Colonnade Drive adjacent to the Twelve Bridges Library (Attachment A). The charger will support on-route opportunity charging for future Placer County Transit (PCT) battery-electric buses serving the Lincoln area and will not be publicly accessible.
Senate Bill 125 (SB )125 established a one-time funding allocation to the Placer region to assist the three transit providers (Auburn, Placer County, and Roseville) with supporting their operating and capital expense needs following the COVID-19 pandemic’s impacts to public transit service operations and ridership demand. SB 125 funds consist of Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) and Zero Emission Transit Capital Program (ZETCP) funding
STAFF REPORT
64 sources, which are derived from the State’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and General Fund revenues. Of the region’s approximately $37.8 million allocation, Placer County received approximately $13.1 million to use for a combination of transit bus and van purchases and the installation of electric charging infrastructure both within the County’s Corp Yard and for on route charging within Placer County’s transit service areas (i.e., Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, Rocklin, and the unincorporated areas between and around Loomis and Auburn). Placer County has elected to reserve $1 million of their apportionment to support on- route electric charging needs for their transit services provided within the City of Lincoln.
This project is also coordinating with PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric) to take advantage of the Rule 29 EV Fleet Program. Under this program PG&E will pay for and coordinate the design and deployment of service extensions from PG&E’s electrical distribution line facilities to the service delivery point.
Western Placer Unified School District (WPUSD) is a key partner in this project, as it owns the parcel proposed for installation of the pantograph charging infrastructure. The City has previously entered into a similar site-use agreement with WPUSD for the nearby cardboard recycling center. City staff have discussed the proposed charging infrastructure with WPUSD, which has indicated its support for the site use. Accordingly, the City anticipates pursuing a comparable site-use agreement structure for this project.
FINDINGS/ANALYSIS:
On August 13, 2026, City staff were notified in being selected to receive a Clean Air Grant award for the “Pantograph Charging Station at Twelve Bridges Library Transit Stop” in the amount of $300,000. In addition to the $1,000,000 of SB125 Placer County Transit has earmarked for this project.
The City is proceeding cautiously with the project and evaluating alternative delivery methods, including design-build, to help maintain costs within the authorized grant budget. PCAPCD may have additional resources available depending on the need. However, if construction costs substantially exceed the available $1.3 million in grant funding, the City may be required to forfeit the grant and discontinue the project.
Upon authorization of the project, City staff will coordinate with the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency and its consultant, ICF, to prepare procurement documents and solicit proposals using a design-build delivery method. The design-build process will allow the City to evaluate proposers’ technical approach, schedule, qualifications, and proposed cost to determine whether the project can be delivered within available funding.
Following proposal evaluation, if staff identifies a responsive and responsible design-build team that can provide a feasible project consistent with the project scope and available grant funding, staff will return to the City Council with a recommendation to award the design-build contract. If no feasible proposal is received within the available budget, staff will evaluate available alternatives, including scope modifications, additional funding opportunities, or discontinuation of the project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Requested Budget
CIP 725 Pantograph Charging Station at Twelve Bridges Library Transit Stop Fund 7400 $1,300,000
There is no impact to the overall fund balance because the project is projected to be fully 65 reimbursed.
ATTACHMENTS:
PCAPCD Grant Acceptance.DOC2.Attach A-Resolution.2026Sep22.acazarez.docx PCAPCD Grant Acceptance.DOC3.Attach B-Aerial Map.2026Sep22.acazarez.png PCAPCD Grant Acceptance.DOC4.Attach C-DRAFT CONTRACT
DOC.2026Sep22.acazarez.docx
66 Resolution No. 2026-XXX
RESOLUTION 2026-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINCOLN AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO (1) EXECUTE THE
PLACER COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT CLEAN AIR GRANT AGREEMENT AND ANY SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS, (2) ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH PLACER COUNTY TRANSIT FOR $1,000,000 IN SB 125 FUNDS, (3) CREATE CIP 725 – PANTOGRAPH CHARGING STATION AT TWELVE BRIDGES LIBRARY TRANSIT STOP PROJECT, (4) AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AUGMENTATION OF $1,300,000 OF REVENUE AND EXPENSE ACCOUNTS IN FUND 7400 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026/27, (5) EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY PG&E AGREEMENTS FOR THE RULE 29 IMPLEMENTATION, (6) EXECUTE LICENSE
AGREEMENT FOR USE OF REAL PROPERTY BETWEEN THE CITY AND WESTERN PLACER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (WPUSD), AND (7) EXECUTE
ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTATION NECESSARY TO FACILITATE THIS PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the Clean Air Grant Program managed by Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) provides monetary grants to private companies and public agencies to clean up their heavy-duty engines; and
WHEREAS, on August 13, 2026, City staff were notifie d in being selected to receive a Clean Air Grant award for the “Pantograph Charging Station at Twelve Bridges Library Transit Stop” in the amount of $300,000; and
WHEREAS, Placer County Transit has elected to reserve $1 million of their SB 125 apportionment to support on -route electric charging needs for their transit services provided within the City of Lincoln; and
WHEREAS, the project is planning on utilizing PG&E Rule 29 EV Fleet Program benefits; and
WHEREAS, Western Placer Unified School District (WPUSD), is the owner of parcel where the pantograph charging infrastructure will be housed and the City plans to enter into site-use agreement.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Lincoln authorizes the City Manager or Designee:
1. Execute the Placer County Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Grant Agreement and any subsequent amendments
2. Enter into an agreement with Placer County Transit for $1,000,000 in SB 125 funds
3. Create CIP 725 – Pantograph Charging Station at Twelve Bridges Library Transit Stop Project
67 Resolution No. 2026-XXX
4. Authorize a budget augmentation of $1,300,000 of revenue and expense accounts in Fund 7400 for Fiscal Year 2026/27
5. Execute all necessary PG&E agreements for the Rule 29 implementation
6. Execute License Agreement for Use of Real Property between the City and Western Placer Unified School district (WPUSD)
7. Execute administrative documentation necessary to facilitate the project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of September, 2026 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
___________________________
Richard Pearl, Mayor
ATTEST:
Hope Ithurburn, City Clerk
68 69
Contract # SCN###### Page 1
GRANT AGREEMENT
Contract Number: SCN######
Board Resolution: 18-02
Grant Description: Twelve Bridges Pantograph Charging Station
This AGREEMENT is between the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (hereinafter “PCAPCD”) and City of Lincoln, (hereinafter “Grant Recipient”).
The parties agree as follows:
1. Funding Source(s)
This grant AGREEMENT is funded, in whole or in part, by a grant from the California Air Resources Board (CARB), evidenced by an AGREEMENT between PCAPCD and CARB (the "CARB Agreement"), and as such, this AGREEMENT is subject to the applicable terms and conditions of the CARB Agreement as provided therein. The terms set forth in Exhibit D, California Air Resources Board Grant Agreement Flow-Down Clauses are incorporated herein and made a part of this AGREEMENT.
2. Project Scope
Grant Recipient agrees, during the term of this AGREEMENT, to perform the requirements set forth herein and in Exhibit A, Project Requirements (hereinafter “PROJECT”).
3. Timeliness
Time is of the essence. Grant Recipient shall be obligated to devote as much time, attention, skill, and effort as may be reasonably required to perform the PROJECT in a professional and timely manner, consistent with the elements of the PROJECT.
4. Contract Period
The term of this contract shall begin on the last date signed by the parties below and conclude on or before the end dates listed in Exhibit B, Grant Schedule and Payment Terms, unless terminated or amended.
5. Payment
A. PCAPCD agrees to pay for the PROJECT covered by this AGREEMENT pursuant to the payment terms set forth below and in Exhibit B.
70 Contract # SCN###### Page 2
B. The amount paid to the Grant Recipient shall constitute full payment for the PROJECT set forth herein. Grant Recipient shall not be reimbursed for any additional expenses incurred beyond the maximum approved sum.
C. PCAPCD retains the right to require proof of PROJECT completion or costs incurred prior to any payment under this AGREEMENT.
D. Notwithstanding any other terms of this AGREEMENT, no payments shall be made to Grant Recipient until PCAPCD is satisfied that work of such value has been rendered pursuant to this AGREEMENT.
6. Notices
A. Any notice or demand desired or required to be given hereunder shall be in writing and deemed given when personally delivered, sent via email with confirmed receipt, or deposited in the mail, postage prepaid, sent certified or registered and addressed to the parties as follows:
PCAPCD:
Attn: Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO)
Placer County Air Pollution Control District
110 Maple Street
Auburn, CA 95603
Email: [email protected]
Grant Recipient:
Attn: Sean Scully
City of Lincoln
600 Sixth Street
Lincoln, CA 95648
Email:
B. Any notice so delivered personally shall be deemed to be received on the date of delivery, any notice so delivered via email with confirmed receipt shall be deemed to be received on the date of receipt confirmation, and any notice mailed shall be deemed to be received five (5) days after the date on which it was mailed.
7. Obligations of PCAPCD
A. PCAPCD agrees to pay Grant Recipient an amount not to exceed the amount set forth in Exhibit B, in accordance with the requirements listed in Exhibit A.
B. PCAPCD shall only reimburse Grant Recipient for any expenses incurred which are specifically authorized in Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
C. Except for the payment obligations set forth above, PCAPCD shall have no other obligations or responsibilities to Grant Recipient under this AGREEMENT.
8. Obligations of Grant Recipient
71 Contract # SCN###### Page 3
A. Grant Recipient has or will obtain all additional funding set forth in Exhibit B of this agreement, if applicable.
B. Grant Recipient has or will obtain, at Grant Recipient’s expense, all required licenses, permits, fees, and other legal authorizations from all applicable Federal, State, and local jurisdictions necessary to commence and properly complete, in a professional manner, the PROJECT described in Exhibit A and will produce sai d documents if requested by PCAPCD.
C. Grant Recipient shall provide proof of PROJECT completion and verification of costs as set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
9. Hold Harmless/Indemnity
The Grant Recipient hereby agrees to protect, defend, indemnify, and hold PCAPCD free and harmless from any and all losses, claims, liens, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character including, but not limited to, the amounts of judgments, penalties, interest, court costs, legal fees, and all other expenses i ncurred by PCAPCD arising in favor of any party, including claims, liens, debts, personal injuries, death, or damages to property (including employees or property of PCAPCD) and without limitation by enumeration, all other claims or demands of every character occurring or in any way incident to, in connection with or arising directly or indirectly out of, the AGREEMENT, including any acts, omissions, or work performed by Grant Recipient’s Subcontractor(s). Grant Recipient agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, provide defense for, and defend any such claims, demand, or suit at the sole expense of the Grant Recipient. Grant Recipient also agrees to bear all other costs and expenses related thereto, even if the claim or claims alleged are groundless, false, or fraudulent.
This provision is not intended to create any cause of action in favor of any third party against Grant Recipient or PCAPCD or to enlarge in any way the Grant Recipient's liability but is intended solely to provide for indemnification of PC APCD from liability for damages or injuries to third persons or property arising from Grant Recipient's performance pursuant to this AGREEMENT, including work performed by Subcontractor(s).
As used above, the term PCAPCD means Placer County Air Pollution Control District or its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers.
10. Insurance Requirements
A. Grant Recipient shall file with PCAPCD, concurrently herewith, Certificates of Insurance, in companies acceptable to PCAPCD, with a Best’s rating of no less than A: VII. Grant Recipient shall furnish PCAPCD with original certificates and amendatory endorse ments or copies of the applicable policy language affecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by PCAPCD before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Grant Recipient’s obligation to provide them. PCAPCD reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.
72 Contract # SCN###### Page 4
B. Each policy shall be endorsed with the following specific language: Cancellation Notice:
“This policy shall not be canceled or materially changed without first giving thirty (30) days prior written notice to Placer County Air Pollution Control District.”
C. Grant Recipient shall maintain the following insurance coverage in full force and effect during the term of this contract:
1. WORKER’S COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE
If Grant Recipient represents that they have no employees, and does not hire Subcontractors/Sub-Grant Recipients with employees, then they are not required to have Workers Compensation coverage.
Worker's Compensation Insurance shall be provided as required by any applicable law or regulation. Employer's liability insurance shall be provided in amounts not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) each accident for bodily injury by accident, one million dollars ($1,000,000) policy limit for bodily injury by disease, and one million dollars ($1,000,000) each employee for bodily injury by disease.
If there is an exposure of injury to Grant Recipient’s employees under the U.S.
Longshoremen’s and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act, the Jones Act, or under laws, regulations, or statutes applicable to maritime employees, coverage shall be included for such injuries or claims.
Grant Recipient shall require all Sub-Grant Recipients to maintain adequate Workers’ Compensation insurance. Certificates of Workers’ Compensation shall be filed with PCAPCD upon demand.
2. GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE
Comprehensive General Liability or Commercial General Liability insurance covering all operations by or on behalf of Grant Recipient, providing insurance for bodily injury liability and property damage liability for the limits of liability indicated below and including coverage for contractual liability insuring the obligations assumed by Grant Recipient in this AGREEMENT.
A. One of the following forms is required:
i. Comprehensive General Liability;
ii. Commercial General Liability (Occurrence); or
iii. Commercial General Liability (Claims Made).
B. If Grant Recipient carries a Comprehensive General Liability policy, the limits of liability shall not be less than a Combined Single Limit for bodily injury damage, and Personal Injury Liability of:
One million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence
One million dollars ($1,000,000) aggregate
73 Contract # SCN###### Page 5
C. If Grant Recipient carries a Commercial General Liability (Occurrence) policy:
i. The limits of liability shall not be less than:
One million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence (combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage)
One million dollars ($1,000,000) for Products-Completed Operation One million dollars ($1,000,000) General Aggregate
ii. If the policy does not have an endorsement providing that the General Aggregate Limit applies separately, or if defense costs are included in the aggregate limits, then the required aggregate limit is two million dollars ($2,000,000).
D. Special Claims Made Policy Form Provisions:
i. The limits of liability shall not be less than:
One million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence (combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage)
One million dollars ($1,000,000) aggregate for Products Completed Operations
One million dollars ($1,000,000) General Aggregate
ii. The insurance coverage provided by Grant Recipient shall contain the contract number in order to provide insurance coverage for the hold harmless provisions herein if the policy is a claims-made policy.
ENDORSEMENTS:
Each Comprehensive or Commercial General Liability policy shall be endorsed with the following specific language:
A. "PCAPCD, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as insured for all liability arising out of the operations by or on behalf of the named insured in the performance of this Agreement."
B. "The insurance provided by the Grant Recipien t, including any excess liability or umbrella form coverage, is primary coverage to PCAPCD with respect to any insurance or self-insurance programs maintained by PCAPCD and no insurance held or owned by PCAPCD shall be called upon to contribute to a loss."
C. "This policy shall not be canceled or materially changed without first giving thirty (30) days' prior written notice to PCAPCD."
11. Facilities, Equipment and Other Materials
Except as set forth herein, Grant Recipient shall, at its sole cost and expens e, furnish all facilities, equipment, and other materials which may be required for completing the PROJECT 74 Contract # SCN###### Page 6
pursuant to this AGREEMENT. PCAPCD shall furnish Grant Recipient only those facilities, equipment, and other materials, and shall perform only those obligations, as listed herein.
12. No Lease-to-Own Agreements
Grant Recipient may not enter into any lease-to-own agreements for any Equipment funded in whole or in part under this AGREEMENT. Failure to comply with this provision shall result in Grant Recipient returning some or all of the grant funds, as determined by PCAPCD at its sole discretion. Grant Recipient shall ensure that the provisions of this clause are included in all Sub-Grant Agreements, if applicable.
13. Non-Discrimination
Grant Recipient shall not discriminate in its employment practices because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, sexual preference, or in contravention of any other protected classification or practice identified in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; Government Code section 12900 et seq.
14. Records and Documents
A. Grant Recipient shall maintain at all times complete, detailed records with regard to work performed under this AGREEMENT, in a form acceptable to PCAPCD, and PCAPCD shall have the right to inspect such records at any reasonable time.
B. Grant Recipient agrees to return to PCAPCD, upon termination of this AGREEMENT, all documents, drawings, photographs, and other written or graphic material, however produced, received from PCAPCD and used by Grant Recipient or its subcontractor(s) in the performance of the PROJECT. All work papers, drawings, internal memoranda, graphics, photographs, and any written or graphic material, however produced, prepared by Grant Recipient or its subcontractor(s) in connection with its performance of the PROJECT hereunder shall be, and shall remain after termination of this AGREEMENT, the property of PCAPCD and may be used by PCAPCD for any purpose whatsoever.
PCAPCD agrees that any future use of documents produced by the Grant Recipient or its subcontractor(s) under the terms of this contract shall be at the sole discretion of PCAPCD and Grant Recipient shall bear no liability for the decisions on whether and how to use such documents.
15. Independent Status
A. Grant Recipient shall perform this contract as an independent contractor and not as an employee of PCAPCD. Grant Recipient acknowledges that Grant Recipient is not entitled to any of PCAPCD’s fringe benefits, including without limitation; paid holidays, life insurance, sick leave, or travel or any other expenses in connection with the PROJECT performed hereunder. No part of the compensation payable to Grant Recipient hereunder shall be deducted or withheld for payment of Federal or State income or other employment related taxes. It shall be the responsibility of Grant Recipient to provide all coverage necessary for Grant Recipient’s own benefit and not as an employee of PCAPCD.
75 Contract # SCN###### Page 7
B. Except as PCAPCD may specify in writing, Grant Recipient shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of PCAPCD in any capacity whatsoever as an agent.
Grant Recipient shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this AGREEMENT to bind PCAPCD to any obligation whatsoever.
16. Subcontractor Responsibility
Grant Recipient shall be solely responsible for the acts, omissions, qualifications, and work of its Subcontractor(s) and of all persons directly or indirectly employed by them, as applicable.
Grant Recipient shall ensure that any Subcontractor(s) comply with all applicable terms, conditions, and requirements of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between any Subcontractor and PCAPCD, and PCAPCD shall have no obligation to any Subcontractor.
17. Conflicts of Interest
Grant Recipient certifies that it has no current business or financial relationship with any PCAPCD employee or official, or other PCAPCD contract provider that could create a conflict with this AGREEMENT and will not enter into any such business or financial relationships during the period of this AGREEMENT. Grant Recipient attests that its employees and the officers of its governing body shall avoid any actual or potential conflicts of interest, and that no officer or employee who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with this AGREEMENT shall have any legally prohibited personal financial interest or benefit which either directly or indirectly arises out of this AGREEMENT. Grant Recipient shall establish safeguards to prohibit employees or officers from using their positions for a purpose which could result in legally prohibited private gain or gives the appearance of b eing motivated for legally prohibited private gain for themselves or others, particularly those with whom they have family, business, or other ties. Grant Recipient certifies that no official or employee of PCAPCD, nor any business entity in which an offic ial of the PCAPCD has an interest, has been employed or retained to solicit or aid in the procuring of this AGREEMENT. In addition, Grant Recipient agrees that no such person will be employed in the performance of this Agreement without immediately notifying PCAPCD.
18. California Levine Act Statement
California Government Code Section 84308, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits any officer of the Placer County Air Pollution Control District from participating in any action related to a contra ct if he or she receives any political contributions totaling more than five hundred dollars ($500) within the previous twelve (12) months, and for twelve (12) months following the date a final decision concerning the contract has been made, from the person or company awarded the contract, or their agent. The Levine Act requires disclosure of such contributions by Grant Recipient or its agent before PCAPCD makes any decision concerning the contract. An officer of the PCAPCD includes the PCAPCD Board of Directors, any elected official, department head or chair, and any PCAPCD employee who files a Form 700. It is the Grant Recipient’s responsibility to confirm the appropriate “officer” and name the individual(s) in their disclosure.
19. Licenses, Permits, Etc.
76 Contract # SCN###### Page 8
Grant Recipient represents and warrants to PCAPCD that Grant Recipient and its subcontractor(s) have or will obtain before initiation of the PROJECT, all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatever nature, which are legally required for Grant Recipient to practice its profession. Grant Recipient represents and warrants to PCAPCD that Grant Recipient and its subcontractor(s) shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this AGREEMENT, any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required to practice their profession at the time the requirements of the PROJECT are performed.
20. Prevailing Wages
Grant Recipient and its contractors performing work under this grant AGREEMENT must comply with the following and must include similar language in contracts for performance of work under this grant AGREEMENT that is subject to prevailing wages. For such contracted work, Grant Recipient must register as the awarding body on the California Depar tment of Industrial Relations (DIR) website and assure its contractors’ compliance with all of the following requirements.
A. All workers performing work subject to California prevailing wages pursuant to this AGREEMENT shall be paid not less than the genera l prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general prevailing rate for holiday and overtime work as determined by the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations for the type of work performed and the locality in which the work is to be performed, pursuant to sections 1770 et seq. of the California Labor Code. Grant Recipient shall make available copies of the general prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker, as determined by Director of the State of Calif ornia Department of Industrial Relations, or they can be obtained on the internet at (http://www.dir.ca.gov).
B. The Project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. Grant Recipient shall post job site notices, as prescribed by regulation.
Grant Recipient and its contractors performing work under this grant AGREEMENT shall comply with all requirements of Labor Code section 1771.4, except the requirements that are exempted by the Labor Commissioner for the Project.
C. Registration
Grant Recipient and its contractors performing work under this grant AGREEMENT shall comply with the registration and compliance monitoring provisions of Labor Code section 1771.4, including furnishing certified payroll records (“CPR(s)”) to the Labor Commissioner of California and complying with any applicable enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Labor Code section 1771.1(a) states the following:
“A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor 77 Contract # SCN###### Page 9
to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.”
D. Grant Recipient shall, and shall ensure that all “contractors” and “subcontractors” (as defined by Labor Code section 1722.1), comply with Labor Code section 1725.5, including without limitation the registration requirements with the Department of Industrial Relations that are set forth in Labor Code section 1725.5. Grant Recipient represents to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District that all “contractors” and “subcontractors” (as defined by Labor Code section 1722.1) are register ed pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5. Grant Recipient shall not permit any contractor or subcontractor to perform Work on the Project without first verifying the contractor or subcontractor is properly registered with the DIR as required by law and providing this information in writing to Placer County Air Pollution Control District. Grant Recipient acknowledges that, for purposes of Labor Code section 1725.5, the services performed hereunder are a public work to which Labor Code section 1771 applies.
E. Hours of Work
(i) Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day’s work. The time of service of any worker employed at any time by Grant Recipient or by any contractor on any contract under this AGREEMENT shall be limited and restricted by Grant Recip ient to eight (8) hours per day, and forty (40) hours during any one week, except as hereinafter provided.
Notwithstanding the provisions hereinabove set forth, work performed by employees of Grant Recipient and contractors performing work under this grant in excess of eight (8) hours per day and forty (40) hours during any one week, shall be permitted upon this public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day at not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay.
(ii) Grant Recipient or any contractor performing work subject to prevailing wages under this AGREEMENT shall keep and shall cause each contractor or subcontractor to keep an accurate record showing the name of and actual hours worked each calendar day and each calendar week by each worker employed by Grant Recipient/ contractor/subcontractor in connection with the work or any part of the work contemplated by this AGREEMENT. The record shall be kept open at all reasonable hours to the inspection of the Placer County Air Pollution Control District and to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement of the DIR.
F. Payroll Records
(i) Grant Recipient and its contractors performing work subject to prevailing wages under this AGREEMENT shall complete and shall cause each subcontractor performing any portion of the work to complete CPR(s), showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time, and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by the Grant Recipient and/or each contractor or subcontractor in connection with the Work.
78 Contract # SCN###### Page 10
(ii) All CPRs shall be available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal on the following basis:
a. A certified copy of an employee’s CPR shall be made available for inspection or furnished to the employee or his/her authorized representative on request.
b. CPRs shall be made available for inspection or furnished upon request to a representative of the Placer County Air Pollution Control District, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Division of Apprenticeship Standards, and/or the Department of Industrial Relations.
c. CPRs shall be made available upon request by the public for inspection or copies thereof made; provided, however, that a request by the public shall be made through either the Placer County Air Pollution Control District, Division of Apprenticeship Standards, or the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.
If the requested CPRs have not been provided pursuant to the provisions herein, the requesting party shall, prior to being provided the records, reimburse the costs of preparation, and the entity through which the request was made. The public shall not be given access to th e records at the principal office of Grant Recipient.
d. These records shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years following the contract end date, or date of contract completion, whichever is later.
(iii) The form of certification for the CPRs shall be as follows:
I, (Name -Print), the undersigned, am the (Position in business) with the authority to act for and on behalf of (Name of business), certify under penalty of perjury that the records or copies thereof submitted and consisting of (Description, number of pages) are the originals or true, full, and correct copies of the originals which depict the payroll record(s) of actual disbursements by way of cash, check, or whatever form to the individual or individual named, and (b) we have complied with t he requirements of sections 1771, 1811, and 1815 of the Labor Code for any work performed by our employees on the Project.
Date: Signature:
(Section 16401 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations)
(iv) Each Grant Recipient, contractor, or subcontractor shall file a certified copy of the CPRs with the entity that requested the records within ten (10) days after receipt of a written request.
(v) Any copy of records made available for inspection as copies and furnished upon request to the public or any public agency by the Placer County Air Pollution Control District, Division of Apprenticeship Standards, or Division of Labor Standards Enforcement shall be marked or obliterated in such a manner as to prevent disclosure of an 79 Contract # SCN###### Page 11
individual’s name, address, and social security number. The name and address of Grant Recipient, contractor, or subcontractor shall not be marked or obliterated.
(vi) Grant Recipient, contractor, or subcontractor shall inform the Placer County Air Pollution Control District of the location of the records enumerated hereunder, including the street address, city, and county, and shall, within five (5) Business Days, provide a notice of change of location and address.
(vii) In the event of noncompliance with the requiremen ts of this section, Grant Recipient, contractor, or subcontractor, shall have ten (10) days in which to comply subsequent to receipt of written notice specifying in what respects they must comply with this section. Should noncompliance still be evident aft er the ten (10) day period, Grant Recipient, contractor, or subcontractor, shall, as a penalty to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District, forfeit one hundred dollars ($100) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, until strict compliance is effectuated. Upon the request of Division of Apprenticeship Standards or Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, these penalties shall be withheld from progress payments then due.
(viii) It shall be the responsibility of Grant Recipient to ensure compliance with the provisions of Labor Code section 1776.
G. Apprentices
(i) Grant Recipient acknowledges and agrees that this AGREEMENT and any Grant Recipient contracts for work under this AGREEMENT, which include work that is subject to prevailing wages and involves a dollar amount greater than or a number of working days greater than that specified in Labor Code section 1777.5, then this AGREEMENT is governed by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1777.5. It shall be the responsibility of Grant Recipient and its contractors and subcontractors performing prevailing wage work under this agreement to ensure compliance with this Article and with Labor Code section 1777.5 for all apprenticeship occupations.
(ii) Apprentices of any crafts or trades may be employed and, when required by Labor Code section 1777.5, shall be employed provided they are properly registered in full compliance with the provisions of the Labor Code.
(iii) Every such apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade at which they are employed, and shall be employed only at the work of the craft or trade to which they are registered.
(iv) Only apprentices, as defined in section 3077 of the Labor Code, who are in training under apprenticeship standards and written apprentice agreements under chapter 4 (commencing at section 3070), division 3, of the Labor Code, are eligible to be employed.
The employment and training of each apprentice shall be in accordance with the provisions of the apprenticeship standards and apprentice agreements under which they are training.
(v) Pursuant to Labor Code section 1777.5, if that section applies, as indicated above, Grant Recip ient or its contractors or subcontractors employing workers in any 80 Contract # SCN###### Page 12
apprenticeable craft or trade in performing any work under this AGREEMENT shall apply to the applicable joint apprenticeship committee for a certificate approving the Grant Recipient or sub contractor under the applicable apprenticeship standards and fixing the ratio of apprentices to journeymen employed in performing the work.
(vi) Pursuant to Labor Code section 1777.5, if that section applies to this AGREEMENT as indicated above, Grant Recipient and any subcontractor may be required to make contributions to the apprenticeship program.
(vii) If Grant Recipient or its contractor or subcontractor willfully fails to comply with Labor Code section 1777.5, then, upon a determination of noncompliance by the Administrator of Apprenticeship, it shall:
a. Be denied the right to bid or propose on any subsequent project for one (1) year from the date of such determination; and
b. Forfeit as a penalty to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District the full amount as stated in Labor Code section 1777.7. Interpretation and enforcement of these provisions shall be in accordance with the rules and procedures of the California Apprenticeship Council and under the authority of the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards.
(viii) Grant Recipient and its contractors and subcontractors shall comply with Labor Code section 1777.6, which section forbids certain discriminatory practices in the employment of apprentices.
(ix) Grant Recipient and its contractors and subcontractors, if performing work subject to prevailing wages under this AGREEMENT, shall become fully acquainted with the law regarding apprentices prior to commencement of the Work. Special attention is directed to sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 of the Labor Cod e, and title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 200 et seq. Questions may be directed to the State Division of Apprenticeship Standards, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102.
(x) Grant Recipient shall ensure compliance with all cert ification requirements for all workers on the Project including, without limitation, the requirements for electrician certification in Labor Code sections 108 et seq.
21. Labor Code Section 3700
By signing this AGREEMENT, Grant Recipient certifies the following:
(i) In accordance with Labor Code Section 3700, Grant Recipient and all subcontractors performing work required by this AGREEMENT will be required to secure the payment of compensation to his or her employees.
(ii) Grant Recipient is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self- insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and Grant Recipient will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract. 81 Contract # SCN###### Page 13
22. Waiver Of Rights:
Any waiver of rights with respect to a default or other matter arising under the AGREEMENT at any time by either Party shall not be considered a waiver of rights with respect to any other default or matter. Any rights and remedies provided for in this AGRE EMENT to either Party are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law.
23. Termination
A. Grant Recipient may terminate this AGREEMENT without penalty if no funding has been paid to Grant Recipient, by providing written notice to PCAPCD.
B. PCAPCD may terminate this AGREEMENT, for any reason, if prior to commencement of any material work by Grant Recipient towards fulfilling the Project Scope as described in Exhibit A, by serving thirty (30) days’ notice in writing to Grant Recipient.
C. Termination for Cause. Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause. To terminate for cause, the terminating party must give the other party written notice of the alleged breach. The responding party has five (5) business days after receipt of notice to respond and a total of ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such notice to cure the alleged breach.
If the responding party fails to cure the breach within this period, the terminating party may immediately terminate this Agreement without further action.
D. Termination Based on Lack of Funding. PCAPCD may terminate this AGREEMENT or a portion of the PROJECT based upon the unavailability of federal, state, or county funds by providing written notice to Contractor as soon as reasonably possible after PCAPCD learns of unavailability of outside funding.
E. In the event the AGREEMENT is terminated for lack of funding pursuant to above paragraph prior to the term end date, PCAPCD shall reimburse grant recipient for (1) allowable and reimbursable expenses incurred prior to the termination notice, and (2) purchases of equipment within one year of the termination notice that were encumbered in a contract prior to receipt of the termination notice.
24. Information Technology Security Requirements
Grant Recipient’s failure to c omply with the following requirements is a material breach of this Agreement.
A. Notification of Data Security Incident
For purposes of this section, “Data Security Incident” is defined as unauthorized access to the Grant Recipient’s business and/or business systems by a third party, which access could potentially expose Placer County’s (County) or PCAPCD’s data or systems to unauthorized access, disclosure, or misuse. In the event of a Data Security Incident, Grant Recipient must n otify PCAPCD in writing within 48 hours. Notice should be made to [email protected] and to all parties referenced in the “Notices” section of the Agreement. Notice must reference this contract number. Notice under this section must include the date of in cident and Grant Recipient’s systems and/or locations which were affected. The duty to notify under this section is broad, requiring disclosure whether or not any impact to County or PCAPCD data is known at the time, to enable County/PCAPCD to take immediate protective actions of its data and cloud environments. Failure to notify under this section is a material breach, and PCAPCD may immediately terminate the Agreement for failure to comply.
B. Data Location
82 Contract # SCN###### Page 14
Grant Recipient shall not store or transfer non -public County of Placer or PCAPCD data outside the United States. This prohibition includes backup data and Disaster Recovery locations. The Grant Recipient will permit its personnel and subcontractors to access PCAPCD data remotely only as required to provid e technical support. Remote access to data from outside the continental United States is prohibited unless expressly approved in advance and in writing by the PCAPCD. The Grant Recipient must notify the PCAPCD in writing within 48 hours of any location cha nges to Grant Recipient’s data center(s) that will process or store County or PCAPCD data. Notice should be made to [email protected] and to all parties referenced in the “Notices” section of the Agreement, and must reference this contract number.
C. Data Encryption
The Grant Recipient shall encrypt all non -public County and PCAPCD data in transit regardless of the transit mechanism. The Grant Recipient shall encrypt all non -public County and PCAPCD data at rest. The Grant Recipient’s encryption shall be co nsistent with validated cryptography standards as specified in National Institute of Standards and Technology Security Requirements.
D. Subcontractor Disclosure
To the extent subcontracting or assignment is permitted under this Agreement, the Grant Recipient is responsible for the actions of their subcontractors, vendors, and suppliers.
Grant Recipient shall take necessary steps to ensure that the provisions of this contract are enforceable on all subcontractors, vendors, and suppliers acting on behalf of or through Grant Recipient.
25. Assignment or Transfer
Grant Recipient may not assign any of its rights, burdens, duties, or obligations under this AGREEMENT without the prior written consent of PCAPCD, and may be subject to CARB approval upon request by CARB. Approval will be at the sole discretion of PCAPCD and CARB.
26. Amendments
This AGREEMENT cannot be changed, amended, modified, or supplemented orally, and may be modified or superseded only by written instrument executed by all parties.
27. Waiver
One or more waivers by one party of any major or minor breach or default of any provision, term, condition, or covenant of this AGREEMENT shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach or default.
28. Entirety of Agreement
This AGREEMENT constitutes the entire AGREEMENT and understanding between the parties. There are no oral understandings, terms, or conditions, and no party has relied upon any representation, express or implied, not contained in this AGREEMENT. Any prior understandings, terms, or conditions are deemed merged into this AGREEMENT. This 83 Contract # SCN###### Page 15
AGREEMENT is intended as the complete and exclusive statement of the parties’ agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1856.
29. Jurisdiction
This AGREEMENT is executed and intended to be performed in the State of California, and the laws of that State shall govern its interpretation and effect. Any legal proceedings on this AGREEMENT shall be brought under the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the County of Placer, State of California. Each party waives any Federal court removal and/or original jurisdiction rights it may have.
30. Exhibits
All exhibits referred to herein and attached hereto are fully incorporated by this reference.
31. Electronic Signatures
A. An Electronic Signature refers to any representation in electronic form used to express intent, including a typed name placed in a signatory area, a digitized image or copy of a handwritten signature, a scanned signature on a PDF document, a biometric mark, a sound, or a digital signature. An Electronic Signature provides who signed, what was signed, captures intent and consent. If parties agree to a transaction by electronic means and are required by law to provide, send, or deliver information in writing, the requirement is satisfied if the information is provided, sent, or delivered in an electronic record, which the recipient can retain at the time of receipt.
B. By the action of applying an Electronic Signature to this AGREEMENT, parties to the AGREEMENT are certifying their willingness to use electronic signatures and records delivered via electronic means. A signed copy of this AGREEMENT, or any other related ancillary agreement or amendment, transmitted by facsimile, email, electronic signature application, or other means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original signature.
The parties so agree.
City of Lincoln:
{{ SigContractor_es_:signer5:signature}} Date:{{DteSigCont_es_:signer5:date}}
Sean Scully
City Manager
84 Contract # SCN###### Page 16
Placer County Air Pollution Control District:
{{ SigAPCO_es_:signer6:signature}} Date:{{DteAPCO_es_:signer6:date}}
Erik C. White
Air Pollution Control Officer
Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Project Requirements
Exhibit B: Grant Schedule and Payment Terms
Exhibit C: Grant Reporting
Exhibit D: California Air Resources Board Grant Agreement Flow-Down Clauses
85 Contract # SCN###### Page 17
EXHIBIT A
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
Grant Description: Twelve Bridges Pantograph Charging Station
Project Contact Information (subject to change):
Grant Recipient:
Araceli Cazarez
916-434-2486
[email protected]
PCAPCD:
Lauren Moore
(530) 745-2376
[email protected]
Project Scope:
Purchase and have installed a pantograph electric bus charging station located at the existing transit stop along Colonnade Drive adjacent to the Twelve Bridges Library, near 485 Twelve Bridges Drive, Lincoln, CA 95648. The charging station shall include at minimum one 300kw overhead pantograph charging system and associated equipment and infrastructure, as outlined in GRANTEE's 2026 PCAPCD Clean air Grant application package.
Usage:
Usage of the Electric Vehicle charging station is anticipated to consist of an average of 850 charging events per year.. Grant Recipient shall make every possible effort to meet this usage goal, for the first 3 years of operation.
I. To be Completed Prior to Funding and Prior to Project Completion End Date Prior to funding and prior to the Project Completion End Date, as outlined in Exhibit B, the Grant Recipient must meet the following conditions:
A. Pursuant to the Insurance clause of this AGREEMENT, Grant Recipient shall provide proof of insurance prior to performing work on this PROJECT, and throughout the term of this AGREEMENT.
B. Purchase and install electric vehicle charging station as described above, and as outlined in Grant Recipient's Clean Air Grant application and associated quotes. If, after execution of this AGREEMENT, Grant Recipient wishes to amend/modify the project scope from what was herein described, Grant Recipient shall submit a r equest to PCAPCD as soon as possible to seek approval to do so. Changes to the project scope and description may only occur with written permission from PCAPCD. Additional project costs from such changes and costs not eligible for funding shall be borne by the Grant Recipient.
C. Publicly accessible battery charging stations must be reported to the Department of Energy 86 Contract # SCN###### Page 18
Alternative Fuel Data Center located at:
https://afdc.energy.gov/stations#/find/nearest .
D. Grant Recipient (or its representative) must provide the following to PCAPCD:
1) Itemized invoices for the purchase of equipment and services funded under this AGREEMENT.
2) Financing documentation and terms, including lender and amou nt financed (if applicable).
3) Warranty documentation and terms for installed equipment. 4) Invoice to PCAPCD for the amount of grant funds requested for reimbursement. Note that the invoice will not be paid until all of the requirements for funding have been completed.
5) Grant Recipient shall provide documentation identifying that they have obtained all applicable land use permits from agencies needed to install and operate the station(s). 6) Certification from the Grant Recipient that all funding sourc es that they have applied for or received for the PROJECT have been disclosed, and that the Grant Recipient will notify PCAPCD of additional sources of funding received for the total cost of the PROJECT, including any sources that become available after contract execution, prior to PROJECT funding. Grant Recipient is prohibited from receiving grants and other funds that exceed the total project amount.
7) An AB 841 Certification Statement (form attached herein) that certifies the project complied with all A B 841 (2020) requirements or describes why the AB 841 requirements do not apply to the project. The certification shall be signed by the Grant Recipient’s authorized representative. If AB 841 requirements apply, the Certification Statement will include the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program (EVITP) Certification Number of each EVITP certified electrician that installed electric vehicle charging infrastructure or equipment.
8) In accordance with AGREEMENT’s Prevailing Wage requirements, provide on or with the submitted invoice:
a. Project registration.
If Grant Recipient will be subcontracting ALL of the work that is subject to prevailing wages, Grant Recipient must register as the Awarding Body for the Project on the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) website. Provide the DIR assigned Project ID number or other acceptable documentation to verify this registration.
If Grant Recipient is performing any portion of the work that is subject to prevailing wages, PCAPCD will register the project as the Awarding Body. You must notify PCAPCD if this is the case immediately after the contract is executed and prior to beginning work.
b. Contractor registration. Provide verification of DIR contractor’s registration for Grant Recipient (if applicable) and for all subcontractors performing work subject to prevailing wages and DIR registration (provide the DIR assigned Public Works Contractor Registration (PWCR) number(s) or other acceptable documentation). 87 Contract # SCN###### Page 19
c. Certified Payroll. Provide verification that all required DIR certified payroll submissions have been completed (provide DIR assigned System Payroll Number(s) or other acceptable documentation).
D. Visibly display at each charging station that funding was made available by PCAPCD. Any graphics used for this purpose must be approved in advance by PCAPCD staff.
E. A Post -Inspection must be completed by PCAPCD staff in order to verify PROJECT completion and operation as outlined in this AGREEMENT and the Grant Recipient’s Clean Air Grant application. Grant Recipient is responsible for scheduling the inspection.
F. PCAPCD must determine that the PROJECT and all associated documentation meet all funding requirements for reimbursement.
G. Charger must be certified, or field evaluation labeled, by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (e.g., Underwriter’s Laboratories, Intertek) located at:
https://www.osha.gov/nationally-recognized-testing-laboratory-program II. To Be Completed During Project Implementation Period During the PROJECT Implementation Period, the Grant Recipient shall complete the following reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The PROJECT Implementation Period refers to the time period between the PCAPCD Approved Post-Inspection date and the Contract End Date:
A. Grant Recipient shall keep records in order to satisfy the requirements of the Annual Monitoring Report, as outlined in Exhibit C of this AGREEMENT. Such records shall include quantity of fuel/electricity used at each station, number and type of users, and any downtime encountered, including duration and cause of downtime.
B. Grant Recipient shall provide PCAPCD Annual Monitoring Reports as described in Exhibit C. The first annual monitoring report must be submitted no later than 13 months after PROJECT Post -Inspection and continuing annually thereafter throughout the PROJECT Implementation Period of this AGREEMENT. At minimum, noncompliance with the reporting requirements will require an on-site inspection(s).
C. Records Retention:
Grant Recipient shall maintain and retain all usage and other records associated with the PROJECT for a minimum of five years from the date of termination, cancellation, or expiration of the CARB Agreement or for five years after this AGREEMENT has concluded, whichever is later. At the time of execution of this AGREEMENT, the CARB Agreement End Date is 12/31/2028 and this AGREEMENT’s End Date is 10/15/2030.
III. General Conditions
A. Work associated with the installation of the charging/alternative fueling infrastructure must be done by a licensed contractor. Grant Recipient agrees to be bound by the provisions of State Labor Code Section 1771 et seq. regarding prevailing wages, as applicable. If applicable, Grant Recipient shall monitor all agreements subject to reimbursement from this agreement to ensure that the prevailing wage provisions of State Labor Code Section 1771 et seq. are being met.
B. AB 841 requires that electric vehicle infrastructure and equipment on the customer side of the electrical meter be installed by contractors with the appropriate license classification as determined by the Contractors State License Board. Specifically, at least one electrician on 88 Contract # SCN###### Page 20
each crew, at any given time, must hold an EVITP certification; and 1) Projects that install a charging port supplying 25 kilowatts (kW) or more to a vehicle, must have at least 25 percent of the total electricians working on the crew for the project, at any given time, hold an Ele ctric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program (EVITP) certification; and
2) One member of each crew may be both the contractor and an EVITP certified electrician.
3) The requirements stated in 1) and 2) above do not apply to any of the following:
a. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure installed by employees of an electrical corporation or local publicly owned electric utility.
b. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure funded by moneys derived from credits generated from the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program (Subarticle 7 (commencing with Section 95480) of Article 4 of Subchapter 10 of Chapter 1 of Division 3 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations).
c. Single-family home residential electric vehicle chargers that can use an existing 208/240-volt outlet.
4) Grant Recipient acknowledges the project will comply with the AB 841 requirements and provide the AB 841 Certification Statement, as specified in Exhibit A, Section I.C.7, with submission of the invoice requesting grants funds for reimbursement.
Initials: {{*InitContractor_es_:signer5:initials}}
C. Battery charging stations subject to AB 2061 (Ting, Chapter 345, Statutes of 2022) must comply with all outlined requirements, including those for uptime, reliability, availability status, and data tracking and reporting as specified by the CEC. For additional information, please find the Electric V ehicle Charging Infrastructure Reliability Reporting and Performance Standards located on the CEC’s website.
D. Eligible costs are limited to the purchase and installation of the equipment for power delivery or fuelin g directly related to the infrastructure project and must utilize commercially available technologies. Refer to the 2024 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 10, for a complete list of eligible, discretionary and ineligible costs.
E. Publicly accessible stations sh ould be accessible to the public 24 hours a day or as many hours as allowed by local ordinance. Publicly accessible stations with restricted access such as gated facilities must be accessible to the public during regular business hours. Publicly accessible stations must provide equal access and opportunities to all users.
F. Equipment and parts must be new. Remanufactured or refurbished equipment and parts are not eligible.
G. For Battery charging stations, chargers must be Level 2 or higher.
H. On-road publicly accessible charging stations must use a valid and universally accepted charge connector protocol (e.g. Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1772, Combined Charging System (CCS), North American Charging Standard (NACS), SAE J3271).
I. Equipment must have at least a one-year warranty that covers both parts and labor.
J. The equipment funded under this AGREEMENT must be in operable condition throughout 89 Contract # SCN###### Page 21
the PROJECT Implementation Period.
1) Infrastructure projects must maintain a 95 percent uptime with 24/7 customer service available on site, via toll free telephone number. If equipment becomes non-functional, the Grant Recipient is responsible for ensuring that repairs are made and the station is up and running within 15 business days. The Grant Recipient must notify PCAPCD of any downtime beyond the 15 business days and work with PCAPCD to ensure stations become operational.
2) If the fuel/energy meter fails for any reason, the fuel/energy meter must be repaired or replaced as soon as possible and is considered a maintenance expense, therefore not an eligible cost for reimbursement.
K. PROJECT must comply with Moyer Program Guidelines and all applicable federal, State, and local laws and requirements, including environmental laws and State building, environmental, and fire codes.
L. Grant Recipient must notify PCAPCD in writing if installation and/or implementation of this PROJECT will deviate from the scope of work as outlined in this AGREEMENT at any time during the term of this AGREEMENT. Grant Recipient shall notify th e APCO within 15 days of recognizing such deviation. If funding has not yet been disbursed when such a deviation is recognized, Grant Recipient must notify PCAPCD at least 30 days in advance of any request for payment. PCAPCD has the sole discretion to approve, deny, or adjust the grant award as outlined in Exhibit B of this AGREEMENT, based on the extent of the deviation.
M. Grant Recipient must maintain the equipment funded under this AGREEMENT according to the manufacturer’s specifications for the term of the AGREEMENT and must not tamper with it in any way as to void the warranty.
N. Grant Recipient shall allow PCAPCD, CARB, or other designee to conduct an inspection or audit of the PROJECT being funded under this AGREEMENT, including the engine, equipment, and associated records, during the contract term. At the time of execution of this AGREEMENT, Grant Recipient’s signature shall be a certification that its fleet, engine(s), and vehicles are in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local air quality rules and regulations and shall continue to maintain, for the term of the AGREEMENT, compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local air quality rules and regulations for the full contract term.
O. Throughout the term of this AGREEMENT, the PR OJECT may not be used for credit under any federal or State emission averaging, banking or trading program. No covered emission reductions generated by the PROJECT may be used as marketable emission reduction credits, or to offset any emission reduction ob ligation of any person or entity throughout the AGREEMENT term (Health and Safety Code (H&SC) § 44281(b)). For infrastructure projects, Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credit generation associated with eligible activities is not prohibited by the Moyer statute.
P. The new equipment must remain in service throughout the term of this AGREEMENT.
Throughout the term of this AGREEMENT, the PROJECT must not be used to generate credits or compliance extensions, and must be excluded when determining regulatory compliance (H&SC § 44281(b)).
Q. Grant Recipients that receive co -funding for the PROJECT funded under this AGREEMENT must meet all criteria associated with each funding source used to fund the 90 Contract # SCN###### Page 22
PROJECT.
R. Grant Recipients that are non -public entities must provide at least 15 percent of the PROJECT’s Moyer-eligible costs from non-public sources.
S. In addition to the terms of this AGREEMENT, Grant Recipient shall adhere to all requirements outlined in the applicable California Air Resources Board Guidelines. If there is a conflict between the terms of this contract and California Air Resources Board’s Guidelines, the California Air Resources Board’s Guidelines shall prevail.
T. By executing this AGREEMENT, Grant Recipient understands and agrees to operate and maintain their station(s) according to the terms herein and to cooperate with PCAPCD and CARB in implementation, monitoring, enforcement, and other efforts to assure the emission benefits are real, quantifiable, surplus, and enforceable.
U. CARB, as an intended third -party beneficiary, reserves the right to enforce the terms of this AGREEMENT at any time during the term of this AGREEMENT to ensure emission reductions are obtained.
IV. Repercussions for Nonperformance
A. If for any reason, after PROJECT funding, the PROJECT does not perform as represented in Grant Recipient’s application package, or if the conditions of this AGREEMENT are not met, PCAPCD or CARB may require reimbursement of grant funds.
B. CARB and PCAPCD have the authority to pursue any remedies available under the law for noncompliance with Moyer Program requirements and nonperformance of terms outlined in this AGREEMENT, in an effort to ensure emission reductions are obtained.
91 Contract # SCN###### Page 23
EXHIBIT B
GRANT SCHEDULE AND PAYMENT TERMS
Grant Description: Twelve Bridges Pantograph Charging Station
Contract Schedule (project/contract completion to occur on or before the following dates) Start Date: last date signed by the parties
Project Completion End Date: 10/15/2027
Project Implementation Start Date: Upon approved Post-Inspection by PCAPCD Project Implementation Period: 3 years
Contract End Date: 10/15/2030
Budget
Amount Awarded by PCAPCD: $300,000.00
Estimated Co-Funding (including in-kind): $1,000,000.00 Estimated Total PROJECT Amount: $1,300,000.00
If the final Total PROJECT Amount is less than what is listed above, Grant Recipient may be required to provide an equivalent percentage of Co -Funding based on the reduced Total PROJECT Amount. The Amount Awarded by PCAPCD, as listed above, shall be adjusted accordingly.
Payment
PCAPCD will provide up to $300,000.00 (three hundred thousand and 00/100 dollars) in funding, in accordance with the requirements listed in this AGREEMENT. Payment(s) will be made to Grant Recipient within 30 days after receipt and approval of the invoice by PCAPCD.
At the sole discretion of PCAPCD, 10 percent of the grant award, as outlined in this exhibit, may be withheld until the first -year monitoring report is received and approved or until performance is deemed satisfactory by the PCAPCD, whichever is later.
A completed federal W-9 form and California 590 form must be submitted prior to payment. An IRS Form 1099 will be issued for incentive funds received under this AGREEMENT, if applicable. It is the Grant Recipient’s responsibility to determine tax liability associated with receiving grant incentive funds.
Invoices
Invoices must be submitted to PCAPCD in an original format and include the contract number. Along with submitting an invoice for reimburs ement and prevailing wage information identified above, provide copies of all paid receipts, proof of in-kind support (when applicable), and evidence of financing associated with the PROJECT funded under this AGREEMENT.
Submit all invoices to: [email protected] (subject to change by notification) cc: [email protected]
Or mail to:
PCAPCD
110 Maple Street
Auburn, CA 95603
92 Contract # SCN###### Page 24
EXHIBIT C
GRANT REPORTING
Grant Description: Twelve Bridges Pantograph Charging Station
The first annual monitoring report must be submitted no later than 13 months after the PCAPCD - approved PROJECT post-inspection. Reports must be submitted annually thereafter for the duration of the PROJECT Implementation Period under this AGREEMENT.
Reports must be completed using either the online form available on the PCAPCD website or the PDF template provided by PCAPCD. Reports completed using the PDF template may be submitted by email, mail, or in person to PCAPCD.
The report shall include the following:
1. Grant Recipient’s name, address, and telephone number.
2. Reference Contract Number.
3. Qualitative description of public and private uses.
4. Annual PROJECT usage per charger or per station (e.g. kilowatt-hour) and number of plug- in/fueling events.
5. If the charging station has incorporated solar or wind power generation equipment, then provide the amount of electricity generated (e.g., kilowatt-hour) from the solar or wind power generating equipment.
6. Any scheduled or unscheduled downtime, including duration of downtime and causes of downtime.
Note: After the monitoring report is submitted to PCAPCD, staff may conduct a performance evaluation of the PROJECT.
93 Contract # SCN###### Page 25
EXHIBIT D
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
GRANT AGREEMENT FLOW-DOWN CLAUSES
PCAPCD and Grant Recipient acknowledge and agree that funding for this AGREEMENT is being provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), evidenced by an AGREEMENT between PCAPCD and CARB ("CARB Agreement"), and as such, this AGREEMENT is subject to the terms and conditions of the CARB Agreement as provided herein.
The following are specific terms required by the CARB Agreement to include in this AGREEMENT, which apply to Gra nt Recipient and its subcontractors/Sub -Grant Recipients (hereafter Sub-Grant Recipients). These terms and conditions are required by CARB to be included in PCAPCD’s Grant Recipient agreements and must also be incorporated by the Grant Recipient into any of its Sub -Grant Recipient agreements. Sub -Grant Recipient means and includes, individually and collectively, subgrantees, sub -awardees, contractors, subcontractors, technical grantees, voucher recipients, awardees, sub-awardees, or any other individual or entity that receives any Grant Funds, excluding Grant Recipient.
1. Grant Recipient must comply with the following terms. In addition, all written a greements and amendments entered into by and between Grant Recipient and any other Sub -Grant Recipients using or applying CARB Agreement funds, in whole or in part, (collectively “Related Agreements”) shall also contain the following language (or similar l anguage with the same or similar meaning and intent) listed below to the extent applicable or feasible as determined by grant recipients:
A. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA):
Grant Recipient must ensure that writings, products, and services submitted, up loaded, or otherwise provided to CARB by Grant Recipient or any Sub-Grant Recipients, which is intended to be publicly posted or otherwise distributed to the public by CARB, PCAPCD, and/or any Grant Recipients or Sub -Grant Recipients, comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, level AA, and otherwise meet the accessibility requirements set forth in California Government Code Sections 7405 and 11135, Section 202 of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12132), and Section 508 of the federal Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794d) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (36 C.F.R. Part 1194) (collectively, the "Accessibility Requirements") . For any writing provided to CARB in PDF format, Grant Recipient shall, upon request, also provide an electronic version in the original electronic format (for example, Microsoft Word or Adobe lnDesign) . Grant Recipient’s obligations under this provision do not apply to writings, products, and services submitted using forms, templates, or documents provided by CARB.
i. CARB may require Grant Recipient to provide proof of compliance with the requirements described above, and may, at its discretion, perform testing to verify compliance.
ii. Grant Recipient agrees to respond to and resolve any complaint brought to its attention regarding accessibility of deliverables provided under this Grant. iii. Deviations from the Accessibility Requirements are permitted only upon the written consent of CARB.
94 Contract # SCN###### Page 26
B. Authorized Signature:
Grant Recipient agrees and acknowledges that it has signed or has authorized the signing of the agreement with PCAPCD, and by doing so hereby declares under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that all statements, responses, and information made or provided by Grant Recipient in or pursuant to the agreement are true and correct, with full knowledge that all statements, responses, and information are subject to investigation and that any incomplete, unclear, false, or dishonest statement, response, or information may be grounds for di squalification from receiving any existing or further funding or participating in any programs or projects using the CARB -provided or PCAPCD-provided funds, or from doing business with the State of California or PCAPCD. Grant Recipient acknowledges, understands and accepts that by providing or making any false statements or providing false information, Grant Recipient may be in violation of the California False Claims Act (Government Code Section 12650 et seq.).
Grant Recipient certifies, represents, and warrants that the individual signing on the Grant Recipient's behalf herein is an authorized representative of Grant Recipient with full power and legal authority to sign and by said signature Grant Recipient is bound to and will comply with all terms, conditions, and obligations set forth in this agreement.
C. Cooperation With Audits:
Grant Recipient shall cooperate fully, without delay, in all audits, inquiries, and investigations initiated by or on behalf of PCAPCD and/or the State of California concerning or relating to compliance with local, state, or federal air quality laws, and with Grant Recipient’s agreement, including but not limited to timely submission of any and all records requested and full cooperation with any on-site inspections.
D. Compliance With Air Quality Laws:
Grant Recipient warrants and represents that it is in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local air quality rules, regulations, and statutes (“air quality laws”), and that it shall remain in compliance with said air quality laws for the term of the agreement with PCAPCD. Grant Recipient understands, acknowledges, and agrees that compliance with applicable air quality laws is a precondition to the receipt or use of the Grant Funds and is a continuing obligation during the term of the agreement and for any other period required by federal, state, or local law. If payments of Grant Funds have not yet been made, Grant Recipient understands, acknowledges, and agrees that PCAPCD may, at its discretion, terminate Grant Recipient’s agreement without any obligation to pay any Grant Funds to Grant Recipient for Grant Recipient’s continuing violation of applicable air quality laws. If payments have been made, Grant Recipient understands, acknowledges, and agrees that PCAPCD may, at its discretion, require Grant Recipient to return some or all of the Grant Funds to PCAPCD, in an amount determined by PCAPCD, for Grant Recipient’s continuing violation of applicable air quality laws. Grant Recipient shall promptly return the Grant Funds to PCAPCD within the time specified by PCAPCD.
E. Computer software and Project Data:
"Project Information Resources" means data, database, information, personally identifiable information (PII), documentation, materials, computer software, website, and any intellectual property (IP) that is developed, substantially modified, licensed, or acquired by Grant Recipient or Sub -Grant Recipients, with any Grant Funds in performance of this AGREEMENT. Project Information Resources may be in hard copy 95 Contract # SCN###### Page 27
form, such as computer printouts, or may be retained in machine form, such as computer memory or storage media.
Computer software developed or substantially modified using primarily Grant Funds must include a copyleft license comparable to GNU General Public License v3.0 (GPLv3) (available at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html) or later version if the software source code is intended to be licensed or otherwise released to the public. Other copyrightable Project Information Resources developed or substa ntially modified using primarily Grant Funds that are intended to be shared forward by the public must include a copyleft license comparable to Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license version
4.0 or later (available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.en).
Exceptions to the copyleft license requirement of this subsection include where:
i. The sharing of the material is restricted by law or regulation; ii. The sharing of the material would create a risk to the detriment of national security, confidentiality of State, Grant Recipient or Sub -Grant Recipients’ information, or individual privacy;
iii. The sharing of the material would create a risk to the stability, security, or integrity of the systems or personnel of the State, Grant Recipient or Sub-Grant Recipients or of the material's owner;
iv. The sharing of the material would create a risk to the St ate's, Grant Recipient’s, Sub-Grant Recipients’, or the material owner's, mission, programs, or operations.
CARB disclaims title and ownership rights to Project Information Resources. However, Grant Recipient, to the extent it has the right to do so, grants to CARB a no cost, royalty- free, non -exclusive, transferable, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual license to use, reproduce, share, publish, translate, and make collective works of the Project Information Resources, including computer software executable files but excluding for this license to CARB any computer source code, subject to applicable law on privacy and confidentiality.
Grant Recipient shall require Sub-Grant Recipients to grant CARB similar license rights to the extent Grant Recipient has the right to do so.
Grant Recipient certifies that it has appropriate systems and controls in place to ensure that Grant Funds will not be used in the performance of this AGREEMENT for the acquisition, operation, development, or maintenance of computer software or other intellectual property in violation of copyright or any other intellectual property laws. Grant Recipient shall require Sub-Grant Recipients to make similar certifications.
F. Environmental Justice:
In the performance of this AGREEMENT, Grant Recipient shall conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that seeks to ensure the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins, including priority populations (e.g., disadvantaged communities, low income communities, and low-income households) of the State.
G. Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) Use and Reporting:
i. Definitions:
1) “Generative AI (GenAI)” means ”an artificial intelligence system that can 96 Contract # SCN###### Page 28
generate derived synthetic content, including text, images, video, and audio that emulates the structure and characteristics of the system's training data.” (Gov.
Code § 11549.64.)
2) “Deliverable” means “software, services, goods, works of authorship, and any other items (e.g., reports, documentation) to be delivered pursuant to this AGREEMENT, including any incidental items.”
ii. Grant Recipient must notify, and require their sub-grant recipients to notify, PCAPCD in writing, and PCAPCD will in turn notify CARB, if Grant Recipient or sub-grant recipients:
(1) Intend to provide GenAI as a deliverable to PCAPCD or CARB; or, (2) Intend to utilize any previously unreported GenAI, including GenAI from third parties, to complete all or a portion of any deliverable that materially impacts:
(i) Functionality of a State system;
(ii) Risk to the State; or,
(iii) Performance under this AGREEMENT.
For avoidance of doubt, the term “materially impacts” shall have the meaning set forth in State Administrative Manual (SAM) § 4986.2 Definitions for GenAI. iii. Notification shall be provided to PCAPCD, and in turn PCAPCD will notify CARB’s Project Liaison identified in the CARB Agreement. iv. At the direction of CARB or PCAPCD, Grant Recipient shall discontinue, and require their sub-grant recipients to discontinue, the provision to CARB or PCAPCD of any previously unreported GenAI that results in a material impact to the functionality of a State system, risk to the State, or Grant performance, as determined by CARB.
v. If the use of previously undisclosed GenAI is approved by CARB, then upon request by CARB, PCAPCD will amend this AGREEMENT and Grant Recipient shall amend it sub-grant recipient agreements accordingly, which may include incorporating CARB’s GenAI Special Provisions into the AGREEMENT, at no additional cost to the State or PCAPCD.
vi. CARB and PCAPCD, at their sole discretion, may consider Grant Recipient’s failure to disclose or discontinue the provision or use of GenAI as described above, or to incorporate terms as requested in this section into their agreements with sub- Grant Recipients, to constitute a material breach of this AGREEMENT when such failure results in a material impact to the functionality of the system, risk to the State, or Grant performance. CARB and PCAPCD are entitled to seek any and all remedies available under law as a result of such breach, including but not limited to termination of this AGREEMENT pursuant to the terms stated herein.
H. Non-Exclusive Remedies:
The remedies set out in this AGREEMENT are contractual in nature. Nothing stated herein above in any way limits, prevents, or precludes the State of California or the PCAPCD from taking any enforcement action, exercising any police power, or prosecuting any violation of law against Grant Recipient, its employees, officers, agents, assigns, representatives, contractors, subcontractors, affiliates, grantees, sub -awardees, subgrantees, or any third parties.
I. Payment (Recapture) On Demand:
Grant Recipient shall, upon notification by PCAPCD and/or CARB or their authorized representative(s) of an overpayment, a wrongful payment, or a violation of or failure to 97 Contract # SCN###### Page 29
comply with any term or con dition of the Grant Recipient agreement or program requirements or obligations, remit to PCAPCD or its authorized representative the requested amount within sixty (60) days from the date of issuance of said notice.
J. Survival:
All provisions in this AGREEMENT shall survive its termination, cancellation, or expiration, except the following CARB Agreement sections included herein (unless otherwise required by law): Additional Required Terms for Grant Recipient Agreements Funded by This Grant; Amendments; Americans with Disabilities Act; Assignment or Transfer; Compliance with Law; Conflict of Interest; Environmental Justice; Executive Order N-6-22 – Russia Sanctions; Force Majeure; Funding Prohibitions for Sectarian Purposes and No n-Public Schools; GenAI Use and Reporting; Labor Compliance for Drayage and Short-Haul; Nondiscrimination (except for paragraph d); Office Of Foreign Asset Control; Prevailing Wages and Labor Compliance; Professionals; and Timeliness.
2. Related Agreements:
Grant Recipient’s Related Agreements must also contain, at a minimum, all of the following:
A. A clear and accurate description of the material, products, or services to be procured.
B. Sufficient detail to determine that funds will be appropriately utilized, which may include a budget, timeline, and other information as required by the grant program guidelines.
C. Provisions for appropriate administrative, contractual, or legal remedies in instances where Sub-Grant Recipients violate or breach the contract or CARB Grant Agreement terms.
D. Provisions for termination, including termination procedures and the basis for settlement.
E. A statement that assignment will not be made without advance written consent.
F. A provision regarding survival of terms, conditions, and provisions of the agreement, consistent with the Survival clause herein.
G. Language conforming to the following sections of this AGREEMENT: Additional Remedies for Non -Compliance; Audit; Availability of Funds; Compliance with Law; Confidentiality; Conflict of Interest; Executive Order N-6-22 – Russia Sanctions; Force Majeure; Funding Prohibitions for Sectarian Purposes and Non-Public Schools; Grantee’s Responsibility for Work; Incorporated Documents; Indemnification; Independent Contractor; Labor Compliance for Drayage and Short -Haul (if applicable); Nondiscrimination; Office of Foreign Asset Control; Personally Identifiable Information; Prevailing Wages and Labor Compliance (if applicable); Professionals; Severability; and Third-Party Beneficiaries. Grant Recipient is not required to use the exact language of these sections from this Grant AGREEMENT, but the terms must have the same legal effect for Sub-Grant Recipients as the sections in this Grant Agreement have for the Grant Recipient.
Per above, Grant Recipient and its Sub-Grant Recipients must comply with the following terms and must include language conforming to these terms in its Related Agreements:
A. Additional Remedies for Non-Compliance:
Without limiting any of the parties’ other remedies, and subject to the sections regarding Disputes and Termination below, PCAPCD, CARB or its designee may require Grant Recipient to return Grant Funds it received due to termination for cause of this 98 Contract # SCN###### Page 30
AGREEMENT, or for Grant Recipient’s misinformation, misrepresentation, misuse of Grant funds, or fraud. CARB also reserves the right to prohibit Grant Recipient from participating in existing or future CARB programs, projects, or grants due to its substantial non-compliance with any material term or condition of this AGREEMENT.
Grant Recipient shall, for each occurrence, document and promptly notify PCAPCD of any and all suspected or known breaches of this AGREEMENT, misinformation, misrepresentation, fraud, or misuse of Grant funds carried out by Grant Recipient or any Sub-Grant Recipient.
Grant Recipient shall fully cooperate with CA RB to investigate, resolve, and take appropriate action to enforce the terms and conditions of any Grant Recipient agreement, and this AGREEMENT, including referring any criminal claims to a prosecuting agency or litigating any civil claims (including for recapture of Grant Funds from Grant Recipients) as determined reasonably necessary and feasible by Grant Recipient, in consultation with CARB.
B. Audit:
Grant Recipient agrees that CARB, the California Department of General Services, the California Department of Finance, the California State Auditor, and/or their designated representative shall have the right to review and to copy any records and supporting documentation pertaining to the performance of this Grant and all Grant funds received.
Grant Recipient agrees to maintain such records for possible audit for a minimum of five (5) years from the date of termination, cancellation, or expiration of the CARB Agreement or for five (5) years after this AGREEMENT has concluded, whichever is later. Grant Recipient agrees to allow the auditor(s) access to such records during normal business hours and to allow interviews of any employees who might reasonably have information related to such records. Further, Grant Recipient agrees to include a similar right of the State to audit records and interview staff in any agreement with any Sub-Grant Recipient related to performance of this Agreement.
C. Availability Of Funds:
It is mutually agreed that if the Budget Act of the current year and/or any subsequent years covered under this Grant does not appropriate sufficient funds for the program, this Grant shall be of no further force and effect. In this event, the State shall have no liability to pay any funds whatsoever to Grant Recipient or any Sub-Grant Recipient or to furnish any other considerations under this Grant and Grant Recipient shall not be obligated to perform any provisions of this grant.
D. California Climate Investments (if applicable; this applies to agreements funded by Community Air Protection Program funds):
The Grant Recipient agrees to acknowledge the CCI program and CARB as a funding source, and adhere to the CCI Funding Guidelines as outlined in the California Climate Investments Messaging and Communications Guide:
(http://www.caclimateinvestments.ca.gov/logo-graphics-request/).
Below are specific requirements for acknowledgement. The Grant Recipient agrees to include the CCI funding boilerplate and logo on all outreach and public facing materials whenever it publicizes (in any news media, websites, brochures, publications, audiovisuals, or other types of promotional material) projects funded in whole or in 99 Contract # SCN###### Page 31
part by this AGREEMENT. Grant Recipient shall include this requirement in all Sub-Grant Recipient agreements, as appropriate. The acknowledgement must read as follows: “[Grant program name] is part of California Climate Investments, a statewide initiative that puts billions of Cap-and-Trade dollars to work reducing greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening the economy, and improving public health and the environment — particularly in disadvantaged communities.” And whenever applicable, the Spanish translation acknowledgement: “[Spanish grant program name] forma parte de las Inversiones del Clima de California, un iniciativa estatal que destina miles de millones de dólares de Cap-and-Trade para la reducción de gases de efecto invernadero, fortalecimiento de la economía y mejoramiento de la salud pública y el medio ambiente – especialmente en comunidades en desventaja.” The CCI logo and name serves to bring under a single brand the many investments whose funding comes from the GGRF. The logo represents a consolidated and coordinated initiative by the State to address climate change by reducing greenhouse gases, while also investing in disadvantaged communities and achieving many other co-benefits.
E. Compliance With Law:
Grant Recipient agrees that during the term of this AGREEMENT, it will, at all times, comply with, and require its Sub-Grant Recipients to comply with, all applicable federal, State, and local laws in performing under this AGREEMENT or any agreement funded by this Grant.
F. Confidentiality:
Except as may be required by law, such as the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 7920.000 et seq.), court order, or legal process (such as a subpoena), no record which has been designated as confidential by CARB shall be disclosed by Grant Recipient. If Grant Recipient believes disclosure of a confidential record may be required by law, Grant Recipient shall first give CARB at least ten (10) calendar days’ written notice prior to any planned disclosure so CARB can seek an order preventing disclosure from a court of competent jurisdiction.
Grant Recipient acknowledges that it will identify any information it provides PCAPCD or CARB that it asserts is confidential in accordance with California Code of Regulations, title 17, sections 91011 and 91022. Grant Recipient acknowledges that, as provided in California Code of Regulations, title 17, sections 91010, any information provided to CARB may be released (1) to the public upon request, except trade secrets which are not emission data or other information which is exempt from disclosure or the disclosure of which is prohibited by law, and (2) to the federal Environmental Protection Agency, which protects trade secrets as provided in Section 114(c) of the Clean Air Act and amendments thereto (42 USC 7401 et seq.) and in federal regulations. Grant Recipient further acknowledges that CARB may anonymize and aggregate confidential information it receives and make such information public.
G. Conflict Of Interest:
By entering into this agreement, said party is or may be a direct or indirect recipient (“Grant Recipient”) of funds received from or provided by the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”), and as such certifies, represents, and warrants that it is in compliance with all applicable state and federal conflict of interest laws on the date said agreement is signed and shall remain in compliance with all such laws during the term of the agreement and for any other period required by said applicable federal or state law as they pertain to Grant Recipient’s agreement. Grant Recipient further certifies, represents, and warrants 100
Contract # SCN###### Page 32
that it has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirec t, which will conflict with Grant Recipient’s ability to impartially perform under, or complete the tasks described in, the agreement or any related grant programs. Grant Recipient acknowledges, understands, and accepts that Grant Recipient must disclose any direct or indirect financial interest or situation which may pose an actual, apparent, or potential conflict of interest. Grant Recipient acknowledges, understands, and accepts that the nature and extent of any actual, apparent, or potential conflict of interest may be a basis for disqualification from receiving any funds. Grant Recipient certifies, represents, and warrants that Grant Recipient will immediately advise the PCAPCD in writing of any potential new conflicts of interest as they arise.
H. For Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure and Equipment Grants:
Grant Recipient must comply with the following requirements, if applicable, and ensure the following requirements are included in all Sub-Grant Recipient agreements for electric vehicle charging infrastructure funded with Grant Funds, in whole or in part:
1. Installation:
i) Prior to authorizing work, a Grant Recipient that was awarded funds to install electrical charging equipment for use by on-road transportation vehicles must:
(a) Certify that the project will comply with Public Utilities Code section 740.20 (Section 740.20) requirements or describe why the requirements do not apply to the project. The certification shall be signed by the Grant Recipient’s authorized representative. For the purpose of this requirement, the certification may be included as a provision contained in the agreement with the Grant Recipient.
(b) Acknowledge that Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program (EVITP) Certification Numbers of each EVITP -certified electrician tha t will install electric vehicle charging infrastructure or equipment shall be submitted after work is completed as a condition of reimbursement.
ii) Evidence such as Certification Numbers are not required to be obtained by Grant Recipient if the Section 740.20 requirements do not apply to a project. iii) Prior to remitting payment to a Sub-Grant Recipient, Grant Recipient shall collect all Section 740.20 Certifications to ensure the project complied with all Section 740.20 requirements, where applicable, and shall retain Certification Numbers in accordance with Grant Recipient’s records retention schedule. iv) The requirements of this section do not apply to any of the following:
(a) Electric vehicle charging infrastructure installed by employees of an electrical corporation or local publicly owned electric utility;
(b) Electric vehicle charging infrastructure funded by monies derived from credits generated from the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program (Sub-article 7 (commencing with Section 95480) of Article 4 of Subchapter 10 of Ch apter 1 of Division 3 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations); and (c) Single-family home residential electric vehicle chargers that can use an existing 208/240-volt outlet.
2. Reporting:
101
Contract # SCN###### Page 33
Under Public Resources Code section 25231.5 , the California Ener gy Commission (CEC) is required to develop uptime recordkeeping and reporting standards for electric vehicle chargers (EVCs) that will apply to State -funded EVCs installed between January 1, 2024, and January 1, 2035. Grant Recipient shall require Sub -Grant Recipients for the installation of AC Level 2 and Direct Current Fast Charger (DCFC) EVCs to comply with the CEC standards as required by section 25231.5, for a minimum of 6 years, unless the CEC decides a longer time span is more appropriate.
The requir ements in this section do not apply to EVCs that are excluded under California Code of Regulations, title 20, section 3120 et seq., including but not limited to:
i) Temporary chargers;
ii) Off-grid chargers;
iii) Private residential chargers, including chargers used solely for private use by residents of a residential real property containing four or fewer dwelling units, or any charger used solely for private use by residents of a single unit of a residential real property containing more than four dwelling units for which one or more of the residents of that unit would be the exclusive charging station operator(s) or site host(s) of the charger; and, iv) Research chargers.
I. Executive Order N-6-22 – Russia Sanctions:
On March 4, 2022, Governor Gavi n Newsom issued Executive Order N -6-22 (the EO) regarding Economic Sanctions against Russia and Russian entities and individuals. “Economic Sanctions” refers to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, as well as any sanctions imposed under state law. The EO directs state agencies to terminate contracts and grants with, and to refrain from entering any new contracts and grants with, individuals or entities that are determined to be a target of Economic Sanctions. Accordingly, should the State determine that Grant Recipient is a target of Economic Sanctions or is knowingly conducting prohibited transactions with sanctioned individuals or entities, that shall be grounds for termination of this AGREEMENT pursuant to the terms of this AGREEMENT.
J. Force Majeure:
Neither CARB, PCAPCD, nor Grant Recipient are liable for nor will be deemed to be in default for any delay or failure in performance under this AGREEMENT or interruption of services resulting, directly or indirectly, from acts of God, enemy or hostile governmental action, civi l commotion, strikes, government declaration of emergency, national or State declared pandemics, lockouts, labor disputes, fire, flood, earthquakes, or other physical natural disasters. If either Party intends to invoke this clause to excuse or delay performance, the Party invoking the clause must provide written notice to the other Party immediately, but no later than within fifteen (15) calendar days of when the force majeure event occurs and reasons that the force majeure event is preventing that Party from or delaying that Party in performing its obligations under this Grant.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this AGREEMENT, CARB or PCAPCD may terminate the AGREEMENT immediately in writing without penalty to any party in the event PCAPCD or Grant Recipient invokes this clause. If the AGREEMENT is not terminated by CARB or PCAPCD pursuant to this clause, upon completion of the event 102
Contract # SCN###### Page 34
of force majeure, Grant Recipient must, as soon as reasonably practicable, recommence the performance of its obligations under this AGREEMENT. Grant Recipient must also provide a revised performance schedule to minimize the effects of the delay caused by the event of force majeure. A force majeure event does not relieve a Party from liability for an obligation which arose before the occurrence of that event.
K. Funding Prohibitions for Sectarian Purposes and Non-Public Schools:
Grant Recipients and Sub -Grant Recipients may use or authorize the use of CARB - provided funds only in any manner that is consistent with applicable laws, including California Constitution, article XVI, section 5, and article IX, section 8 (prohibiting grant fund awards to non-public schools), and federal law. CARB reserves the right to obtain additional information from Grant Recipient and others to determine compliance with the California Constitution, article XVI, section 5, and article IX, section 8. Failure by Grant Recipient to provide any information requested by CARB may result in denial of Grant Funds or termination of this AGREEMENT pursuant to the terms of this AGREEMENT.
L. Grantee’s Responsibility for Work:
CARB shall not be responsible for disputes arising out of Grant Recipient’s contracts or agreements for work on a project funded by this Grant Award, including but not limited to payment disputes with Grant Recipients or Sub -Grant Recipients. The State will not mediate disputes between the Grant R ecipient and any other entity concerning responsibility for performance or payment of work under this AGREEMENT.
M. Indemnification:
Grant Recipient agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the State of California, CARB, and its/their officers, employees, agents, representatives, and successors-in- interest against and for any liability, loss, and expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, from and for any and all claims for injury or damages (collectively, “Losses”) arising out of Grant Recipient’s or Sub-Grant Recipients’ performance of this AGREEMENT, except for losses arising out of the gross negligence or willful misconduct of CARB.
N. Incorporated Documents
Grant Recipient will administer this Grant according to the requirements described in the following documents, which are incorporated by reference into and made a part of this AGREEMENT.
• Grant Recipient's Associated Clean Air Grant Application • Current PCAPCD Policies and Procedures for the Administration of the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (including Community Air Protection Incentives Program Addendum)
• Carl Moyer 2024 Program Guidelines and any future approved Guidelines, including the Community Air Protection Funds Supplement to the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines
• Community Air Protection Incentives 2019 Guidelines and future approved Guidelines
• Funding Guidelines for Agencies that Administer California Climate Investments (August 2018 and succeeding revisions)
Grant Recipient's Associated Clean Air Grant Application Current PCAPCD Policies and Procedures for the Administration of the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program
103
Contract # SCN###### Page 35
Carl Moyer 2024 Program Guidelines and any future approved Guidelines
O. Independent Contractor:
Grant Recipient, and its sub-grant Recipients, in their performance of this AGREEMENT, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees, or agents of the State of California.
P. Labor Compliance for Drayage and Short-Haul:
Grant Recipient shall ensure that all agreements with any and all Sub-Grant Recipients who receive or use any Grant Funds to purchase, or lease for greater than one year, new drayage or short-haul trucks contain a requirement that as a condition of Grant Fund receipt or use and as a condition of participation in the Program, Grant Recipients and Sub-Grant Recipients must comply at all times with all applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code sections 39680 through 39693, which require Grant Recipients and Sub- Grant Recipients to maintain compliance with applicable labor law, retain direct control over the manner and means for performance of any individual using or driving the vehicle, and other requirements.
Q. Nondiscrimination:
1. During the performance of this AGREEMENT, Grant Recipient shall not unlawfully discriminate, harass, or allow harassment against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decision making, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age (over 40), sexual orientation, veteran or military status, or any other characteristic protected by law, or unlawfully deny family-care leave, medical-care leave, pregnancy-disability leave, or other legally -protected leave. Grant Recipient shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of its employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination and harassment. Grant Recipient shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code section 12900 et seq.) and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder (California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11000 et seq.). The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing Government Code section 12990 (a)-(f), set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4.1 of title 2 of the California Code of Regulations, are incorporate d into this Agreement by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full.
2. During the performance of this Grant, Grant Recipient shall comply with the provisions of California Government Code section 11135; Title VI of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964; Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the federal Age Discrimination Act of 1975; Section 13 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972; and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 7.
3. Grant Recipient shall give written notice of their respective obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which any may have a collective bargaining or other agreement.
4. Grant Recipient shall permit access by representatives of the California Civil Rights Department, CARB, or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) upon reasonable notice to access all sources of information as required to ascertain 104
Contract # SCN###### Page 36
compliance with this clause.
5. Grant Recipient acknowledges and agrees that, pursuant to Government Code section 11136, whenever CARB has reasonable cause to believe that Grant Recipient or Sub- Grant Recipients have violated any of the provisions of Government Code section 11135 or section 12900 et seq., or any of the provisions o f California Civil Code sections 51, 51.5, 51.7, 54, 54.1, or 54.2, or any regulation adopted to implement these sections or Article 1 (commencing with Government Code section 12960) of Chapter 7 of the Government Code, then CARB will notify PCAPCD or, where applicable, the Grant Recipient, of such violation and will submit a complaint detailing the alleged violations to the California Civil Rights Department for investigation and determination pursuant to Government Code sections 11136 and 12960 et seq.
6. Grant Recipient acknowledges and agrees that in the event of Grant Recipient’s or its Sub-Grant Recipients’ noncompliance with this provision, Grant Recipient or sub- grant Recipients may be subject to remedial action determined appropriate and consistent with applicable law by CARB, the California Civil Rights Department, or the U.S. EPA, including but not limited to termination of this AGREEMENT pursuant to the terms of this AGREEMENT.
7. Grant Recipient acknowledges that CARB’s Civil Rights Policy applies to this AGREEMENT and CARB will administer this Grant consistent with such policy. The policy may be found at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/california-air-resources-board-and- civil-rights.
8. Grant Recipient shall include the provisions of this Nondiscrimination Section in all contracts, subcontracts, sub-grant agreement and other agreements, including but not limited to those with Grant Recipients, where work is performed to fulfill any term or condition of this AGREEMENT. Grant Recipient shall notify CARB if it becomes aware that a Sub-Grant Recipient has violated the provisions of this Section and take appropriate remedial action as required by law or by CARB.
R. Office Of Foreign Asset Control:
Transactions may be or are prohibited if they involve the property or interests in property of an entity or individual listed on the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) targeted lists. OFAC publishes lists of targeted individuals, groups, and entities, which can be found at:
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/office-of-foreign-assets-control-sanctions- programs-and-information.
Refer also to the U.S. Department of the Treasury website:
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/sanctions-programs-and- country-information/ukraine-russia-related-sanctions.
The property and interests in property of an entity that is 50 percent or more owned by one or more persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to any part of 31 C.F.R. chapter V are also blocked, regardless of whether the entity itself is listed.
Grant Recipient acknowledges that the Grant Recipient and its agents and property are not in violation of any federal law pertaining to any entity or individual listed on any of the OFAC lists.
105
Contract # SCN###### Page 37
Grant Recipient shall include in all Sub-Grant Recipient agreements an acknowledgment that the Sub-Grant Recipient and its agents and property are not in violation of any federal law pertaining to any entity or individual listed on any of the OFAC lists. Grant Recipient shall notify CARB within 15 calendar days if it has knowledge that Grant Recipient or any Sub-Grant Recipient is in violation of any federal law pertaining to any entity or individual listed on any of the OFAC lists.
S. Personally Identifiable Information (PII):
Information or data that personally identifies an individual or individuals is confidential in accordance with relevant State or federal statutes and regulations. Grant Recipient shall comply with all applicable State or federal statutes or regulations regarding the receipt, use, storage, and release of PII, including by safeguarding all such information or data which comes into their possession under this AGREEMENT and not releasing or publishing any such information or data, except as required by law, court order, or legal process (such as a subpoena).
T. Prevailing Wages and Labor Compliance:
Where applicable, Grant Recipient agrees to be bound by and comply with all the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1771 et seq. regarding prevailing wages.
Grant Recipient shall ensure that all agreements subject to reimbursement from this AGREEMENT include language requiring compliance with the applicable provisions of California Labor Code Sections 1720-1861.
U. Professionals:
Grant Recipient agrees that only licensed professionals will be used to perform services under this AGREEMENT where such services are called for and licensed professionals are required for those services under State law.
V. Severability:
If a court of competent jurisdiction holds any provision of this AGREEMENT to be illegal, unenforceable, or invalid in whole or in part for any reason, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions of those provisions, shall not be affected.
W. Third-Party Beneficiaries:
Grant Recipient represents, warrants and agrees that CARB and the State of California are third-party beneficiaries in all contracts, subcontracts, grants, subgrants, Sub -Grant Recipient agreements, and other agreements entered into using Grant Funds, or for the purpose of carrying out any of the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT during the Term. Grant Recipient shall name CARB and the State of California as third -party beneficiaries in all contracts, subcontracts, grants, subgrants, and other agreements entered into using Grant Funds, or for the purposes of carrying out any of the terms of Grant Recipient’s agreement, and, upon request by CARB, to send to CARB a copy of said agreement.
The existence of this AGREEMENT does not create, and nothing stated in this AGREEMENT creates, rights in or grants remedies to any third party or third parties, other than CARB and the State of California as stated in this section, as a beneficiary or beneficiaries of this AGREEMENT, or of any duty, covenant, obligation or undertaking established herein.
106
AB 841 CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
1 Assembly Bill (AB) 841; Ting, Chapter 372, Statutes 2020, added Section 740.20 to the Public Utilities Code This statement is to be completed and submitted with the invoice requesting grant funds for reimbursement.
Grant Recipient Name: City of Lincoln
Contract Number: SCN######
Grant Recipient hereby certifies that the AB 8411 requirements do not apply to the project associated with the contract stated above or that the project has complied with all AB 841 requirements.
Select one of the following options:
☐ AB 841 requirements do not apply to the project because the electric vehicle charging infrastructure has been installed by employees of an electrical corporation or local publicly owned electric utility.
☐ All electric vehicle infrastructure and equipment located on the customer side of the electrical meter has been installed by a contractor with the appropriate license classification, as determined by the Contractors’ State License Board, and at least one electrician on each crew, at any given time, held an Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program (EVITP) certification. In addition, for projects that installed a charging port supplying 25 kilowatts (kW) or more to a vehicle, at least 25 percent of the total electricians working on the crew for the project, at any given time, held an EVITP certification. One member of each crew may be both the contractor and an EVITP certified electrician.
Installer Name:
Installer Address:
EVITP certification numbers of each certified electrician that installed electric vehicle charging infrastructure or equipment for the project are listed below, and certifications are attached.
EVITP Certification Number(s)
(attach an additional list if necessary)
Name Certification Number
Representative’s Signature: Date:
Representative’s Name:
Representative’s Title:
107
SUBJECT:
Adopt a Resolution Approving the Fourth Amendment to the City of Lincoln Bikeways Master Plan 2026 Update. (Jonnelyn Espartero)
SUBMITTED BY:
Jonnelyn Espartero
DEPARTMENT:
Engineering
DATE:
September 22, 2026
Item Number 13.D
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council adopt a resolution approving the fourth amendment to the City of Lincoln Bikeways Master Plan (2026 Update).
BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION:
The Biennium 2026/27 budget includes updating the City of Lincoln Bikeways Master Plan (BMP). The current BMP prepared in 2018 requires updating to address bikeways, the open space trail system, recent annexations, and development within the City. Additionally, this update is required by the California Streets and Highways Code as well as the City of Lincoln General Plan.
On November 4, 2025, the City staff published the Request for Proposals on Planet Bids.
Proposals were due on December 12, 2025. DKS Associates was deemed most qualified to perform the work.
On January 13, 2026, the City Council approved a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Task Order with DKS Associates for professional engineering services in the amount of $125,000 for the Bikeways Transportation Plan Update.
FINDINGS/ANALYSIS:
The 2026 BMP update was developed through a comprehensive process that included public outreach, review of existing facilities, and identification of future bicycle network needs.
Community participation was an integral component of the plan update. Project information was distributed to schools, local bicycle clubs, downtown businesses, the Chamber of
STAFF REPORT
108
Commerce, community organizations, Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, and the broader public through eBlasts, in person outreach, and the City’s website.
An interactive web-based tool and public workshop, held at City Hall on May 28, 2026, were used to solicit location-specific comments and suggestions regarding bicycle network needs, gaps, safety concerns, and potential improvements. Public input, along with City staff input and an evaluation of the existing bicycle network, was used to develop the recommended Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and updated top ten priority projects. A draft of the plan was subsequently distributed to interested parties for review and comment.
The 2026 BMP updates the City’s 2018 BMP and reflects bicycle facilities and trail connections constructed or advanced since 2018, including improvements associated with continued residential and commercial development. While both plans identify priority bicycle projects and support a connected citywide bikeway network, the 2026 plan updates the proposed network to address remaining gaps and improve connections between newer and existing neighborhoods, schools, parks, downtown, trails, and other key destinations. The updated plan also places greater emphasis on bicycle safety, comfort, and connectivity, while providing a current framework to coordinate future bikeway improvements with development projects, roadway projects, and available grant funding. Below are some of the major changes from the 2018 BMP.
Updated for growth and new development
Completed and ongoing projects are incorporated
Updated priority projects and potential funding sources More emphasis on safety
Greater focus on connectivity and closing network gaps
On September 3, 2026, DKS Associates submitted the final version of the Bikeways Master Plan update (see Attachment B).
FISCAL IMPACT:
Budgeted
Professional Services
Fund 22306500-50400 $125,000 Total $125,000
Actual Project Costs
Design – DKS Associates $125,000 Total $125,000
Budget Remaining
109
Fund 22306500-50400 $0
The plan establishes a top ten list of improvement projects and their assumed costs. Should the City wish to construct these improvements, they would follow established methods for adoption into the City budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
Bicycle Master Plan Update.DOC2.Attachment A_Reso.2026Sept22.jespartero.docx Bicycle Master Plan Update.DOC2.Attachment B_BMP.2026Sept22.jespartero.pdf 110
Resolution No. 2026-XXX
RESOLUTION 2026-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINCOLN
APPROVING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS
MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan on October 9, 2001, by Resolution Number 2001-156; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the first amendment to the City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan on November 8, 2005, Resolution Number 2005-245; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the second amendment to the City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan on August 28, 2012, by Resolution Number 2012-145; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lincoln approved the third amendment to the City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan on June 26, 2018, by Resolution Number 2018-129; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lincoln Bicycle/Bikeways Master Plan is due to be updated per the California Streets and Highways Code as well as the City of Lincoln General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, the City of Lincoln entered into a task order with DKS Associates to provide engineering services to update the Bi keways Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2026, a public workshop to solicit community feedback was held which was an integral component of the plan update; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2026, DKS Associates finalized and submitted the Bikeways Master Plan update (Fourth Amendment); and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends to City Council that said Bikeways Master Plan update be approved.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the City of Council of the City of Lincoln does hereby approve the fourth amendment to the City of Lincoln Bikeways Master Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd of September, 2026 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
111
Resolution No. 2026-XXX
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
___________________________
Richard Pearl, Mayor
ATTEST:
Hope Ithurburn, City Clerk
112
CITY OF LINCOLN
BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
SEPTEMBER 22, 2026
PREPARED FOR:
113
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 ii
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
CLIENT City of Lincoln
DKS Project Number P26347-000
Project City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Update
Date Document Issued September 22, 2026
PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF LINCOLN
Jonnelyn Espartero, Assistant Engineer, Project Manager Roland Neufeld, Senior Engineer
PREPARED BY
Jim Damkowitch, Project Manager, Principal
Sylinda Villado, Deputy Project Manager, Transportation Planning Associate Marcus Reyes, Transportation Engineering/Planning Assistant Elise Brockett, Community Engagement Task Lead
Connor Wolff, AICP, Transportation Planning Associate
Alex Haag, Transportation Planning Associate
114
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 7 PURPOSE ................................................................ ............................................... 7 STUDY AREA ................................................................ .......................................... 8 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS ................................................................ ............ 10 GOALS, OBJECTIVE, AND POLICIES ................................ ................................ .................. 13 OVERALL SYSTEM ................................................................ .................................. 14 LAND DEVELOPMENT ................................................................ .............................. 14 COMMUTING ................................................................ ......................................... 15 SAFETY EDUCATION ................................................................ ............................... 16 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................ ........... 17 FUNDING ................................................................ ............................................. 17 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18 PAST EXPENDITURES ON BICYCLE FACILITIES .............................................................. 18 EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES ................................................................ ................. 20 REGIONAL CONNECTIONS ................................................................ ........................ 22 MULTI -MODAL CONNECTIONS ................................................................ ................... 23 SUPPORT FACILITIES ................................................................ .............................. 25 BICYCLE SAFETY ................................................................ ................................... 25 ANALYSIS OF BICYCLE DEMAND ................................ ................................ ....................... 33 EXISTING MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS ................................................................ ......... 33 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS ................................................................ ..... 35 BICYCLE RIDERSHIP LEVELS ................................................................ ..................... 35 FUTURE POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ................................................................ ...... 38 BICYCLE CONNECTIVITY ................................ ................................ ................................ . 38 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ................................ ................. 40 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ................................ ................................ .............................. 49 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE ................................................................ .............................. 49 PROJECT COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................ ..................... 50 ONLINE ENGAGEMENT ................................................................ ............................. 51 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT ................................................................ ..................... 51 PROPOSED SYSTEM ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 63 115
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 iv
PLANNED BIKEWAY PROJECTS ................................................................ ................... 63 PROPOSED SYSTEM OF BIKEWAYS ................................................................ .............. 64 TOP TEN BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................ ............ 66 PROPOSED SYSTEM LOW -STRESS CONNECTIVITY COMPARISON ................................ ........... 68 COST AND FUNDING ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ........................ 68 COST ESTIMATES ................................................................ .................................. 68 IMPLEMENTATION CONSTRAINTS ................................................................ ............... 69 FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES ................................................................ .................... 69 STATEWIDE FUNDING SOURCES ................................................................ ................ 71 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING SOURCES ................................................................ ... 72 NON- TRADITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES ................................................................ ....... 73 IMPLEMENTATION ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 74 BIKEWAY SYSTEM PHASING ................................................................ ...................... 75 APPENDIX ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 76
116
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 v
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN STUDY AREA ................................ ........................... 9 FIGURE 2. CLASS I (MULTI -USE PATH) CROSS SECTION ................................ ................. 11 FIGURE 3. CLASS II ON STREET BICYCLE LANES CROSS SECTION ................................ ..... 12 FIGURE 4. CLASS III BIKE ROUTE (SHARROWS) CROSS SECTION ................................ ..... 12 FIGURE 5. CLASS IV (PROTECTED BIKE LANE) CROSS SECTION ................................ ........ 12 FIGURE 6. EXISTING BICYCLE NETWORK ................................ ................................ .... 21 FIGURE 7. CENTERLINE MILES BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ................................ ...... 22 FIGURE 8. TRANSIT ROUTES SERVING LINCOLN ................................ ........................... 24 FIGURE 9. LOCATION OF ALL BICYCLE COLLISIONS IN LINCOLN (2017 -2024) .............................. 27 FIGURE 10. BICYCLE COLLISIONS BY YEAR TREND (2017- 2024) ................................ ....... 28 FIGURE 11. BICYCLE COLLISIONS BY YEAR AND SEVERITY ................................ .............. 29 FIGURE 12. BICYCLE COLLISIONS BY DENSITY ................................ ............................. 31 FIGURE 13. HIGH STRESS NETWORK AND BICYCLE COLLISIONS ................................ ....... 32 FIGURE 14. MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS ................................ ................................ ...... 34 FIGURE 15. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRIP VOLUMES (FROM REPLICA) ............................. 36 FIGURE 16. LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS DIAGRAM ................................ ......................... 39 FIGURE 17. EXISTING LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ................................ ......................... 42 FIGURE 18. EXISTING HIGH STRESS LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ................................ ...... 44 FIGURE 19. NETWORK CONNECTIVITY ................................ ................................ ........ 45 FIGURE 20. CITYWIDE CONNECTIVITY TO PARKS ................................ .......................... 46 FIGURE 21. CITYWIDE CONNECTIVITY TO TRANSIT ................................ ....................... 47 FIGURE 22. CITYWIDE CONNECTIVITY TO SCHOOLS ................................ ...................... 48 FIGURE 23. PROJECT INFORMATION CARDS ................................ ................................ . 50 FIGURE 24. SCREENSHOT OF INTERACTIVE ONLINE MAP TOOL ................................ ......... 52 FIGURE 25. PUBLIC COMMENT CONCENTRATION ................................ ........................... 53 FIGURE 26. HOW OFTEN DO YOU RIDE A BICYCLE IN LINCOLN? ................................ ....... 56 FIGURE 27. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OR DESTINATION FOR YOUR BICYCLE TRIPS? ................. 56 FIGURE 28. RATE HOW SAFE YOU FEEL WHILE BICYCLING IN LINCOLN ............................... 57 117
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 vi
FIGURE 29. WHAT PREVENTS YOU FROM BICYCLING MORE OFTEN? ................................ .... 57 FIGURE 30. WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU FEEL MOST COMFORTABLE RIDING? ........................... 58 FIGURE 31. WOULD YOU OR MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD BIKE MORE IF SAFER, CONNECTED, AND LOW- STRESS ROUTES WERE AVAILABLE? ................................ .............................. 58 FIGURE 32. HOW SUPPORTIVE ARE YOU OF INVESTING CITY FUNDS OR GRANT FUNDING IN BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS? ................................ ................................ ....................... 59
FIGURE 33. WHAT SPECIFIC STREETS, INTERSECTIONS, OR AREAS IN LINCOLN NEED BICYCLE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS? ................................ ................................ ........................ 59 FIGURE 34. PROPOSED BIKEWAY PROJECT LOCATIONS ................................ ................... 65
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 891.2 REQUIRED ELEMENTS ..... 8 TABLE 2. COMPLETE AND NEARLY COMPLETE BICYCLE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS SINCE 2018 ... 18 TABLE 3. BICYCLE COLLISIONS BY YEAR ................................ ................................ ......... 28 TABLE 4. BICYCLE COLLISIONS BY YEAR BY SEVERITY ................................ ................... 29 TABLE 5. POPULATION ESTIMATES AND COMPARISONS ................................ .................. 35 TABLE 6. MODE SPLIT OF HOME TO WORK TRIPS ................................ .......................... 37 TABLE 7. LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS DESCRIPTIONS ................................ ..................... 40 TABLE 8. SEGMENT MILES BY LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ................................ ............... 41 TABLE 9. TOP TEN PROPOSED BIKEWAY PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS ................................ ..... 66 TABLE 10. LOW STRESS NETWORK CONNECTIVITY COMPARISON ................................ ....... 68 TABLE 11. GENERALIZED UNIT COST ESTIMATES FOR BIKEWAY CONSTRUCTION ................... 69 118
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 7
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The City of Lincoln 2026 Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) is an update to the City’s 2018 Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP). The 2026 BMP will provide an update to the City’s proposed future bicycle network, including the City’s bicycle capital improvement list, with the goal of providing a safe, enjoyable, accessible, and connected bicycle network for all users within the City of Lincoln. This plan demonstrates compliance with the California Bicycle Transportation Act (BTA) and provides the City of Lincoln with a resource document for pursuing discretionary and competitive funding for bicycle infrastructure improvements.
Specifically, the 2026 Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) accomplishes the following:
updates all required information elements of the California Bicycle Transportation Act; updates the City’s existing bicycle network to include street and bicycle improvements completed since the previous update in 2018;
updates the City’s bicycle facility design guidelines to reflect the latest national/regional guidance; determines the efficacy of the 2018 bicycle capital improvement program and revises these recommendations based on input from the public combined with a comprehensive assessment of bicycle connectivity relative to existing and future development patterns; establishes a future bicycle network that connects all areas of significance in the city with facilities and routes that are more in line with the majority of potential bicyclists’ comfort levels; establishes bicycle demand, mode shift and planning level cost opinions to inform bicycle capital improvement cost- effectiveness for funding prioritization; and, establishes a one -stop data source to facilitate the development of future state/federal grant funding applications for bicycle improvements by the City of Lincoln.
As stated above, the 2026 BMP addresses all element required under the California Bicycle Transportation Act (BTA). These requirements are shown in Table 1.
119
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 8
TABLE 1. CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 891.2 REQUIRED ELEMENTS
REQUIRED BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN ELEMENT REPORT REFERENCE PAGE
A. Estimated number of existing and future bicycle commuters 34-37 B. Map and description of land use and development patterns 10–12, 34–37 C. Map and description of existing and proposed bikeways 22–24, 61–65 D. Description of bicycle parking facilities 26–27
E. Map of transit routes and multi-modal connections 24–26 F. Description of facilities for changing and storing clothes and equipment 18, 26–27 G. Description of bicycle safety and education programs 19, 27–33 H. Description of citizen and community participation 48–61 I. Description of consistency with transportation, air quality, and energy conservation plan
12, 18–19
J. Cost summary of proposed bicycle projects for Class I, II, and III 63–68 K. Description of past expenditures and future financial needs for bicycle facilities 20–22, 68–76 Source: California Bicycle Transportation Act Section 891.21
STUDY AREA
The City of Lincoln, California, is located in the southwest portion of Placer County, approximately 10 miles north of the City of Roseville and 25 miles northeast of the City of Sacramento. Portions of State Route 65 (Lincoln Bypass) exist s within city limits. The City of Lincoln is approximately 23 square miles in area; however, this plan include s the city limits and its “sphere of influence”, including, but not limited to, portions of Village 1, Village 5, Village 7, and Special Use District B (SUD-B) in the City’s General Plan. This plan will serve as blueprint for developing a bikeway system that includes both on-street and off-street facilities as well as support facilities and programs in line with both current and future mobility needs.
The City of Lincoln study area is presented on Figure 1.
1 Source: California Bicycle Transportation Act Section 891.2 120
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 9
FIGURE 1. BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN STUDY AREA
121
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 10
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS
The BMP ensures consistency with the following planning documents:
• 2018 City of Lincoln Bicycle Transportation Plan
• The City of Lincoln Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Transportation Plan + Golf Cart Master Plan Update
• 2022 PCTPA Regional Bikeway Plan
• 2026 Placer Countywide Active Transportation Plan
• Sacramento County Bicycle Master Plan
• SACOG Trail Network Prioritization Framework
• SACOG 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Community Strategy for 2035 • City of Lincoln General Plan – Transportation and Circulation Element • Village 1 Specific Plan
• Village 5 Specific Plan
• Village 7 Specific Plan
• Placer County Sunset Area Plan + Placer Ranch Specific Plan • Lincoln Crossing Specific Plan
PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS
Bikeway planning and design in California relies on the guidelines and design standards established by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and supporting guides as documented in:
• City of Lincoln Design Criteria and Procedures Manual, 2004. • City of Lincoln Public Facilities Improvement Standards, 2020. • Chapter 1000; Bicycle Transportation Design, contained in the Highway Design Manual, 7th Edition (California Department of Transportation, 2025) with supporting Chapters 200, 300, and 400. • California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2026. • Caltrans, Design Information Bulletin Number 89-02, Class IV Bikeway Guidance. • Caltrans, Design Information Bulletin Number 94, Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance. • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, 2015 • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Separated Bike Lanes on Higher Speed Roadways, 2024. • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 5th Edition, 2024.
• National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 3 rd Edition, 2025.
Where possible, it may be desirable to exceed the minimum standards. These guidelines cover basic concepts. The HDM Chapter 1000 contains more detailed standards and guidance and should be followed. The City may also recommend the AASHTO Guide, and the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Caltrans has supported the NACTO from a memorandum dated August 20, 2013 for Bicycle 122
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 11
and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility. The NACTO addresses more recently developed bicycle design treatments and techniques. It provides options that can help create “complete streets” that better accommodate bicyclists. Many treatments in the NACTO g uide are compatible with Caltrans HDM policies and demonstrate new and innovative solutions for the varied urban settings across the country. The vast majority of treatments illustrated in the NACTO guide are either allowed or not precluded from the CA -MUTCD. In addition, non -compliant traffic control devices may be piloted through the CA-MUTCD experimentation process.
This section also references the uniform standards and specifications for traffic control devices under the 2026 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD). Given that they are not currently adopted by the FHWA MUTCD or CA MUTCD, a number of recommended devices currently being implemented in California are considered experimental.
Recommended devices that are currently not adopted by the MUTCD or Caltrans appear to be promising improvements in bicycle and pedestrian access and safety as they have been widely used in Europe and experimented within the US. Any jurisdiction wishing to use these treatments should follow the appropriate experimental procedures. Some of the more commonly used devices, such as green painted bike lanes, have been given blanket interim approval for use in California. For these reasons, the City only needs to notify Caltrans that it will use these. Bike boxes and colored treatments of shared lane markings are approved for experimentation by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). To conduct these experiments, the City would need to follow the guidelines set forth by the FHWA here: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ condexper.htm and to the California Traffic Control Device Committee following their guidelines set forth in Section 1A.10 of the CA MUT CD.
Appendix A provides the Bicycle Facility Class Types (i.e., Design Toolkit) and Appendix B provides the legislative and policy framework for bicycle planning and design. The following highlights design recommendations that are specific to the plan update, including the following bicycle facilities:
• Class I Bike Path: Provides a completely separated right- of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow minimized. Per Caltrans standards for Class I bikeways, a minimum of 8 feet of pavement (10 feet preferred) for two- way travel and at least 2-foot graded shoulders on both sides. These bikeways must also be at least 5 feet from the edge of a paved roadway.
FIGURE 2. CLASS I (MULTI- USE PATH) CROSS SECTION
• Class II Bike Lane: Provides a restricted right -of-way designated for the exclusive or semi - exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by pedestrians and motorists permitted. Caltrans’ standards require a six-inch striped lane with a 4 -5-foot paved shoulder for one -way bike travel on a street or highway.
123
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 12
FIGURE 3. CLASS II ON STREET BICYCLE LANES CROSS SECTION • Class III Bike Route: Provides for shared use with pedestrians and/or motor vehicle traffic within the same right -of-way and is designated with signs only indicating “Bike Route .” Class III bike routes are appropriate where restricted right-of-way would make a Class II facility infeasible.
FIGURE 4. CLASS III BIKE ROUTE (SHARROWS) CROSS SECTION • Class IV Bike Lanes: Provides a separated bike lane, or “protected bike lane ,” with a physical barrier between the bike lane and the adjacent travel lanes, parking lanes, and sidewalks. Class IV bike lanes may be one -way or two- way. Separated bike lanes can be separated from motor vehicle traffic by raised medians, concrete curbs, landscaping, on- street parking, bollards, flexible delineator posts, or by a change in elevation between the bike lane and travel lane.
FIGURE 5. CLASS IV (PROTECTED BIKE LANE) CROSS SECTION
The following facilities or treatments were considered due to the potential for increasing bicyclist visibility, safety, and comfort along bicycle facilities:
• Buffered Bike Lanes (Without On-Street Parking): Provides additional protection and can be considered a Class IV facility, referred to in this plan as a “Class IV- Lite” facility. Painted buffers at least 2 -feet in width can be used to narrow travel lanes, which slows traffic, and are most appropriate on wide, busy streets, where physically separating the bike lanes with protected vertical separation is undesirable for cost, operations, or maintenance reasons. Class IV - Lite facilities are useful in providing additional separation between cyclists and motor vehicles where traditional Class IV facilities are not feasible, and where Class II facilities are not adequate. 124
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 13
• Buffered Bike Lanes (With On-Street Parking): Provides a painted divider between the bike lane and the adjacent travel lane. Buffers at least 2- feet in width can be used to narrow travel lanes, which slows traffic, and are most appropriate on wide, busy streets, where physically separating the bike lanes with protected vertical separation is undesirable for cost, operations, or maintenance reasons. Double buffered bike lanes provide a painted divider on both the travel lane and the parking lane.
• Green Bike Lanes: Provides increased visibility for cyclists through the use of green paint on the width of the bike lane. Colored bike lanes can be implemented at intersections to enhance bicycle visibility at points of conflict with vehicles or can be used as a continuous treatment spanning the extended length of a bike lane corridor.
The following bicycles facilities were considered due to the potential for increasing bicyclist visibility, safety, and comfort at intersections.
• Bikeway Markings: Continuing marked bicycle facilities at intersections (up to the crosswalk) ensures that separation, guidance on proper positioning, and awareness by motorists are maintained through these potential conflict areas. Colored bike lanes can be implemented at intersections to enhance bicycle visibility at points of conflict with vehicles. • Bike Pockets and Boxes: Provides bicyclists with a safe and visible way to get ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase.
Cross-sections 2 for bicycle facilities Class I, II, III, and IV, as referred to in this plan, are provided below. Exact specifications and dimensions of facilities should be consistent with the City’s Design Criteria and Procedures Manual (2004).
GOALS, OBJECTIVE, AND POLICIES
The inclusion of goals, objectives, and policies for this plan are intended to provide specific direction on the necessary actions involved in planning, designing, funding, and constructing bicycle facilities in the City of Lincoln. The following informati on relies on an understanding of the relationship between the proposed bikeway system, key issues facing implementation of specific routes, and the requirements of local, state, and federal funding programs. The goals and policies are organized by topic areas that relate to specific implementation issues. The topic areas include:
• Overall System;
• Land Development;
• Commuting;
• Safety Education;
• Environmental Considerations
• Funding.
The purpose of organizing this section by topic area is to provide City staff, decision makers, and citizens with clear and concise policy direction and guidance on how to implement the bicycle facilities
2 City of Lincoln, Bikeway Classifications.
125
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 14
proposed in this plan. Each topic area addressed below includes an overall goal, measurable objective, and policies with specific action statements related to the development of specific facilities or programs within the City of Lincoln.
OVERALL SYSTEM
The following goal and policy statements express the philosophy behind this plan and the proposed system of bikeways. The statements stem from the City’s desire to provide residents and visitors with a connected bikeway/path system that can accommodate both commute and recreational trips throughout the city.
GOAL 1: PROVIDE A WELL -CONNECTED BIKEWAY SYSTEM WITHIN THE CITY OF LINCOLN TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL RESIDENTS AND VISITORS.
Objective: Construct priority bikeways identified in the proposed system map and provide for the maintenance of both existing and new facilities.
Policies
1.1 Prepare and maintain a Bicycle Master Plan that identifies existing and future needs and provides specific recommendations for facilities and programs including adequate provisions for bicycle and pedestrian use, golf carts, and neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) to, within, and from the City of Lincoln.
1.2 Require all bikeways to conform to design standards contained in the latest version of the Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design, Caltrans, unless otherwise established by the City.
1.3 Consider a proposed route’s importance in providing access and connectivity to adjacent bicycle facilities and destinations when recommending bike routes for implementation.
1.4 Coordinate with Placer County, City of Rocklin, and City of Roseville regarding the implementation of the proposed system of bikeways.
1.5 Provide bicycle connections that allow for regional bike travel to and from the City of Lincoln.
1.6 Integrate bicycle planning with other community planning, including land use and transportation planning.
1.7 Ensure proposed Class II bike lanes are consistent with the City of Lincoln NEV Transportation Plan.
1.8 As funding allows, implement the proposed bikeway system in this Bicycle Master Plan in a cost-effective manner.
LAND DEVELOPMENT
As shown in the population and employment growth expectations, the City of Lincoln has significant planned development over the next 20 years. Proposed development projects should adhere to the 126
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 15
policy statements below regarding access, mobility, and support facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians.
GOAL 2: INCLUDE BICYCLE FACILITIES IN ALL APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS TO FACILITATE ON -SITE CIRCULATION FOR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
TRAVEL, ON -SITE BICYCLE PARKING, AND CONNECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED SYSTEM OF GOLF CART AND NEV FACILITIES.
Objective: Maximize the number of daily trips made by bicycling to and from new development projects within the City of Lincoln.
Policies
2.1 Require new development projects to reserve the right -of-way for multi-use trails shown in the proposed system of bikeways.
2.2 Meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act when constructing facilities contained in the proposed system, where applicable.
2.3 Provide pedestrian/bicycle crossings at appropriate intervals along new roadways that will adequately serve new large-scale commercial office, industrial development, and residential development.
2.4 Provide one mile of pedestrian/bicycle trails per 2,500 population (Amended Public Facilities Element 2008).
2.5 Adhere to specific policies contained within adopted plans and specific plans relating to the design, implementation, and function of bikeways and pedestrian facilities within the City of Lincoln.
2.6 Encourage new commercial development to provide bicycle and pedestrian access to surrounding residential areas.
2.7 Encourage new commercial development to place required bike racks near entrances for employees and customers.
COMMUTING
Commuters that bicycle to the city can represent a larger percentage of total commute trips if a comprehensive network of interconnected bicycle facilities is developed. This plan proposes to implement such a system as defined by the following goal and policy statements.
GOAL 3: INCREASE BICYCLE TRIPS TO WORK TO REDUCE VEHICLE CONGESTION,
IMPROVE AIR QUALITY, CONSERVE ENERGY USE, AND IMPROVE INDIVIDUAL PHYSICAL FITNESS.
Objective: Develop a system of bikeways that provides direct routes between residential areas and major employment centers.
Policies
127
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 16
3.1 Provide connections to the proposed system from all existing and future transit facilities and transfer points.
3.2 Encourage employers to install and/or maintain support facilities such as bicycle racks, personal lockers, and showers at appropriate locations to promote bicycle use.
3.3 Employers should encourage employees to consider bicycling as an alternative mode for commuting to and from employment centers.
3.4 Employers should be actively involved in implementing Ordinance No. 604B relating to the City’s Ridesharing Program. The provisions of Ordinance 604B provide for the following:
• Identifies a “Major project controller” as an employer or common work location with 100 or more employees working at a single site for at least 20 hours per week. • Identifies a “Transportation Control Measure (TCM) Coordinators” as an individual assigned by the Placer County Transportation Commission to assist member jurisdictions in complying with the provisions of trip reduction ordinances.
• Requires an annual commute survey as part of the annual reporting requirement on ridesharing. • Identifies a “new project” as a project which would allow a use or number of uses that, individually or collectively, would employ 100 or more employees at one common work location. • Identifies a “project expansion” as an existing project which would allow a use or uses that, individually or collectively, after expansion, may both (1) generate employment for 100 or more employees and (2) increase the total number of employees at the common work location by twenty percent or more from the applicant’s base- line employment. • States that assistance in transportation plan preparation will be provided by the City through the TCM Coordinator who will be provided to the City by the Placer County Transportation Commission. • Identifies that the Rideshare Coordinator will be responsible for conducting an annual commute survey as part of the employer’s annual reporting requirements.
SAFETY EDUCATION
Safety education is an important aspect of increasing bicycle use. If bicyclists or potential bicyclists perceive that the bikeway system is unsafe, they will be discouraged from using it. Therefore, the following goal and policy statements are intended to improve the user’s knowledge of how to use the bikeway system safely.
GOAL 4: EDUCATE ALL RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF LINCOLN ABOUT HOW TO USE BIKEWAY AND TRAIL FACILITIES SAFELY.
Objective: Improve bicycle safety in the City of Lincoln by providing a system of connected routes that minimize conflicts with autos, golf carts, NEVs and pedestrians.
Policies
4.1 Play an active role in educating residents about bicycle and pedestrian safety in conjunction with public and private schools and civic organizations. 128
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 17
4.2 Use available collision data to monitor bicycle collisions and locations and target education programs and/or improvements in those locations.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Bicycle facilities are generally considered to benefit the environment because their use reduces demand for motorized travel and promotes beneficial lifestyle changes. Nevertheless, the construction of specific bikeway improvements may adversely affect the physical environment. The following goal and policy statements have been developed to avoid and minimize potential impacts to the environment.
GOAL 5: AVOID ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM.
Objective: Mitigate potentially significant impacts to a level of less than significant.
Policies
5.1 Conduct site -specific environmental review consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act for individual bicycle projects as they advance to the implementation stage of development.
5.2 Solicit and consider community input in the design and location of bicycle facilities that connect to neighborhoods.
5.3 Consider the effect on other transportation facilities such as travel lane widths, turn lanes, on-street parking, and on-site circulation when planning and designing on-street bikeways.
FUNDING
To obtain the funding required to implement the proposed system, the City of Lincoln must take advantage of funding sources at the state and federal level. It will also require a commitment of local funding.
GOAL 6: ACQUIRE SUFFICIENT FUNDING TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED SYSTEM WITHIN THE NEXT 20 YEARS.
Objective: Maximize the amount of local, state, and federal funding sources for bicycle facilities that can be used by the City of Lincoln for the implementation of the proposed system.
Policies
6.1 Periodically update current information regarding regional, state, and federal funding programs for bicycle facilities along with specific funding requirements and deadlines.
6.2 Where feasible, consider joint grant applications with other agencies, such as the City of Roseville, City of Rocklin, and/or Placer County, for state and federal funds.
129
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 18
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section of the Plan documents existing bicycle infrastructure and facilities in the City of Lincoln to determine the availability and status of safe and connected bicycle travel for city residents.
Information concerning existing bicycle infrastructur e and facilities was collected from the 201 8 Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP), the City of Lincoln, and public engagement events.
PAST EXPENDITURES ON BICYCLE FACILITIES
Since the adoption of the 2018 BTP, the City of Lincoln has made significant progress increasing their bicycle network. The City has implemented or is in the final stages of implementation of the bicycle improvements listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2. COMPLETE AND NEARLY COMPLETE BICYCLE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS SINCE 2018
STREET LIMITS IMPROVEMENT YEAR
COMPLETED PROJECTS
3RD STREET D Street to O Street Class II bicycle lanes 2018 O STREET Nicolaus Road to 1st Street Class II bicycle lanes and Class III bike route
markings 3
2018
EAST AVENUE McBean Park Drive to 9th
Street
Class II bicycle lanes and
Class III bike route
markings3
2019
LINCOLN BOULEVARD
(PHASE 2)
Sterling Parkway to 1st Street
1st Street to McBean Park
Drive
Sterling Parkway to 1st
Street - Class IV/NEV
bicycle lanes
1st Street to McBean Park
Drive - Class III bike route
2019
5TH STREET Joiner Parkway to Lincoln
Boulevard
Class II bicycle lanes and
Class III bike route
markings3
2020
1ST STREET O Street and L street Class II bicycle lanes 2020
3 Class III bike route (sharrow) markings were installed in lieu of bicycle lanes where the roadway was too narrow for Class II bicycle lanes.
130
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 19
STREET LIMITS IMPROVEMENT YEAR
1ST STREET Fuller Lane and Joiner Parkway Class II bicycle lanes near Creekside Oaks Elementary
School
2020
5TH STREET Lincoln Boulevard to East
Avenue
Class II bicycle lanes and
Class III bike route
markings 4
2022
7TH STREET J Street to East Avenue Class II bicycle lanes and Class III bike route
markings4
2022
1ST STREET K Street to I Street Class II bicycle lanes 2023 E. JOINER PARKWAY Twelve Bridges Drive to
Bridgestone Drive
Class IV/NEV bicycle lanes 2023
JOINER PARKWAY Moore Road to 1st Street Class IV bicycle lane repave and restriping
2024
1ST STREET
(PHASE 3 OF LINCOLN
BOULEVARD UPRR)
H Street to Lincoln Boulevard Class II bicycle lane
restriping
2024
I STREET 1st Street to 6th Street Class II bicycle lanes 2026
IN DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION
MOORE ROAD Trail Crossing under SR 65 Class I trail In Design FERRARI RANCH ROAD Ingram Parkway to McBean
Park Drive
Class II bicycle lanes In Design
9TH STREET/H STREET O Street to 7th Street Class II bicycle lanes In Design J STREET 9th Street to 6th Street Class II bicycle lanes In Design E. JOINER
PARKWAY/DEL WEBB
BOULEVARD
North intersection of E. Joiner
Parkway and Del Webb
Boulevard
Roundabout and Bicycle
lanes
In Design
4 Class III bike route (sharrow) markings were installed in lieu of bicycle lanes where the roadway was too narrow for Class II bicycle lanes
131
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 20
STREET LIMITS IMPROVEMENT YEAR
BRENTFORD CIRCLE Near Forebridge Lane and
Alberton Circle
Trail extensions In Design
ALDO PINESCHI JR.
PARK
Brentford Nature Reserve Trail Class I multi-purpose trail connection
In
Construction
BELLA BREEZE DRIVE Cabra Street and McCullough
Street
Restriping of existing Class
II Bike/NEV Lanes
In
Construction
Source: City of Lincoln CIP List.
EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES
The existing bicycle network in the City of Lincoln consists of nearly 87 centerline miles of City owned facilities. The City of Lincoln’s existing bikeway network is shown on Figure 6.
Inclusive of the recent improvements described above, of the City’s existing roadway miles, 23% provide bicycle lanes 5. A significant portion of roadways are local residential streets with posted speeds of 25 miles per hour. In addition, a significant portion (60%) of Class II and Class IV facilities are supportive of neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) use. In some cases, NEVs and bikes share the same lane , while in others, parallel lanes are provided and differentiated through striping and pavement markings.
There are currently 18 miles of Class I bicycle facilities within the City of Lincoln. Class I facilities are primarily located within development communities of Twelve Bridges and Lincoln Crossing. Other Class I facilities are located along or parallel to Joiner Parkway and Ferrari Ranch Road, including the Class I trail along the Auburn Ravine , and along Joiner Parkway/Venture Drive and south Lincoln near Twelve Bridges Drive. Additionally, there is a disconnected Class I facility along East Avenue between 6th Street and McBean Park Drive.
Class I facilities within private communities are maintained by Homeowner Associations (HOA).
For several roadways without bi -directional bike lanes, such Joiner Parkway/Venture Drive east of Lakeside Drive and north of Nicolaus Road/9th Street, Class I facilities are provided. Additionally, several roadways are designated as Class III bicycle routes due to the presence of “sharrow” asphalt markings signs, such as 5th Street from E Street to H Street.
A breakdown of the City’s bicycle network centerline miles by functional classification is shown on Figure 7.
5 Not inclusive of Class III bike routes.
132
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 21
FIGURE 6. EXISTING BICYCLE NETWORK
133
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 22
FIGURE 7. CENTERLINE MILES BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
REGIONAL CONNECTIONS
The City of Lincoln is bordered by unincorporated Placer County to the west, north, and east . The City of Roseville and the City of Rocklin are located to the south with primary access occurring along State Highway 65 (SR 65), Industrial Boulevard, and Joiner Parkway. The Town of Loomis and the City of Auburn are located short distances east of Lincoln with primary access from Highway 193.
Existing bikeways within the city do not currently provide abundant regional connections to surrounding communities.
In 2026, Placer County updated its Regional Bikeway Plan. The Regional Bikeway Plan summarizes the existing bicycle network throughout the County. As noted in the 20 26 Plan, there is a regional connection between Lincoln to Rocklin and Roseville along Joiner Parkway . The Plan also identifies several potential regional connections from Lincoln to Auburn, Roseville, Rocklin, and unincorporated Placer County. Proposed system connections are discussed in subsequent sections of this plan.
134
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 23
MULTI -MODAL CONNECTIONS
Multi-modal connections in the City of Lincoln and South Placer County are especially important due to Lincoln’s distance from other communities and barriers to bicycle travel such as high -speed roadways. A transit center currently exists at Third and F Streets serviced by Placer County Transit.
The various transit services that serve South Placer County are described below.
PLACER COUNTY TRANSIT (PCT)
Placer County Transit (PCT) currently operates three fixed routes known as the Lincoln Circulator (70), Lincoln Circulator Overflow (80), and the Lincoln/Sierra College (20) route . Each bus is equipped with two bike racks.
The Lincoln Circulator operates on a one-hour headway 6. The Circulator begins and ends each route at the Lincoln Transfer Point at Third and F Streets connect daily with the Lincoln/Sierra College route at Third and F Streets, the Lincoln Public Library, and the Thunder Valley Casino Resort.
The Overflow route only operates on weekdays during peak morning (7 -8am) and afternoon commute hours (2-5pm). The Overflow begins at Nicolaus and Joiner on weekdays northbound and on weekdays southbound at Twelve Bridges Middle School.
All routes operate in Historic Downtown Lincoln , along Highway 65, and with stops near key destinations such as City Hall , downtown retail centers, Twelve Bridges Library, Twelve Bridges Medical Center, and Kaiser Permanente.
Additionally, there is a Dial-A-Ride (DAR) that is a complimentary curb -to-curb para-transit service for the general public. DAR operates in the city limits of Lincoln on a reservation basis. The PCT routes and DAR service area are shown in Figure 8.
6 At each stop, buses arrive every hour.
135
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 24
FIGURE 8. TRANSIT ROUTES SERVING LINCOLN
Source: Placer County Transit.
136
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 25
SUPPORT FACILITIES
Bikeway support facilities include physical infrastructure designed to accommodate or promote the use of bicycles. Examples include bicycle racks, bicycle lockers, restrooms, and shower facilities.
According to the City’s Parks and Recreation Map 7, bicycle racks are located at the following locations:
• 640 Fifth Street
• 600 Sixth Street in downtown Lincoln
• Twelve Bridges Library, 485 Twelve Bridges Drive
• Community Center, 2010 First Street
• Most commercial centers
Placer County Transit provides a rack that holds two bikes on the front of all buses. In addition, all recent shopping centers have bike racks as a condition of their approval.
Several newer projects in the downtown core have street tree grates with tree guards that qualify as informal bike racks for bicyclists. Support facilities are important because potential riders can be discouraged from riding if they think that their bicyc le may be stolen, vandalized or if sufficient facilities are not provided to make bicycling convenient, particularly for commute purposes.
In many cities and counties, the installation of secure bicycle parking is required as part of local transportation system management plans or the zoning code. For example, Yuba City, CA requires the provision of bicycle racks as part of their zoning code while similar requirements apply in the City of Roseville as part of their transportation systems management program. The City of Lincoln, as part of its rideshare program8, requires that bicycle parking facilities be made available at the request of any tenant or employee participating in the program whose primary mode of commuting is by bicycle. Parking facilities are not currently required as part of the City of Lincoln zoning code.
BICYCLE SAFETY
Collision data was provided by the California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) statistics, and by the California Crash Reporting System (CCRS), for the eight- year period between 2017 and 2024. According to these two datasets, approximately 43 collisions involving a bicyclist occurred in the City of Lincoln during that eight-year period. Figure 9 illustrates the location of bicycle collisions during this eight-year period. Table 3 presents the number of bicycle collisions by year and as a percentage of all collisions in Lincoln. Figure 10 illustrates the eight-year trend of bicycle collisions. As shown, bicycle collisions have decreased during this time period which reinforces the City’s continued efforts to implement bicycle infrastructure improvements to enhance safety for bicyclists. Table 4 and Figure 11 summarize bicycle collisions by severity throughout the
7 https://www.lincolnca.gov/media/pjmn43oz/parks-trails-and-bikeways-map.pdf 8 Chapter 18.45.
137
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 26
study period. While no fatal bicycle collisions have been reported since 2017, 36 of the 43 collisions resulted in bicyclist injury.
138
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 27
FIGURE 9. LOCATION OF ALL BICYCLE COLLISIONS IN LINCOLN (2017 -2024) 139
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 28
TABLE 3. BICYCLE COLLISIONS BY YEAR
YEAR NUMBER OF BICYCLE COLLISIONS PERCENTAGE OF ALL COLLISIONS A 2017 8 4%
2018 6 3%
2019 6 4%
2020 8 4%
2021 4 2%
2022 9 5%
2023 2 1%
2024 0 0%
TOTAL 43 3%
A Bicycle collisions as an average p ercentage of all collisions per year ( i.e., vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian ).
FIGURE 10. BICYCLE COLLISIONS BY YEAR TREND (2017 -2024) 140
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 29
TABLE 4. BICYCLE COLLISIONS BY YEAR BY SEVERITY
YEAR FATAL SEVERE
INJURY
VISIBLE
INJURY
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ONLY
TOTAL
2017 0 3 3 1 1 8
2018 0 0 3 2 1 6
2019 0 0 4 1 1 6
2020 0 1 4 2 1 8
2021 0 0 2 1 1 4
2022 0 0 7 0 2 9
2023 0 1 1 0 0 2
2024 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 5 24 7 7 43
FIGURE 11. BICYCLE COLLISIONS BY YEAR AND SEVERITY
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Bicycle Collisions by Year by Severity
Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only (PDO) 141
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 30
Figure 12 illustrates the density of bicycle collisions based on their location. Note that in Figure 12 where it is illustrated as “dense” indicates that historically, collisions have commonly occurred at those locations, while “sparse” indicates that less or single collisions have occurred at a respective location. The roadways with the highest number of collisions were Lincoln Boulevard (5 collisions), Joiner Parkway/E. Joiner Parkway (7 collisions), Twelve Bridges Road (4 collisions), and Ferrari Ranch Road, Nicolaus Road, 7 th Street, and 5 th Street (3 collisions). Notably, approximately 65% of all bicycle collisions occurred at intersections. Coincidentally, approximately 70% of all bicycle collisions occurred on the High Stress Network , as shown in Figure 13. The High Stress Network also had 80% of severe injury bicycle collisions and 71% of visible and complaint of pain bicycle injuries. The high stress network denotes roadways with a level of traffic stress (LTS) score of 3 or 4, becoming barriers to key destinations and hindering bicycle connectivity. The high stress network is described in further detail in the Existing Roadway Network Level of Traffic Stress section of this Plan. 142
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 31
FIGURE 12. BICYCLE COLLISIONS BY DENSITY
143
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 32
FIGURE 13. HIGH STRESS NETWORK AND BICYCLE COLLISIONS
144
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 33
BICYCLE SAFETY PROGRAMS
A summary of safety programs that have been implemented within the city is described below:
• Bicycle Rodeos - are designed to teach the rules of the road and safe riding practices to school age bicyclists.
• Bicycle Helmet Enforcement Program - is conducted by the Lincoln Police Department and focuses on issuing warnings to riders under 18 that are not wearing a bicycle safety helmet. The Police Department will give warnings or citations to violators. • Bicycle Safety Instruction - Lincoln Police Department conducts bicycle safety instruction at local elementary schools at the beginning of the school year.
ANALYSIS OF BICYCLE DEMAND
The objective of analyzing bicycle demand is to identify existing bicycle ridership levels and travel patterns, along with projected future use and possible methods for stimulating additional ridership.
This section provides information about City of Linco ln projections for population and employment and their influence on bicycle travel demand.
EXISTING MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS
One purpose of the BMP is to provide facilities that connect residential areas to employment, commercial, educational, and recreational centers. These facilities support bicycle travel demand for both commuter and recreational trip purposes.
Major activity centers in the City of Lincoln include regional commercial areas such as Sterling Pointe Shopping Center, Lincoln Hills Town Center, Lincoln Crossing Marketplace, Joiner Parkway Corridor, and the downtown core. Additionally, employment centers, schools, parks, and Thunder Valley Casino serve as potential destinations for bicyclists. Major activity center locations are identified in Figure
14. 145
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 34
FIGURE 14. MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS
146
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 35
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
The following discussion contains estimates of existing and future projections of population and employment levels to determine trends and how they affect demand for bicycle facilities.
EXISTING POPULATION
In 2018, the City of Lincoln had an estimated total population of 48,860 persons and accounted for 12% of the total Placer County population. In 2025, the city population rose by 12% to 54,520 while the county population rose by 7%. Table 5 shows a comparison of population estimates for the City of Lincoln and Placer County.
TABLE 5. POPULATION ESTIMATES AND COMPARISONS
JURISDICTION 2018 2025 PERCENT CHANGE
CITY OF LINCOLN 48,860 54,520 12%
PLACER COUNTY 392,693 421,446 7%
EXISTING EMPLOYMENT
The City of Lincoln has a labor force of approximately 42,235 persons and employment of approximately 21,850 persons over 16 years of age. The current unemployment rate for the City of Lincoln is 4.2%, slightly less than the rate for Placer County (4.8%) 9.
BICYCLE RIDERSHIP LEVELS
Bicycle ridership levels are not easily measured or projected for an entire city without extensive data collection efforts and can vary widely among different jurisdictions. However, using big data sources such as Replica, bicycle and pedestrian volume estimates are easily accessible. Bicycle and pedestrian volumes were obtained from Replica for a spring weekday. As shown in Figure 15, bicycle and pedestrian trips are common along major corridors such as Joiner Parkway and Lincoln Bouelvard.
9 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2024 5-Year Estimates. 147
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 36
FIGURE 15. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRIP VOLUMES (FROM REPLICA) Note: Trips based on an average spring day in 2025.
148
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 37
EXISTING RIDERSHIP LEVELS
A common term used in describing demand for bicycle facilities is “mode split.” Mode split describes the percentage of people selecting a certain means of transportation within a jurisdiction. Mode split is often used in evaluating commuter alternatives such as bicycling, where the objective is to increase the “split” or percentage of people selecting an alternative means of transportation. For jurisdictions with similar populations as Lincoln, land use density, and bicycle system quality, bicycled mode split typically varies from one to three percent. The City of Lincoln General Plan provides for increased land use densities in many areas an d villages that will contribute to the attractiveness of non -auto modes of travel such as bicycling. The transition to a denser land use pattern could increase the city’s bike mode split from 0.3% to between one and three percent.
Since 2016, the City of Lincoln has experienced a 0.3% decrease in commuters who bike to work.
From the 2024 Census data, mode split information is available for home -to-work trips for the City of Lincoln, City of Roseville, and City of Rocklin. This information is presented in Table 6. As shown in Table 6, less than one percent of home-to-work trips for the cities of Lincoln, Rocklin, and Roseville are made by bicycle.
TABLE 6. MODE SPLIT OF HOME TO WORK TRIPS
MODE LINCOLN ROCKLIN ROSEVILLE PLACER COUNTY
DROVE ALONE 67.9% 67.9% 67.4% 67.5%
CARPOOLED 6.5% 5.4% 6.0% 6.3%
PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
WALKED 0.5% 1.2% 0.8% 1.2%
BICYCLE 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%
TAXI,
RIDESHARE, OR
MOTORCYCLE
1.7% 1.0% 1.4% 1.4%
WORKED FROM
HOME 22.5% 23.7% 23.7% 22.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2024, 5-Year Estimates.
149
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 38
FUTURE POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
In December 2025, the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) completed the 2050 Regional Active Transportation Plan (RTP)10. The RTP included population and employment estimates 25-year forecasts for the City of Lincoln. By 2050, the City of Lincoln is expected growth by 35% with an estimated future population of nearly 70,000.
The city’s employment is expected to increase by approximately 7,000 persons (76%) within the next 20 years. It is anticipated that bicycle ridership levels will increase accordingly.
BICYCLE CONNECTIVITY
The City of Lincoln has a significant amount of existing bicycle infrastructure, with Class II and Class IV bicycle lanes on approximately 60% of existing local roadway infrastructure, and an additional 18 miles of Class I bicycle facilities within the city limits. However, due to high vehicular speeds on major roadways, incomplete or discontinuous bicycle infrastructure, and a lack of adequate bicycle protection at some intersections, many existing bicycle routes may not be suitable for all user-types, nor do they necessarily provide complete connections to key destinations throughout the city.
In addition, the City of Lincoln is characterized by many residential areas that are served by low - speed (< 25 mph) local streets. However, many of these residential areas are encircled by high speed, major roadways – some of which provide no bicycle infrastructure. High vehicular speeds and discontinuous bicycle routes can create stressful conditions for a majority of potential bicycle users.
These conditions can preclude “true” city-wide bicycle connectivity which in turn discourages bicycling as a viable mode option relative to the automobile. As such, the level of stress experienced by a cyclist becomes the determining factor of bicycle infrastructure connectivity, rather than the presence of the infrastructure itself.
Level of traffic stress, as defined by the Mineta Transportation Institute’s Low -Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity report (2012), provides thresholds of cyclist tolerance for on -street bicycle facilities as determined by the roadway conditions of the shared route. A “level of traffic stress” (LTS) score between 1 and 4 is then assigned to the roadway, where 1 represents a level of stress that the majority of the cycling public, including children, can tolerate, and 4 represents a level of stress tolerated only by those characterized as “strong and fearless” cyclists (See Figure 16). Table 7 presents the LTS category summaries as defined by the Mineta Transportation Institute.
For purposes of this study, roadways classified as LTS 1 or 2 reflect low-stress facilities for which the vast majority of the city’s population would feel comfortable bicycling on. Conversely, a roadway with an LTS score of 3 or 4 reflects medium- to-high-stress conditions that only a small percentage of accomplished cyclists would feel at ease using.
Bicycle trip lengths are an important consideration when evaluating bicycle network connectivity.
Behavioral research by the Mineta Institute suggests that physical or high -stress impedances that necessitate longer more circuitous bicycle routing can diminish the desire to bike at all. This is called
10 https://www.pctpa.net/rtp-2050
150
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 39
“undue detour”, and it can occur when re -routing to maintain a low -stress bicycling experience is significantly greater than the shortest or quickest route. Hence, measuring bicycle trip length is critical to determining network connectivity for the following reasons:
• While Points of Interest (PIO) may be physically connected by the network, high -stress barriers and gaps within the network can substantially increase bicycle trip distances. • Per research by the Mineta Institute, circuitous routing of greater than 25% of the baseline distance is considered “undue detour” and could impede bicycle travel. • Additionally, high-stress barriers and gaps can completely separate PIOs from the surrounding network, making it difficult and unsafe to travel by bicycle.
The ultimate goal is to improve the overall connectivity of the low-stress bicycle network. The greater the access to the low-stress network and the greater number of origin and destination pairs it serves, the more attractive bicycling becomes as a viable transportation mode for a greater population.
Criteria used to determine the LTS score for roadways include the following:
• Road width (number of through travel lanes)
• Vehicular traffic speed limit
• The presence and width of a parking lane (diagonal or parallel) • The presence and width of a bicycle lane
Criteria used to determine the LTS score for intersections include the following:
• Right-turn vehicular channelization (right-turn pocket length or shared through/right-turn lane) • The presence and location of a bicycle lane pocket at the intersection • Signalized traffic control or side-street stop-control
FIGURE 16. LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS DIAGRAM
151
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 40
TABLE 7. LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS DESCRIPTIONS
LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC
STRESS (LTS)
DESCRIPTION
LTS 1
(VERY LOW -
STRESS)
Comfortable for nearly everyone, including children with basic bike safety skills. Very little is demanded of people biking and the facility is attractive enough for recreation. People biking are separated from traffic, ride next to slow-moving traffic, or minimal interactions with motor vehicles. Intersections are simple and easy to cross.
LTS 2
(LOW -STRESS)
Comfortable for most adults but may require more attention than children or less experienced riders are comfortable with. Bike facilities are generally separated or clearly marked, and there is occasional interaction with motor vehicles, typically with a low - speed. Intersections and crossings are manageable for most adults.
LTS 3
(MODERATE -
STRESS)
Suitable for many current riders, but less comfortable for casual or less confident riders.
People biking may ride next to moderate-speed traffic or share lanes and roadway width with some motor vehicles traffic. Crossings may be longer or involve faster -moving vehicles.
LTS 4
(HIGH -STRESS)
These routes may involve faster, heavier, or more complex traffic and are generally comfortable only for confident or experienced riders.
EXISTING ROADWAY N ETWORK LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
Using the criteria described in the above section, a level of traffic stress (LTS) value was assigned to every segment of the City of Lincoln’s existing roadway network. Segments were generally defined as sections of roadway that are between controlled intersections or changes in roadway characteristics (such as the transition from two to three lanes, or changes in speed limits). Segments vary by length depending on the roadway function and characteristic. Additionally, intersection approaches were treated as distinct segments for this analysis.
The City of Lincoln’s existing roadway network level of traffic stress is presented on Figure 17. There is a large proportion of low-stress facilities within the city given that the majority of the city’s road- miles are local residential streets with speed limits of 25 miles per hour or less. While these streets generally do not have bicycle facilities, they are considered low stress routes due to the low vehicular speed and low volumes.
It is important to note that roadways with existing bicycle facilities or with low-speed limits are not necessarily considered low-stress. For example, Joiner Parkway has Class II/ NEV bike lane facilities, but it is considered high stress throughout the corridor, primarily due to its varying speed limits of 35 to 45 miles per hour and the lack of additional bicycle safety buffers. Also, while 5th Street is considered low -stress along the majority of its extents due to its low-speed limit, the route is intersected by Joiner Parkway in the west. Given the lack of bicycle pockets at this intersection 152
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 41
approach, cyclists are forced to maneuver between through and right -turn vehicular movements, creating a high-stress condition at this juncture.
Table 8 shows the distribution of segment miles by level of traffic stress. Given the extent of residential streets, 85 -percent of the city’s road system is classified low -stress. Conversely, 15 - percent is classified as medium to high- stress (wide, higher speed, arterials). Class I bike paths do not receive an LTS score; however, they provide the lowest stress experience for cyclists due to the complete separation from motor vehicles.
TABLE 8. SEGMENT MILES BY LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
LTS SCORE LENGTH (MILES) PERCENTAGE
1 – LOW 427 74%
2 – LOW-MODERATE 32 6%
3 – MEDIUM -HIGH 29 5%
4 – HIGH 88 15%
TOTAL 576 100%
153
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 42
FIGURE 17. EXISTING LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
154
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 43
EXISTING NETWORK CONNECTIVITY
While the majority of the City of Lincoln’s roadway network is low stress, the City of Lincoln faces many challenges to intra-city connectivity. As shown in Figure 18, the city is divided by natural and physical barriers that preclude bicycle connectivity, including the Auburn Ravine just south of 1st Street and SR 65. Additionally, high -stress roadways act as barriers to mobility and gaps of connectivity. As shown in Figure 19, connectivity gaps are caused by medium to high stress routes along the following roadways, among others:
• Joiner Parkway/E. Joiner Parkway
• Lincoln Boulevard
• Ferrari Ranch Road
• McBean Park Drive
• Nicolaus Road
• Twelve Bridges Drive
As a result, intra -city connectivity is limited to “islands” (or pockets) of low -stress network, dramatically reducing the number and length of potential connected trips within the city. Figure 19 presents the low stress connectivity matrix, where the key locations within the city are connected by low stress routes. These key locations include neighborhoods, schools, parks, shopping centers, medical services, and governmental offices, among others, totaling over 100 locations, or “Points of Interest”. These Points of Interest (PIOs) serve as primary origins and destinations for bicycle travel within the city. A connectivity evaluation was conducted for each location pair to determine how well each point is served by the low stress network.
As shown on Figure 19, each blue line represents a positive connection between PIOs. The isolated webs demonstrate the lack of existing city-wide low stress connectivity and provide insight on where future connections would provide the greatest benefit for enhancing mobility and closing or connecting gaps. In addition, as shown, some PIOs are completely disconnected to the rest of the network, due to being entirely isolated by a moderate to high stress route. It is important to n ote that Class I bicycle facilities are included as low stress bicycle connections.
Connectivity evaluation was conducted for the most critical node pairings of parks, transit, and schools. Figure 20 through Figure 22 illustrate citywide connectivity to all parks, transit stops, and schools in the city, respectively. As shown, connectivity to these PIOs is primarily prevalent north of the Auburn Ravine and east of Lincoln Boulevard in the community of Sun City Lincoln Hills.
Connectivity to parks is relatively low west of SR 65, near the community of Lincoln Crossing. While this area is characterized by low-stress residential streets, there are several roadways or “barriers” to these nodes such as Caledon Circle and Ferrari Ranch Road. 155
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 44
FIGURE 18. EXISTING HIGH STRE SS LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS 156
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 45
FIGURE 19. NETWORK CONNECTIVITY
157
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 46
FIGURE 20. CITYWIDE CONNECTIVITY TO PARKS
158
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 47
FIGURE 21. CITYWIDE CONNECTIVITY TO TRANSIT
159
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 48
FIGURE 22. CITYWIDE CONNECTIVITY TO SCHOOL S
160
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 49
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Community engagement played an important role in identifying gaps in Lincoln’s existing bicycle network, understanding community priorities, and gathering input on improvements for making bicycling safer, more comfortable, and better connected throughout the city. The 2026 BMP was informed by both technical analysis and input from community members, stakeholders, and City staff. The key outreach activities completed for this effort are summarized below and described in detail in the following sections.
• One public open house to present existing conditions findings and the draft proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) list; • Circulation of project flyers to schools and members of the public; • Development of a stakeholder contact list;
• Periodic e-blasts to inform the public and stakeholders about upcoming project events and opportunities to provide input; • Development and regular updates to a project website; • Access to an online survey through the project website; and • Development of two interactive web-based mapping tools to collect geo-referenced comments and suggestions from the public.
The interactive online map and survey was available online from February – May 2026. The Public Open House was held on May 28, 2026 at Lincoln City Hall. A second interactive online map showing proposed projects for public input was available online from June 4, 2026 to June 28, 2026. Additional community engagement information is provided in Appendix C.
PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE
A public open house was held on May 28, 2026, from 5:30 – 7:00 p.m., at Lincoln City Hall to share information about the Bicycle Master Plan and gather feedback on the draft proposed CIP list and map. Approximately 20 community members attended.
The open house format allowed participants to review information boards at their own pace, ask questions of City staff and the project team, and provide written comments. Boards included information on existing bicycle facilities, network gaps, Level of Traffic Stress findings, and proposed bikeway improvements.
Participants provided feedback by placing sticky notes directly on the project boards and CIP map and by submitting comment cards.
Comments received during the open house were reviewed
alongside other public input and technical analysis to help refine the proposed bikeway recommendations.
161
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 50
PROJECT COMMUNICATIONS
Project communications helped build awareness of the BMP , promote public engagement opportunities, and direct community members to online tools where they could review materials and provide input.
PROJECT INFORMATION CARD AND FLYERS
A project information card and flyer were developed
to provide a brief overview of the plan update and
direct community members to the project website,
online survey, and interactive mapping tool. The se
materials included key project information, a link or
QR code to participate online, and details on how to
learn more. Flyers and information cards were shared
with schools, stakeholders, members of the public
and made available at City facilities and project
events.
E-BLASTS AND NOTIFICATIONS
Periodic e-blasts were sent to the project contact list to share updates and promote opportunities for public
input. Notifications included information about the
public open house, links to the project website, online survey, and interactive map, and reminders about how and when community members could provide feedback. Project announcements were also shared through the project website and City of Lincoln communication channels.
PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER CONTACT LIST
A public and stakeholder contact list was developed at the beginning of the study to support ongoing project communications. The list included interested community members, school representatives, bicycle advocates, community organizations, agency partners, and other stakeholders identified by the City and project team. The contact list was used to distribute project updates, open house information, survey and interactive map links, and reminders about opportunities to provide input.
FIGURE 23. PROJECT INFORMATION CARDS
162
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 51
ONLINE ENGAGEMENT
Online engagement tools were used to provide flexible opportunities for community members to learn about the BMP and share input outside of the public open house.
PROJECT WEBSITE
A project-specific page on the City’s website was developed to serve as the central hub for project information and online participation. The website provided an overview of the plan update, background information, key project milestones, open house materials, and links to the online survey and interactive map. The website was updated regularly to provide project updates to the public.
ONLINE SURVEY
An online survey was linked through the project website to gather community input on bicycling needs, barriers, priorities, and desired improvements in the City of Lincoln. Survey responses were reviewed alongside open house comments, interactive map input, and technical analysis to help inform the proposed bikeway recommendations.
INTERACTIVE WEB -BASED MAPPING TOOL
An interactive web-based mapping tool was developed to collect location-specific comments from the public. Participants could review the study area and existing bikeways, zoom into areas of interest, and add comments or suggestions related to bicycling needs, gaps, barriers, safety concerns, and proposed improvements. Comments received through the mapping tool were compiled and reviewed to identify common themes, priority locations, and potential refinements to the draft proposed CIP list. This input helped the project team better understand where community members expe rience challenges while bicycling and where additional improvements may be needed.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT
The following summary is organized by engagement activity and feedback source.
SUMMARY OF SOCIAL MAP FEEDBACK ON EXISTING BIKEWAYS
The interactive Social Map initially provided an opportunity for community members to identify location-specific bicycling needs, barriers, and improvement ideas throughout Lincoln. As shown in Figure 25, comments generally focused on the need for safer and more connected bicycle facilities, especially along high -speed roadways, near schools, at major crossings, and where existing bike lanes or trails end abruptly. This is comparative to the density and location of public comments received during the 2018 Bicycle Transportation Plan engagements illustrated in Figure 25, however comments have now become more prevalent east of Lincoln Bouelvard. The most common themes included requests for protected or separated bikeways, safer crossings at major intersections, improved connections between neighborhoods and key destinations, better access to existing trails, and maintenance of existing bicycle facilities. Several comments also raised concerns about e -bike behavior on sidewalks, golf cart paths, and shared-use areas.
163
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 52
FIGURE 24. SCREENSHOT OF INTERACTIVE ONLINE MAP TOOL
164
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 53
FIGURE 25. PUBLIC COMMENT CONCENTRATION
165
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 54
East Joiner Parkway, Twelve Bridges Drive, and Nearby School Areas Comments focused on East Joiner Parkway, Twelve Bridges Drive, Westview Drive, Fieldstone Drive, Cardinal Drive, Ivy Harbor Court, and areas near schools. Community members noted that high vehicle speeds, missing or discontinuous bike lanes, and challenging intersections make bicycling uncomfortable, especially for students traveling to Twelve Bridges Middle School, Twelve Bridges Elementary School, and ot her nearby locations. Comments specifically requested protected or buffered bikeways along East Joiner Parkway and Twelve Bridges Drive. Participants also noted that the bike lane disappears through the traffic circle at East Joiner Parkway and Fieldstone Drive, creating a challenge for bicyclists to navigate. Other comments suggested raised crossings, traffic calming, continuous sidewalks, and safer school access routes.
Lincoln Boulevard, Ferrari Ranch Road, and McBean Park Drive Area Several comments focused on the area around Lincoln Boulevard, Ferrari Ranch Road, McBean Park Drive, and the Auburn Ravine crossing. Participants described this area as difficult to navigate by bike or on foot due to narrow bridge conditions, railroad cro ssings, missing sidewalks, and gaps between existing trails and roadways. Suggestions included a protected bike and pedestrian path across the ravine bridge, safer access between Ferrari Ranch Road and McBean Park Drive, and improved connections between neighborhoods, the Auburn Ravine trail, downtown Lincoln, and nearby commercial areas. Several comments also noted that the railroad crossing and overpass conditions near Lincoln Boulevard and Ferrari Ranch Road feel unsafe for bicyclists.
East Avenue
Comments on East Avenue highlighted maintenance concerns and non-continuous bicycle facilities.
Participants noted poor pavement conditions, start- and-stop bike lanes, and the need for more consistent bicycle access. Comments suggested that East Avenue is an important route but currently feels uncomfortable or unsafe for bicyclists due to roadway conditions and gaps in dedicated bicycle space.
Ferrari Ranch Road
Feedback on Ferrari Ranch Road focused on improving trail transitions, crossings, and bicyclist detection. Several comments requested better curb cuts or ramps connecting Ferrari Ranch Road to nearby trails, including the trail through the dog park area. O ther comments noted that bicyclists may have difficulty triggering traffic signals and that markings, signage, and pavement conditions near the railroad crossing should be improved.
McBean Park Drive, SR 193, Virginiatown Road, Turkey Creek Estates, and Bickford Ranch Road
Comments in this area emphasized the need for stronger bicycle connections between neighborhoods and destinations east of central Lincoln. Participants requested more consistent bicycle facilities along McBean Park Drive/SR 193 and improved access from Tur key Creek Estates and Bickford Ranch Road. A comment on Virginiatown Road suggested a bike lane and bridge connection near Oak Tree Lane to help bicyclists avoid narrow roads with fast-moving traffic. 166
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 55
Highway 65, Industrial Avenue, and Regional Connections Several comments addressed larger regional or barrier-crossing connections. Participants requested a bike path under Highway 65 near Moore Road and noted that previously planned connections should be completed. Other comments suggested improving bicycle access along Industrial Avenue, creating a longer north-south bicycle connection parallel to Highway 65, and linking Lincoln’s bicycle network with paths in Rocklin and Roseville.
1st Street, 3rd Street, 5th Street, Joiner Parkway, and Nicolaus Road Comments in this area focused on safer crossings and clearer east -west bicycle connections.
Participants requested improved access to traffic signals for crossings of Joiner Parkway at 1st Street, 3rd Street, and 5th Street. Other comments noted the lack of an official bike lane connection between Joiner Parkway and 3rd Street, the need for safer access to Creekside Oaks Elementary School along 1st Street, and safer bicycle crossings near Nicolaus Road.
Trail Access, Maintenance, and Neighborhood Connections Several comments identified smaller but important access and maintenance needs. These included tree roots lifting the path surface near Hillwood Loop, a curb barrier interrupting trail continuity near Caledon Circle, and requests for crosswalks or ramps ne ar Lombard Lane and Stanton Court. Other comments requested additional trail connections near Anastasia Way, North Clover Valley Road, Boulder Ridge Park, and the Telford Street area.
E-Bike and Shared-Use Path Concerns
A recurring concern involved fast -moving e-bikes or motorized bikes on sidewalks, golf cart paths, and shared -use areas. Comments near Barn Valley Lane, Cottonwood Court, Blue Heron Loop, Cardinal Drive, and East Joiner Parkway noted concerns about rider b ehavior, speed, and conflicts with pedestrians. These comments suggest a need to consider education, enforcement, and clear guidance for e-bike use as part of broader bicycle safety efforts. This is especially important as the City currently has a municipal code 10.76.030 11 which restricts riding or leaving bicycles on a sidewalk.
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSES
The graphs below show the responses from the online survey. A total of 128 surveys were received.
11 City of Lincoln Municode Chapter 10.76.030
167
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 56
FIGURE 26. HOW OFTEN DO YOU RIDE A BICYCLE IN LINCOLN?
FIGURE 27. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OR DESTINATION FOR YOUR BICYCLE TRIPS? 168
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 57
FIGURE 28. RATE HOW SAFE YOU FEEL WHILE BICYCLING IN LINCOLN
FIGURE 29. WHAT PREVENTS YOU FROM BICYCLING MORE OFTEN? 169
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 58
FIGURE 30. WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU FEEL MOST COMFORTABLE RIDING?
FIGURE 31. WOULD YOU OR MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD BIKE MORE IF SAFER, CONNECTED, AND LOW -STRESS ROUTES WERE AVAILABLE?
170
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 59
FIGURE 32 . HOW SUPPORTIVE ARE YOU OF INVESTING CITY FUNDS OR GRANT FUNDING IN BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS?
Note: This graph includes 62 specific locations mentioned through open responses. Vague or non-location specific comments were not included. A full list of survey responses is available in Appendix C.
FIGURE 33. WHAT SPECIFIC STREETS, INTERSECTIONS, OR AREAS IN LINCOLN NEED BICYCLE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS?
171
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 60
SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK ON PROPOSED PROJECTS
The public open house and the second interactive Social Map activity asked community members to review the proposed bikeway improvements and provide feedback on the draft project list and map.
Comments generally showed support for expanding Lincoln’s bikeway network, especially where proposed improvements would create safer, more comfortable routes to schools, downtown, parks, trails, and new residential areas. The most common themes included support for Class IV separated bikeways, requests to upgrade proposed Class II or Class III facilities to more protective designs, concern about gaps where proposed facilities change type or end abruptly, and interest in str onger connections between existing neighborhoods, new development areas, and major destinations.
Several comments also emphasized that bike lanes should be maintained, swept, and designed to keep bicyclists separated from high-speed vehicle traffic.
Twelve Bridges Drive and School Access Areas
Many comments focused on Twelve Bridges Drive and nearby school areas. Community members supported safer bicycle access to the high school and middle school and suggested that Class IV facilities or wider protected bikeways would be more appropriate than stand ard Class II bike lanes in areas with higher vehicle speeds. Some comments noted that Twelve Bridges Drive feels unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians due to fast- moving traffic, missing sidewalks, and limited separation from vehicles. Participants requested separated dual-use paths, protected bike lanes, or Class I/Class IV facilities along key segments of Twelve Bridges Drive. Comments also identified the need to better connect existing paths near Coyote Pond, Ridgeline, and Sierra College, and to improve crossings or traffic control at intersections where neighborhood paths currently do not connect safely.
East Joiner Parkway and Joiner Parkway
Comments on East Joiner Parkway and Joiner Parkway generally supported proposed Class IV improvements and emphasized the importance of protected facilities along this major north -south route. Participants noted that these improvements would help connect re sidents to schools, businesses, and other destinations. The roundabout on East Joiner Parkway was described as uncomfortable for bicyclists and pedestrians, with suggestions for traffic calming, flex posts, speed reduction measures, and redesigned pedestri an islands that better accommodate bicyclists. Other comments supported the proposed separated or protected bikeways along Joiner Parkway and Ferrari Ranch Road, noting that paint- only facilities may not provide enough comfort for children or less confident riders.
Lincoln Boulevard and Downtown Lincoln
Comments on Lincoln Boulevard were generally supportive of proposed protected or separated facilities through downtown. Participants noted that Class I or separated facilities along Lincoln Boulevard would make downtown a more comfortable bicycle destination and improve access to local businesses and community destinations. Some respondents questioned transitions between facility types, especially where a Class IV facility appears to change to a Class I or other facility type.
Participants emphasized that Lincoln Boulevard can feel more dangerous than nearby corridors and that proposed improvements should maintain a high level of protection, particularly for families and 172
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 61
children. One comment also suggested improving the cut- through area near Lincoln Boulevard and Joiner Parkway with a proper road and separated bike path.
Ferrari Ranch Road
Feedback on Ferrari Ranch Road focused on maintaining consistency and protection along the corridor. Several participants supported separated or protected bikeways and questioned why Class IV improvements appear to end or change facility type in certain locations. Comments suggested extending Class IV facilities farther along Ferrari Ranch Road, including toward Lincoln Boulevard and west toward Liberty. Participants also noted that short Class II segments between Class IV and Class I facilities may feel inconsisten t and less comfortable, especially where vehicle speeds are high or where bicyclists are expected to transition between facility types.
McBean Park Drive, SR 193, Turkey Creek Estates, and Bickford Ranch Road The comments around McBean Park Drive highlighted the need for safer bikeway connections east of central Lincoln. Participants described this corridor as dangerous for bicyclists, especially between Ferrari Ranch Road and East Avenue, and noted that residents east of Ferrari Ranch Road lack a safe way to reach downtown Lincoln or McBean Park Drive by bike. Comments also emphasized the need to connect Turkey Creek Estates, Bickford Ranch Road, and other new development areas to the rest of the city. Participants requested Class I, Class II, or separated bikeways along McBean Park Drive, with some specifically calling for separated bike paths on both sides of the street extending toward Sierra College Boulevard. Other comments requested a bike path or connected walkway past Turkey Creek to Esplanade.
Auburn Ravine and Trail Connections
Several comments supported additional trail connections near Auburn Ravine. Participants suggested extending the existing shaded paved bicycle and pedestrian path near the ravine between Lincoln Boulevard and McBean Park Drive , while noting that any improvement should be sensitive to the ravine ecosystem. Other comments requested a bike path along Auburn Ravine from McBean Park Drive to Lincoln Boulevard and additional trail access points that would allow bicyclists to bypass difficult intersections or connect more directly to existing paths. These comments suggest strong interest in off-street or low-stress trail connections as part of the proposed bikeway network.
East Avenue, East 6th Street, East 9th Street, East 12th Street, Liberty Lane, and Heartwood Street
Comments in the East Avenue area focused on improving lower -stress local connections and linking existing or proposed bike facilities. One comment requested a bike lane on East 12th Street to connect to a proposed bike lane. Another suggested a lower -traffic route from East 6th Street to South Herold Avenue, East 9th Street, Liberty Lane, and Heartwood Street to provide a safer connection toward downtown. These comments point to interest in neighborhood -scale bikeway connections that complement the larger proposed CIP projects and provide alternatives to higher- stress roadways.
173
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 62
Virginiatown Road, 12th Street, and McCourtney Road
Several comments requested dedicated bike lanes on Virginiatown Road, 12th Street, and McCourtney Road entering and leaving Lincoln. One comment specifically requested continuing the Class II bikeway on Virginiatown Road at least to the Hungry Hollow Road intersection. These comments suggest that community members value eastern and northern access routes, particularly for people traveling between Lincoln and outlying areas.
Industrial Avenue, Highway 65, Casino Area, and Park-and-Ride Connections Comments in the southern and regional connection areas focused on gaps and barriers between Lincoln and nearby destinations. One comment noted that Industrial Avenue has little to no shoulder and feels hazardous for bicyclists, especially as it may become an important connection back over Highway 65 into Lincoln once the Foothills Road connection is complete. Other comments suggested connecting Lincoln to the casino area by bike path and ensuring that future bicycle routes connect to the park-and-ride lot if transit service is added there. These comments point to interest in regional bikeway connections that serve both recreational trips and practical access to major destinations.
Bike Lane Maintenance and Implementation Considerations A few comments raised concerns about maintenance and implementation. One comment noted gravel, glass, and debris in existing bike lanes and questioned adding new facilities if current lanes are not regularly swept. Other comments emphasized that proposed f acilities should provide meaningful separation from traffic rather than relying only on paint or shared-lane markings. Overall, comments suggest that community members support the proposed bikeway network but want the final project list to prioritize protected facilities, close remaining gaps, improve transitions between facility types, and ensure that existing and future bike facilities are maintained.
174
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 63
PROPOSED SYSTEM
This section describes the proposed system of bikeways developed for the City of Lincoln. The proposed bikeway system was informed by:
• Level of traffic stress and connectivity analysis results; • Historical collision data; and,
• Public input.
Recommendations were developed in coordination with the City of Lincoln and informed by public feedback. Overall, the proposed bikeway system aims to close gaps in the bicycle network including those created by the high- stress network routes. This proposed bikeway system informs the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). From this CIP list, ten projects were identified as priority projects for more detailed engineering review and design considerations. These prioritized projects also serve as the City’s top project candidates for pursuing future state/federal competitive grant funding for bicycle improvements.
PLANNED BIKEWAY PROJECTS
The City currently has several bikeway projects planned that are in design or construction phases at the time of this report, including the following.
Moore Road Trail Crossing Project
This project will connect Moore Road east and west of SR 65. The project will create a bike and pedestrian trail underneath SR 65.
Ferrari Ranch Road Intersection Improvement Project
This Project will install a roundabout on Ferrari Ranch Road at the intersections of Sun City Parkway, and Ingram Parkway. This Project will include appropriate bicycles lanes and roadway entrance/exit ramps. Additionally, the project will repave Ferrari Ranch Road between Ingram Parkway and McBean Park Drive and will install Class II bike lanes along the corridor.
Bicycle and NEV Improvements Project
Install Class II Bike Lanes on 9
th Street/H Street between O Street and 7 th Street. Install Class II Bike Lanes on J Street between 9th Street and 6th Street.
Brentford Circle Trail Crossing Project
Project will create trail crossings at two locations along Brentford Circle (near Forebridge Lane and Alberton Circle) that will include new ADA ramps, crosswalks, trail extensions and (possibly) RRFBs.
E. Joiner Parkway and Del Webb Intersection Improvement Project Project will install a roundabout in lieu of existing all- way stop sign-controlled intersection. Project will include appropriate bicycles lanes and roadway entrance/exit ramps.
175
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 64
Bella Breeze Park Phase 1
The project is currently under construction. It includes gravel parking lot, playground and picnic areas, restroom facility, soccer field and perimeter pedestrian trail. It will also include striping of new crosswalks and restriping of existing Class II Bi ke/NEV Lanes on Bella Breeze Drive between Cabra Street and McCullough Street.
Aldo Pineschi Jr. Park
The project is currently under construction. It includes paved parking lot, playground and picnic area, restroom facility, soccer field, multipurpose court and pedestrian trail which connects to Brentford Nature Reserve Trail on the southern side of the park.
Lincoln Boulevard – Ferrari Ranch Road to 1st Street and Auburn Ravine Bridge This Lincoln Boulevard project would expand the roadway to three lanes with landscaped median, including Class II bike/ NEV lanes and wider sidewalks. According to project site plans, the Class II bike/NEV lanes would range from 7 to 10- feet, and bike/NEV pockets would be provided at intersections with right turn pockets.
McBean Park Drive Bridge Replacement
This project includes the replacement of the McBean Park Drive bridge over the Auburn Ravine, and improvement of the roadways approaches on McBean Park Drive. The bridge will be widened to accommodate Class II bike/NEV lanes, and sidewalks for pedestrians.
PROPOSED SYSTEM OF BIKEWAYS
The 2018 BTP identified bicycle improvements for the City of Lincoln . Improvements included an extensive network of Class II and Class II buffered facilities. This 2026 BMP identified projects that have been completed from the 2018 BTP and includes projects that have not yet been completed.
The 2026 BMP identifies improvements to be added to, or prioritized within, the existing CIP list. All current and newly defined projects were scored with an LTS web-app tool developed for 2026 BMP to calculate the incremental connectivity benefit (i.e., change in percent-connected) of each.
The proposed bikeway improvements to be included in the City’s CIP are included in Appendix D.
The proposed intersection improvements to be included in the City’s CIP as well as several potential policies or citywide improvements that support the City’s existing and proposed bicycle infrastructure are included in Appendix D.
The proposed bikeway improvements include a pproximately 3 5 miles of new bicycle routes . The existing and proposed bikeway system for the 2026 BMP is shown in Figure 34. Note that the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) recently completed their Regional Active Transportation Plan (RATP) and some projects may differ from PCTPA proposed projects developed on behalf of the City of Lincoln
12. 12 Projects shown are up to the City of Lincoln city limits, note that several projects are identified as regional projects, supporting connection beyond Lincoln.
176
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 65
FIGURE 34. PROPOSED BIKEWAY PROJECT LOCATIONS
177
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 66
TOP TEN BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The system of proposed bikeway improvements creates a continuous low -stress network that connects residential areas with majority activity centers in the City of Lincoln, provides low -stress connections for anticipated development in the city sphere of inf luence, and includes regional low - stress connections to communities east and south of the city.
Of the proposed bikeway improvements listed in Appendix D, ten projects were identified as priority projects. The key sources of information considered to identify a given priority improvement included the highest yielding connectivity scor es using the LTS web-app tool, public input received at the community workshop/open house, community input provided on the interactive web-based mapping tool, and City input. Table 9 lists the resulting Top 10 bikeway improvement projects . The Top 10 projects include an approximate total of 16 miles of new bicycle facilities and two intersection spot improvements. The Top 10 projects are discussed in more detail on the following pages. Cost estimates and initial design recommendations are provided in Appendix E.
This section outlines the Top Ten Bikeway Improvements included in the City’s recommended CIP list. These projects represent those improvements that will provide the most benefit for the city in terms of increasing safety and connectivity of bicycle travel for all user types.
TABLE 9. TOP TEN PROPOSED BIKEWAY PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT
ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION IMPROVEMENT
TYPE
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
P-01 E. Joiner Parkway E. Joiner Parkway
(Full Length)
Class II (Buffered
Bikeway)
Install a buffered
bikeway along entire E.
Joiner Parkway corridor
P-04 School Safety
Eastridge Drive /
Twelve Bridges
Elementary
Safety
Improvement
Address daylighting at
intersections for student
safety.
P-07 McBean Park Drive Lincoln Boulevard to
Ferrari Ranch Road
Class II (Buffered
Bikeway)
Install a buffered bike
lane along McBean Park
Drive from Lincoln
Boulevard to Ferrari
Ranch Road.
P-08 SR 65 Highway
Undercrossing
Moore Road west and
east of highway
Class I (Multi-Use
Path)
Extend bike path
beneath Highway 65
bridge for better
circulation.
P-10 East Joiner Parkway
Undercrossing
Class I under E.
Joiner Parkway,
Class I (Multi-Use
Path)
Class I under E. Joiner
Parkway, connect near
178
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 67
PROJECT
ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION IMPROVEMENT
TYPE
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
connect near Equinox
Loop and Joiner Lake
Equinox Loop and Joiner
Lake
P-18 Twelve Bridges Drive Industrial Avenue to
Colonnade Drive
Class II (Buffered
Bikeway)
Install a buffered
bikeway along Twelve
Bridges Drive from
Industrial Avenue to
Colonnade Drive
P-24 Virginiatown Road
and McCourtney Road
East Avenue to city
limits
Class II (Buffered
Bikeway)
Install a buffered
bikeway along
Virginiatown Road and
McCourtney Road from
East Avenue to city
limits.
P-31 Lincoln Boulevard
Multi-Use Connection
Lincoln Boulevard /
Ferrari Ranch Road/
Auburn Ravine
Connection
Class I (Multi-Use
Path)
Provide a separated
connection from Auburn
Ravine to east of
Lincoln Boulevard.
Connecting Auburn
Ravine trail parallel to
Lincoln Bouelvard,
crossing Lincoln
Boulevard and parallel
to Ferrari Ranch Road.
P-33 East Avenue Bicycle
Lane Gap
6th Street to 7th
Street
Class II (Buffered
Bikeway)
Connect Class II lane
from south of 6th Street
to north of 7th Street.
P-45
Ferrari Ranch
Road/McBean Park
Drive
Ferrari Ranch
Road/McBean Park
Drive
Bicycle Protection
Install bicycle protection
improvements (i.e.,
bike turn pockets, bike
signal)
179
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 68
PROPOSED SYSTEM LOW- STRESS CONNECTIVITY COMPARISON
The existing bikeway network, the recommended 2026 BMP CIP, and the Top Ten CIP list of bikeway improvements were evaluated using the network summary statistic “Percent Nodes Connected”.
Utilizing the network connectivity methodology described in previous sections, the degree of low - stress network connectivity that is achieved by these respective CIP lists can be determined. In this context, connectivity of key-nodes is based solely on the low-stress network. The percentage of key- nodes connected excludes trips between key-nodes that increase by 25% or greater in length above baseline conditions, are completely disconnected from each other, or are not currently connected under baseline conditions.
As shown in Table 10, the 2026 BMP CIP provided substantial improvements to the City’s bicycle network connectivity, with an approximate low -stress connectivity score of 69 percent and the top ten proposed projects would result in 44 percent connectivity . The 2026 BMP CIP significantly improves bicycle network connectivity due to improvements that provide greater separation between cyclists and the outside travel lane, including buffered bike lanes, gap closures, and intersection treatments that reduce roadway traffic stress levels. A connectivity matrix of proposed projects and improved connectivity to schools, parks, and transit is included in Appendix F.
TABLE 10. LOW STRESS NETWORK CONNECTIVITY COMPARISON
ALL TRIPS (ALL LENGTHS) EXISTING LOW STRESS
NETWORK 2026 BMP CIP
2026 BMP CIP
TOP TEN
% “KEY NODES”
CONNECTED 22.9% 69% 44%
COST AND FUNDING ANALYSIS
COST ESTIMATES
Table 11 summarizes planning- level unit costs per linear foot for the proposed bicycle facilities.
These estimates are intended solely for developing generalized construction cost estimates and supporting project prioritization; they do not represent total project costs. The estimates exclude costs associated with roadway widening, cantilevered structures, right- of-way acquisition, utility relocation, drainage improvements, and other project-specific requirements, which could significantly affect total costs. More comprehensive estimates should be developed following preliminary engineering. Appendix E provides generalized estimates for each proposed project based on the per-linear-foot unit costs.
180
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 69
TABLE 11. GENERALIZED UNIT COST ESTIMATES FOR BIKEWAY CONSTRUCTION
FACILITY TYPE ESTIMATED COST PER MILE A
CLASS I (MULTI- USE PATH) $8,560,678
CLASS II (BUFFERED BIKE LANE) $2,218,360
CLASS III (BIKE ROUTE) $8,989
A Note: there are no proposed Class IV bike facilities. The estimated cost per mile is per lineal foot and is an estimate. Cost per mile is based on the entire proposed project list.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSTRAINTS
Certain locations within the proposed bicycle network may require special design consideration to address potential crossing conflicts. These locations may include intersections of major roadways with Class I or Class II facilities, connections between Class I and Class II facilities, and crossings of streams or creeks, such as Auburn Ravine.
Implementation of the proposed network will depend on available funding, right- of-way, site conditions, and project feasibility. Where appropriate, facility types or project limits may be refined during project development to respond to these considerations, subject to applicable standards and project-specific analysis. Projects that are not currently feasible within anticipated funding or right- of-way constraints, including projects with substantial estimated costs, may be included on an illustrative or financially unconstrained project list. The City may revisit these p rojects as funding opportunities, priorities, and conditions evolve. Two improvements included in Appendix E fall into this category. They were retained as they demonstrate a need and may be considered as part of future updates and as city revenue allows.
FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES
Federal funding is generally administered through Caltrans, the California Transportation Commission, regional planning agencies, or directly through competitive federal grant programs.
Most federal sources are oriented toward safety, air quality, multimodal access, system preservation, or intermodal connections. Eligibility, match requirements (between 10 -20%), and funding limits vary by program and should be confirmed during each call for projects. For the City of Lincoln, the most relevant active transportation uses include bikeway construction, sidewalk and crossing improvements, Safe Routes to School projec ts, safety planning, quick -build improvements, and projects that connect people to schools, parks, transit, jobs, and services.
CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CMAQ) CMAQ provides flexible federal funding for transportation projects and programs that help meet Clean Air Act requirements in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas. Bicycle, pedestrian, and other active transportation projects may be eligible when they can demonstrate air quality benefits by reducing vehicle trips or emissions. CMAQ is typically programmed through state and regional processes, including SACOG for the Sacramento region.
181
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 70
FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY FUNDS
Federal Lands Highway programs may fund transportation planning, design, or construction projects that provide access to, within, or through federal and tribal lands. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities may be eligible when they are transportation -related an d connected to an eligible federal lands transportation need. The projects must be transportation -related and tied to a plan adopted by the State and Metropolitan Planning Organization. Federal Lands Highway Funds may be used for planning and construction and is managed by the United States Department of Transportation.
HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP)
HSIP is a federal safety program administered locally by Caltrans for projects on public roads, publicly owned bicycle paths, pedestrian pathways, or trails. Eligible projects must address a documented safety problem and be consistent with California safety priorities. Active transportation projects may be competitive where they reduce crash risk for bicyclists or pedestrians through countermeasures such as crossing improvements, separated bikeways, traffic calming, lighting, signal improvements, or systemic safety treatments. Caltrans announced Cycle 12 project selections in 2025, funding 288 projects totaling approximately $299.6 million statewide.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
The Land and Water Conservation Fund provides matching grants for the acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation sites and facilities. The program is administered nationally by the National Park Service and in California through the Departmen t of Parks and Recreation.
Bicycle and pedestrian projects may be eligible when they are part of a public park, trail, open space, or outdoor recreation project. The program is generally reimbursement-based and typically requires that funded property remai ns available for public outdoor recreation in perpetuity. Applicants must fund the entire project and will be reimbursed for 50% of costs.
SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL (SS4A)
The Safe Streets and Roads for All program is a federal discretionary grant program that supports local, regional, and Tribal initiatives to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. The program can fund safety action plans, supplemental planning, demonstration projects, and implementation projects. Active transportation improvements may be eligible where they address documented safety needs for pedestrians, bicyclists, micromobility users, transit users, motorists, and other roadway users. For FY 2026, the program provided approximately $993.5 million available nationally, with expected Planning and Demonstration Grant awards ranging from $100,000 to $5 million and expected Implementation Grant awards ranging from $2.5 million to $25 million. A qualifying safety action plan is required for implementation funding.
182
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 71
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (STBG)/REGIONAL SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (RSTP)
The Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, formerly referred to locally as RSTP in many California regions, provides flexible federal transportation funding. Eligible uses include projects that improve Federal-aid highways, bridges, tunnels, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects. In the Sacramento region, STBG/RSTP -type funds are generally programmed through SACOG and regional transportation planning processes. For Lincoln, this source may support bikeway or complete stree t improvements when they are part of a regionally prioritized transportation project.
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNITY AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROGRAM The Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program provides federal funding for transit-oriented development, traffic calming and other projects that improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce the impact on the environment, and provide efficient access to jobs, services and trade centers. The program is intended to provide communitie s with the requisite resources to explore the integration of their transportation system with community preservation and environmental activities. The Program funds, which are administered through the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) require a 20% match, and can be applied to planning, design and construction.
STATEWIDE FUNDING SOURCES
The State of California uses both federal sources and state resources to fund bicycle, pedestrian, Safe Routes to School, safety, planning, and complete streets projects. The programs below are the most relevant statewide sources for active transportation projects in Lincoln.
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP)
The Active Transportation Program is California’s primary dedicated funding source for walking and bicycling projects. The program consolidates the former Transportation Alternatives Program, Bicycle Transportation Account, and State Safe Routes to School program into a single competitive program.
Eligible projects include bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, Safe Routes to School projects, non - infrastructure programs, plans, quick-build projects, and projects that improve safety, mobility, and access for non-motorized users.
Current ATP guidance for the 2025 ATP Cycle 7 programs four years of funding for state fiscal years 2025-26 through 2028- 29. The California Transportation Commission does not require a funding match for ATP, although large Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) may require a match for the regional competitive component. The minimum ATP request is $250,000; this minimum does not apply to non-infrastructure projects, Safe Routes to School projects, recreational trail projects, plans, or quick-build projects. Large MPOs may use different minimums, but minimum requests of $500,000 or greater require Commission approval.
ATP funds are distributed through statewide competition, small urban/rural competition, and large MPO regional competition. The Sacramento region’s regional ATP is coordinated through SACOG, in partnership with the Placer County Transportation Planning Age ncy (PCTPA) and other regional agencies. For Lincoln, ATP is likely one of the strongest sources for larger bikeway gap closures, 183
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 72
separated bikeways, Safe Routes to School improvements, corridor safety projects, and community- supported active transportation projects. For quick-build projects, the 2025 ATP includes a separate quick-build process, with a maximum of $7 million dedicated statewide to quick-build projects in that cycle; this is a program set-aside, not a per-project maximum.
CALTRANS SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GRANTS
The former Community Based Transportation Planning Grant Program has been replaced by Caltrans’ Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program. This program funds transportation planning projects with a multimodal transportation nexus, including active transportation plans, complete streets planning, corridor planning, community -based planning, and studies that improve access, safety, equity, and sustainability. For FY 2026-27, Sustainable Communities Competitive grants have a minimum request of $50,000 for under -resourced communities, Native American Tribal Governments, and rural communities; a $100,000 minimum for all other applicants; and a $700,000 maximum. The minimum local match is 11.47 percent. Strategic Partnerships grants generally have a $100,000 minimum, $500,000 maximum, and 20 percent local match, with potential match waivers for Complete Streets -related applications. Strategic Partnerships -Transit grants generally have a $75,000 minimum for RTPAs and transit agencies, a $100,000 minimum for MPOs, a $500,000 maximum, and an 11.47 percent local match.
STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP)
The State Transportation Improvement Program is a multi -year capital improvement program for transportation projects on and off the State Highway System. The STIP is updated biennially in even- numbered years. Bicycle and pedestrian projects may be programmed in the STIP when they are eligible for State Highway Account or federal funds. STIP is typically most useful for larger regionally significant projects, complete streets elements that are part of a broader roadway project, or projects advanced through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program process.
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT
Transportation Development Act Article 3 funds are state -derived local funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Article 3 funds come from the Local Transportation Fund, which is generated through a portion of statewide sales tax revenue (2%). Eligible us es can include bicycle and pedestrian capital projects, engineering, maintenance of bikeways, bicycle safety education programs, and bicycle or pedestrian planning. These funds may also be used as local match for some state or federal funding sources.
LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING SOURCES
DEVELOPER IMPACT FEES
Developer impact fees and traffic impact fees placed on new development can help fund transportation improvements needed to serve growth. These fees are typically used for projects included in an adopted fee program or nexus study and may support roadway, intersection, complete streets, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements associated with new development. Fees should be 184
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 73
reviewed and updated periodically to reflect current project costs, land use assumptions, and legal nexus requirements.
PCTPA AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
PCTPA plans, funds, and delivers transportation projects in Placer County and coordinates with SACOG, Caltrans, and local jurisdictions on regional transportation priorities. Regional funding sources may be available through PCTPA -led programs, RTIP/STIP p rogramming, federal funding cycles, and countywide planning efforts. Lincoln received approximately 50k annually from PCTPA, apportioned through the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) to be used for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian planning and infrastructure projects. Lincoln projects that connect to regional routes, close bikeway gaps, improve access to schools and transit, or support adopted countywide and regional active transportation priorities may be more competitive for these sources.
SACOG REGIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
The Regional Active Transportation Program is the large MPO regional component of the State ATP.
SACOG, PCTPA, and the El Dorado County Transportation Commission coordinate regional ATP investments for the Sacramento region. Projects are evaluated through regional policies and scoring criteria and must remain consistent with ATP eligibility requirements. For Lincoln, this program may be a strong fit for bikeway network gap closures, Safe Routes to School improvements, trails with transportation function, an d safety-focused bicycle and pedestrian projects that support regional connectivity.
NON -TRADITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS
Community Development Block Grant funds may be used for public improvements that support viable communities and benefit low - and moderate -income residents. Eligible public improvements can include streets, sidewalks, curb ramps, crossings, lighting, drainage, parks, and other community facilities. CDBG is not a dedicated transportation program, but it can be useful for active transportation projects that are part of a broader neighborhood revitalization, accessibility, or public improvement effort in an eligible area. Potentially eligible activities can include:
• acquiring real property for eligible public purposes; • constructing or rehabilitating public facilities and improvements, such as sidewalks, curb ramps, street crossings, lighting, parks, and community facilities; • planning and administrative activities tied to an eligible CDBG program or project; and, • public services for eligible populations, including youth, seniors, and persons with disabilities; and neighborhood revitalization or safety initiatives where the activity meets CDBG eligibility and national objective requirements.
185
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 74
IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of the proposed bikeway network will require funding from a combination of local, regional, state, and federal sources, as well as continued coordination with partner agencies. Since the 2018 Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP), funding opportunities for active transportation have expanded substantially, particularly through state and federal programs focused on safety, mobility, climate, equity, and multimodal transportation. This 2026 Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) is intended to serve as an implementation resource for the City of Lincoln by documenting project needs, identifying network gaps, and providing data that can support future grant applications.
Potential funding sources that may be applicable to bicycle and active transportation improvements in Lincoln include, but are not limited to, the following:
• State Active Transportation Program (ATP)
• Federal Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), administered in California through the ATP • Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) ATP Augmentation
• Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) Solutions for Congested Corridors Program • Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) Sustainable Communities Planning Grants • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program
• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) • Regional Surface Transportation Program / Surface Transportation Block Grant Program • Transportation Development Act Article 3 bicycle and pedestrian funds • Local and regional development impact fees and capital improvement funding The data and recommendations developed as part of this 2026 Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) will help inform future competitive grant applications and strengthen the City’s ability to pursue funding for priority bicycle improvements.
Providing bicycle infrastructure alone does not ensure that residents and visitors will choose to bike, particularly if the riding environment is perceived as uncomfortable, stressful, or unsafe. To better understand these conditions, a Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis was completed to identify locations where traffic speeds, traffic volumes, facility gaps, intersection conditions, or other barriers may discourage bicycling, particularly for less confident riders. This analysis was paired with public outreach to better understand community needs, desired connections, and perceived barriers to bicycling in Lincoln. The outreach effort entailed the following:
• One public workshop – presenting existing condition findings and draft project list; • Circulation of project information cards to schools and the public; • Development of a stakeholder and public contact list; • Periodic eBlasts to inform the public and stakeholders of upcoming project related events and/or information on how to provide input;
• Development and upkeep of a project specific website; 186
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 75
• Access to on-line survey on the project website; and, • Development of an interactive web -based tool for soliciting geo -referenced comments and suggestions from the public.
The results of the public outreach effort were documented and considered together with the technical connectivity analysis results to ultimately inform the identification of the proposed bikeway system network and the needed bicycle infrastructure improvements to complete the network. This process resulted in the identification of 30 bicycle infrastructure improvements and an additional 18 improvements at specific intersections, citywide, or policy recommendations within the city to support its future bicycle infrastructure. Of the total bicycle improvements in the capital improvement program (CIP), ten projects were identified as high priority by the City. Public input and the connectivity analysis results were key determinants during the top ten selection process. The selection of these priority projects and supporting data and information will streamline future competitive grant cycle applications for bicycle funding and facilitate implementation by the City.
BIKEWAY SYSTEM PHASING
Implementation of the proposed bikeway network should be flexible and responsive to available funding, project readiness, coordination opportunities, and community priorities. When all other factors are generally equal, bikeway improvements should be consi dered for implementation based on the following criteria:
• Opportunities to incorporate bikeway improvements as part of roadway widening, resurfacing, reconstruction, or maintenance projects
• Construction of new roadways or frontage improvements associated with planned development • Ability to complete improvements identified in adopted City plans that support circulation, connectivity, and safety
• Time-sensitive opportunities where delaying implementation could result in the loss of right -of- way, funding, or coordination benefits
• Resolution of major physical or environmental barriers, such as railroad crossings, levees, creeks, drainage channels, or embankments
• Ability to close network gaps or improve access to portions of the bikeway system that are disconnected or difficult to reach
• Potential to improve access to key destinations, including schools, parks, trails, transit stops, commercial areas, and civic facilities
• Consistency with community input, safety needs, and the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress analysis In some cases, the most needed bicycle improvement may not be the first project implemented.
External factors, such as roadway construction, pavement rehabilitation, development activity, grant eligibility, or availability of matching funds, may create opportunities to implement bikeway improvements sooner than other projects. For this reason, the proposed bikeway system does not establish a strict ranking of all routes. Instead, it identifies high -priority projects while allowing the City to remain flexible and pursue implementation as opportunities arise.
187
APPENDIX
188
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
CONTENTS
APPE NDIX A . DESIGN TOOLKIT
APPENDIX B . LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
APPENDIX C . PUBLIC COMMENTS
APPENDIX D. CONNECTIVITY TESTING
APPENDIX E. PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
189
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
APPENDIX A. DESIGN TOOLKIT
190
LINCOLN BMP TOOLKIT MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Jonnelyn Espartero | City of Lincoln
Roland Neufeld | City of Lincoln
FROM: Jim Damkowitch | DKS
Sean Carney | DKS
Alex Haag | DKS
SUBJECT: Lincoln Bikeway Master Plan Toolkit DRAFT R.3 Project #26347-000
INTRODUCTION
The Lincoln Bikeway Plan Design Toolkit includes safety treatments that may be incorporated into future roadway safety projects to improve active transportation within the City of Lincoln.
This Toolkit is organized into the following categories:
• Signal Modifications
• Intersection Treatments
• Bicycle Facility Treatments
Some of the tools may overlap categories. For example, Signal Modifications may also be considered Intersection Treatments. Relevant design resources and guides referenced include:
• California (CA) Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2026 Edition Caltrans • Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000 - Bicycle Transportation Design • NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide and Urban Street Design Guide • FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (FHWA-SA-18-077)
• U.S. Access Board Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) Each tool includes a brief description of the safety treatment, including:
• Design Contexts – Applicable location and additional factors to consider for implementing. • Design Guidance – A link to relevant national or state design references (NACTO, FHWA, Caltrans, etc.) where additional guidance on this treatment can be found. • Estimated Cost – A cost range is provided for each tool as of the time of writing. Estimated costs will vary according to several factors.
191
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS
LEADING PEDESTRIAN /BICYCLIST INTERVAL
A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) is a low -cost signal -timing adjustment that gives pedestrians a 3 to 7 second head start before motorists in the parallel direction receive a green indication.
By positioning pedestrians within the crosswalk before turni ng vehicles begin to move, an LPI reduces conflicts between pedestrians and left- or right -turning vehicles, increases pedestrian visibility, and increases the likelihood that drivers will yield. FHWA documents a 13 percent reduction in pedestrian - vehicle crashes at intersections where LPIs are installed. LPIs are most effective when paired with a restriction on right turn on red, accessible pedestrian signals, and, on wide multi -lane crossings where pedestrian clearance times exceed the concurrent vehicular green, an elongated leading interval.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Signalized intersections with a documented history of pedestrian crashes or severe-injury or fatal crashes.
• Locations with high pedestrian crossing volumes, particularly where the product of pedestrian and turning-vehicle volumes (exposure) is elevated.
• Intersections serving vulnerable populations such as school-aged children or older adults, where slower crossing speeds heighten conflict risk.
• One-way streets and T-intersections, where left-turning vehicles are not typically expected to yield to oncoming traffic.
• Intersections where crosswalk visibility is limited by geometry, stopped vehicles, vegetation, or streetside features.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA MUTCD Section 4I.06 provides information about pedestrian intervals and signal phases. The option of leading pedestrian intervals is introduced for locations with high pedestrian volumes and high conflicting turning vehicle volumes.
• CA Highway Design Manual Section 403.9 Effective Signal Control refers to the CA MUTCD for signal indications and pedestrian/bicycle phasing.
ESTIMATED COST
< $3,500
SOURCE: FHWA PROVEN SAFETY
COUNTERMEASURES
192
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
PROHIBIT RIGHT TURN ON RED
In California, right turn on red is permitted by default after a complete stop. Restricting right turn on red at a signalized intersection requires the installation of an R10-11 series sign (NO TURN ON RED or similar) per MUTCD 11th Edition. The restrictio n eliminates a common source of right -hook conflicts with bicyclists and right -turn conflicts with pedestrians during the walk interval, and it preserves the head -start benefit of any leading pedestrian or bicycle interval at the location.
The restriction is typically applied at intersections with high turning- vehicle volumes paired with high pedestrian or bicycle volumes, and on the bicycle network at intersections served by a Class IV separated bikeway.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Signalized intersections with high right-turning vehicle volumes and high bicycle or pedestrian volumes.
• Crossings near schools, parks, transit stops, downtowns, or other generators of walking and bicycling.
• Intersections served by a Class IV separated bikeway, where conflict points are concentrated at the signal.
• Intersections with a history of right-hook or right-turn pedestrian conflicts. • Locations where a leading pedestrian or bicycle interval is in place, to reinforce the head-start benefit.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA MUTCD Section 2B.60 provides standards, guidance, support, and options for the R10-11 series No Turn on Red signs (including R10-11, R10-17a, and R10-30) used to prohibit right turn on red at signalized intersections.
• CA Highway Design Manual Section 403.9 Effective Signal Control refers to the CA MUTCD for signal indications and turn restrictions.
ESTIMATED COST
< $3,500
SOURCE: CA MUTCD , R10 -11
193
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
PROTECTED SIGNAL PHASES
A protected signal phase separates a turning vehicle movement from a conflicting pedestrian or bicycle movement in time, eliminating the need for turning drivers to negotiate gaps with crossing users. Protected left -turn phases prevent left -turning vehicles from conflicting with pedestrians or oncoming bicyclists, and protected right-turn phases (typically displayed with a green arrow during a no-right-turn-on-red restriction) prevent right-hook conflicts. Protected phasing increases vehicle delay but is typically warranted on multi- lane streets with high pedestrian or bicycle volumes, at intersections with a documented history of turning -vehicle conflicts, and along corridors served by Class IV separated bikeways where time separation reinforces the geometric separation.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Signalized intersections with high pedestrian or bicycle volumes and significant turning- vehicle conflicts.
• Intersections along corridors targeted to serve all ages and abilities, including downtowns, school routes, and key bicycle network links.
• Locations where a Class IV separated bikeway meets the roadway. • Intersections with a history of left-turn or right-turn conflicts with pedestrians or bicyclists. • Crossings of multi-lane streets where exposure time is high enough that time separation provides meaningful safety benefit.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA MUTCD Section 4D.101(CA) Permissive Left-Turn Phasing provides California-specific guidance on protected and protected/permissive left-turn phasing used to separate turning vehicles from conflicting pedestrian and bicycle movements.
ESTIMATED COST
$3,500 – $55,000
194
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
MINI TRAFFIC CIRCLES
Mini traffic circles, also called neighborhood
traffic circles, are small raised islands placed
at the center of an intersection to slow turning
and through movements without requiring
stop control on every approach. They are a
common bicycle boulevard treatment
because they manage motor vehicle speeds
while preserving bicyclist prior ity and
continuity through the intersection. Mini
circles work best on low -volume two -lane
neighborhood streets where the design
vehicle can navigate without crossing into
oncoming traffic. The center island can be
landscaped, used for stormwater infiltration, or planted as a small civic feature, supporting placemaking goals alongside traffic calming.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Low-volume two-lane neighborhood streets, particularly bicycle boulevards or quiet residential streets.
• Intersections with documented speeding or cut-through traffic. • Locations where stop control is undesirable but speed management is needed. • Residential intersections within a bicycle boulevard corridor, where speed management supports bicyclist priority and continuity.
• Streets where the addition of a circle can be combined with landscaping or stormwater treatments.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA Highway Design Manual Topic 403 Principles of Channelization provides design guidance for traffic-calming geometric features at minor intersections. • Caltrans Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for Bicyclists and Pedestrians.
ESTIMATED COST
$3,500 – $55,000
SOURCE: HTTPS://NACTO.ORG/
195
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
PROTECTED INTERSECTION
A protected intersection uses geometric
design elements such as corner refuge
islands, setback bike crossings, and forward
stop bars to organize the conflicts between
turning vehicles and bicyclists at
intersections served by a Class IV separated
bikeway. The geometry slows turning
vehicles, positions bicyclists ahead of and to
the side of stopped vehicles for improved
mutual visibility, and provides a queuing
area for two- stage bicycle left turns.
Protected intersections support the design
speed and separation of the adjacent
bikeway and substantially reduce right-hook
and left -hook conflicts compared to
standard intersection geometry. They are
most appropriate at major intersections on
Class IV corridors and at locations being
reconstructed as part of a corridor project.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Signalized intersections served by a Class IV separated bikeway. • Intersections with high turning vehicle volumes and high bicycle volumes. • Locations where two-stage bicycle left turns are planned. • Major driveways or commercial entrances where a separated bikeway crosses a high-volume vehicle approach.
• Intersections being reconstructed or built new as part of a corridor project.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• Caltrans Design Information Bulletin 89-02: Class IV Bikeway Guidance (2022) discusses protected intersection design at Class IV separated bikeways. • CA Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000: Bicycle Transportation Design (2025) addresses bicycle accommodation at intersections, including protected intersection geometry.
ESTIMATED COST
$55,000 – $195,000 (or higher for full geometric reconstruction) FIGURE 1: EXAMPLE OF A PROTECTED INTERSECTION
(SOURCE: CALTRANS DIB 89 -02)
196
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
CLOSE SLIP LANE
A slip lane, also called a channelized right-turn lane, is a curved free-flow right turn that allows right-turning vehicles to bypass the intersection at speed. Closing or removing a slip lane converts the corner to a tight right angle that slows turning vehicles, shortens the bicyclist and pedestrian crossing distance, and eliminates a primary source of right-hook conflicts with bicyclists. The treatment is particularly effective at intersections served by a Class IV separated bikeway, at corners where a Class I shared-use path meets an arterial, and at any signalized intersection on the bicycle network where right-hook conflicts have been documented. NACTO Don't Give Up at the Intersection identifies slip-lane closure as a foundational geometric move for protected intersections.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Signalized intersections served by a Class IV separated bikeway or Class II bike lane on the through movement.
• Intersections with a documented history of right-hook conflicts between turning vehicles and bicyclists.
• Locations where a Class I shared-use path crosses an arterial and the corner currently includes a channelized free-flow right turn.
• Major intersections being reconstructed or built new as part of a corridor project, where the slip lane can be removed within the existing curb-to-curb width. • Quick-build candidate locations where the slip lane can be closed with paint, planters, and flexible delineator posts in advance of permanent reconstruction.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA Highway Design Manual Section 403 addresses channelization intersection design relevant to channelized right turns.
• CA Highway Design Manual Section 405.3 Right Turn Channelization emphasizes low vehicle speeds at channelized right turns and supports their removal where speeds cannot be managed.
ESTIMATED COST
$3,500 – $55,000 (quick-build closure); $55,000 – $195,000 (permanent reconstruction)
197
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
LEFT TURN ENHANCED DAYLIGHTING / SLOW TURN WEDGE
A slow turn wedge, also called left-turn enhanced daylighting, uses paint and flexible vertical elements such as delineator posts or rubber curbs to physically deflect left-turning drivers, tightening the left-turn path and slowing turn speeds. By extending the apparent curb line into the intersection and pushing turning vehicles farther from the receiving curb, the wedge improves sight lines between turning drivers and bicyclists or pedestrians in the cross-street travel path, reducing left-hook conflicts. The treatment is a low-cost, quick-build companion to leading bicycle intervals, protected signal phases, and Class IV separated bikeways.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Signalized intersections with a documented history of left-turn conflicts with bicyclists or pedestrians.
• Intersections served by a Class IV separated bikeway or Class II bike lane on the cross street. • Locations where left-turn paths are wider than necessary and corner-cutting creates bicyclist exposure.
• Quick-build companion to leading bicycle intervals or protected signal phases on the bicycle network.
• Intersections where a permanent curb reconstruction is planned but interim deflection can be installed in advance with paint and posts.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• Caltrans Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for Bicyclists and Pedestrians.
• CA MUTCD Section 3J.07 Sidewalk Extensions Designated by Pavement Markings provides the closest CA MUTCD analog for paint-and-post sidewalk extension geometry used in slow turn wedge applications.
ESTIMATED COST
< $3,500 per intersection (quick-build paint and post)
198
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
ROUNDABOUT
A roundabout is a circular intersection where vehicles
travel counterclockwise around a central island, entering traffic yields to circulating traffic, and channelized curved approaches reduce vehicle speeds. By eliminating left-
turn-across-traffic movements and reducing the number
and severity of conflict points, roundabouts substantially reduce fatal and serious-injury crashes for all users
including bicyclists. FHWA documents a 78 percent
reduction in fatal and injury crashes when a signalized intersection is converted to a roundabout, and an 82 percent reduction when a two-way stop- controlled intersection is converted. Roundabouts are effective in both urban and rural settings and are an effective option for transitioning traffic from high-speed to low-speed environments.
Bicyclists may be accommodated by ramping up to a shared-use path around the roundabout, by mixing with slow-speed circulating traffic on single-lane roundabouts, or by a combination depending on user comfort and approach speeds.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Intersections being considered for new or upgraded traffic control, particularly where a signal would otherwise be warranted.
• Intersections of two collector or arterial streets along the bicycle network with moderate to high traffic volumes.
• Intersections with a documented history of severe right-angle or left-turn crashes. • Rural high-speed intersections at the edges of the city, where roundabouts deliver the largest reductions in fatal and serious-injury crashes.
• Locations where adequate right of way is available for the inscribed circle diameter appropriate to the design vehicle and approach speeds, and where bicycle accommodation can be incorporated.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA MUTCD Section 4C.01 requires consideration of roundabouts on State Highways and references Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-02 for Intersection Control Evaluation procedures.
• CA Highway Design Manual Section 405.10 Roundabouts provides geometric design standards for roundabouts in California.
• NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, 2nd Edition
ESTIMATED COST
> $195,000
FIGURE 2: ROUNDABOUT IN LINCOLN, CA
199
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
BICYCLE FACILITY TREATMENTS
BICYCLE LANE EXTENSION THROUGH INTERSECTION
A bicycle lane extension through an intersection uses
pavement markings, often supplemented by green
colored pavement, to carry a Class II or Class IV bike
lane visually through the conflict zone where it would
otherwise be dropped. The treatment maintains the
predictability of the bicyclist's path through the
intersection, raises awareness of the conflict zone for turning drivers, and clarifies that motorists must yield to bicyclists before crossing the lane. FHWA's Bikeway
Selection Guide recommends exten ding bike lane
markings through intersections to address right- hook
and left -hook conflicts, particularly where the bike
lane crosses a turn pocket or shifts position through the intersection.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Signalized intersections on the bicycle network with high turning-vehicle movements. • Intersections with a documented history of right-hook or left-hook conflicts. • Locations where a Class II or Class IV bike lane crosses a turn pocket or merge zone (for emphasis on the specific conflict point only, see Conflict Zone Markings). • Intersections where additional emphasis is needed to clarify the continuation of the bike lane through the intersection.
• Locations where the bike lane shifts position through the intersection.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA MUTCD Section 9E.03 Extensions of Bicycle Lanes through Intersections provides standards and guidance for carrying bicycle lane markings through intersections to address right-hook and left-hook conflicts.
• CA Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000: Bicycle Transportation Design (2025) provides geometric design guidance for bicycle lanes through intersections.
ESTIMATED COST
< $3,500
SOURCE:
HTTPS://WWW.MIKEONTRAFFIC.COM/BIKE -
LANE -CONFLICT -ZONE -MARKINGS/
200
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
CONFLICT ZONE MARKINGS
Conflict zone markings use green colored pavement to highlight specific locations where bicyclists and motor vehicle paths cross, such as right-turn merge zones, driveway crossings, and approaches to bike boxes. Unlike a continuous bicycle lane extension that maintains green pavement throughout an intersection, conflict zone markings concentrate emphasis on the specific point of conflict, making the treatment cost-effective and visually distinctive. Green colored pavement is formally adopted in the MUTCD 11 th Edition (Section 9C), superseding the earlier FHWA Interim Approval IA -14.
Markings are typically retroreflective epoxy or methyl methacrylate for durability under traffic loading.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Right-turn merge zones where vehicles must cross a bike lane to reach a right-turn lane. • Driveway crossings of Class IV separated bikeways.
• Approaches to bike boxes and two-stage turn queue boxes. • Locations with documented right-hook crashes or near-misses. • Bike lane transitions through complex intersection geometry.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA MUTCD Section 3H.06 Green-Colored Pavement for Bicycle Facilities formally adopts green colored pavement for use at bicycle conflict zones.
• CA Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000: Bicycle Transportation Design (2025) addresses the use of colored pavement at bicycle conflict zones.
ESTIMATED COST
< $3,500 per location
201
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
BICYCLE SIGNAL
A bicycle signal is a traffic signal indication
dedicated to bicyclists, using bicycle -shaped
illuminated symbols in red, yellow, and green.
Bicycle signals separate bicycle phasing from
vehicle phasing in time, allowing the signal cycle to
support leading bicycle intervals, protected bicycle
phases, or contraflow bicycle operation. Bicycle
signals are most appropriate at intersections served
by a Class IV separated bikeway (particularly two -
way facilities), at the termini of Class I bike paths,
and at comp lex multi- leg or skewed intersections
where standard signals do not clearly assign right
of way to bicyclists. Bicycle signal faces are formally adopted in the MUTCD 11th Edition (Chapter 4G),
superseding the prior Interim Approval IA-16.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Intersections served by a Class IV separated
bikeway, particularly two-way facilities.
• Locations with contraflow bike lanes or bikeways crossing from one-way to two-way operation. • Intersections at the termini of Class I bike paths where a protected crossing is needed. • Complex multi-leg or skewed intersections where standard signals do not clearly assign right of way to bicyclists.
• Intersections operated with a leading bicycle interval where a bicycle signal head reinforces the timing.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA MUTCD Chapter 4H Bicycle Signals provides standards, guidance, support, and options for the application, layout, placement, and operation of bicycle signal faces. • CA Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000: Bicycle Transportation Design (2025) addresses bicycle signal application and intersection bicycle phasing.
ESTIMATED COST
$3,500 – $55,000
SOURCE: HTTPS://NACTO.ORG/
202
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
BIKE BOXES
A bike box is a designated area at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that provides
bicyclists with a visible waiting position in front of
stopped motor vehicles. Bike boxes work in
coordination with a no -right-turn-on-red restriction;
during the red phase, bicyclists move ahead of
stopped vehicles into the box, and during the green
phase the box allows bicyclists to clear the
intersection or initiate a left turn ahead of through
traffic. The treatment is most effective at signalized
intersections on bicycle network corridors with
moderate to high bicycle volumes, particularly where
right-hook conflicts have been documented and a leading bicycle interval can be paired with the box.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Signalized intersections on a bicycle network corridor with moderate to high bicycle volumes, where bicyclists need a visible waiting position in front of stopped traffic. • Intersections with a history of right-hook conflicts, where positioning bicyclists ahead of traffic improves mutual visibility.
• Locations where a no-right-turn-on-red restriction is in place or can be added. • Multi-lane intersections where bicyclists benefit from a positioning aid for through movements (for left turns, see Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Queue Boxes). • Intersections paired with a leading bicycle interval to extend the head-start benefit.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA MUTCD Section 9E.12 Bicycle Box provides standards and guidance for the design and application of bike box pavement markings at signalized intersections. • CA Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000: Bicycle Transportation Design (2025) addresses bicycle intersection treatments including bike boxes.
ESTIMATED COST
$3,500 – $55,000
SOURCE: HTTPS://NACTO.ORG/
203
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
CLASS I BICYCLE FACILITIES
Class I bicycle facilities, also called bike paths or
shared-use paths, are off -street facilities physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and designed for
the exclusive use of bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non-motorized users. Class I facilities serve both
transportation and recreational trips, are appropriate
for users of all ages and abilities, and form the
backbone of low -stress bicycle networks. They are
typically located along utility rights -of-way, drainage corridors, abandoned rail align ments, or parks, and
are an important option when motor vehicle speeds
or volumes preclude a comfortable on -street facility.
Path design should include sufficient width for two -
way bicycle and pedestrian operation, sightline
considerations, and accessible at-grade roadway crossings in accordance with PROWAG.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Off-street corridors such as utility rights-of-way, drainage easements, abandoned rail corridors, and parks.
• Regional bicycle network spine routes and intercommunity connections. • Locations where motor vehicle speeds of 45 miles per hour or higher or volumes above 6,000 vehicles per day preclude a comfortable on-street facility. • Recreational corridors and trail connections to parks, schools, and waterways. • Routes serving the Interested but Concerned user, where complete physical separation is needed to support all ages and abilities.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000: Bicycle Transportation Design (2025), Section 1003.1 provides design standards for Class I shared-use bicycle paths. • CA MUTCD Section 9E.13 Shared-Use Paths provides standards and guidance for pavement markings on Class I shared-use bicycle paths.
• FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (FHWA-SA-18-077, 2019)
(https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-07/fhwasa18077.pdf).
ESTIMATED COST
$55,000 – $195,000 per corridor mile
SOURCE: FHWA SEPARATED BIKE LANE
PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE
204
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
CLASS II BICYCLE FACILITIES
Class II bicycle facilities, also called bike lanes, are striped lanes on the roadway designated for the
exclusive use of bicyclists. Bike lanes provide a
dedicated space for riding, clarify the relationship
between bicyclists and adjacent motor vehicle
traffic, and discourage motorist encroachment.
FHWA documents up to a 49 percent reduction in
total crashes when bike lanes are added to urban
four-lane undivided collectors and local roads, and
a 30 percent reduction on two -lane undivided
roads. Class II fa cilities are most effective on
streets with posted speeds in the 25 to 35 mph
range and moderate vehicle volumes; on higher-
speed or higher- volume streets, a Class IV
separated facility better serves users of all ages and
abilities.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Collector and minor arterial streets with posted
speeds of 25 to 35 miles per hour and motor
vehicle volumes appropriate for shared
operation, per the FHWA Bikeway Selection
Guide chart.
• Streets identified on the bicycle network where a
Class IV facility is not feasible due to right of way or cross-section constraints. • Routine restriping and resurfacing projects where bike lanes can be added cost-effectively, including in conjunction with a road diet.
• Streets where on-street parking allows a striped buffer between bicyclists and the door zone. • Interim improvements on corridors where a Class IV facility is the long-term preferred treatment.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000: Bicycle Transportation Design (2025), Section 1003.2 provides design standards for Class II bicycle lanes.
• CA MUTCD Section 9E.01 Bicycle Lanes provides standards and guidance for the pavement markings used to designate Class II bicycle lanes.
• FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (FHWA-SA-18-077, 2019)
(https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-07/fhwasa18077.pdf).
ESTIMATED COST
$3,500 – $55,000
FIGURE 3: NEV BIKE LANE IN LINCOLN, CA
205
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
CLASS III (SHARED LANE) BICYCLE FACILITIES
Class III bicycle facilities, also called bike routes, are shared roadways where bicyclists and motorists
operate in the same travel lane, typically signed with
bicycle wayfinding and marked with shared- lane
markings. FHWA's Bikeway Selection Guide
recommends shared lanes only on low -volume, low-
speed local streets; the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices restricts shared -lane markings to
roadways with operating speeds of 35 miles per hour
or less. Class III facilities are most appropriate as
short ne twork connectors between higher- comfort
facilities or on quiet residential streets where a
dedicated bikeway is not warranted. On streets
identified for the Interested but Concerned user, a
bicycle boulevard provides a more comfortable
alternative.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Low-volume, low-speed local streets where a dedicated bikeway is not warranted (see Bicycle Boulevard / Neighborhood Greenway for streets where traffic calming and intersection priority are also desired).
• Short network connectors between higher-comfort facilities. • Streets where wayfinding and signage are needed to identify a designated bicycle route. • Streets where shared-lane operation can be paired with traffic calming to manage motor vehicle speeds within the 35 mph MUTCD limit.
• Routes that link Class I paths or other off-street facilities to neighborhood destinations.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000: Bicycle Transportation Design (2025), Section 1003.3 provides design standards for Class III bicycle routes. • CA MUTCD Section 9E.09 Shared-Lane Marking provides standards and guidance for the shared- lane (sharrow) pavement markings used on Class III bicycle routes. • FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (FHWA-SA-18-077, 2019)
(https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-07/fhwasa18077.pdf).
ESTIMATED COST
$3,500 – $55,000
FIGURE 4: CLASS III BIKE FACILITY IN LINCOLN, CA
206
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
BICYCLE BOULEVARD / NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY
A bicycle boulevard, sometimes called a neighborhood greenway, is a low -volume residential street optimized for bicycle travel through a combination of traffic calming, wayfinding, intersection priority treatments, and crossing improvements at major arteri als. The objective is to create a low -stress route that serves bicyclists of all ages and abilities while maintaining residential character. Bicycle boulevards are most effective on streets where motor vehicle volumes are at or below approximately 1,500 vehicles per day; where existing volumes are higher, bicycle boulevard treatments are typically paired with diverters or other volume-management tools. Boulevards serve as backbone connectors of the low -stress bicycle network, especially when paired with protected crossings of major intersecting streets.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Low-volume residential streets that parallel arterials or that connect destinations across a neighborhood.
• Streets where motor vehicle volumes are at or below approximately 1,500 vehicles per day, with potential for reduction through diverters if higher.
• Routes connecting schools, parks, transit stops, and downtowns. • Streets serving as part of the city's low-stress bicycle network. • Locations where traffic calming is needed regardless of bicycle programming.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000: Bicycle Transportation Design (2025) provides design guidance for low-stress bicycle facilities on local streets. • CA MUTCD Section 9E.09 Shared-Lane Marking and Section 9B.14 Bicycles Allowed Use of Full Lane Sign (R9-20) provide the marking and signing standards typically used on bicycle boulevards; Chapter 2B provides regulatory traffic-calming sign standards. • NACTO Designing for All Ages and Abilities (https://nacto.org/publication/designing-for-all-ages- abilities/).
ESTIMATED COST
$55,000 – $195,000 per corridor mile
207
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
CLASS IV BICYCLE FACILITIES
Class IV bicycle facilities, also called separated
bikeways, protected bike lanes, or cycle tracks, are
designated for the exclusive use of bicyclists and are
physically separated from vehicle traffic by a vertical element such as flexible delineator posts, a curb, parked vehicles, or planting strip. FHWA documents up to a 53
percent reduction in bicycle -vehicle crashes when
conventional or flush-buffered bike lanes are converted to separated bike lanes with flexible delineator posts.
FHWA's Bikeway Selection Guide recommends
separated bike lanes on roadways with higher vehicle
volumes and speeds, such as arterials, and on streets
serving the Interested but Concerned user. In
California, Caltrans Design Information Bulletin 89-02 is the primary state design standard.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Backbone bicycle network corridors and low-stress
connectors identified in the Lincoln Bikeway Master Plan. • Streets with posted speeds of 30 miles per hour or higher, or with motor vehicle volumes above approximately 6,000 vehicles per day.
• Multi-lane arterials and major collectors, especially where roadway reconfiguration (lane reduction, parking removal, or lane narrowing) can create the needed width. • Corridors serving schools, parks, downtown, and other destinations that attract riders of all ages and abilities.
• Streets with high parking turnover or frequent loading activity, where a striped Class II bike lane would be regularly blocked.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• Caltrans Design Information Bulletin 89-02: Class IV Bikeway Guidance (2022) is the primary California state design standard for separated bikeways. • CA Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000: Bicycle Transportation Design (2025), Section 1003.4 provides design standards for Class IV separated bikeways. • CA MUTCD Section 9E.07 Separated Bicycle Lanes provides standards and guidance for the pavement markings used to designate Class IV separated bikeways.
ESTIMATED COST
Greater than $195,000 per corridor mile
FIGURE 5: CLASS IV BIKE FACILITY IN
LINCOLN, CA
208
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
QUICK -BUILD / PILOT BIKEWAY
A quick-build or pilot bikeway is an interim installation using paint, flexible delineator posts, planters, parking stops, or modular curbs to test a roadway reconfiguration before committing to permanent construction. Quick-builds allow agencies to validate operational and community impacts at low cost, build constituency for permanent funding, and accelerate progress on the bicycle network. They are particularly useful on corridors planned for Class IV separated bikeways where a long capital project is anticipated, and they can be installed in conjunction with routine resurfacing or restriping projects to reduce marginal cost. Successful pilots typically transition to permanent installations within three to five years.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Corridors planned for Class IV separated bikeways where a long capital project is anticipated. • Streets where community questions about operational impact warrant testing before permanent investment.
• Locations where a successful pilot can build constituency for capital funding. • Routine resurfacing or restriping projects where a low-cost reconfiguration can be installed. • Demonstration projects tied to grant deliverables or pilot funding programs.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000: Bicycle Transportation Design (2025) provides geometric design guidance applicable to interim and pilot bikeway installations. • Caltrans Design Information Bulletin 89-02: Class IV Bikeway Guidance (2022) provides design parameters for interim and permanent Class IV separated bikeways. • NACTO Designing for All Ages and Abilities (https://nacto.org/publication/designing-for-all-ages- abilities/).
• Street Plans Tactical Urbanist's Guide to Materials and Design (https://tacticalurbanismguide.com/).
ESTIMATED COST
$3,500 – $55,000 per corridor mile
209
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
PASSIVE BICYCLE SIGNAL DETECTION
Passive bicycle signal detection automatically registers an approaching bicyclist at a signalized intersection without requiring the rider to press a pushbutton or move into a specific stopping position. Detection technologies include enhanced inductive loops with bicycle -optimized
sensitivity, video detection, infrared sensors, and radar.
Reliable bicycle detection is essential at actuated signals on the bicycle network, particularly at intersections served by bicycle signals or leading bicycle intervals, where the bicycle phase will not be called unless the bicyclist is detected. The Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter
1000 and MUTCD 11th Edition Chapter 4D both reference
bicycle detection requirements, and existing inductive
loops should be tested and recalibrated where bicycle detection has not been confirmed.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• All actuated signalized intersections on bicycle network corridors. • Intersections with bicycle signals or leading bicycle intervals. • Locations where existing inductive loops do not reliably detect bicycles. • Routine signal upgrade projects, including signal head replacement and controller upgrades. • Intersections served by Class II, Class IV, or contraflow bike lanes.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA MUTCD Section 4H.102(CA) Limit Line Bicycle Detection Zone provides California-specific guidance on bicycle detection at signalized intersections. • CA MUTCD Section 9E.15 Bicycle Detector Symbol provides standards for the bicycle detector pavement-marking symbol used to indicate the bicycle detection zone. • CA Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000: Bicycle Transportation Design (2025) addresses bicycle detection at signalized intersections.
ESTIMATED COST
$3,500 – $55,000
SOURCE: HTTP://PEDBIKESAFE.ORG/
210
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
ROAD DIET / ROAD RECONFIGURATION
A road diet, also called a roadway
reconfiguration, converts an existing
four-lane undivided roadway to a
three-lane cross section with two
through lanes and a center two -way
left-turn lane, reallocating the
recovered space to bike lanes,
pedestrian refuge islands, on -street
parking, transit, or widened sidewalks.
FHWA documents a 19 to 47 percent
reduction in total crashes following a
road diet, with the higher reductions
in suburban areas. Road diets reduce rear- end and left-turn crashes, calm traffic, an d create more consistent speeds. They are typically appropriate where current and forecasted daily traffic is 20,000 vehicles or less, and have been successfully implemented up to 25,000 daily traffic in some contexts.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Four-lane undivided streets with current and forecasted daily traffic of 25,000 vehicles or less. • Corridors with a history of rear-end, left-turn, or right-angle crashes that a center turn lane and lane reduction would address.
• Streets identified for Class II or Class IV bicycle facilities where existing pavement width is insufficient.
• Streets where pedestrian crossing distance is currently long and refuge islands or curb extensions would add value.
• Routine resurfacing or restriping projects, where the reconfiguration can be implemented at low marginal cost.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• Caltrans Design Information Bulletin 94: Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance (2024) addresses lane-reduction roadway reconfigurations to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
• FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide (FHWA-SA-14-028)
(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/guidance/info_guide/) • FHWA Road Diets resource page (https://highways.dot.gov/safety/other/road-diets).
ESTIMATED COST
$3,500 – $55,000
SOURCE: FHWA PROVEN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES
211
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
TWO -STAGE BICYCLE TURN QUEUE BOXES
A two-stage turn queue box provides a
designated waiting area for bicyclists
making left turns from a right -side bike
lane or Class IV separated bikeway.
Rather than merging across multiple
lanes of motor vehicle traffic, the
bicyclist proceeds straight th rough the
intersection on the green phase, then
turns 90 degrees and waits in the queue
box for the cross -street green to
complete the left turn. The treatment is
well-suited to multi- lane streets and
intersections served by separated
bikeways, and is most effective when paired with a bicycle signal and leading bicycle interval. Two - stage turn queue boxes are formally adopted in the MUTCD 11th Edition, having previously been governed by FHWA experimentation.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Signalized intersections on multi-lane streets where bicyclists making left turns would otherwise need to merge across traffic.
• Intersections served by a Class IV separated bikeway, where the box supports the bikeway's design speed and separation.
• Locations with high turning bicycle demand, such as connections between perpendicular bike network corridors.
• Intersections targeted to serve people of all ages and abilities. • Locations where a bicycle signal and leading bicycle interval are in place to support staged turns.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA MUTCD Section 9E.11 Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Boxes provides standards and guidance for the pavement markings used for two-stage bicycle turn queue boxes. • CA Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000: Bicycle Transportation Design (2025) addresses bicycle intersection treatments including two-stage turn queue boxes.
ESTIMATED COST
< $3,500
SOURCE: HTTPS://NACTO.ORG/
212
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
BICYCLE WAYFINDING AND SIGNING
A bicycle wayfinding system is a coordinated set of signs that helps people navigate the bicycle network, identify route names and numbers, and find destinations along the route with distance and direction information. Effective wayfinding closes the gap b etween a planned network on paper and a network that is legibly usable on the ground, supporting both daily users and visitors. The MUTCD 11th Edition Chapter 9B governs bicycle signing in the United States, and the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicy cle Facilities provides design detail for confirmation signs, decision signs, and turn signs. Wayfinding is most effective when installed across an entire network as a coordinated program rather than incrementally on isolated segments.
DESIGN CONTEXTS
• All designated bicycle network routes, particularly Class III and bicycle boulevards. • Decision points where the bicycle network branches or connects to off-street paths. • Locations along regional bicycle routes that connect to neighboring jurisdictions. • Destinations expected to attract bicycle travel, including downtowns, schools, parks, transit stops, and regional trails.
• Routes serving visitors and seasonal recreational users.
DESIGN GUIDANCE AND FURTHER INFORMATION
• CA MUTCD Chapter 9D Guide and Service Signs (Sections 9D.01 through 9D.14) provides standards for bicycle confirmation, decision, turn, and destination signs used in a coordinated bicycle wayfinding system.
• CA MUTCD Section 9E.14 Bicycle Route Pavement Markings provides standards for bicycle-route pavement markings that complement bicycle wayfinding signs. • CA Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000: Bicycle Transportation Design (2025) provides design guidance for bicycle wayfinding consistent with the California network.
ESTIMATED COST
$3,500 – $55,000 per corridor mile
213
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
APPENDIX B . LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
214
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
DATE: June 12, 2026
TO: Jonnelyn Espartero | City of Lincoln
Roland Neufeld | City of Lincoln
FROM: Jim Damkowitch, Connor Wolff, Sylinda Villado | DKS Associates SUBJECT: Lincoln Bikeway Master Plan Project #26347-000
The following is a review of federal, state, regional, and local policies/plans that are applicable to the advancement of the City of Lincoln’s Bikeway Master Plan Update (BMPU).
STATE / FEDERAL LAWS
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 guarantees people with disabilities equal opportunities, serving as the basis of enforceable regulations for accessible design. In 2010, the US Department of Justice adopted (revised) enforceable standards, implementing Titles II and III of the ADA, for the design of government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities to enable them to be accessible for people with disabilities. The ADA Standards mandate accessibility for some par ts of the public realm, such as curb ramps and bus stops. The US Access Board has guidelines -- the Public Right- of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) -- that more comprehensively address accessibility in the public realm, including dimensional specific ations for sidewalk width and slope, curb ramps and driveways, tactile warning surfaces at roadway edges, shared-use paths, and other accessibility features. While the PROWAG have yet to be adopted as enforceable standards (except regarding transit stops), many state and local agencies reference them as guidelines or best practices for transportation projects. See the section below on Caltrans DIB 82-06.
ADA STANDARDS
Title II, Section 35.151- New Construction and Alterations The ADA requires the installation of curb ramps or other modifications when a project alters a roadway. The reconstruction of a roadway, the upgrading of a sidewalk, or the installation of other 215
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 2
elements are alterations when they affect usability, temporarily or permanently, for pedestrians or vehicles. For ADA purposes, the resurfacing of a roadway is an alteration with respect to the special Title II obligation and therefore requires the installation of curb ramps.
CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE: SUMMARY OF SELECTED LAWS
REGARDING BICYCLING
The California Vehicle Code (CVC) contains the state laws that specify where and how bicycles riders must operate. For the most part, bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motor vehicle drivers, but the CVC provides specific language for the following:
• Use of the bicycle lane- On a roadway with a bike lane, bicyclists traveling slower than traffic must use the bike lane except when making a left turn, passing, avoiding hazardous conditions, or approaching a place where a right turn is authorized. • Riding on the right hand side of the roadway- Bicyclists riding slower than traffic moving in the same direction must travel as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when passing, preparing for and making a legal left turn, approaching a place where a right turn is authorized, riding on a one-way street, riding on a road that is too narrow, avoiding hazardous conditions, or when the right side of the road is closed due to road construction.
• Mopeds and high-speed electric bikes- Gas-powered bicycles and type 3 electric bicycles (with top assisted speeds of 28 mph) may not be used on trails or bike paths or lanes unless allowed by local authorities. They may be used in bike lanes or separated bikeways adjacent to the roadway. They require helmets and may not be operated by people under age 16. • Low-speed electric bicycles- Type 1 and 2 electric bicycles (with top assisted speeds of 20 mph) are allowed wherever regular bikes are allowed unless a sign specifically prohibits electric bicycles.
• Bike path obstruction- No one may stop on or park a bicycle on a bicycle path. • Sidewalks- Individual cities and counties control whether bicyclists may ride on sidewalks. • Freeways- Bicycles (including motorized bicycles) may not be ridden on freeways and expressways where doing so is prohibited by Caltrans and local authorities.
CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE: SUMMARY OF SELECTED LAWS
REGARDING PEDESTRIANS
Crosswalks- Drivers are required to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, including a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. Unmarked crosswalks are defined by the prolongation of the (imaginary) boundary lines of sidewalks at right -angle or near- right angle intersections.
Marked crosswalks are defined by distinct crosswalk lines or other markings on the road. It is unlawful for a driver to pass another vehicle stopped to permit a pedestrian to cross at a crosswalk.
Pedestrians must cross the roadway at a crosswalk when between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic signal devices or police officers.
• Sidewalks- Drivers are required to yield to pedestrians when crossing over sidewalks, e.g. at a driveway.
216
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 3
• Blind pedestrians- Drivers must yield the right-of-way to blind pedestrians using a cane or guide dog and must take all reasonably necessary precautions to avoid injury to these pedestrians. Drivers who do not are guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a prison sentence and fine.
CEQA AND TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
As described by the California Natural Resources Agency, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) “is a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible.”1 The statute has associated implementing regulations, called the CEQA Guidelines, which are established in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. CEQA practices are further shaped by a large body of case law and court precedent. CEQA requires analysis of environmental impacts for many different types of activities, including many transportation projects and plans, as well as permits for larger private development projects. Some activities, typically those smaller in scale, are exempt from CEQA, while many require a level of review ranging from basic, such as a Negative Declaration (ND), to detailed, such as an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
For the purposes of CEQA, the “environment” is defined as “the physical conditions that exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, or objects of historic or aesthetic signi ficance.”2 Transportation is a typical impact category in CEQA analyses, which have narrowly defined transportation as “traffic”. Level of service (LOS) has long been used as a primary metric for analyzing traffic impacts, a metric that was recommended in the CEQA guidelines’ sample environmental checklist for decades.3 In 2018, Senate Bill 743 directed the Office of Public Research (OPR) to revise the CEQA guidelines to phase out LOS and instead consider vehicle miles traveled (VMT) when evaluating impacts of a transportation project.4. In 2021, Senate Bill 288 exempts pedestrian and bicycle projects from the environmental review requirements of CEQA.
ASSEMBLY BILLS
AB 32 – GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT (2006)
The Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) established a mandate for the state to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Scoping plans prepared by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to meet the mandate have included strategies for reducing transportation related GHG emissions from motor vehicles, recommendations to encourage walking and bicycling, and recommended targets for local government GHG emissions reductions.
AB 1358 – COMPLETE STREETS (2008)
Under this law, all California cities and counties must include policies for safe accommodations for all street users (pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, children, persons with disabilities, and elderly persons) in circulation element updates.
217
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 4
AB 1371 - VEHICLES: BICYCLES: PASSING DISTANCE (2013)
AB 1371 requires that motor vehicles leave three feet of space between a bicycle and motor vehicle, when the driver of the motor vehicle is overtaking a bicyclist traveling in the same direction.
AB 1193 – PROTECTED BIKEWAYS (2014)
AB 1193 adds a fourth classification of bikeway to the Caltrans bikeway classifications. The new designation, Class IV bikeways, applies to cycle tracks or separated bikeways.
AB 2245 – ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: CEQA: EXEMPTION: BICYCLE LANES (2015) This bill exempts the restriping of roadways for bicycle lanes, provided the roadways are within an urban area and the restriping is consistent with a prepared bicycle transportation plan. A lead agency would be required to conduct a traffic assessment and safety impact, as well as conduct hearings, before determining if a project is exempt.
AB 1909 – THE CALIFORNIA OMNIBIKE BILL (2024)
This bill expands the passing rule established by AB 1371 and requires drivers to change lanes to pass bicyclists when it is safe to do so. It allows bicyclists to cross intersections following pedestrian walk signals (including lead- pedestrian intervals), limits local bans on e -bikes on certain multi- use trails, and bans municipal bicycle registration and licensing.
SENATE BILLS
SB 375 (2008)
SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to plan for meeting GHG reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). An MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP-SCS) must show how the region will meet the target through land use planning strategies and transportation system recommendations.
SB 391 (2010)
SB 391 requires the California Transportation Plan to support a statewide reduction of GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
SB 535 - DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES (2012)
SB 535 requires that 25 percent of the proceeds from the AB 32 GHG Reduction Fund go to projects that provide a benefit to disadvantaged communities.
SB 743 (2013)
SB 743 requires changes to the CEQA Guidelines pertaining to transportation impact analysis. OPR subsequently proposed, and the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted revisions 218
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 5
to the guidelines to phase out automobile LOS as a metric for evaluating the transportation impacts of a project. VMT is now recognized as the most appropriate metric.
SB 99 - ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM ACT (2013)
The Active Transportation Program (ATP) distributes federal and state funds for local and regional efforts to increase walking and bicycling. The funding is intended to increase the number of walking and bicycling trips, increase safety for those modes, an d provide support for disadvantaged communities to achieve transportation equity.
SB 32 (2016)
SB 32 updates the targets in AB 32 by mandating a statewide GHG reduction of 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2030.
SB 1 – ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (2017)
The “Road Repair and Accountability Act” of 2017 (SB 1) invests $54 billion over a decade to repair roads, improve traffic safety, and expand public transit systems across California, with funds split equally between state and local investments.
SB 288 - CEQA : EXEMPTIONS: TRANSPORTATION -RELATED PROJECTS (2020) Expands the list of transit and transportation projects statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The expanded exemption list includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
SB 932 - TRAFFIC CALMING AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLANS (2022) Requires cities to incorporate the Safe System – aka Vision Zero – principles within their general plans.
SB 1271 - ELECTRIC BICYCLES, POWERED MOBILITY DEVICES, AND STORAGE BATTERIES (2024)
SB 1271 defines electric bicycle regulations in California with a focus on hazards associates with electric bicycle speed and battery stability. The bill stipulates battery safety standards, revised electric bicycle classes, and electric bicycle power limits. 219
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 6
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
EXECUTIVE ORDER S -3-05 (2005)
Sets a target for reducing GHG emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050.
EXECUTIVE ORDER B -16-12 (2012)
Sets a target for reducing GHG emissions in the transportation sector to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
EXECUTIVE ORDER B -30-15 (2015)
Sets a target for reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2030.
EXECUTIVE ORDER B -55-18 (2018)
Sets a goal of achieving statewide carbon neutrality by 2045.
EXECUTIVE ORDER N -19-19 (2019)
Redoubled of the state’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change while building a sustainable, inclusive economy. Caltrans was directed to leverage over $5 billion toward transportation construction, operations, and maintenance to lower fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. This includes strategies for lowering vehicle miles traveled, such as supporting housing development near available jobs, and supporting active modes of transportation such as biking and walking that also benefit public health.
EXECUTIVE ORDER N-79-20 (2020 )
Sets a goal of ending the sale of internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035. The executive order called for Caltrans to identify near term actions and investment strategies to improve clean transportation, sustainable freight, and transit options. This included supporting bicycle, pedestrian, and micro-mobility options, particularly in low-income and disadvantaged communities in the State, by incorporating safe and accessible infrastructure into projects where appropriate.
STATE POLICY DOCUMENTS AND PLANS
MAIN STREET, CALIFORNIA (2013)
This document is a guide produced by Caltrans for communities that consolidates recent updates for improving multimodal access, livability, and sustainability. It summarizes standards, procedures, and guidelines from the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), and the Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM). A section titled, “Design for Bicyclists ,” describes a suite of state -approved bicycle facilities, such as shared traffic lanes, sharrows, bike lanes, colored pavement, etc., and offers examples of where it is appropriate to use such infrastructure as well as the guidance from which they are drawn. 220
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 7
CALTRANS 202 4-202 8 STRATEGIC PLAN (202 4)
This plan provides a strategic direction for Caltrans that integrates sustainability principles across all agency goals. The plan calls for reducing user fatalities and injuries, promoting community health through active transportation, and improving the q uality of life for all Californians by increasing accessibility to all modes of transportation.
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2050 (2021)
The California Transportation Plan’s Vision Statement calls for California’s transportation system to “be high -tech, high -quality, and more efficient at moving people and goods. The transportation system will be resilient to natural hazards including flooding, earthquakes, pandemics, and other disruptions, and ensure protection of our invaluable natural and cultural resources. It will power the expansion and diversification of California’s world-class economy, with a modernized and sustainable freight system that supports local economic growth. Our future transportation system will be carbon- neutral, enhancing public health and quality of life for all Californians, regardless of race, ethnicity, income, age, gender, sexual orientation, or ability. Our future system will advance quality of life and economic opportunity for disadvantaged and low -income communities, who have long endured the greatest burdens of the transportation system, building economic opportunity and mobility for those who need it most.” The plan aims to have zero t ransportation-related fatalities and serious injuries by 2050 and plans to expand access to safe and convenient transit, shared mobility, and active transportation options.
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD MOBILE SOURCE STRATEGY
(2020)
ARB released a Mobile Source Strategy that demonstrates how the State can simultaneously meet air quality standards, achieve GHG emission reduction targets, decrease health risk from transportation emissions, and reduce petroleum consumption over the next thirty years. The Mobile Source Strategy focuses on the widespread use of cleaner vehicle technologies, cleaner fuels, and efficiency improvements to the freight transport system to make communities more sustainable and enhance the benefits of investments in cleaner technologies by reducing growth in VMT.
ARB CLIMATE CHANGE PLAN SCOPING UPDATE (2022)
The 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by As sembly Bill 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve: significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short -lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and seq uester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon.
The plan recognizes the multiple benefits of promoting active transportation public health benefits of reduced criteria pollutants due to VMT reduction and increased physical activity. To e xpand and complete networks of high -quality active transportation infrastructure , the plan sets out to r equire 221
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 8
complete street enhancements, including minimum space allocations for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, in all State-funded transportation investments.
TOWARD AN ACTIVE CALIFORNIA: STATE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN (2017)
The California State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is a visionary and comprehensive policy to support active modes of transportation. Policies that stem from this plan will guide decisions about future bicycle and pedestrian investments and support local gov ernments in creating a safe active transportation network.
The plan’s vision states that “by 2040, people in California of all ages, abilities, and incomes can safely, conveniently, and comfortably walk and bicycle for their transportation needs.” The plan identifies policies and strategies that will get Caltrans to this goal focusing on safety, mobility, preservation of the transportation system, and social equity.
CALTRANS DISTRICT 5 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2021)
The District 5 Active Transportation Plan (Plan) advances the Vision Statement and Goals in Toward an Active California, the statewide bicycle and pedestrian plan, and is part of a comprehensive planning process to identify locations with walking and bicycling needs in each Caltrans district across California. Caltrans staff and regional and agency partners will use the Plan to address high priority needs on, along, and across the State Highway System (SHS).
A key action of Toward an Active California is the development of Active Transportation Plans for each of the twelve local Caltrans districts. Part of this effort includes developing an overarching statewide framework and methodology for collecting, storin g, and using active transportation data.
The statewide framework and methodology will inform each District Plan and will be flexible enough that each District can customize its study process to meet local contexts and needs. Each plan will be data -driven a nd will focus on developing context -appropriate recommendations within and adjacent to the Caltrans State Highway System right of way.
This plan places a high priority on meeting needs for people in communities that face significant and disproportionate environmental, public health, and economic disadvantages. The SHS may sometimes act as a barrier to walking and biking in the communities it passes through, compounding challenges those communities already face. The plan uses disadvantaged community definitions from CalEnviroScreen and from local and regional planning agencies. The maps shown here use only the local and regional data.
SMART MOBILITY FRAMEWORK
The California Smart Mobility Call to Action provides new approaches to implementation and lays the groundwork for an expanded State Transportation Planning Program. It enhances the scope of the existing California Transportation Plan by analyzing the bene fits of multi- modal, interregional transportation projects. The Smart Mobility Framework emphasizes travel choices and safety for all users, supporting the goals of social equity, climate change intervention, energy security, and a sustainable economy.
222
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 9
CALEPA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM / CALENVIROSCREEN
The principles of environmental justice call for fairness, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, in the development of laws and regulations that affect every community’s natural surroundings, and the places people live, work, play and learn.
California was one of the first states in the nation to codify environmental justice in statute. Beyond the fair treatment called for in code, leaders in the environmental justice movement work to include those individuals disproportionately impacted by po llution in decision making processes. The aim is to lift the unfair burden of pollution from those most vulnerable to its effects.
CalEnviroScreen is a screening methodology and mapping tool that helps identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and is an important tool in meeting the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (CalEPA) commitment to environmental justice for all.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN FOR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
(2021)
The Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI), produced by the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), details how the state recommends investing billions of discretionary transportation dollars annually to aggressively combat and adapt to climate change while supporting public health, safety and equity. CAPTI builds on executive orders signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2019 and 2020 targeted at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in transportation, which account for more than 40 percent of all emissions, to reach the state's ambitious climate goals.
CalSTA developed the draft CAPTI through collaboration with many different state agencies, along with extensive outreach and engagement with hundreds of stakeholders.
CAPTI supports i mproving multimodal connectivity in local street networks (including overcrossing opportunities of Caltrans facilities) in order to enable more direct routing and efficient access to destinations for short trips, thereby removing trips from the state highw ay system. Additionally, adding and improving connected facilities for walking and bicycling in the corridor and for first/last - mile connections to local, interregional, and regional transit routes is also supported.
CALTRANS DIRECTOR'S POLICY 37
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recognizes that walking, biking, transit, and passenger rail are integral to their vision of delivering a brighter future for all through a world- class transportation network. Additionally, Caltrans recognizes that streets are not only used for transportation but are also valuable community spaces. Accordingly, in locations with current and/or future pedestrian, bicycle, or transit needs, all transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans will provide comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit or passenger rail unless an exception is documented and approved. When decisions are made not to include complete streets elements in capital and maintenance projects, the justification will be documented with final approval by the responsible District Director.
223
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 10
STATE / FEDERAL FUNDING PROGRAMS
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP)
The ATP was created by SB 99 to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and biking. ATP consolidated various transportation programs into a single program and was originally funded at about $123 million a year from a combination of state and federal funds. SB 1 directed an additional $100 million annually to the ATP (see SB 1 – Road Repair and Accountability Act, below). The goals of the ATP include, but are not limited to, increasing the proportion of trips accomplished b y walking and biking, increasing the safety and mobility of non -motorized users, advancing efforts of regional agencies to achieve GHG reduction goals, enhancing public health, and providing a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of users inclu ding disadvantaged communities. Application cycles occur approximately every two years, typically in late spring or summer.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM
(AHSC)
The Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program funds land -use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects to support infill and compact development that reduce GHG emissions. The program assists project areas by providing grants and/or loans, or any combination thereof, that will achieve GHG emissions reductions and benefit Disadvantaged Communities through increasing accessibility of affordable housing, employment centers, and key destinations via low -carbon transportation resul ting in fewer vehicle miles traveled through shortened or reduced trip length or mode shift from single occupancy vehicle use to transit, bicycling, or walking. The three Project Area types include:
• Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project Areas
• Integrated Connectivity Project (ICP) Project Areas
• Rural Innovation Project Areas (RIPA)
SB 1 – ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
The “Road Repair and Accountability Act” of 2017 (SB 1) invests $54 billion over a decade to repair roads, improve traffic safety, and expand public transit systems across California, with funds split equally between state and local investments. SB 1 direc ts $100 million annually to the ATP to fund infrastructure projects, program implementation, and plan development to increase bicycling and walking.
HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP)
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal -aid program with the purpose to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including 224
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 11
non-State-owned roads and roads on tribal land. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads with a focus on performance.
LOCAL HIGHWAY BRIDGE PROGRAM (HBP)
The Local Highway Bridge Program (HBP) replaces or rehabilitates public highway bridges over waterways, other topographical barriers, other highways, or railroads when the State and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) determine that a bridge is significantly important and qualifies under the HBP program guidelines.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
The Surface Transportation Block Grant program (STBG) provides flexible funding that may be used by states and localities for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any federal-aid highway, bridge, and tunnel projects on any pub lic road; pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; and transit capital projects including intercity bus terminals.
LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (LPP)
The intent of the LPP is t o provide funding to local and regional agencies with voter approved fees/taxes dedicated solely to transportation improvements in order to improve aging infrastructure; road conditions; active transportation; transit and rail; or health and safety benefits. The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1) created the Local Partnership Program and continuously appropriates $200 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to local and regional transportation agencies tha t have sought and received voter approval of taxes or that have imposed fees, which taxes or fees are dedicated solely for transportation improvements.
The primary objective of this program is to provide funding to counties, cities, districts, and regional transportation agencies in which voters have approved fees or taxes dedicated solely to transportation improvements or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees, dedicated solely to transportation improvements [as defined by Government Code Section 8879.67(b)]. Consistent with the intent behind Senate Bill 1, the Commission intends this program to balance the need to direct increased reven ue to the state’s highest transportation needs while fairly distributing the economic impact of increased funding.
SOLUTIONS FOR CONGESTED CORRIDORS (SCCP)
The intention of the SCCP is t o achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements within highly congested travel corridors throughout the state. The program was created by the Road Repair Accountability Act of 2017 (SB 1). The SCCP makes $250 million available annually to projects that implement specific transportation performance improvements and are part of a comprehensive corridor plan, by prov iding more transportation choices while preserving the character of local communities and creating opportunities for neighborhood enhancement. Regional transportation planning agencies, county transportation 225
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 12
commissions, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are eligible to apply for program funds.
Eligible agencies must nominate projects to apply for SCCP funds. All nominated projects must be identified in a currently adopted regional transportation plan and an existing comprehensive corridor plan. SB 1 requires preference to be given to comprehensive corridor plans that demonstrate collaboration between Caltrans and local or regional partners, reflecting a comprehensive planning approach. No more than half the available funding each year can be awarded to projects nominated exclusively by Caltrans. Eligible project elements within the comprehensive corridor plans may include improvements to state highways, local streets and roads, rail facilities, public transit facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and restoration or preservation work that protects critical local habitat or open space.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GRANTS
Caltrans Transportation Planning Grants are available to communities for planning, study, and design work to identify and evaluate projects, including conducting outreach or improving pilot projects.
Communities are typically required to provide an 11.47 percent local match, with staff time or in - kind donations eligible to be used towards the match.
OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants are supported by federal funding. They can be used to establish new traffic safety programs, expand ongoing programs, or address deficiencies in current programs.
Eligible grantees include government agencies, state colleges and universities, local agencies, school districts, fire departments, and public emergency services providers. Grant funding cannot replace existing program expenditures, nor can traffic safety funds be used for program maintenance, research, rehabilitation, or construction. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis, and priority is given to agencies with the greatest need. Evaluation criteria to assess need include potential traffic safety impact, collision statistics and rankings, seriousness of problems, and performance on past OTS grants.
NATIONAL DESIGN RESOURCES
AASHTO GUIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BICYCLE FACILITIES
UPDATE
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities is the authoritative national design standard for bikeway design.
The guide provides information on the physical infrastructure needed to support bicycling and covers bicycle planning, bicycle operation and safety, design of on -road facilities, design of sh ared used paths, bicycle parking facilities, and maintenance and operations for bikeways. The most recent edition of the AASHTO Bike Guide contains revised chapters on bicyclist operation and safety, bicycle planning, design of shared use paths, design of shared lanes and bike lanes, maintenance and operations, bicycle parking, bike share site location, and end of trip facilities. 226
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 13
FHWA: ACHIEVING MULTIMODAL NETWORKS: APPLYING DESIGN
FLEXIBILITY AND REDUCING CONFLICTS
This publication is for practitioners seeking to build multimodal transportation networks and highlights ways that planners and designers can apply the design flexibility found in current national design guidance to address common roadway design challenges and barriers. It focuses on reducing multimodal conflicts and achieving connected networks so that walking and bicycling are safe, comfortable, and attractive options for people of all ages and abilities. This resource includes 24 design topics, organized into two themes. The 12 design topics in Part 1 focus on design flexibility.
The 12 topics in Part 2 focus on measures to reduce conflicts between modes.
For guidance on multimodal networks, the report includes solutions for streets and intersections and has information about shared use paths and other trails that can serve both transportation and recreation purposes. It includes information about crossing main streets, bridges, and underpasses and information about interactions with freight and transit.
FHWA: BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE
This document is a resource to help transportation practitioners consider and make informed trade - off decisions relating to the selection of bikeway types and is intended to supplement planning and engineering judgment. It incorporates and builds upon the FHWA’s support for design flexibility to assist transportation agencies in the development of connected, safe, and comfortable bicycle networks that meet the needs of people of all ages and abilities. This guide references existing national resources from FHWA, the AASHTO, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and others. It is not intended to supplant existing design guides but rather serve as a decision support tool.
NACTO URBAN STREET DESIGN GUIDE AND URBAN BIKEWAY DESIGN GUIDE
The NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) Urban Street Design Guide focuses on the design of city streets and public spaces. While other national manuals provide a general discussion of street design in an urban context, the Urban Street Design Guide emphasizes city street design as a unique practice with its own set of design goals, parameters, and tools. Many cities have already gone through the process of developing a local street design manual in the interest of creating internal design consensus between different local agencies. NACTO references materials from a selection of these guides and urges municipalities to use the Urban Street Design Guide as a basis for the creation of local standards. In instances where a particular si gn or marking should be used, the guide highlights its specific reference to the MUTCD.
For a more in-depth bikeway design guidance, NACTO has also published an Urban Bikeway Design Guide, where almost all featured designs have been permitted under the MUTCD. To create this guide, the authors conducted an extensive worldwide literature search from design guidelines and real-life experience and have worked closely with a panel of urban bikewa y planning professionals from NACTO member cities, as well as traffic engineers, planners, and academics with deep experience in urban bikeway applications.
227
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 14
STATE DESIGN RESOURCES
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
This manual was prepared for Caltrans by the Division of Design for use on the California state highway system and establishes uniform policies and procedures to carry out the state highway design functions of the department. The following chapters are rel evant to the Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan, and specifically for state highways that traverse the city.
CH. 300 – GEOMETRIC CROSS SECTION
301.1 Lane Width
The minimum lane width on two -lane and multilane highways, ramps, collector -distributor roads, and other appurtenant roadways shall be 12 feet, except as follows:
• For conventional State highways with posted speeds less than or equal to 40 miles per hour and AADTT (truck volume) less than 250 per lane that are in urban, city or town centers (rural main streets), the minimum lane width shall be 11 feet.
• Where a 2-lane conventional State highway connects to a freeway within an interchange, the lane width shall be 12 feet.
• Where a multilane State highway connects to a freeway within an interchange, the outer most lane of the highway in each direction of travel shall be 12 feet. 301.2 Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) Lane Width
The minimum Class II bike lane width shall be 4 feet, except where:
• Adjacent to on-street parking, the minimum bike lane should be 5 feet. • Posted speeds are greater than 40 miles per hour, the minimum bike lane should be 6 feet, or • On highways with concrete curb and gutter, a minimum width of 3 feet measured from the bike lane stripe to the joint between the shoulder pavement and the gutter shall be provided.
As grades increase, downhill bicycle speeds can increase, which increases the width needed for the comfort of bicycle operation. If bicycle lanes are to be marked, additional bike lane width is recommended to accommodate these higher bicycle speeds.
If bike lanes are to be located on one-way streets, they may be placed on either or both sides of the street. When only one bicycle lane is provided, it should be located on the side of the street that presents the lowest number of conflicts for bicyclists which facilitates turning movements and access to destinations on the street.
303.4 Curb Extensions
A curb extension or “bulbout” is an extension of the sidewalk into the roadway when there is marked on-street parking. Bulbouts provide queuing space and shorten crossing distances, thereby reducing pedestrian conflict time with mainline traffic. By placing the pedestrian entry point closer to traffic, bulbouts improve visibility between motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. They are most appropriate 228
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 15
for urban conventional highways and Rural Main Streets with posted speeds 35 miles per hour or less. Curb extensions are not to extend into Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes). The corner curb radii should be the minimum needed to accommodate the design vehicle.
CH. 400 – INTERSECTIONS AT GRADE
Intersections are planned points of conflict where two or more roadways join or cross. At -grade intersections are among the most complicated elements on the highway system, and control the efficiency, capacity, and safety for motorized and non -motorized users of the facility. The type and operation of an intersection is important to the adjacent property owners, motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, transit operators, the trucking industry, and the local community. There are two basic types of at grade intersections: crossing and circular. It is not recommended that intersections have more than four legs. At -grade intersections must handle a variety of conflicts among users, which includes trucks, transit, pedestrians, and bicycles.
401.3 Traffic Considerations
Good intersection design clearly indicates to bicyclists and motorists how to traverse the intersection.
Designs that encourage merging traffic to yield to through bicycle and motor vehicle traffic are desirable.
402.4 Consider All Users
Intersections should accommodate all users of the facility, including vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit. Bicycles have nearly all the rights and responsibilities of motorists per the CVC, but should have separate consideration of their needs, even separate facilities if volumes warrant.
Pedestrians should not be prohibited from crossing one or more legs of an intersection unless no other safe alternative exists. Pedestrians can be prohibited from crossing one or more legs of an intersection if a reasonable alternate route exists and there is a demonstrated need to do so. All pedestrian facilities shall be ADA compliant.
CH. 1000 – BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION DESIGN
The needs of nonmotorized transportation are an essential part of all highway projects. Mobility for all travel modes is recognized as an integral element of the transportation system. Design guidance for Class I bikeways (bike paths), Class III bikeways (bike routes) and Trails are provided in this chapter. The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities provides additional bikeway guidance not included in this chapter. In addition, bikeway publications and manuals developed by organizations other than FHWA and AASHTO also provide guidance not covered in this manual. 1002.1 Selection of the Type of Facility
The type of facility to select in meeting the bicyclist’s need is dependent on many factors, but the following applications are the most common for each type:
• Shared Roadway (no bikeway designation) – Streets and highways without bikeway designations where bicycle travel may already occur. It also includes many rural highways used by touring bicyclists for intercity and recreational travel. 229
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 16
• Class I Bikeway (bike path) – Bike paths should be used to serve corridors not served by streets and highways or where wide right of way exists. In most cases, Class I paths provide for shared use by bicyclists and pedestrians. They can either provide a recreational opportunity, or in some instances, can serve as direct high-speed commute routes if cross flow by motor vehicles and pedestrian conflicts can be minimized. The most common applications are along rivers, ocean fronts, canals, utility right of way, or within and between parks. • Class II Bikeways (bike lanes) – Bike lanes are established along streets in corridors where there is significant bicycle demand, and where there are distinct needs that can be served by them. Bike lanes should accommodate bicyclists through corridors where insufficient room exists for side-by-side sharing of existing streets by motorists and bicyclists.
CALTRANS DIB 82- 06: PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR HIGHWAY PROJECTS (2017)
This Design Information Bulletin (DIB) provides design guidance and best practices for accessibility for persons with disabilities on projects within the State right- of-way, regardless of the project sponsor. The guidelines focus on pedestrian accessibilit y, placement of pedestrian facilities, accessibility design standards, shared facilities, temporary traffic control, and alternate standards.
The 2010 ADA Standards apply to the design of Caltrans facilities. “Although the 2010 ADA Standards are not specifically written for public rights-of way projects, some of the provisions can apply to the highway environment and are included in this DIB. Until the draft Public Rights-of- Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) are adopted and binding, the 2010 ADA Standa rds are to be used as the primary basis of accessibility standards for public rights -of-way.”5 Since some aspects of the public right-of- way are not covered by the 2010 ADA Standards, the DIB adopts parts of the PROWAG.
CALTRANS DIB 89- 01: CLASS IV BIKEWAY GUIDANCE (SEPARATED BIKEWAYS/CYCLE TRACKS) (2018)
This Design Information Bulletin (DIB) provides design guidance and criteria for separated bikeways/cycle tracks. Best practices from cities, states and countries currently operating separated bikeways have been used to formulate this guidance and design c riteria for the State of California.
As with all guidance and design criteria, as engineers and practitioners gain more experience with the use of separated bikeways, this DIB will be updated, as necessary, to reflect the lessons learned.
OTHER ADA DESIGN RESOURCES
Caltrans’ mission is to ensure that projects are designed to comply with ADA standards. The following resources should be utilized to ensure the Department complies with applicable ADA standards for both temporary and permanent pedestrian facilities.
• Design Checklist (DIB 78-03)
• Design Guidance and Standards for Roadway Rehabilitation Projects (DIB 79-03) • Capital Preventive Maintenance (CAPM) Guidelines (DIB 81-01) • Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects (DIB 82-06) 230
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 17
REGIONAL POLICIES AND PLANS
PCTPA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2025)
The Placer County Regional Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a state -mandated long -range plan for Placer County (excluding the Tahoe Basin) that outlines transportation investments in the area for the next 25 years. The document is developed in collaboration with PCTPA member agencies, SACOG, elected officials, and stakeholders from across the county . The plan guides investments for all modes in the region and works to coordinate transportation network development across several jurisdictions. It is comprised of three main elements: a policy element, action element, and financial element.
The RTP supports active transportation through policy and investments. The plan outlines goals for increasing mobility, expanding commute options, reducing GHGs, and enhancing road safety.
Approximately 7% of the investments allocated in the plan are to ac tive transportation. The plan directly supports the Placer Countywide Active Transportation Plan and investment in local jurisdictions through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).
PLACER COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2026)
The Placer Countywide Active Transportation Plan (ATP) is a comprehensive guiding document to provide continued and improved opportunities for residents to safely and comfortably bike, walk, and roll around Placer County. The ATP focuses on an achievable multimodal network that increases connectivity within the County. The plan was developed in coordination with the Cities of A uburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Rocklin, and Roseville, the Town of Loomis, and Placer County. It guides and coordinates the development of a comprehensive multimodal network across jurisdictions with in Placer County. The plan provides policy language aimed at aligning development goals within the region, a prioritization framework and list of projects, funding strategy, and implementation plan to support future active transportation infrastructure investment.
SACOG BLUEPRINT 2025 MTP/SCS (2025)
Blueprint 2025 is the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) for the SACOG region. An MTP/SCS is a long-range planning document required by state and federal law that integrate s transportation investments with land use and housing development to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Regions must have an approved MTP/SCS to receive state and federal transportation funding. The document aims to guide the development of the Sacramento region “toward a sustainable and equitable future where jobs are plentiful, housing is affordable, our environment is clean, and we can all move quickly and safely on roads and transit or on foo t or on bicycles.” The MTP/SCS meets the state and federal requirements to be a 20 -year transportation plan that addresses all modes of transportation, is financially feasible, and meets statewide climate goals. The document contains reasonable revenue estimates on funding the region is likely to receive. 231
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 18
Based on those estimates, a financially constrained list of programs and improvements is provided.
The MTP/SCS meets specific requirements to:
• Provide a General Idea of Future Land Use Patterns.
• Meet Air Quality and Health Standards.
• Consider SACOG’s Congestion Management Process.
• Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Passenger Vehicles. • Streamline Environmental Analysis.
• Solicit Public and Stakeholder Input.
• Maintain Consistency with Other Longer-Range Transportation Plans. • Achieve State Housing Goals.
• Include input from other agencies.
Inclusion in Blueprint 2025 gives the City of Lincoln access to funding streams to support active transportation.
PLACER COUNTY LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (2021)
The Placer County Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) establishes a framework and process for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements on Placer County Roadways. The plan was prepared in compliance with State and Federal Guidelines to apply for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding and provides necessary data to support future applications for the recommended projects.
LOCAL POLICIES AND PLANS
CITY OF LINCOLN GENERAL PLAN 2050 (2008)
California state law requires that every city adopts a long -range plan to serve as a guide for the development of the community (Government Code Section 65300 ). The General Plan serves as a long-term policy guide for physical, economic, and environmental growth in the City of Lincoln. It must at a minimum include nine elements addressing land use, circulation, housing, open- space, conservation, safety, noise, environmental justice, and air quality ( Government Code Section 65302). The plan defines the community’s vision for the future growth of the city. It ensures consistency across land use, transportation, and cultural development to meet the goals defined by the community.
The circulation element identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed transportation facilities and utilities. It outlines goals to improve the multimodal network, relieve congestion, improve environmental conditions, and create a locally and regionally connected bikeway network. Appendix E of the circulation element contains the Transportation Analysis Background and 232
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 19
includes information regarding the Proposed General Plan Circulation Diagram, Traffic Modeling Data and Analysis, and a Transportation Constraints Analysis.
SPECIFIC PLANS
A Specific Plan is a complete planning and zoning document for a defined geographic region of the City of Lincoln . It provides for the orderly and systematic development of a defined area by identifying:
• Development Policies
• Plan Area Setting
• Elements For Specific Land Uses
• Circulation
• Public Facilities
• Utilities
• Public Services
• Resource Management
• Implementation
Each Specific Plan contains a chapter on Circulation and Mobility which defines a hierarchy of roadways and non-motorized transportation options. The circulation system defined in the chapter is designed to support General Plan policies and goals such as l inking with existing and local transportation systems, developing an interconnected multi -modal network, and following smart growth principles. The elements described in a Specific Plan are given more detail in a General Development Plan. The current approved Specific Plans include:
• Village 1 Specific Plan
• Village 5 Specific Plan
• Village 7 Specific Plan
• Special Use District B Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A General Development Plan is an implementation tool that takes the elements detailed in the Specific Plan and provides more detail. A General Development Plan provides for and establishes details for:
• Land Uses
• Primary Circulation Corridors
• Public Facilities
• Development Standards
• Design Guidelines
• Implementation Criteria
233
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 20
The plan can provide detail on roadways, bike and pedestrian facilities, bike and pedestrian safety considerations, and network connectivity. The currently approved General Development Plans are for:
• Village 1 Specific Plan
• Village 5 Specific Plan
• Village 7 Specific Plan
• Special Use District B Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan • Independence at Lincoln General Development Plan
CITY OF LINCOLN MUNICIPAL CODE
The City of Lincoln’s municipal code contains many local codes specifically pertaining to bicycle infrastructure and bicycle riders.
BICYCLE -RELATED MUNICIPAL CODES
Title 3
3.12.030 - Use of revenues.
(a) The city council finds and declares that the construction and expansion of residential, commercial and industrial buildings within the city places an increasing burden on existing park and recreational facilities, and creates a need for such additional facilities. The city council further finds that other available sources of revenue are insufficient to provide such public facilities commensurate with the demand created by new construction.
(b) The revenues collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in a park and recreation fund and shall be used solely for the development of public parks and recreational facilities, the improvement of existing parks and recreational facilities, and th e acquisition of land for parks and recreational facilities. Such facilities may include, but shall not be limited to, bicycle and pedestrian trails, equestrian trails and related improvements.
Title 10
10.16.030 - Obedience by vehicle operators.
The operator of any vehicle, train, bicycle or other person in control of any animal or animal- drawn conveyance shall obey the instructions of any official traffic control device placed in accordance with this division unless otherwise directed by a police officer or other authorized person subject to the exceptions granted the operator of an authorized emergency vehicle when responding to emergency calls.
10.76.030 - Riding or leaving on sidewalks.
(a) No person shall ride a bicycle on any sidewalk within the city except where a sidewalk is designated as part of the city bikeway. This restriction does not prohibit a rider from dismounting and walking a bicycle on sidewalks with due consideration for the safety of pedestrians. 234
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 21
(b) No person shall leave a bicycle unattended on any portion of a sidewalk except in an approved bicycle rack.
Title 12 – Streets, Sidewalks, and Publics Places
Title 18
18.45.060 - Incentives.
Every project controller and major project controller shall encourage ridesharing for tenants and employees by providing the following incentives to ridesharing:
(1) Posting. Posting in a conspicuous place or places information materials provided by the transportation coordinator to encourage ridesharing. Informational materials may include:
a. Current schedules, rates (including procedures for obtaining transit passes), and routes of mass transit service to the common work location or employment site, b. The location of all bicycle routes within at least a five-mile radius of the common work location or employment site,
c. Posters or flyers encouraging the use of ridesharing and referrals to sources of information concerning ridesharing;
(2) Commuter Matching Service. Disseminating annually to all tenants and employees, and to new tenants and new employees when hired, written information provided by the transportation coordinator regarding an area-wide commuter ridesharing matching service.
18.45.070 - Facilitation of use.
Every new major project controller and any existing project controller or major project controller who expands his work force from base-line employment by 20 percent or more and who, after expansion, employs 50 or more employees at a common work location, shall facilitate the tenants' or employees' use of an area-wide ridesharing program by:
(1) Ridesharing Coordinator. Designating an employee or other appropriate person to serve as a ridesharing coordinator. The ridesharing coordinator's responsibilities shall include:
a. Publicizing the availability of public transportation, b. Communicating employee or tenant transportation needs to the transportation coordinator, c. Assisting employees or tenants in forming carpools or vanpools, d. Maintaining a current employee and/or tenant transportation profile showing the distribution of employees and tenants by transportation mode,
e. Conduct an annual commute survey as part of the annual reporting requirement; (2) Sacramento Rideshare Program. Using the Sacramento Rideshare Program, or an equivalent independent matching service;
235
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 22
(3) Parking Facilities. Establish preferential parking facilities for carpools and vanpools, and provide parking for bicycles as follows:
a) Preferential Parking. If a major project controller provides or subsidizes off -street parking facilities or spaces to any employee or tenant for the parking of motor vehicles used primarily for commuting between place of residence and the common work location or employment site, such major project controller shall provide guaranteed parking spaces for each carpool and vanpool in which its tenants or its employees participate, under more favorable terms and conditions than are afforded to parking of single -occupant motor vehicles. Parking spaces assigned to exclusive carpool or vanpool use shall be so designated with appropriate signing or pavement markings.
Such parking shall be made available on request of any carpool or vanpool to the major project controller's ridesharing coordinator,
b) Bicycle Parking Facilities. Bicycle parking facilities which will accommodate the parking and securing of bicycles shall be made available at the request of any tenant or employee whose primary mode of commuting is by bicycle, made to the major project con troller's ridesharing coordinator.
18.45.100 - Contents.
The applicant shall submit, along with any other required information, a transportation plan for the project. The transportation plan shall include the following:
(1) Description. A description of the activity and operating characteristics of the proposed project (e.g., business hours and peak hours of traffic generation); (2) Estimate. An estimate of the commuting characteristics of the tenants and/or employees anticipated at the project site (e.g., travel distance and mode); (3) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures designed to achieve a reduction in the number of vehicle trips that would occur if all home-to-work trips by the anticipated tenants or employees were made in single -occupant vehicles. The applicant shall design a p rogram to achieve a 30 -percent reduction in vehicle trips. Such mitigation measures shall be selected by the applicant and may include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) Payment of subsidies or provision of other incentives to carpoolers or vanpoolers, b) Payment of parking charges or absorption of vanpool operation expense for rideshare users, c) Payment of subsidies or provision of incentives for the use of transit or transportation by other than single-occupant motor vehicles,
d) Provision of amenities, such as bicycle lockers, transit shelters, shuttle buses, etc., designed to enhance the use of other than single-occupancy motor vehicles, e) An adequate number of shower and personal locker facilities for regular bicycle commuters, f) A vanpool program consisting of a continuously outstanding offer to acquire a van or vans (by purchase, lease or otherwise), to obtain insurance and to make available to any group of at least eight employees a van for their use in a vanpool,
236
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026 23
g) Provisions for shifting vehicle trips from the peak hour to the nonpeak hours. A reduction in vehicle trips per day shall be permitted and calculated in the following manner: The number of trips taken out of the peak hour, divided by the estimated total tr ips multiplied by 25 percent would equal the percent reduction of vehicle trips per day credited, h) Any other program the applicant may devise,
i) Assistance in transportation plan preparation will be provided by the city through the transportation control measure (TCM) coordinator. A TCM coordinator will be provided to the city by the Placer County transportation commission. The TCM coordinator's ta sks shall include:
conducting an initial survey regarding employees' use of alternative transportation modes which all employers will be asked to participate in; conducting an annual commute survey as part of assisting the employer's annual reporting requirements.
18.45.170 - Annual compliance report.
Each applicant subject to the requirements of this article, and all successors in interest of the applicant obligated to carry out the transportation plan or any part thereof, shall submit to the transportation coordinator a report by March 1st every year describing the transportation program.
The report shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:
(1) Description. A description of the measures taken to comply with this chapter, including an accounting of the resources expended on rideshare promotion activities; (2) Use. The average number of tenants and/or employees regularly arriving at and leaving the project site for the reporting period by each of the following methods of transportation:
a. Single-passenger motor vehicles (including mopeds);
b. Carpools;
c. Van-type vehicles with eight or more commuters;
d. Mass transit;
e. Bicycles;
f. All others.
(3) Numbers. The total number of tenants and/or employees at the project site shall be included in the report;
(4) The rideshare coordinator will be responsible for conducting an annual commute survey as part of the employer's annual reporting requirements.
237
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
APPENDIX C : PUBLIC COMMENTS
SOCIAL PINPOINT MAP RESULTS
COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
238
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 1 of 21
Community Survey Results
City of Lincoln 2026 Bicycle Master Plan - Community Engagement Appendix 128 survey responses | Survey period: February 27-May 28, 2026 Date Submitted Trip Purpose(s) Barriers to Bicycling Comfort Improvements Location-Specific Comment 7951 Rarely Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7609 Recreation/exercise Maybe Strongly support
7607 Never Neutral No
7606 Rarely Recreation/exercise Neutral Maybe Support
7605 Recreation/exercise Yes Support
7603 Recreation/exercise Other: time Maybe Neutral
7602 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
Contribu
tion ID
Riding
Frequency
Perceived
Safety
Household
Interest
Funding
Support
May 28, 2026,
06:03 PM
Somewhat
unsafe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Ferrari Ranch area, Oak Tree Lane connector,
etc. Safe Routes around Lincoln. Would be nice
to 20 miles and more without traffic worries.
May 18, 2026,
06:22 PM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Bike lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Heading towards Lincoln crossing on Ferrari
Ranch road right near the freeway entrances
there are several potholes in the bike lane that
feel unsafe to me. Honestly I feel mostly safe
riding on the side of the road but I wish more
drovers knew bike safety/ hand signals. I wish
more people in general knew how to use a 4
way stop or used their blinker - education of
general driving safety would help bikers feel
safer.
May 13, 2026,
06:58 PM
I do not currently
bike
Other: Bikes should not be
allowed on roadways where
there is no room
Strongly
opposed
Biking should not be allowed where the
roadways for cars is already limited. Stop trying
to implement bike lanes for the few at the cost
of thousands. Use my tax money to fix the roads
not create more bike lanes.
May 09, 2026,
07:56 PM
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Bike routes that
do not go to my destination
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Nicholas road in my opinion due to unsafe
speeds of drivers. I would not ride a bike down
that street. Also, just crossing over Nicholas at
Lakeside is dangerous as many people California
roll through that stop sign or don’t wait until it’s
their turn. Driving through that stop sign can be
challenging let alone walking or biking.
May 08, 2026,
10:35 AM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
May 05, 2026,
10:14 PM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Wayfinding/signage for
bicycle routes
Motorized bikes are a hazard with teens riding
them doing wheelies
May 05, 2026,
05:24 PM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Downtown areas feel dangerous to ride
through. Parked cars can open their doors.
There’s no place separated for bikes to travel.
Roads going out to country riding or crowded
and congested without bike lanes and road
conditions. Our poor ones going outside
immediate city limits.. Even right within the
city, there are limited ways of riding bikes from
downtown south along Lincoln Boulevard going
down to the shopping centers, south of town
and the rodeo
239
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 2 of 21
Date Submitted Trip Purpose(s) Barriers to Bicycling Comfort Improvements Location-Specific CommentContribu tion ID
Riding
Frequency
Perceived
Safety
Household
Interest
Funding
Support
7593 Recreation/exercise Poor roadway conditions Maybe Strongly support 7592 Recreation/exercise Neutral Yes Strongly support
7591 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7589 Recreation/exercise Poor roadway conditions Roadway repairs Maybe Strongly support East Avenue roadway needs to be resurfaced. 7588 Recreation/exercise Maybe Neutral
7586 Recreation/exercise Neutral Yes Strongly support
7585 Recreation/exercise Maybe Strongly support
7584 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7583 Recreation/exercise Very safe Yes Neutral
7580 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7579 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
May 05, 2026,
05:34 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Repair potholes, particularly those on the far
right side of the traffic lane. Make all
intersections with traffic lights sensitive to the
presence of single bike cycles. Maintain
established bike path…including bumps created
by tree roots and over hanging tree branches.
May 05, 2026,
05:22 AM
3-5 times per
week
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Bike routes that
do not go to my destination;
Bike lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Ferrari Ranch Road and Lincoln Boulevard.
Downtown Lincoln.
May 04, 2026,
07:09 PM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
unsafe
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths; Bike lanes
are lacking or not separated
from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
McLean between East and Ferrari Ranch. VERY
DANGEROUS
May 03, 2026,
04:55 PM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
May 03, 2026,
11:20 AM
1-2 times per
month
Somewhat
unsafe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Bike routes that
do not go to my destination
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
I bike outside of Lincoln whenever possible.
Dangerous in Sun City. And drivers in City of
Lincoln are erratic. Good to get off the main
streets and out of town--where I ride most days.
May 02, 2026,
08:04 AM
3-5 times per
week
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
May 02, 2026,
07:50 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
May 01, 2026,
11:36 PM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths; Bike lanes
are lacking or not separated
from vehicles; Poor
roadway conditions
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Downtown Lincoln is really a special kind of
small town with a beautiful historic Beerman’s
building that would be so much more fun to
experience if it was more people oriented than
cars.
May 01, 2026,
05:55 PM
1-2 times per
week
Other: I'm 82, so unless
there's a friend or neighbor
to bike with, I'm not
motivated to ride alone.
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
No comment. Not experienced enough in and
around Lincoln.
May 01, 2026,
08:21 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
The bridge over 4th street near the intersection
with Ferrari Ranch.
May 01, 2026,
07:33 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Bike lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Ideally all roads, especially in rural areas would
have bike lanes. As a recreational cyclist, I avoid
high traffic areas. With the increase in growth &
traffic cycling through the downtown area to
reach rural areas is becoming increasingly
dangerous….bike lanes on newer roads are
much appreciated but sometimes getting to
bike lanes is scary.
240
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 3 of 21
Date Submitted Trip Purpose(s) Barriers to Bicycling Comfort Improvements Location-Specific CommentContribu tion ID
Riding
Frequency
Perceived
Safety
Household
Interest
Funding
Support
7578 Recreation/exercise Roadway repairs Yes Strongly support 7576 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support From 12 Bridges do 7575 Recreation/exercise Roadway repairs Yes Strongly support 7574 Recreation/exercise Poor roadway conditions Roadway repairs Yes Strongly support 7573 Recreation/exercise Slower vehicle traffic Yes Strongly support 7572 Recreation/exercise Weather Yes Strongly support
7569 Daily School Very safe No
7568 Daily Yes Strongly support
7566 Never Yes Support
7565 Recreation/exercise Neutral More shade trees Yes Strongly support May 01, 2026,
06:28 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Four way stop signs can be particularly
dangerous due to impatient drivers running the
stop signs. Pickup trucks love to blow their
diesel exhaust into us while we ride in bike
lanes.(Joiner) I would love to see bike
lanes/paths out Virginiatown and Wise so that
we can visit and support local businesses out
those roads. In all we will be helping the tax
base by spending money locally, win win.
May 01, 2026,
06:15 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
unsafe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Bike routes that
do not go to my destination;
Bike lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
May 01, 2026,
05:47 AM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
McBean and Ferrari. Repave Ferrari. Repave
were street pavement meets gutters to cover
gapes where bike tires can get trapped.
May 01, 2026,
05:34 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
May 01, 2026,
05:27 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Auburn ravine bridges on McBean Park Drive
and Lincoln Blvd, McBean Park Drive from
Ferrari Ranch to Turkey Creek Golf Course.
May 01, 2026,
04:56 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Make in road sensors for traffic lights sensitive
to the presence of bikes. Biggest problem site is
Ferrari Ranch and Lincoln Boulevard.
Apr 28, 2026,
06:35 PM
Other: Theft of ebikes near
12BMS
None would change my
behavior
Strongly
opposed
Apr 28, 2026,
04:41 PM
Work;
Recreation/exercise
; Medical
appointments;
Other: shopping
Somewhat
unsafe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
1st, 3rd & 5th Street at Joiner traffic signals are
difficult to trigger for cyclists.
It is unsafe to crosss Lincoln Blvd on Ferrari
Ranch to access shopping. Same goes for the
Ross, Target, Lowes, and Raleys shopping
centers. The Joiner overcrossing over Lincoln
Blvd is super scary.
Apr 28, 2026,
03:23 PM
I do not currently
bike
Somewhat
unsafe
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Apr 28, 2026,
03:15 PM
1-2 times per
month
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths; Bike routes
that do not go to my
destination; Lack of lighting
Would love to see Lincoln bike paths/lanes
connect to Rocklin. Would prefer dedicated
recreational paths for biking/pedestrians NOT
just bike lanes on surface streets. Would like to
see recreational paths that connect to the new
Nugget shopping center in Rocklin (possibly via
the open green space to the south of Twelve
Bridges HS?).
241
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 4 of 21
Date Submitted Trip Purpose(s) Barriers to Bicycling Comfort Improvements Location-Specific CommentContribu tion ID
Riding
Frequency
Perceived
Safety
Household
Interest
Funding
Support
7562 Recreation/exercise Maybe Neutral
7560 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7559 Recreation/exercise Neutral Yes Support
7558 Never Neutral No
7530 Rarely Very unsafe Yes Strongly support
7528 Recreation/exercise Roadway repairs Yes Support
7527 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7522 Yes Strongly support
7483 Recreation/exercise Neutral Other: Time Roadway repairs Maybe Support Apr 28, 2026,
08:01 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
unsafe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
The intersection of Del Webb and Stoneridge is
very busy and has great bike lanes but it needs a
traffic light or ped crossing light. But nothing
can be done by drivers who fly around corners
running stops. My husband nearly died last
week in that intersection by someone who was
in such a huge hurry she tailgated the car in
front of her after that car came to a complete
stop. She seemed particularly unremorseful and
uncaring - downright indifferent. I realize this is
a major interfare for bikers wanting to reach
trails. If walking paths allowed pedal bikes with
a speed limit it woukd help.
Apr 27, 2026,
09:46 PM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
The bike lanes on Virginiatown Road entering
Lincoln are not carried into the city. This should
have been the obligation of the developer of
Lincoln Meadows. Virginiatown Rd/12 th Street
is a major bike route to New Castle and Auburn
and should be treated as such as it enters and
leaves Lincoln.
Apr 27, 2026,
08:55 PM
1-2 times per
week
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Apr 27, 2026,
06:24 PM
I do not currently
bike
Other: Except for going to
SCLH lodges I either come
home with groceries or go
10-20 miles Round trip for
errands. I swim for exercise.
None would change my
behavior
Strongly
opposed
at Twelve Bridges HS is a fleet of cars, idling
with A.C on in summer- with an adult on their
smart phone. Do they mostly want some
conversation with their kid enroute to home?
Apr 21, 2026,
10:38 AM
I do not currently
bike
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Apr 21, 2026,
06:22 AM
1-2 times per
month
Somewhat
safe
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths; Poor
roadway conditions
Apr 20, 2026,
07:55 PM
1-2 times per
month
Somewhat
unsafe
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths; Bike routes
that do not go to my
destination; Bike lanes are
lacking or not separated
from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Turkey creek estates , sierra college / bickford
ranch area
Apr 20, 2026,
07:43 PM
3-5 times per
week
School;
Recreation/exercise
Somewhat
safe
Bike lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Joiner unless the sidewalk is counting as a bike
path
Apr 10, 2026,
05:26 AM
1-2 times per
week
There are many potholes on and around the
"letter" streets and "number" streets, like 3rd
and F St. is terrible.
242
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 5 of 21
Date Submitted Trip Purpose(s) Barriers to Bicycling Comfort Improvements Location-Specific CommentContribu tion ID
Riding
Frequency
Perceived
Safety
Household
Interest
Funding
Support
7482 Daily Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7480 Recreation/exercise Maybe Support
7476 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7470 Recreation/exercise Neutral Yes Support
7388 Recreation/exercise Slower vehicle traffic Yes Strongly support 7375 Recreation/exercise Very safe No
7372 Rarely Recreation/exercise Very unsafe Yes Support 7371 Recreation/exercise More shade trees Yes Strongly support 7368 Recreation/exercise Roadway repairs Yes Strongly support Apr 09, 2026,
03:00 PM
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
1) 193/Ferrari Ranch intersection
2) Overpass on McBean btwn Ferrari & East
3) Ferrari and Lincoln Blvd (it’s challenging to
cross and connect to Auburn Ravine Trail
Apr 09, 2026,
01:05 PM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Twelve Bridges Drive has bike lanes but they are
very close to the traffic flow which has
increased both in volume and speeding
motorists. It's the primary "pass-through" route
between Sierra College Blvd/Hwy 65 and
Lincoln. I believe there is a risk to residents of
Sun City, Twelve Bridges & Verdera
neighborhoods who use this street as part of
their biking routes around the area.
Apr 08, 2026,
06:59 PM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Apr 08, 2026,
07:51 AM
3-5 times per
week
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 31, 2026,
01:52 PM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Lincoln blvd need to slow down we need more
visible white lanes for walking and biking . By
the freeway all way to 7th street . Since the new
Ferrari pavilion is going to be built, we need
more bike and walking path for the people that
live on first Street can walk safer.
Mar 27, 2026,
04:16 PM
1-2 times per
month
Other: Lincoln is very
walkable.
None would change my
behavior
Strongly
opposed
Bicyclists should be held accountable for
insuring they follow the rules of the road.
Bicyclists should not be allowed to impede
vehicle traffic or allowed to back-up traffic (have
multiple cars following the bicycle). Please use
our tax dollars on essential functions.
Mar 26, 2026,
03:04 PM
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
routes that do not go to my
destination
Wayfinding/signage for
bicycle routes
Mar 25, 2026,
02:45 PM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior
Mar 25, 2026,
11:45 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
unsafe
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths; Poor
roadway conditions
East Ave. to E 12th St./Virginiatown Rd.
A high percentage of local riders use this stretch
of road and the conditions are HORRIBLE!
Potholes, loose gravel and poorly
marked/unmarked bike lane all contribute to
making this section the MOST DANGEROUS part
of our rides.
243
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 6 of 21
Date Submitted Trip Purpose(s) Barriers to Bicycling Comfort Improvements Location-Specific CommentContribu tion ID
Riding
Frequency
Perceived
Safety
Household
Interest
Funding
Support
7366 Yes Strongly support
7365 Yes Strongly support
7362 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7361 Rarely Very unsafe Yes Strongly support
7358 Recreation/exercise Maybe Neutral
7356 Never No Opposed
7351 Yes Strongly support
Mar 24, 2026,
08:08 PM
1-2 times per
week
School;
Recreation/exercise
Somewhat
unsafe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
E. Joiner, E. joiner and Fieldstone, Westview Dr.
next to 12 Bridges Middle, Eastridge Dr. next to
12 Bridges Elementary, 12 bridges and
Colonnade Dr.
Mar 24, 2026,
08:00 PM
1-2 times per
week
School;
Recreation/exercise
Somewhat
unsafe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 24, 2026,
09:23 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
unsafe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 24, 2026,
08:25 AM
Other:
Shopping/running
errands.
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Bike routes that
do not go to my destination;
Bike lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Ferrari Ranch/Lincoln Blvd., Joiner overpass
going over Lincoln Blvd. — traffic needs to be
separated from bike lane- we are t in e-bikes
and climbing the hill is slow and doesn’t feel
safe by the cars
Mar 24, 2026,
07:58 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Other:
Golf carts speeding around
in packs and they seem to
be intoxicated at times
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Kids on motorized small motorcycles capable of
over 20 mph careen around corners, drive on
the golf courses, flip you off if you confront
them. Population density in the area is turning
Sun city into their playground. I regret moving
here.
Mar 24, 2026,
04:22 AM
I do not currently
bike
I prefer to drive; Other:
physical health
None would change my
behavior
Something must be done to enforce traffic laws
re bicyclist. Not a single trip that i make is SCLH
that i don't see bicycle riders ignore stop signs!
Mar 23, 2026,
06:25 PM
3-5 times per
week
Recreation/
exercise; Medical
appointments;
Other: Groceries
and other shopping
Somewhat
safe
Bike routes that do not go
to my destination; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles;
Other: Lack of safety in
downtown, no bike lanes
separate from cars same
between downtown and
Safeway and Raleys center.
Traffic and congestion off
Ferrari Ranch west to
shopping from Lincoln Blvd
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
As noted above. Downtown side Street have
parking along them and anyone can open a car
door into a bike. Shopping centers are not
connected by bike safe lanes say several other
answers as well.
244
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 7 of 21
Date Submitted Trip Purpose(s) Barriers to Bicycling Comfort Improvements Location-Specific CommentContribu tion ID
Riding
Frequency
Perceived
Safety
Household
Interest
Funding
Support
7326 Never Neutral Yes Strongly support
7325 Very unsafe Yes Strongly support
7323 Rarely Neutral Yes Support
Mar 23, 2026,
09:51 AM
I do not currently
bike
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths; Bike routes
that do not go to my
destination; Bike lanes are
lacking or not separated
from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
East Joiner and 12 bridges is a main hub for our
family, with our kids schools nearby - I would be
so nice to feel safe riding with them to and from
school.
Also Eastridge drive and the streets surrounding
12 bridges elementary and the park next to it
& westview drive (along twelve bridges middle
school)
The traffic circle at east joiner and fieldstone is
also a mess and I see cyclists having trouble
there daily
And honestly along the length of east joiner
parkway would be such a great spot for a large,
dedicated bike path.
Mar 23, 2026,
09:41 AM
3-5 times per
week
Work; School;
Recreation/exercise
; Medical
appointments;
Other: Shopping,
errands.
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Too many to list them all. Overall, a focus on
increasing separated bike infrastructure would
be a huge win for the residents of Lincoln. There
are many people who cycle daily in Lincoln with
the existing unsafe bike infrastructure. Many
more would cycle if the routes to
school/work/shopping were safe. Special
attention should be paid around schools and
parks, as well as shopping/dining destinations,
to allow children to safely bike to and from
these areas, and limit their interaction with
vehicle traffic. In many areas the only safe way
to travel by bike is to use the sidewalk.
These are some of the specific areas where my
children and I ride our bicycles:
The intersection of Joiner and Twelve Bridges.
Lot’s of high speed traffic. Speed limit is 45 mph,
but cars frequently travel at 55-65+. We need
separated bike infrastructure.
The length of Joiner Parkway. High speed traffic.
Separated bike infrastructure is needed.
The traffic circle at E. Joiner and Fieldstone. This
traffic circle has the existing bike lane merge
with traffic and share a lane. The ability for
motorist to see pedestrians and cyclists crossing
the street is poor. Better visibility, separated
bike lanes, and raised crossing to calm traffic are
needed.
Eastridge Dr. adjacent to Twelve Bridges
Elementary would benefit from daylighting at
the intersection, as well as raised crossings for
pedestrians and separated bike paths. Traffic
Mar 21, 2026,
09:55 PM
School;
Recreation/exercise
Bike lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles;
Poor roadway conditions
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Nicolas at joiner to creekside oaks elementary
school
245
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 8 of 21
Date Submitted Trip Purpose(s) Barriers to Bicycling Comfort Improvements Location-Specific CommentContribu tion ID
Riding
Frequency
Perceived
Safety
Household
Interest
Funding
Support
7322 Daily Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7321 Yes Support
7320 Never Neutral Maybe Support Policing of e-bikes
7319 Recreation/exercise Roadway repairs Yes Opposed Country roads 7318 Recreation/exercise Yes Support
7316 Yes Strongly support
7315 Rarely Recreation/exercise No
7314 Yes Strongly support
7313 Recreation/exercise Yes Opposed
7312 Recreation/exercise Yes Support
7310 Recreation/exercise Neutral Yes Support
Mar 21, 2026,
02:16 PM
Somewhat
safe
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Along Lincoln Blvd.; some improvements in
Twelve Bridges/Catta Verdara; better
connection between Twelve Bridges and Lincoln
Crossing Neighborhoods
Mar 21, 2026,
12:00 PM
1-2 times per
week
School;
Recreation/exercise
; Other: Grocery
store
Somewhat
safe
Other: Lack of designated
bike paths that are off the
actual road
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Twelve bridges into the more shopping areas up
joiner to where is reaches and also past Lincoln
blvd
Mar 21, 2026,
08:09 AM
I do not currently
bike
Traffic speed/driver
behavior
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 20, 2026,
09:39 PM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
unsafe
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths; Bike lanes
are lacking or not separated
from vehicles; Poor
roadway conditions
Mar 20, 2026,
06:18 PM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Joiner parkway from 1st street to Ferrari Ranch -
need a bike path separate from the roadway
Mar 20, 2026,
10:28 AM
3-5 times per
week
School;
Recreation/exercise
Somewhat
unsafe
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths; Bike routes
that do not go to my
destination; Poor roadway
conditions
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Lincoln blvd to downtown is scary - I am 72 and
love to ride my bike.
Mar 20, 2026,
07:22 AM
Somewhat
safe
Other: My own iniative of
recreation
None would change my
behavior
Strongly
opposed
As a car driver ensure there are properly
marked/painted bike lanes in high traffic areas
near the grocery stores, fast food and retail on
both Lincoln and Ferrari.
Mar 19, 2026,
08:26 PM
1-2 times per
week
School;
Recreation/exercise
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Bike lanes are
lacking or not separated
from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 19, 2026,
07:58 PM
1-2 times per
month
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Weather; I prefer
to drive
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 19, 2026,
07:37 PM
1-2 times per
month
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Bike lanes are
lacking or not separated
from vehicles
Wayfinding/signage for
bicycle routes
Maybe consider some of the high traffic areas to
get green paint lines like other citys... Keep up
the good work thanks :-)
Mar 19, 2026,
05:21 PM
3-5 times per
week
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths; Bike lanes
are lacking or not separated
from vehicles; Weather
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
246
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 9 of 21
Date Submitted Trip Purpose(s) Barriers to Bicycling Comfort Improvements Location-Specific CommentContribu tion ID
Riding
Frequency
Perceived
Safety
Household
Interest
Funding
Support
7302 Yes Neutral
7299 Yes
7294 Never Neutral I prefer to drive See above
7292 Yes Strongly support
7291 Recreation/exercise Very unsafe Yes Support
7290 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7289 Never I prefer to drive Maybe Support
7288 Neutral Yes Neutral
Mar 19, 2026,
03:51 PM
1-2 times per
week
School;
Recreation/exercise
Somewhat
unsafe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Lack of
lighting
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Twelve Bridges is a busy road for people
walking, jogging and riding bike along with
heavy vehicle traffic. Bicycle signage would be
helpful and cars being more aware of
pedestrian traffic. Most importantly, it would be
very helpful to extend the sidewalk to
Ridgecrest. That section that does not have a
sidewalk is very dangerous for bicyclists
especially when people are jogging or walking
through that area too!
Mar 19, 2026,
03:39 PM
1-2 times per
month
School;
Recreation/exercise
Somewhat
unsafe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
routes that do not go to my
destination
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Strongly
opposed
Lincoln Boulevard and Ferrari Ranch Road. All
the way down Lincoln Boulevard. Also over the
bridge that goes over the railroad track from the
area by Ross/sprouts to the area by big 5/red
Robin. It does not feel safe to ride a bike with
traffic going so fast and so close.
Mar 19, 2026,
09:08 AM
I do not currently
bike
Mar 19, 2026,
06:51 AM
1-2 times per
week
Recreation/
exercise; Other:
Shopping
Somewhat
safe
Bike routes that do not go
to my destination; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Gateway Dr. left turn to Lincoln Blvd. East Ave
left turn to McBean Park Dr. Most of Lincoln
Blvd. from downtown to the Park & Ride.
Mar 18, 2026,
09:02 PM
1-2 times per
week
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths; Bike routes
that do not go to my
destination; Bike lanes are
lacking or not separated
from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Make an enjoyable pathway around a scenic
route so I can get some exercise and spend time
with family and friends. Ideally a path with
walking on one side and cycling on the other.
Mar 18, 2026,
07:04 PM
1-2 times per
month
Somewhat
safe
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths; Weather;
Other: Laziness
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Agree with comments made already on map.
Also, better bike user education is needed
Mar 18, 2026,
06:56 PM
I do not currently
bike
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
I think the main problem we have is
enforcement. Many bicyclists do not follow
traffic laws and become “pedestrians” without
warning. Many ride much too fast, especially
downhill in Lincoln Hills, and running stop signs
is common. They weave in and out of the bike
lanes.
Recently, there has also been considerable
harassment by young people on e-bikes. The
bikes are not appropriately regulated by the
state, and parents are using poor judgment.
They are blocking traffic, doing tricks, and hassle
senior citizens. They also ride destructively on
private property, like the Lincoln Hills Golf
Course. So, do we want more of this? Maybe
not.
Mar 18, 2026,
06:36 PM
3-5 times per
week
Other: Training for
competitive racing
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Bike lanes are
lacking or not separated
from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
247
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 10 of 21
Date Submitted Trip Purpose(s) Barriers to Bicycling Comfort Improvements Location-Specific CommentContribu tion ID
Riding
Frequency
Perceived
Safety
Household
Interest
Funding
Support
7286 Rarely Yes Strongly support
7282 Yes Strongly support
7279 Never Yes
7278 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7277 Yes Support
7276 Recreation/exercise Very safe Yes Support
7275 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support more interconnecting bike path or lanes Mar 18, 2026,
05:12 PM
Other: Go to a
restaurant
Somewhat
unsafe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Joiner & Fieldstone
Twelve Bridges & Sierra College (This should be
converted into a traffic circle)
Twelve Bridges & Camino Cielo/Camino Verdera
(A traffic circle would be good here to help with
crossings and connecting the existing path on
the North side of the road)
Lincoln Blvd. & Joiner (Part of the Lowes parking
lot should be converted into a connecting street
for those wanting to head North on Lincoln.
People already use the parking lot as a cut
through. A good bike path here would greatly
help riders move between parts of Lincoln)
Lincoln Blvd. through downtown should remove
the center lane and recapture the space for
more sidewalk, bike paths, and trees. (Same
with 4th st. East of Lincoln)
Mar 18, 2026,
02:51 PM
3-5 times per
week
Recreation/
exercise; Other:
Run errands and
shopping
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Bike lanes are
lacking or not separated
from vehicles; Lack of
lighting
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 18, 2026,
09:22 AM
I do not currently
bike
Somewhat
unsafe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Poor
roadway conditions
Wayfinding/signage for
bicycle routes
Strongly
opposed
Unfortunately the City of Lincoln monies are so
poorly managed.
So no I don't believe current residents should be
associated.
That should go into to the master plan of the
tract home builder's. .
Mar 18, 2026,
08:18 AM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
unsafe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 17, 2026,
07:01 PM
1-2 times per
week
Work;
Recreation/exercise
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 17, 2026,
05:09 PM
1-2 times per
week
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 17, 2026,
03:43 PM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
248
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 11 of 21
Date Submitted Trip Purpose(s) Barriers to Bicycling Comfort Improvements Location-Specific CommentContribu tion ID
Riding
Frequency
Perceived
Safety
Household
Interest
Funding
Support
7274 Recreation/exercise Other: Age and time No Strongly support 7272 Never Very unsafe Maybe Support
7271 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7270 Never Other: Balance issues Yes Support
7269 Recreation/exercise Neutral Slower vehicle traffic Yes Support 7268 Yes Strongly support
7266 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
Mar 17, 2026,
02:26 PM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
None would change my
behavior
I think that the greatest safety concern at the
moment is kids on e-bikes riding on the
sidewalks at high speed. They do not call out
when passing causing elderly people to be
startled increasing the possibility of injury.
Perhaps there needs to be bike safety taught at
school and the kids need to be told to ride in
the bike lanes.
Mar 17, 2026,
01:43 PM
I do not currently
bike; Other: I do
not bike; I live in
SCLH, and my yard
backs up to hole 15
on Orchard Golf
course; I see
reckless kids on e-
bikes 2-3 times a
week riding on the
golf path, speeding
as if it is a race
course;
Other: I see kids on ebikes
all the time and they are
reckless, speeding and
ready to run people over;
kids do not care, someone is
going to get hurt.
None would change my
behavior
more signs to stay off of the golf course paths;
eliminate e-bike activity in SCLH's because they
ride recklessly and they do not stop at the stop
signs. Someone is going to get seriously hurt
one of these days. Keep the e-bikes off of the
SCLH's bike trails.
Mar 17, 2026,
01:27 PM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
unsafe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
All roadways need safe, well paved bike lanes.
Additionally, we need lanes that are protected
for non-motorized bikes. The existing lanes and
sidewalks are often overrun by e-bikes and
users who do not understand bike safety, bike
etiquette, and most importantly traffic laws
creating highly dangerous conditions for regular
cyclists who are now competing with motor
vehicles and e-bikes for safe and efficient routes
to travel.
Regarding the roadway, debris, cracks and
unlevel surfaces create hazards for cyclists and
need to be addressed.
It would also be helpful if all youth were
required to take a bike safety course akin to a
drivers ed and for the community to offer bike
safety courses for adults as well. It will save a
life.
Mar 17, 2026,
01:22 PM
I do not currently
bike
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
e bikes are the biggest danger to themselves
and others on the road. The more bike lanes,
the better but there has to be enforcement of
who and what can use those lanes.
Mar 17, 2026,
01:10 PM
1-2 times per
month
Traffic speed/driver
behavior
Mar 17, 2026,
12:57 PM
3-5 times per
week
Recreation/
exercise; Other:
Normal errands
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Bike lanes are
lacking or not separated
from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Easier when crosswalks on both side of the
highway
Mar 17, 2026,
12:36 PM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Other: Not enough time to
ride. Would ride more if
retired.
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
249
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 12 of 21
Date Submitted Trip Purpose(s) Barriers to Bicycling Comfort Improvements Location-Specific CommentContribu tion ID
Riding
Frequency
Perceived
Safety
Household
Interest
Funding
Support
7265 Never
7264 Recreation/exercise Very safe Other: Time Maybe Support 7262 Never Very unsafe Slower vehicle traffic No
7260 Never Neutral Maybe Neutral
7259 Yes Support
7258 Recreation/exercise I prefer to drive Maybe Neutral 7257 Recreation/exercise Very safe Yes Support
7256 Never
Mar 17, 2026,
12:16 PM
I do not currently
bike
E-bikes are out of control and dangerous. I
believe there should be legislation to require an
age limitation and permit to ride an e-bike.
Mar 17, 2026,
11:33 AM
1-2 times per
week
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 17, 2026,
10:27 AM
I do not currently
bike
Other: Six knee surgeries.
Same knee.
Strongly
opposed
I used to ride a motorcycle/scooter to work. I
was slower than most traffic thus I would drive
to let people pass me. Today’s kids have had
ZERO TRAINING ON TRAFFIC LAWS and riding to
stay alive. I learned from parents and teachers
rules of the road. Now our children learn if you
can’t win against boys tell everyone you are a
girl so you can win.
Mar 17, 2026,
09:59 AM
I do not currently
bike
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Other: E-bikes
speeds need to be reduced.
Wayfinding/signage for
bicycle routes
Joiner Blvd., Ferrari Ranch Road, Lincoln Blvd.
and Twelve Bridges.
Mar 17, 2026,
09:56 AM
I do not currently
bike
Somewhat
unsafe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 17, 2026,
09:55 AM
1-2 times per
month
Somewhat
safe
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
I do not trust drivers to abide by posted speed
limits or stop at red lights. There is insufficient
ticketing by police in Lincoln to encourage
drivers to comply. This makes it very dangerous
to bike anywhere outside of our SCLH
neighborhood. It's even dangerous to drive in
the Safeway parking lot due to heavy traffic and
the oversized trucks that block visibility. Why
people need trucks that large is beyond me.
They aren't ranchers.
Mar 17, 2026,
09:52 AM
1-2 times per
week
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
I think the bike lanes on the streets are very
good as they are. I would like more paved paths
so that I can avoid riding on streets as much as
possible. Thank you for considering biking
recreation.
Mar 17, 2026,
09:30 AM
I think there needs to be an age restriction for
young kids riding the e-bikes. We have had
numerous incidents in SCLH where young 12-13
year olds are flying across the golf course hills
like "ski moguls". Someone is going to get hurt
one of these days and it will not be a good
situation. Our elders here can't hear and could
be hurt.
I see the e-bikes on East Joiner with their riders
doing wheelies for entire blocks. The rider
seems to be around 14 years old. It's a disaster
and a surprise that no one has been hurt yet.
There needs to be better laws that prevent
these young kids from having these bikes until
they are 18.
250
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 13 of 21
Date Submitted Trip Purpose(s) Barriers to Bicycling Comfort Improvements Location-Specific CommentContribu tion ID
Riding
Frequency
Perceived
Safety
Household
Interest
Funding
Support
7255 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7253 Never Very unsafe No
7252 Recreation/exercise Other: Time Maybe Support
7251 Never
7250 Recreation/exercise Maybe Support
7249 Recreation/exercise Yes Neutral
Mar 17, 2026,
09:11 AM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths; Bike routes
that do not go to my
destination; Bike lanes are
lacking or not separated
from vehicles
Wayfinding/signage for
bicycle routes
Ferrari Ranch and Lincoln Blvd/railroad tracks
crossing. The bike lane at the corner and across
the railroad tracks is not marked, pavement
uneven and requires bikers to veer into the
traffic lane. Signage, street markings and paving
improvements are recommended. Drivers
turning right from Lincoln Blvd are more
focused on cross traffic than bikers or
pedestrians and unaware of the walk sign as
they are looking to the left up Ferrari Ranch to
turn right on red. A "No Right Turn on Red" sign
should be considered.
Mar 17, 2026,
08:53 AM
I do not currently
bike
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Poor roadway
conditions; I prefer to drive
None would change my
behavior
Strongly
opposed
E-bikes & e-scooters are becoming a serious
safety issue. Groups of young e-bikers regularly
ride on the Sun City Lincoln Hills golf courses
and do serious damage to sand bunkers and
greens. The “rock climbing tires many of them
have destroys the putting green grass which is
quite delicate & costly to repair. Two e-bikers,
were reported on the Lincoln Police site
knocking down an elderly lady then striking her
near the sports complex. Another group
attempted to enter the building recently, late
one Sunday night, at the Orchard Creek
complex. There are several reports of young
riders on e-bikes disrupting traffic within the
Sun City community. E-bikes should be
restricted to only those 65 yrs old and older.
Mar 17, 2026,
08:45 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 17, 2026,
08:22 AM
Strongly
opposed
Mar 17, 2026,
08:22 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
unsafe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Bike lanes are
lacking or not separated
from vehicles; Poor
roadway conditions
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Does seem to matter. Where there are bike
lanes people are parked in them with no
consequences
especially when schools are let out. motorist
don't like cyclists on “THEIR”roads. They
complain about cyclists not stopping at stop sign
but what I see there are way more motorists
not stopping. The only way to fix this is bike
lanes from roadways and enforce laws that are
already in place. Multi use trails don’t seem to
work. There is always conflict on these.
Mar 17, 2026,
08:13 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Bike lanes are
lacking or not separated
from vehicles; Poor
roadway conditions
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Different subject but you REALLY need to deal
with these kids bombing around on throttled e-
bikes which are actually motorcycles. They often
ride on sidewalks and are really a tremendous
safety hazard. These bikes should be
impounded and parents fined. Knowing that this
is a hot issue, your survey really should have
included this.
251
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 14 of 21
Date Submitted Trip Purpose(s) Barriers to Bicycling Comfort Improvements Location-Specific CommentContribu tion ID
Riding
Frequency
Perceived
Safety
Household
Interest
Funding
Support
7248 Recreation/exercise Maybe Neutral
7247 Rarely Recreation/exercise I prefer to drive Maybe Support 7245 Recreation/exercise Roadway repairs Yes Support
7243 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7242 Never Other: Age (>80) Maybe Neutral
7241 Never I prefer to drive No Sun city lincoln hills
7240 Never I prefer to drive No
7239 Rarely Recreation/exercise Yes Support
7238 Recreation/exercise Yes Neutral
7237 Recreation/exercise Roadway repairs Maybe Support
7233 Recreation/exercise Neutral Yes Strongly support
Mar 17, 2026,
08:03 AM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Other: I am in SCLH and we
have many walking trails so
I alternate between the bike
and trails
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Again I live in SCLH so I feel safe in spite of
people not stopping at the 4 way stops - so it's
my responsibility to "ride safe"
IMPORTANT: The city needs to get ahead of the
"throttle bikes" or "electric motorcycles" that
the kids mostly ride on the sidewalks at a higher
speed than necessary. AND the
laws/ordinances must be enforced even if the
parents question how their kids will get to
school (maybe walk???)
Please don't wait for someone to get killed
THEN start to enforce the laws.
Mar 17, 2026,
07:50 AM
Somewhat
unsafe
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 17, 2026,
07:48 AM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Poor
roadway conditions
Near 65 on/off ramps need early warning signs
and alternative routing options.
Mar 17, 2026,
07:19 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Bike routes that
do not go to my destination;
Poor roadway conditions
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 17, 2026,
07:10 AM
I do not currently
bike
Somewhat
unsafe
None would change my
behavior
Mar 17, 2026,
06:48 AM
I do not currently
bike
Somewhat
unsafe
None would change my
behavior
Strongly
opposed
Mar 17, 2026,
06:40 AM
I do not currently
bike
Strongly
opposed
The PD needs to enforce the law. Ticket bicycle
riders who blow through stop signs who ride
two and three wide blocking traffic.
The arrogance of bicycle riders is appalling.
Mar 17, 2026,
05:51 AM
Somewhat
unsafe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 17, 2026,
05:19 AM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Bike lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles; I
prefer to drive
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 17, 2026,
04:52 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior
Ferrari Ranch Road from Ingram parkway to
Hwy 193 road surface is very rough and could
use a bike lane.
Mar 16, 2026,
11:01 PM
1-2 times per
week
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
From the intersection of Twelve Bridges and
Ridgecrest Drive … to the intersection of Twelve
Bridges and Stoneridge Drive. There needs to be
a separate bike path and designated bike
crossings. Cars are traveling at a fast pace and it
is dangerous to bike or try to cross the street on
that entire stretch.
252
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 15 of 21
Date Submitted Trip Purpose(s) Barriers to Bicycling Comfort Improvements Location-Specific CommentContribu tion ID
Riding
Frequency
Perceived
Safety
Household
Interest
Funding
Support
7232 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7229
7228 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7226 Daily Recreation/exercise Neutral Yes Strongly support 7224 Recreation/exercise Maybe Strongly support
7221 Never I prefer to drive No
7220 Recreation/exercise Yes Strongly support
7219 Get rid of under age kids on e-bikes!
7218 Recreation/exercise Roadway repairs Yes Strongly support Mar 16, 2026,
10:06 PM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Other: Signs saying bicycles
not allowed on trails when
there is plenty of room for
pedestrians & bicycles.
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 16, 2026,
09:39 PM
Strongly
opposed
Electric bikes, scooters need to have a bike
license for the bike/scooter, helmets, insurance
and an inspection q /2yrs, speed limits. These
are dangerous vessels.
Mar 16, 2026,
08:18 PM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Bike lanes are
lacking or not separated
from vehicles; Weather
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
4th/McBean/193 bike lane
McCourt hey road bike lane
Extension of Oak Tree Lane to Virginiatown Rd
Mar 16, 2026,
07:37 PM
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths; Other: Along
ravine there are homeless...
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 16, 2026,
07:12 PM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths; Bike lanes
are lacking or not separated
from vehicles; Poor
roadway conditions
Wayfinding/signage for
bicycle routes
Lincoln Blvd between Old Town and Hwy 65.
There is no continuous bike lane and the road
surface is rough.
Mar 16, 2026,
06:34 PM
I do not currently
bike
None would change my
behavior
Strongly
opposed
Get the damn kids off the motorcycles on the
side walks. Cars making a right hand turn are
not watching for motorcycles racing out of
nowhere on the sidewalk. The motor cycles are
going faster than the cars down Joiner and a
pedestrian and or their dog is going to get killed.
This is a pedestrian friendly area with a lot of
Seniors that don't have the agility to quickly
move off the sidewalks. It's only a matter of
time...
Mar 16, 2026,
06:23 PM
1-2 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Bike
lanes are lacking or not
separated from vehicles
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Any street that has a 'bike lane' that is only a
foot or two wide needs improvements. Having
to ride in and out of the gutter isn't safe and
being that close to speeding vehicles with
distracted drivers isn't safe. The key for me is
being on a bike trail. The city can't fix the
speeding, distracted drivers and space
constraints limit the ability to make wider bike
lanes.
Mar 16, 2026,
06:06 PM
Mar 16, 2026,
05:34 PM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Bike routes that do not go
to my destination; Poor
roadway conditions;
Weather
East Ave between 12th and McBean Pkwy (poor
pavement condition, disconnected bikelanes),
Ferrari Ranch between Lincoln Blvd and McBean
Pkwy (poor pavement condition, no bikelanes),
Nicolaus Rd between Joiner Pkwy and N. Dowd
(inconsistent bikelanes, poor pavement). There
are many others but these are some obvious
examples of major connectors that would make
cycling around town much safer and enjoyable.
253
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 16 of 21
Date Submitted Trip Purpose(s) Barriers to Bicycling Comfort Improvements Location-Specific CommentContribu tion ID
Riding
Frequency
Perceived
Safety
Household
Interest
Funding
Support
7217 Recreation/exercise Maybe Support
7216 Recreation/exercise Very unsafe Yes Strongly support In front and around turkey creek estates 7215 Recreation/exercise Neutral Poor roadway conditions Roadway repairs Yes Support 7088 Daily Work Very safe Yes Strongly support TEST ONLY 7087 Recreation/exercise Slower vehicle traffic Maybe Strongly support test Mar 16, 2026,
05:22 PM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 13, 2026,
06:33 PM
1-2 times per
month
Traffic speed/driver
behavior; Lack of connected
bike lanes or paths; Lack of
lighting
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Mar 13, 2026,
12:30 PM
1-2 times per
week
Feb 27, 2026,
09:14 AM
Traffic speed/driver
behavior
Protected and/or separated
bike lanes and paths
Feb 27, 2026,
08:54 AM
3-5 times per
week
Somewhat
safe
Lack of connected bike
lanes or paths; Poor
roadway conditions
254
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 17 of 21
Social Map Comment Responses
City of Lincoln 2026 Bicycle Master Plan - Community Engagement Appendix 70 mapped comments | Comment period: February 27-May 28, 2026 Date Submitted Comment Coordinates
7940
7598 Create a bike lane on this reach of industrial Avenue. The fog line is not enough to keep cyclist safe. 7597
7596
7595
7594 38.905823, -121.279535
7590 Need to improve both bicycle and pedestrian access/safety 7587
7577 It would be nice to connect 12 bridges with Sierra College and 193 in one long bicycle 7567 need better access to traffic signal for safe crossing of Joiner at 1st, 3rd and 5th Streets 7564 Goal should be to link Lincoln's bike paths with the Roseville and Rocklin paths 7561
7529
7526 Biking Access from bickford ranch
7525 Biking access from turkey creek estates on both gates 7524 Biking Access from turkey creek estates needed on both gates 7523
Contributi
on ID
May 28, 2026,
09:52 AM
It would be great to have a bike and pedestrian path over the ravine bridge. The existing road is too narrow to be safe to cross in its current condition. A path would allow residents east of the ravine crossing to easily access McBean Park and Lincoln itself without driving a car.
38.890141218818,
-121.28224207075
May 05, 2026,
05:59 AM
38.84895644815,
-121.30746143407
May 05, 2026,
05:48 AM
Extend the Bike path, Neath the 65 bridge. These plans were drawn up years ago and never completed. This will make better circulation of CYCLING traffic. It’s in the flood plane, but you can deal with that.
38.881778000773,
-121.32149082938
May 05, 2026,
05:46 AM
Trees along the path here are having their roots push-up the bicycle path surface. This makes it very dangerous, particularly in low light conditions. fix the bike path and trim the trees regularly.
38.861178200215,
-121.32026337066
May 05, 2026,
05:44 AM
Make the road sensitive to the presence of bicyclist in both directions here. Cyclist are stranded here because they cannot change the traffic light.
38.879776368828,
-121.29573583603
May 05, 2026,
05:42 AM
The road surface to the right edge of the road is terrible potholed. There are a large number of cyclists who returned to Lincoln city limits by way of McCartney Road. This is a very dangerous spot that all cyclist have to negotiate.
May 04, 2026,
07:07 PM
38.890186560615,
-121.28336593573
May 02, 2026,
03:48 PM
There needs to be a curb cut and trail transition from the Ferrari Ranch Rd to the bike trail through the Dog Park.
38.879749641034,
-121.29540068766
May 01, 2026,
06:19 AM
38.866621588495,
-121.23474141851
Apr 28, 2026, 04:36
PM
38.88907306367,
-121.31312167059
Apr 28, 2026, 02:30
PM
38.833368935927,
-121.28840271948
Apr 27, 2026, 09:50
PM
Lincoln, Placer County, and CalTrans should plan for a bicycle path paralleling I65 from Roseville to at least Marysville.
38.889351133047,
-121.36217928448
Apr 21, 2026, 10:36
AM
Would be nice to have a path around this neighborhood that goes over or under 12 Bridge Dr. to connect these neighborhoods to the high school and middle school so students don't have to cross 12 Bridges Dr.
38.86121222243,
-121.29631688844
Apr 20, 2026, 07:53
PM
38.87778973206,
-121.23783748625
Apr 20, 2026, 07:50
PM
38.886561226764,
-121.25856823591
Apr 20, 2026, 07:48
PM
38.886524888494,
-121.25166422839
Apr 20, 2026, 07:46
PM
There is no official bike lane connecting Joiner and Third in this area. Only a "share-o" exists right now
38.889184780635,
-121.31405314393
255
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 18 of 21
Date Submitted Comment CoordinatesContributi
on ID
7493
7481 Sun City Lincoln Hills is a great bike riding spot. 38.851679, -121.256513 7477
7450 No bike transition from the street bike lane to the park trail. 7382
7381
7380
7369 Terrible road/bike lane maintenance in this area. 38.895833, -121.284357 7360
7359
7334
7333
7332
7331
Apr 11, 2026, 03:53
PM
Most of joiner has well-maintained dedicated lanes for bikes, some are on the street and some are physically separated. This makes Joiner a good through street for riding a bike. However, the traffic circle at Fieldstone Dr. has NO dedicated lane, so cyclists must merge into the flow of motorized vehicles. Since there is open space on all around the outside of the circle, please consider putting a dedicated lane in all six directions for safer cycling. Thank You!
38.847747086894,
-121.28640071519
Apr 09, 2026, 01:08
PM
Apr 09, 2026, 08:27
AM
The trail from one side to the other do not connect- the curb inhibits being able to cross here to continue on the trail
38.863763895536,
-121.31692018915
Apr 07, 2026, 07:40
AM
38.880009899125,
-121.29584619911
Mar 30, 2026, 08:44
AM
We could use a bike path (off of the roadway) here for several reasons. Many folks speed on this road after turning right from Colonnade Dr. Even though there is a bike lane here, many drivers take up that lane. A safer option would be a concrete bike path just off of the road for bikes and pedestrians.
38.854661761829,
-121.28840251704
Mar 30, 2026, 08:41
AM
Residents use the bike lane to turn right into their development. This causes a dangerous situation for cyclists as cars will pull in the bike lane without notice.
38.854949943991,
-121.28658632771
Mar 30, 2026, 08:40
AM
This is a very dangerous intersection for bikes. Not to mention the kids who ride their bikes to school each morning. As to not rehash what someone else said, here are the dangers I see: traffic continually backs up on joiner (toward Bella Breeze) and vehicles often use the bike lane to wait, or pass other cars. At the traffic light, it is rare to see a vehicle stop at red lights in the right lane. They treat it as a yield signal at best. Me and my kids have almost been hit here four or more times. Each time I have to scream at the driver to stop because the crosswalk sign is lit for us to cross. There is no bike lane to make a left from joiner to twelve bridges dr. If we want to turn then we either have
38.851233321745,
-121.28479936081
Mar 25, 2026, 11:47
AM
Mar 24, 2026, 08:20
AM
There isn’t a good way to get from the neighborhood and Auburn Ravine trail to cross over the railroad tracks and get across Lincoln Blvd. for bicyclists or pedestrians.
38.879670793989,
-121.29532814026
Mar 24, 2026, 08:13
AM
I am nervous about letting my teen children navigate the overpass with their bikes because there is no room for bikes next to cars here.
38.873885731595,
-121.29770860076
Mar 23, 2026, 10:26
AM
So much potential for nice separated bike lanes and better sidewalks to make our old town/downtown an even more desirable location to shop and dine.
38.89347198093,
-121.29275549952
Mar 23, 2026, 10:24
AM
A bike lane separated from high speed traffic on the narrow bridge would keep cyclist off of the sidewalk.
38.874881032348,
-121.29924974845
Mar 23, 2026, 10:23
AM
Highspeed traffic mixed with many kids walking and cycling to school. Separated bike lanes and sidewalks which continue into the neighborhood along Colonnade Dr are needed.
38.851089684328,
-121.29075306789
Mar 23, 2026, 10:20
AM
The intersection of E. Joiner and Twelve Bridges as well as the entire length of both streets. Lot’s of high speed traffic. Speed limit is 45 mph on Twelve Bridges, but cars frequently travel at 60+ mph.
We need separated bike infrastructure to keep our kids safe.
38.851210839314,
-121.28447168245
256
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 19 of 21
Date Submitted Comment CoordinatesContributi
on ID
7330
7329
7328
7327
7324
7311 Safer crossing for bikes is needed. Speed is to high from cars crossing and turning 7309 No easy way to get over the railroad tracks on FRR crossing Lincoln Blvd 7308
Mar 23, 2026, 10:18
AM
The length of E. Joiner Parkway. Separated bike infrastructure is needed. Cyclist use the sidewalk because it isn't safe to use the painted bike lane next to high speed traffic. I agree with another commenter who said we need to get ebikes off the sidewalk to keep pedestrians safe. Building proper separated bike paths is the way to do it. However their comment about taxing cyclists is misguided. Here are the reasons why a tax on cyclists doesn’t make sense:
Existing Financial Contribution
The common belief that motorists alone pay for roads through "user fees" is a myth.
General Tax Funding: In the United States, user fees like gas taxes and registration cover only about half of road expenses. The remainder is funded through property and income taxes, which cyclists pay regardless of their mode of transport.
Dual-Mode Users: The vast majority of adult cyclists also own and operate motor vehicles, meaning they already pay gas taxes, registration fees, and motor vehicle excise taxes.
Local Street Funding: Most cycling infrastructure is built on municipal streets, which are primarily funded by local property taxes rather than state-level gas taxes.
Minimal Infrastructure Impact
Bicycles have a negligible physical impact on road surfaces compared to motorized vehicles.
The Fourth Power Law: Road damage is proportional to the fourth power of a vehicle's axle weight.
A typical car causes approximately 160,000 times more damage to a road than a bicycle.
Proportionality: If a cyclist were taxed one cent per mile for their fair share of wear and tear, an SUV owner would need to pay $1,600 per mile to be equitable.
Low Construction Costs: Cycling projects cost over 75% less to build per mile than typical car- focused projects.
Public Subsidies Provided by Cycling
38.85616499337,
-121.28456153167
Mar 23, 2026, 09:53
AM
Eastridge Dr. adjacent to Twelve Bridges Elementary would benefit from daylighting at the intersection, as well as raised crossings for pedestrians and separated bike paths. Traffic travels too fast and visibility is poor when cars are parked right at the corners of the intersection.
38.84686684829,
-121.26874150026
Mar 23, 2026, 09:52
AM
The traffic circle at E. Joiner and Fieldstone. This traffic circle has the existing bike lane merge with traffic and share a lane. The ability for motorist to see pedestrians and cyclists crossing the street is poor. Better visibility, separated bike lanes, and raised crossing to calm traffic are needed.
38.847464479353,
-121.28664414655
Mar 23, 2026, 09:52
AM
Westview Dr, adjacent to Twelve Bridges Middle school, has no bike lanes at all, and all students cycling need to co-mingle with traffic when leaving the school, or be forced onto the sidewalk.
Separated bike paths are needed.
38.842812411493,
-121.28812564732
Mar 23, 2026, 08:54
AM
Creekside Oaks Kids should be able to bike to school down first street. Elementary, Middle and High school kids are forced over to third street which is about to be a very busy street once the purposed houses and commercial buildings are put in and the street is opened up at the end. First to Creekside and First to Joiner provide safer options for all three schools as well as the proposed skate park and basketball court addition to the Community Center on First and Joiner
38.886688767076,
-121.32557445188
Mar 19, 2026, 07:18
PM
38.897310935154,
-121.3126952963
Mar 19, 2026, 05:03
PM
38.879831153904,
-121.29551060281
Mar 19, 2026, 05:01
PM
All along McBean Park Drive / 193 there is no consistent path. I saw there is a newish one for part of the way near the new construction but it doesn’t connect from what I can tell.
38.889288538529,
-121.27662860519
257
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 20 of 21
Date Submitted Comment CoordinatesContributi
on ID
7307
7306
7305 Please provided a protected path here across the bridge section. 7304 Please give bikes and pedestrians a leading interval here. 7303
7301
7300
7298 Twelve Bridges is a fast street. Please plan for a buffered and protected bikeway. 7297
7296
7295
7293 E bikes racing up and down the golf cart path
7287
7285
7284
Mar 19, 2026, 04:59
PM
There is no way to get from FRR to McBean Park safely as there are no sidewalks or bike paths over the creek.
38.890087965581,
-121.28284264681
Mar 19, 2026, 04:38
PM
Bike lane/path needed to connect sun city with lincoln town going towards mc bean park from Ferrari ranch rd and also from Safeway to Lowe’s on north side of lincoln blvd. Can’t get marker to stay put but pls add.
38.614292465887,
-121.31945767673
Mar 19, 2026, 03:54
PM
38.882740412576,
-121.29414720948
Mar 19, 2026, 03:53
PM
38.879671402808,
-121.29532911961
Mar 19, 2026, 03:52
PM
There's no good connection between Joiner and Lincoln. Please make a long-term plan for a multi- use path between Joiner/Sterling and Lincoln Blvd along the Lowe's property.
38.873629005886,
-121.29662251089
Mar 19, 2026, 03:45
PM
Extend sidewalk up to Ridgecrest on Twelve Bridges. Right now it ends just after Dunlewy at the walking trail. That small stretch from where it ends to Ridgecrest is dangerous for children riding their bikes to and from home/school.
38.850063104796,
-121.24927328886
Mar 19, 2026, 03:41
PM
The overpass over the railroad track does not feel safe to ride on because of how close the traffic is too the bike lane and the speed at which traffic is flowing
38.873885668516,
-121.29770870303
Mar 19, 2026, 03:37
PM
38.848530820236,
-121.2740600508
Mar 19, 2026, 03:37
PM
There is already a marker where I would start the bike/ walking path by the railroad track across Lincoln Blvd on Ferrari Ranch road to Safeway but also turning left on Lincoln Blvd from FRR (Lincoln Crossing) to go to downtown over the creek. I’ve walked across the railroad tracks. Turning left onto Lincoln Boulevard to get downtown and there are no sidewalks and you’re walking right against traffic..
38.882500087785,
-121.2941659548
Mar 19, 2026, 03:33
PM
The trail exits here, but there's no ramp to enter on to or exit from the bike lane, and there's no way (legally, at least) to cross the road to the other side. Please plan for a crossing here with, at a minimum RRFBs, or a fully signalized crossing (as Rocklin did on Blue Oaks).
38.850364022712,
-121.27774029853
Mar 19, 2026, 03:25
PM
Joiner/Wildcat is a major route for everyone and Whitney HS and Twelve Bridges middle are both right here. Kids on bikes and adults on mobility scooters and on bikes deserve safety. Please plan for protected & buffered bikeways (Class IV) to keep kids safe and independent.
38.844531863704,
-121.29031678131
Mar 19, 2026, 09:07
AM
38.855575106052,
-121.28163499509
Mar 18, 2026, 05:16
PM
Lincoln Blvd. through downtown should be an enjoyable destination on a bike. The center could be removed, push the travel lanes toward the center, create more space for sidewalks, bike paths, and trees for shade. To facilitate left turns, convert the intersections to traffic circles. This would also allow for more traffic flow with fewer backups due to red lights.
38.890484863345,
-121.29281015809
Mar 18, 2026, 05:01
PM
There is enough room all along Joiner to physically separate the bike lanes from the roadway.
Ideally these should be grade separated, but in the mean time, install bollards to create the physical separation to increase safety.
People don't use bike lanes when they don't feel safe. Ensuring the lanes feel safe to riders will increase the usage.
38.865168070749,
-121.28535743598
Mar 18, 2026, 04:58
PM
There is a desire path connecting the paved path to the middle school and another connecting the middle school to the park. These should be formalized into paved paths.
38.84467182219,
-121.285914264
258
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 21 of 21
Date Submitted Comment CoordinatesContributi
on ID
7283
7281
7280
7273 stay off of the golf course pads with the e-bikes
7267
7263 Crosswalk and ramps for cyclists.
7261 A crosswalk and ramps would be nice for cyclists.
7254
7246
7244 None
7231
7230 Need to provide a way to get around this reservoir on a bike so can get to Boulder Ridge Park. 7227 Scared of the homeless on bike path by ravine
7225 Need to add more bike trails through this area.
7223
7222
Mar 18, 2026, 04:55
PM
The bike lane here goes away through the traffic circle. This traffic circle is a key point where kids cross to get to school and is currently dangerous due to the design. The circle should only be one lane of motorized vehicles and the other lane be for bicycles. To slow cars down more and improve safety, implement traffic calming. The crosswalks should be raised into continuous sidewalks creating a speed hump for vehicles and an easier crossing for those not in a car. Also, the pedestrian islands (also used by bikes) face the wrong way. Oncoming traffic is behind the person in the island preventing them from seeing danger.
Further, the bike lanes along Joiner are not physically separated from the roadway. This makes them considerably more dangerous as cars can drift into the bike lane and hit a rider. Grade separated bike paths should be constructed, but in the mean time, erect bollards to create that separation and increase safety. NEVs can still use the right lane with the left lane available for
38.847530848297,
-121.2863981115
Mar 18, 2026, 02:48
PM
The bike lane disappears through the new traffic circle. It is difficult for drivers to see all the way around the roundabout. This makes this intersection very dangerous for bicyclists.
38.847600420691,
-121.28658265236
Mar 18, 2026, 10:24
AM
Nice idea. However priorities are misguided. How about paving the streets first. Lincoln Blvd.
Would be a good place to start.
38.831161116713,
-121.27109236699
Mar 17, 2026, 01:45
PM
38.872695127699,
-121.29203265458
Mar 17, 2026, 12:55
PM
A bike lane and bridge to connect Oak Tree to Virginiatown would allow bikes to cross the ravine rather than have to ride on narrow streets without bike lanes and deal with very fast, dangerous cars/trucks.
38.898559113872,
-121.26544589782
Mar 17, 2026, 10:28
AM
38.862301240027,
-121.31253400717
Mar 17, 2026, 10:23
AM
38.864499347705,
-121.30849598991
Mar 17, 2026, 08:59
AM
The railroad bike lane crossing and right hand turn lane markings/signage from Lincoln Blvd onto Ferrari Ranch is not safe. The tracks/pavement are uneven and require bikes to veer into traffic lane. Drivers turning right from Lincoln Blvd to Ferrari Ranch are more focused on cross traffic and need be alerted of bike/pedestrians crossing when walk sign is on. Improved signage, lane markings and level paving recommended.
38.879849636971,
-121.29545744848
Mar 17, 2026, 07:49
AM
We are very concerned with the speed of e-bikes and their danger to themselves and pedestrians.
Young folks are riding them like motorcycles without obeying traffic laws,
38.860962543951,
-121.25232445489
Mar 17, 2026, 07:47
AM
38.860177302036,
-121.26472110713
Mar 16, 2026, 09:59
PM
This area has a lot of unlicensed children on ebikes that are more like motorcycles. Some of these "bikes" don't even have pedals and go as fast as cars. Someone is going to get hurt.
38.841069332482,
-121.29073860089
Mar 16, 2026, 09:51
PM
38.856232946025,
-121.22905548068
Mar 16, 2026, 07:39
PM
38.889565186384,
-121.28363650764
Mar 16, 2026, 07:16
PM
38.847272649929,
-121.25211776087
Mar 16, 2026, 06:44
PM
Just like sidewalks, there are too many start and stop bike lanes in Lincoln. East Ave for example. It provides access to areas with bike lanes, but you take your life in your hands to reach them. The road is bad enough for cars. there are so many areas like this especially in old Lincoln.
38.898391150543,
-121.28413838277
Mar 16, 2026, 06:40
PM
Get the kids on motorcycles OFF the sidewalks. They're going to kill someone and or their dog. Quit building and wasting more money on bike lanes and paths. The bikers aren't using them. Start fining bikers and motorcycle riders who ride on the sidewalks. Implement a tax on bikes to help pay for the money wasted on unused bike lanes. NEVs are taxed and use these same lanes. Make bike riders pay a similar tax
38.85452349555,
-121.2842833512
259
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
APPENDIX D : CIP LIST
PROPOSED BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSED INTERSECTION AND POLICY IMPROVEMENTS
260
APPENDIX D
City of Lincoln 2026 Bicycle Master Plan
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 1 of 3
Proposed Bikeway and Spot Improvement Projects
Proposed Bikeway Projects
PROJECT ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION DESCRIPTION FACILITY TYPE P-01 E. Joiner Parkway E. Joiner Parkway (Full Length) Install buffered bike lanes along the entire E. Joiner Parkway corridor to provide safer bicycle separation from high-speed traffic.
Class II (Buffered
Bikeway)
P-03 Twelve Bridges
Drive Twelve Bridges Drive (Full Length) Install buffered/protected bike lanes along Twelve Bridges Drive to address high- speed traffic (45+ mph). Connect to schools and neighborhoods.
Class II (Buffered
Bikeway)
P-05 Westview Drive Westview Drive at Twelve Bridges
Middle School
Install bike lanes along Westview Drive to eliminate need for students to mix with traffic or ride on sidewalks.
Class III (Bike
Route)
P-06 First Street First Street (D Street to Joiner) Create safe bike route on First Street connecting elementary, middle, and high schools plus proposed skate park.
Class II (Buffered
Bikeway)
P-07 McBean Park Drive Lincoln Boulevard to Ferrari Ranch Road
Install a buffered bike lane along McBean Park Drive from Lincoln Boulevard to Ferrari Ranch Road.
Class II (Buffered
Bikeway)
P-08 SR 65 Highway
Undercrossing
Moore Road west and east of
highway Extend bike path beneath Highway 65 bridge for better circulation. Class I (Multi-Use Path)
P-10 E. Joiner Parkway
Undercrossing
Class I under E. Joiner Parkway,
connect near Equinox Loop and
Joiner Lake
Class I under E. Joiner Parkway, connect near Equinox Loop and Joiner Lake Class I (Multi-Use Path)
P-11 Lincoln Boulevard
(Downtown) 1st Street to 7th Street Install a bike route along Lincoln Boulevard (Downtown) from 1st Street to 7th Street
Class III (Bike
Route)
P-12 Lincoln Boulevard Sterling Parkway to Park and Ride Install a buffered bikeway along Lincoln Boulevard from Sterling Parkway to north of Park and Ride lot.
Class II (Buffered
Bikeway)
P-13 Ferrari Ranch Road Lincoln Boulevard to Caledon
Circle
Install buffered bike lanes along Ferrari Ranch Road from Lincoln Boulevard to Caledon Circle.
Class II (Buffered
Bikeway)
P-14 Moore Road Class I east of E. Joiner Parkway
to Class I highway crossing Connect Class I east of E. Joiner Parkway to Class I highway undercrossing Class II (Buffered Bikeway)
P-15 H Street 1st Street to 7th Street Install a buffered bikeway along H Street from 1st Street to 7th Street. Class II (Buffered Bikeway)
P-16 Chambers Drive Class I at Moore Road and
Nicolaus Road
Install a bike route along Chambers Drive connecting Moore Road and Nicolaus Road
Class III (Bike
Route)
P-17 1st Street Douglas Drive to Joiner Parkway Install buffered bike lanes along 1st Street from Douglas Drive to Joiner Parkway. Class II (Buffered Bikeway)
P-18 Twelve Bridges
Drive
Industrial Avenue to Colonnade
Drive
Install buffered bike lanes along Twelve Bridges Drive from Industrial Avenue to Colonnade Drive.
Class II (Buffered
Bikeway)
P-19 J Street 1st Street to 7th Street Install a bike route along J Street from 1st Street to 7th Street Class III (Bike Route)
P-20 7th Street O Street to L Street Install a buffered bikeway along 7th Street from O Street to L Street Class II (Buffered Bikeway)
P-21 F Street 3rd Street to 5th Street Install a bike route along F Street from 3rd Street to 5th Street Class III (Bike Route)
261
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 2 of 3
PROJECT ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION DESCRIPTION FACILITY TYPE P-22 E Street 1st Street to 7th Street Install a buffered bikeway along E Street from 1st Street to 7th Street Class II (Buffered Bikeway)
P-23 E Street Gateway Drive to 1st Street
(Extension)
Install a buffered bikeway along E Street from Gateway Drive to 1st Street as an extension.
Class II (Buffered
Bikeway)
P-24
Virginiatown Road
and McCourtney
Road
East Avenue to City Limits Install a buffered bikeway along Virginiatown Road and McCourtney Road from East Avenue to City Limits.
Class II (Buffered
Bikeway)
P-25 9th Street/H Street 7th Street to O Street Install a buffered bikeway along 9th Street/H Street from 7th Street to O Street Class II (Buffered Bikeway)
P-27 Regional
Connection
Trail connection to
Roseville/Rocklin at Wildcat
Boulevard
Connect Lincoln bike paths to Roseville and Rocklin regional trail network. Class I (Multi-Use Path)
P-29 Ferrari Ranch Road
Improve Class II lanes to improve
connection between Sun City to
Downtown/McBean Park Drive
Improve Class II lanes to improve connection between Sun City to Downtown/McBean Park Drive
Class II (Buffered
Bikeway)
P-31
Lincoln Boulevard
Multi-Use
Connection
Lincoln Boulevard / Ferrari Ranch
Road/ Auburn Ravine Connection
Continuation of Class I trail along Ferrari Ranch Road east of Lincoln Boulevard.
Removing/replacing the existing sidewalk with a Class 1 trail, cantilevering the bridge as necessary, and providing a ramp/trail connection on the NW corner of Ferrari Ranch Road/Lincoln Boulevard.
Class I (Multi-Use
Path)
P-32
Colonnade Drive
Separated Bike
Lanes
Colonnade Drive / Stark Bridge
Road
Extend Class II bike lane from S. of Red Rock to Twelve Bridges and to Lincoln Library/Twelve Bridges School
Class II (Buffered
Bikeway)
P-33 East Avenue Bicycle
Lane Gap 6th Street to 7th Street Connect Class II lane from S. of 6th Street to N. of 7th Street Class II (Buffered Bikeway)
P-35 Lincoln Boulevard
Multi-Use Path Parallel to Lincoln Boulevard Plan for bicycle path paralleling Lincoln Boulevard from Sterling Parkway to 1st Street and 7th Street to north City Limit.
Class I (Multi-Use
Path)
P-36 Third Street Bike
Lanes
Third Street from Ragsdale
Court/Ahart Court to Grand Breeze
Lane/Laehr Drive
Upgrade Class III to Class II bike lane to connect to existing lanes at Ragsdale and Laehr Drive
Class II (Buffered
Bikeway)
262
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 3 of 3
Proposed Spot and Citywide Improvements
PROJECT ID LOCATION DESCRIPTION IMPROVEMENT TYPE
P-04 Eastridge Drive / Twelve Bridges
Elementary Address daylighting at intersections for student safety. Safety Improvement P-28 Citywide (Various Intersections) Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection P-30 Citywide E-Bike/NEV Policy E-Bike/NEV Policy
P-31 Lincoln Boulevard / Ferrari Ranch
Road/ Auburn Ravine Connection
Improve Lincoln Boulevard crossing connection from Ferrari Ranch Road to east of Lincoln Boulevard Crossing/Connection
P-34
Citywide (Various Locations)
Priority areas: Hillwood Loop,
McCourtney Road, East Avenue.
Address tree root damage, pothole repairs, and general path surface maintenance.
Priority areas: Hillwood Loop, McCourtney Road, East Avenue. Maintenance P-37 Caledon Class I Trail Signal activated ped/bike crossing to connect S. Caledon Circle trail to North Caledon Circle trail Crossing/Connection
P-38 Colonnade Drive / Twelve Bridges
Drive Intersection improvements for bicycle safety Crossing/Connection P-39 Citywide (Various Locations) Consider using AB43 to justify speed limit reductions based on high ped/bike activity Safety Improvement P-40 12th Street/East Avenue Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection P-41 East Avenue/4th Street Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection P-42 J Street/7th Street Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection P-43 3rd Street/O Street Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection P-44 Ferrari Ranch Road - Ingram
Parkway; Sun City Boulevard Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection P-45 Ferrari Ranch Road/SR-
193/McBean Park Drive Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection P-46
Lincoln Boulevard at 1st Street; 3rd
Street; McBean Park Drive; 5th
Street; 6th Street; 7th Street
Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection P-47
E. Joiner Parkway at Sterling
Parkway; Groveland Lane; Danbury
Drive/ Downing Circle; Moore Road;
1st Street; 3rd Street; 5th Street;
Nicolaus Road
Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection P-48 E. Joiner Parkway at Bella Breeze
Drive (N and S) Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection P-49 Twelve Bridges Drive at Parkside
Drive/ Southcreek Drive Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection
263
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
APPENDIX E: PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
264
APPENDIX E
City of Lincoln 2026 Bicycle Master Plan
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 1 of 3
Proposed Bikeway and Spot Improvement Projects
Proposed Bikeway Projects
PROJECT ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION DESCRIPTION FACILITY TYPE
LENGTH
(MILES) ESTIMATED COST
ESTIMATED COST WITH
SCL UNIT COST FOR
CLASS II ONLY
P-01 E. Joiner Parkway E. Joiner Parkway (Full
Length)
Install buffered bike lanes along the entire E. Joiner Parkway corridor to provide safer bicycle separation from high-speed traffic.
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
10.90 $870,733 $1,144,926
P-03 Twelve Bridges Drive Twelve Bridges Drive (Full
Length)
Install buffered/protected bike lanes along Twelve Bridges Drive to address high-speed traffic (45+ mph). Connect to schools and neighborhoods.
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
4.88 $389,596 $512,279
P-05 Westview Drive Westview Drive at Twelve
Bridges Middle School
Install bike lanes along Westview Drive to eliminate need for students to mix with traffic or ride on sidewalks.
Class III (Bike
Route) 0.59 $2,344 $2,344
P-06 First Street First Street (D Street to Joiner
Parkway)
Create safe bike route on First Street connecting elementary, middle, and high schools plus proposed skate park.
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
1.44 $114,718 $150,843
P-07 McBean Park Drive Lincoln Boulevard to Ferrari
Ranch Road
Install a buffered bike lane along McBean Park Drive from Lincoln Boulevard to Ferrari Ranch Road.
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
1.19 $95,020 $124,942
P-08 SR 65 Highway
Undercrossing
Moore Road west and east of
highway Extend bike path beneath Highway 65 bridge for better circulation. Class I (Multi- Use Path) 0.13 $293,249 $293,249
P-09 Auburn Ravine Crossing Moore Road east of highway
to Chambers Drive Build bike lane and bridge allowing bikes to cross ravine safely. Class I (Multi- Use Path) 0.22 $475,612.88 $475,612.88
P-10 E. Joiner Parkway
Undercrossing
Class I under E. Joiner
Parkway, connect near
Equinox Loop and Joiner
Lake
Class I under E. Joiner Parkway, connect near Equinox Loop and Joiner Lake
Class I (Multi-
Use Path) 0.08 $1,077,120 $1,077,120
P-11 Lincoln Boulevard
(Downtown) 1st Street to 7th Street Install a bike route along Lincoln Boulevard (Downtown) from 1st Street to 7th Street
Class III (Bike
Route) 0.55 $2,148 $2,148
P-12 Lincoln Boulevard Sterling Parkway to Park and
Ride
Install a buffered bikeway along Lincoln Boulevard from Sterling Parkway to north of Park and Ride lot.
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
0.89 $71,437 $93,932
P-13 Ferrari Ranch Road Lincoln Boulevard to Caledon
Circle
Install buffered bike lanes along Ferrari Ranch Road from Lincoln Boulevard to Caledon Circle.
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
1.50 $119,416 $157,020
P-14 Moore Road
Class I east of E. Joiner
Parkway to Class I highway
crossing
Connect Class I east of E. Joiner Parkway to Class I highway undercrossing
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
0.70 $56,212 $73,913
P-15 H Street 1st Street to 7th Street Install a buffered bikeway along H Street from 1st Street to 7th Street.
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
0.54 $43,514 $57,216
P-16 Chambers Drive Class I at Moore Road and
Nicolaus Road
Install a bike route along Chambers Drive connecting Moore Road and Nicolaus Road
Class III (Bike
Route) 0.41 $1,630 $1,630
P-17 1st Street Douglas Drive to Joiner
Parkway
Install buffered bike lanes along 1st Street from Douglas Drive to Joiner Parkway.
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
0.60 $166,577 $166,577
P-18 Twelve Bridges Drive Industrial Avenue to
Colonnade Drive
Install buffered bike lanes along Twelve Bridges Drive from Industrial Avenue to Colonnade Drive.
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
1.44 $115,199 $151,475
265
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 2 of 3
PROJECT ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION DESCRIPTION FACILITY TYPE
LENGTH
(MILES) ESTIMATED COST
ESTIMATED COST WITH
SCL UNIT COST FOR
CLASS II ONLY
P-19 J Street 1st Street to 7th Street Install a bike route along J Street from 1st Street to 7th Street Class III (Bike Route) 0.55 $2,150 $2,150
P-20 7th Street O Street to L Street Install a buffered bikeway along 7th Street from O Street to L Street
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
0.20 $16,246 $21,362
P-21 F Street 3rd Street to 5th Street Install a bike route along F Street from 3rd Street to 5th Street Class III (Bike Route) 0.18 $716 $716
P-22 E Street 1st Street to 7th Street Install a buffered bikeway along E Street from 1st Street to 7th Street
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
0.55 $43,601 $57,331
P-23 E Street Gateway Drive to 1st Street
(Extension)
Install a buffered bikeway along E Street from Gateway Drive to 1st Street as an extension.
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
0.12 $9,287 $12,212
P-24 Virginiatown Road and
McCourtney Road East Avenue to City Limits Install a buffered bikeway along Virginiatown Road and McCourtney Road from East Avenue to City Limits.
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
1.35 $107,709 $141,627
P-25 9th Street/H Street 7th Street to O Street Install a buffered bikeway along 9th Street/H Street from 7th Street to O Street
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
0.64 $51,101 $67,193
P-27 Regional Connection
Trail connection to
Roseville/Rocklin at Wildcat
Boulevard
Connect Lincoln bike paths to Roseville and Rocklin regional trail network.
Class I (Multi-
Use Path) 0.22 $472,103 $472,103
P-29 Ferrari Ranch Road
Improve Class II lanes to
improve connection between
Sun City to
Downtown/McBean Park
Drive
Improve Class II lanes to improve connection between Sun City to Downtown/McBean Park Drive
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
0.24 $18,858 $24,796
P-31 Lincoln Boulevard Multi-Use
Connection
Lincoln Boulevard / Ferrari
ranch Road/ Auburn Ravine
Connection
Continuation of Class I trail along Ferrari Ranch Road east of Lincoln Boulevard.
Removing/replacing the existing sidewalk with a Class 1 trail, cantilevering the bridge as necessary, and providing a ramp/trail connection on the NW corner of Ferrari Ranch Road/Lincoln Boulevard.
Class I (Multi-
Use Path) 0.25 $3,963,645 $3,963,645
P-32 Colonnade Drive Separated
Bike Lanes
Colonnade Drive / Stark
Bridge Road
Extend Class II bike lane from S. of Red Rock to Twelve Bridges and to Lincoln Library/Twelve Bridges School
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
0.31 $24,459 $32,161
P-33 East Avenue Bicycle Lane
Gap 6th Street to 7th Street Connect Class II lane from S. of 6th Street to N. of 7th Street Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
0.09 $7,282 $9,575
P-35 Lincoln Boulevard Multi-Use
Path
Parallel to Lincoln Boulevard Plan for bicycle path paralleling Lincoln Boulevard from Sterling Parkway to 1st Street and 7th Street to north City Limit.
Class I (Multi-
Use Path) 3.00 $6,585,429 $6,585,429
P-36 Third Street Bike Lanes
Third Street from Ragsdale
Court/Ahart Court to Grand
Breeze Lane/Laehr Drive
Upgrade Class III to Class II bike lane to connect to existing lanes at Ragsdale and Laehr
Class II
(Buffered
Bikeway)
0.20 $15,595 $20,506
TOTALS 33.96 $15,988,483 $16,739,560
266
City of Lincoln Bicycle Master Plan Page 3 of 3
Proposed Spot and Citywide Improvements
PROJECT ID LOCATION DESCRIPTION IMPROVEMENT TYPE ESTIMATED COST P-04 Eastridge Dr. / Twelve Bridges
Elementary Address daylighting at intersections for student safety. Safety Improvement $250,000 P-28 Citywide (Various Intersections) Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection $140,000 P-30 Citywide E-Bike/NEV Policy E-Bike/NEV Policy Varies P-31
Lincoln Boulevard / Ferrari ranch
Road/ Auburn Ravine
Connection
Improve Lincoln Boulevard crossing connection from Ferrari Ranch Road to east of Lincoln Boulevard Crossing/Connection
$48,859
P-34 Citywide (Various Locations) Address tree root damage, pothole repairs, and general path surface maintenance. Priority areas:
Hillwood Loop, McCourtney Road, East Avenue. Maintenance $30,000 P-37 Priority areas: Hillwood Loop,
McCourtney Rd, East Ave. Signal activated ped/bike crossing to connect S. Caledon Circle trail to North Caledon Circle trail Crossing/Connection $48,859 P-38 Caledon Class I Trail Intersection improvements for bicycle safety Crossing/Connection $48,859 P-39 Citywide (Various Locations) Consider using AB43 to justify speed limit reductions based on high ped/bike activity Safety Improvement $80,000 P-40 Colonnade Dr / Twelve Bridges
Dr Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection $48,859 P-41 Citywide (Various Locations) Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection $48,859 P-42 12th Street/East Avenue Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection $48,859 P-43 East Avenue/4th Street Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection $48,859 P-44 J Street/7th Street Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection $97,719 P-45 3rd Street/O Street Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection $48,859 P-46 Ferrari Ranch Road - Ingram
Pkwy; Sun City Blvd Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection $342,015 P-47 Ferrari Ranch Road/McBean
Park Drive Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection $390,874 P-48
Lincoln Boulevard at 1st Street;
3rd Street; McBean Park Drive;
5th Street; 6th Street; 7th Street
Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection $48,859
P-49
E. Joiner Parkway at Sterling
Pkwy; Groveland Ln; Danbury
Dr/ Downing Cir; Moore Road;
1st Street; 3rd Street; 5th Street;
Nicolaus Road
Bicycle intersection improvements (i.e., bike turn pockets, bike signal) Bicycle Protection $48,859
TOTALS $1,819,201
267
CITY OF LINCOLN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2026
APPENDIX F: CONNECTIVITY MATRIX
268
NETWORK BASELINE Total School Parks Transit Zero-Vehicle HH Zero-Vehicle Transit Reference for improvement 22.9% 20.8% 19.1% 16.6% 25.5% 17.2% Project ID Project Name Location Total School Parks Transit Zero-Vehicle HH Zero-Vehicle Transit Impact Tier P-01 E. Joiner Parkway Protected Bikeway E. Joiner Parkway (Full Length) 30.7% 32.1% 30.5% 23.9% 32.7% 23.9% Moderate P-02 Fieldstone Traffic Circle Bike Safety E. Joiner & Fieldstone Dr. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-03 Twelve Bridges Drive Buffered Bikeway Twelve Bridges Drive (Full Length) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-04 School Safe Routes - Twelve Bridges
Elementary Eastridge Dr. / Twelve Bridges Elementary 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-05 Westview Dr. School Bike Lanes Westview Dr. at Twelve Bridges Middle School 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-06 First Street School Corridor First Street (D Street to Joiner) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-07 McBean Park Drive Lincoln Blvd to Ferrari Ranch Rd 31.1% 32.1% 30.6% 25.7% 33.1% 25.6% High P-08 SR-65 Crossing Moore Rd west and east of highway 32.4% 33.2% 31.4% 26.9% 33.5% 25.6% High P-09 Auburn Ravine Crossing Moore Rd east of highway to Chambers Dr 32.4% 33.2% 31.4% 26.9% 33.5% 25.6% High P-10 Class I under E. Joiner Pkwy E. Joiner Pkwy 32.6% 33.2% 31.4% 26.9% 33.5% 25.6% High P-11 Lincoln Blvd (Downtown) 1st St to 7th St 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-12 Lincoln Blvd Sterling Pkwy to Park and Ride 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-13 Ferrari Ranch Road Lincoln Blvd to Caledon Cir 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-14 Moore Road Class I east of E. Joiner Pkwy to Class I highway crossing 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-15 H Street 1st Street to 7th Street 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-16 Chambers Drive Class I at Moore Road and Nicolaus Rd 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-17 1st Street Douglas Dr to Joiner Pkwy 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-18 Twelve Bridges Drive Industrial Ave to Colonnade Dr 32.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% High P-19 J Street 1st St to 7th St 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-20 7th Street O St to L St 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-21 F Street 3rd St to 5th St 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-22 E Street 1st St to 7th St 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-23 E Street (Future) Gateway Drive to 1st Street (Extension) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-24 Virginiatown Rd and McCourtney Rd East Avenue to City Limits 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-25 9th St/H St 7th St to O St 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-26 Ferrari Ranch Rd Trail Connection Ferrari Ranch Rd at Dog Park 43.1% 39.7% 46.6% 33.2% 47.4% 33.9% Transformative P-27 Regional Trail Connection -
Roseville/Rocklin Wildcat Blvd / City Limits 43.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transformative P-28 Traffic Signal Bike Detection Citywide (Various Intersections) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-29 Sun City Lincoln Hills Connection Sun City to Downtown/McBean Park 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-30 E-Bike/NEV Management Program Citywide 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-31 Lincoln Blvd Multi-Use Connection Lincoln Boulevard / Ferrari ranch Road/ Auburn Ravine Connection 43.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transformative P-32 Colonnade Dr. Separated Bike Lanes Colonnade Dr. / Stark Bridge Rd 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-33 East Avenue Bicycle Lane Gap 6th Street to 7th Street 43.9% 40.0% 46.7% 33.4% 47.5% 34.1% Transformative P-34 Path Maintenance Program Citywide (Various Locations) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit Projects evaluated
City of Lincoln Bikeways Master Plan
Proposed Project Connectivity Matrix
49 269
Project ID Project Name Location Total School Parks Transit Zero-Vehicle HH Zero-Vehicle Transit Impact Tier P-35 Highway 65 Multi-Use Path Parallel to Highway 65 69.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transformative P-36 Third Street Bike Lanes Third Street from Ragsdale Ct/Ahart Ct to Grand Breeze Ln/Laehr Dr 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-37 Caledon Trail Connection Caledon Class I Trail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-38 Colonnade Dr. Intersection
Improvements Colonnade Dr / Twelve Bridges Dr 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-39 Speed Limit Reduction Citywide (Various Locations) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-46 East Avenue 12th Street 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-47 McBean Park Drive East Avenue 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-48 7th Street J Street 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-49 O Street 3rd Street 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-50 Ferrari Ranch Road Ingram Pkwy; Sun City Blvd 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-51 Ferrari Ranch Road SR-193/McBean Park Drive 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-52 Lincoln Blvd 1st Street; 3rd Street; McBean Park Drive; 5th Street; 6th Street; 7th Street 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-56 E. Joiner Pkwy
Sterling Pkwy; Groveland Ln; Danbury Dr/
Downing Cir; Moore Road; 1st Street; 3rd Street;
5th Street; Nicolaus Road
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit
P-58 E. Joiner Pkwy Bella Breeze Drive (N and S) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit P-60 Twelve Bridges Drive Parkside Drive/Southcreek Drive 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No measured benefit High — Total connectivity is at least 8.0, but less than 15.0, percentage points above the network baseline.
Transformative — Total connectivity is at least 15.0 percentage points above the network baseline.
Note: A ‘No measured benefit’ rating means the current model does not quantify an increase against the selected connectivity measures. These projects may still close bicycle-network gaps, remove barriers, or improve route continuity and safety.
IMPACT TIER DEFINITIONS
No measured benefit — No quantified increase across the six connectivity measures. The project may still close bicycle-network gaps, remove barriers, or improve route continuity and safety.
Moderate — Total connectivity is at least 3.0, but less than 8.0, percentage points above the network baseline. 270
SUBJECT:
Adopt a Resolution Approving the Liberty At Lincoln Phase 2 Large Lot Final Map And Authorizing the Recording of the Final Map. (Kaylie Tavenner)
SUBMITTED BY:
Kaylie Tavenner
DEPARTMENT:
Engineering
DATE:
September 22, 2026
Item Number 13.E
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Council adopt a resolution as follows: (a) approving the Liberty at Lincoln Phase 2 Large Lot Final Map, and (b) authorizing the City Clerk to sign the Clerk’s Statements and record the Final Map.
BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION:
The Liberty at Lincoln Phase 2 project, which is part of the Lewis Property in Village 7 Specific Plan Project Area, is located west of Sorrento Parkway and Ferrari Ranch Road intersection.
Phase 2 is bounded by Moore Road to the west and north, Sorrento residential area to the east, and Ferrari Ranch Road to the south.
The Lewis Property Large Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map was approved June 8, 2010 per City Council Resolution 2010-098. The Liberty at Lincoln Phase 2 Large Lot Final Map will divide one parcel into six large lots. The Liberty at Lincoln Phase 2 Large Lot Final Map will also abandon a street and highway easement, public utility easement and temporary construction easements that are no longer needed.
The property owner, Lincoln Land Holdings, LLC is now requesting approval of the Liberty at Lincoln Phase 2 Large Lot Final Map.
City costs for review of the Liberty at Lincoln Phase 2 Large Lot Final Map and Improvement Plans were funded pursuant to the City’s master fee schedule with full cost recovery borne by the applicant through funds deposited into Developer Fund 248.
FINDINGS/ANALYSIS:
The Liberty at Lincoln Phase 2 Large Lot Final Map (Attachment 2) was reviewed by the City’s Surveyor for technical correctness and the City Engineer for conformance with the approved Tentative Map and Conditions of Approval (Attachment 3). No public improvements were conditioned for this final map.
STAFF REPORT
271
Written notices of the street and highway easement, public utility easement and temporary construction easements abandonment were provided private utility companies and no objections letters were received. The street and highway easement has not been improved. A new alignment of the public street easement and public utility easement are dedicated with the Liberty at Lincoln Phase 2 Large Lot Final Map.
Staff is requesting that the City Council approve the Liberty at Lincoln Phase 2 Large Lot Final Map (Attachment 2).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The approval of the final map is exempt from further review pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080(b)(1) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15268(b)(3).
LEVINE ACT COMPLIANCE:
The Levine Act requires a party (or the party’s agent(s)) to a proceeding before the City of Lincoln that involves any action or consideration to their contract, license, permit, or other entitlement for use, to disclose any campaign contribution made to City elected or appointed officer totaling more than $500 within the 12 months before the City decision.
The applicant submitted a Levine Act Statement to the City and cited no contributions to a City elected or appointed officer totaling more than $500 within the reporting period.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Liberty at Lincoln Phase 2 project will increase required levels of maintenance associated with public streets, storm drain, water, sewer, landscaping, open space, street lighting, and stormwater quality features throughout the City. The Liberty at Lincoln Phase 2 project has annexed into Community Facilities District (CFD) 2018-1 (Maintenance Services) to help mitigate the increase in infrastructure maintenance associated with the project. The project will also be required to annex into the CFD 2018-2 (Public Services) to provide funding to mitigate the subdivision’s impact on the General Fund once the individual lots are developed.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Liberty Phase 2 Large Lot Final Map Resolution_Final.2.docx Attachment 2 - Liberty at Lincoln Ph 2 Large Lot Final Map.pdf Attachment 3 - LLTM Conditions Resolution 2010-098.pdf
272
Resolution No. 2026-XXX