Att D - CCC Mobility Hub Plan and Appendices — San Pablo City Council, November 20, 2023

Acknowledgements
City Council
Abel Pineda, Mayor
Patricia Ponce, Vice Mayor
Arturo Cruz, Councilmember
Elizabeth Pabon-Alvarado, Councilmember
Rita Xavier, Councilmember
Planning Commission
Jon Owens, Chair
Jerome Jackson, Vice Chair
Roberta Feliciano, Planning Commissioner
Paul Morris, Planning Commissioner,
Johana Gurdian, Planning Commissioner
City Staff
Sarah Kolarik
Mel Mackson
Sandra Castaneda Marquez
Libby Tyler
Jimmy Zhou
Project Stakeholders
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit)
Contra Costa College
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
San Pablo Economic Development Corporation
West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) Western Contra Costa County Transit (WestCat)
Consultant Team
Kimley-Horn
Mark Thomas
Toole Design Group

Funding for this plan is provided by

Table of Contents

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

2. Project Purpose and Objectives ................................ ................................ .......................... 2

3. Study Area Context ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 3

3.1. Contra Costa College ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4

3.2. Adopted City Plans and Policies ................................ ................................ .................. 5

3.3. Existing Transportation Conditions ................................ ................................ ..............15

4. Outreach Round 1 Summary................................ ................................ .............................. 37

4.1. Stakeholder Meeting #1 ................................ ................................ .............................. 37

4.2. Round 1 Online Survey ................................ ................................ ............................... 37

4.3. Stakeholder Meeting #2 ................................ ................................ .............................. 41

5. Proposed Network Improvements ................................ ................................ ......................42

5.1. Proposed Access and Safety Improvements ................................ ............................... 42

5.2. Streetscape Concepts ................................ ................................ ................................ .47

5.3. Corridor Improvement Concepts ................................ ................................ .................49

5.4. Transit Improvements ................................ ................................ ................................ .53

6. Outreach Round 2 Summary................................ ................................ .............................. 56

7. Policy Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ ...62

7.1. Curb Management Policy Recommendations ................................ .............................62

7.2. Bike Parking Policy Recommendations ................................ ................................ .......66

7.3. Streetscape Policy Recommendations ................................ ................................ ........69

7.4. TOD Integration and Planning Policy ................................ ................................ ..........71

7.5. Shared Mobility Feasibility ................................ ................................ ..........................73

7.6. Feasibility of BART Extension ................................ ................................ .....................80

8. Project Implementation ................................ ................................ ................................ ......82

8.1. Project Benefits ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........82

8.2. Implementation Strategies ................................ ................................ ..........................82

8.3. Steps to Implementation ................................ ................................ .............................84 Appendices ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 85 Appendix A: Outreach Round 1 Summary ................................ ................................ .............. A Appendix B: Network Access Improvements ................................ ................................ .......... B Appendix C: Outreach Round 2 Summary ................................ ................................ .............. C Appendix D: Improved Cost Estimates ................................ ................................ ................... D

iii

Table of Figures
Figure 1. Project Timeline ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1 Figure 2: Study Area ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 3 Figure 3. General Plan 2030 Land Use Map ................................ ................................ .............. 6 Figure 4. General Plan Update Specific Plan Areas ................................ ................................ ... 7 Figure 5: Study Area Land Use and Potential TOD Housing Opportunity Sites .........................11 Figure 6. Planned Transportation Projects within the Study Area ................................ ..............12 Figure 7. Study Area Roadway Network................................ ................................ ....................16 Figure 8. Existing and Planned Bicycle Network ................................ ................................ .......24 Figure 9. Existing Pedestrian Network ................................ ................................ ......................27 Figure 10. Average Daily Ridership for Bus Stops within the Study Area ................................ ..28 Figure 11: Existing Transit Service and Ridership by Stop ................................ ........................30 Figure 12. Average Weekday Boardings at College Transit Center, by AC Transit Line (February 2020) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........33 Figure 13. Average Weekday Alightings at College Transit Center, by AC Transit Line (February 2020) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........33 Figure 14. Estimated Trips with a Transfer at CCC Transit Center (February 2020) ..................34 Figure 15. Promotional Flyer ................................ ................................ ................................ .....37 Figure 16. Promotional Postcard ................................ ................................ ............................... 38 Figure 17. Round 1 Survey: Preferences for Increasing Transit Use ................................ .........39 Figure 18. Round 1 Survey: Concerns for Travel in Study Area ................................ ................40 Figure 19. Round 1 Survey: Preferences for Increasing Walking, Biking, and Wheelchair Use .41 Figure 20. Proposed Pedestrian Network Improvements ................................ ..........................45 Figure 21. Proposed Bicycle Network Improvements ................................ ................................ 46 Figure 22. Location of the Corridor Concept Areas ................................ ................................ ...49 Figure 23. Cross Section View of Existing (Top) and Proposed (Bottom) Mission Bell Drive Improvements ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................50 Figure 24. Cross Section View of Existing (Top) and Proposed (Bottom) El Portal Drive Improvements ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................51 Figure 25. Proposed Cross-section for Castro Road ................................ ................................ .52 Figure 26. Proposed Cross-section for Moraga Road................................ ................................ 52 Figure 27. Project Website Promotional Banner ................................ ................................ ........56 Figure 28. Pop-up Boards ................................ ................................ ................................ .........57 Figure 29. College Pop-Up Feedback Board ................................ ................................ .............59 Figure 30. Supermarket Pop-Up Feedback Board ................................ ................................ .....59 Figure 31. Round 2 Survey: Most Desired Transit Improvements ................................ .............61 Figure 32. Round 2 Survey: Most Desired Improvements ................................ .........................61 Figure 33. Short-term bike parking examples ................................ ................................ ............67 Figure 34. Examples of long-term bike parking solutions ................................ ..........................68 Figure 35. CCC Mobility Hub Next Steps ................................ ................................ ..................84

List of Tables
Table 1. Land Use Category Breakdown of all Parcels in the City of San Pablo ......................... 5 Table 2: List of Planned, Approved, or In Progress Developments in San Pablo ........................ 9 Table 3. Draft List of Housing Opportunity Sites within the Project Study Area .........................10 Table 4: Transit Service Characteristics at College Transit Center ................................ ............32 Table 5: Average Daily Weekday Ridership by Line at College Transit Center (February 2020)32 Table 6. Trip Purpose for Trips Through College Transit Center ................................ ...............35 Table 7: Top 3 Transfer Route Pairs of Trips that Originate or Terminate at College.................35 Table 8: Top 3 City Pairs of Trips that Originate or Terminate at Contra Costa College ............36 Table 9. Bike/Ped/Traffic Calming Improvement Categories ................................ .....................42 Table 10. Streetscape Improvement Categories ................................ ................................ .......47 Table 11. Proposed Transit Improvements ................................ ................................ ................54 Table 12. Recommended curb function priorities ................................ ................................ ......64 Table 13. Shared Mobility Funding Sources ................................ ................................ ..............79 Table 14. Implementation Packages with Estimated Costs ................................ .......................83

ES-5

Executive Summary

1 1. Introduction
The City of San Pablo is geographically small but has a dynamic mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses. One of the most prominent activity centers in the City is Contra Costa College (“College”), located in the northeastern portion of the City. The City is challenged by a highly congested and disconnected transportation network where vehicles flow from western Contra Costa County and Solano County to the inner Bay Area. With numerous development opportunity sites and significant growth planned in the area around the College, the City applied and received a generous grant from the Measure J Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) Program, administered by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), to identify opportunities to create a mobility hub in the College area. The mobility hub is planned to improve mobility of existing and future City residents, workers, and students by reducing reliance on personal automobiles and improving the safety of alternative transportation modes. It also is intended to encourage transit-oriented development in the College area to meet the City’s housing goals and improve livability.

In mid-2022, the City launched the Contra Costa College Mobility Hub Planning Study (“Study”).

The Study aimed to identify improvements and steps to implement those improvements to create a mobility hub at and around the College, including the College Transit Center, one of the major transit hubs in Western Contra Costa County.

The Study assessed existing corridor conditions and identified needs and opportunities for multimodal and safety improvements. The project team completed two rounds of community engagement at major milestones to share findings and to solicit input. The project team engaged key agency stakeholders at three checkpoints over the course of the project to develop a united vision and consensus around a set of improvements for the area.

The Study developed and packaged a set of recommended improvements to create the mobility hub. The Study findings build upon and advance related transportation planning efforts previously completed for the surrounding area. These recommendations would collectively enhance the safety and comfort for all users of the corridor and expand multimodal options for the residents, students, and faculty in the area. A project schedule with key milestones can be found in Figure 1 below. This report documents the project process, its key findings, and proposed recommendations of the Study.

Figure 1. Project Timeline

2 2. Project Purpose and Objectives
The Study identified opportunities to provide enhanced connections between the College Transit Center and nearby residents, community spaces, development opportunity sites, and the broader multimodal network.

The consultant team and City staff worked together at the outset of the project to establish a set of project objectives. These are described below:

With the guiding objectives established, the project team advanced four related strategies for the completion of the Study:
 Identify mode-specific improvements needed to create a multimodal network in the area;  Identify feasible and accessible connections to planned and in-development projects;  Identify opportunities to implement shared mobility services in the area; and  Obtain public feedback on the overall vision for improving multimodal access in the area and mobility hub elements.

3 3. Study Area Context
The Study Area consists of the College campus, the College Transit Center, the area north of El Portal including the Moraga Road and Castro Road loop, the College Center Shopping Plaza, and the commercial area along San Pablo Avenue between Road 20 and Rivers Street. The Study Area boundary is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Study Area

4 3.1. Contra Costa College
Contra Costa College is a public community college serving the diverse communities of West Contra Costa County. This is an accredited institution recognized by the Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation and the U.S. Department of Education. The College also offers several programs that are separately accredited by external professional and governmental organizations such as the California Board of Registered Nursing and the California Board of Vocational Nurse Examiners. The College serves over 7,000 students each year, the majority of whom are of Latin American, Black/African American, and Asian descent.

The College employed 948 full-time and part-time employees in FY 2016-17.

The College is located on approximately 83 acres in both the City of San Pablo and City of Richmond, east of Campus Drive and north of El Portal Drive. The College’s main access points are along Mission Bell Drive, College Lane, and Castro Road.

Image: Contra Costa College at El Portal Drive and Mission Bell Drive There are 1,573 parking spaces on campus that serve students and faculty. There are bike racks and bike lockers available on campus.

College capital improvements are currently guided by a Facility Master Plan (2018) and a Five- Year Construction Plan. In recent years, the campus has undergone major facility renovations, such as the Athletics Complex renovation, Science Center construction, new campus Safety Center construction, and new Arts Building. No major transportation infrastructure projects are currently planned. The College will be updating its Facility Master Plan in 2024.

5 3.2. Adopted City Plans and Policies
The Study reviewed and incorporated the City’s adopted policies guiding land-use development and transportation, including:
 San Pablo General Plan 2030
 2023-31 Draft Housing Element
 San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (Adopted September 2011)  Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan (Plan initiated Spring-Summer 2022; projected completion in late 2023)
 San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Plan

The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, adopted in September 2011, serves to foster the revitalization of the San Pablo Avenue corridor to transform it into a pedestrian- and transit- oriented boulevard. The document plans out higher-intensity mixed-use development to establish the area for housing growth and as key regional destination with amenities.

The TOD Master Plan identifies blocks, nodes, and corridors within the City of San Pablo that are primed for transit-oriented development. Complete streets principals are applied to the identified areas to connect communities within the City.

The City of San Pablo General Plan 2030 was adopted in 2011 and serves as the City’s guiding document for its transportation and land use goals.

Table 1, with information obtained from the General Plan, shows the full land use categorical breakdown. The City has a predominately residential land use. Within the City, the largest land usage category is low density residential, encompassing 34%, or 601 acres, and of the total planning area.

Table 1. Land Use Category Breakdown of all Parcels in the City of San Pablo Land Use by Category in San Pablo
*Category Acreage Total
Residential (high, medium, low) 837 47%
Commercial/Office 162 9%
Industrial 31 2%
Public/Institutional 250 14%
Roads 415 23%
Other 95 5%
Total 1790 100%
The parcels surrounding San Pablo Avenue are specifically called out in the General Plan as a special planning subarea. The subarea is split between a north and south section, with the dividing road being the intersection at 23rd Street. The north section of the San Pablo Avenue subarea is encompassed fully by the Study Area.

6 The development envisioned the north San Pablo Avenue subarea as a new pedestrian-friendly mixed-use district. This area will be home to local businesses and office space on the first levels of its buildings, with residential development on the upper levels.

Within the Study Area, most of the land use is dedicated to the College and thus falls into the public/institutional category. Additional land uses include neighborhood commercial, medium density residential, and mixed-use zones. The neighborhood commercial land use primarily consists of the College Center shopping plaza, which is situated directly across El Portal Drive from the College and is home to businesses, restaurants, and the San Pablo Supermarket. See Figure 3 for a land use map of the City of San Pablo.

Figure 3. General Plan 2030 Land Use Map
The City of San Pablo recently published the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element. The updated Housing Element documents additional planned land use changes and identifies potential sites for transit-oriented development in the City (Figure 4). The City is required by state law to update its housing element every eight years.

7 Figure 4. General Plan Update Specific Plan Areas

Six planned development projects, listed in

8 Table 2 and shown in Figure 5, are identified within the Study Area, including a new City Park, a multi-story personal self-storage facility and a permanent supportive housing project. Besides the City Park, the permanent supportive housing project is currently under construction and the self-storage facility construction is close to completion. The four planned housing development projects are estimated to add over 158 housing units to the City. These projects will generate increased mobility demands in the area.

9 Table 2: List of Planned, Approved, or In Progress Developments in San Pablo Planned Development Projects
Label Project Name Future Land Use Status Description
1 Community Care
Facility
2523 El Portal Drive
High Density Residential Early Planning
Therapeutic residential
facility for behavioral
health housing up to 32
residents.
2 City Park Project Parks/Recreation Planned Future Park Location at 2600 Moraga Road
3 Self-Storage Project
2622 Moraga Road
Neighborhood
Commercial Under Construction 124,000 sq. Foot Self-
Storage Facility
4 Supportive Housing
2555 El Portal High Density Residential Under Construction 54 Units of Permanent Supportive Housing
5 Residential Housing
2432-2442 22nd
Street
Residential Approved 8 Above Moderate-Income
Residential Units
6 Mid-Rise Housing
2364 Road 20 High Density Residential Approved
58 Above Moderate-
Income and 6 Low Income
Residential Units
7 Contra Costa
Housing Authority
Office
2324 College Lane
Neighborhood
Commercial Approved

Future Section 8 office site
location

10 The City of San Pablo Draft 2023-31 Housing Element identified a list of parcels as opportunity sites for future housing development projects within the Study Area, shown in Table 3. These sites accommodate the state of California Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements on available land, and the selection of sites conforming to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements. In total, the housing element has identified up to 158 housing units that can be built within the Study Area, including 99 low-income housing units.

Table 3. Draft List of Housing Opportunity Sites within the Project Study Area Draft Housing Opportunity Sites
Location
Current
Zoning
Designation
Current Land
Use
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
# of
Units Income Level
14560 San Pablo Ave High Density
Residential
Church/
Religious
Facility

1.29 78 Low Income
14451 San Pablo Ave Residential
Mixed Use Vacant 0.12 3 Above Moderate
Income
(Unidentified)
San Pablo Ave
Residential
Mixed Use Vacant 0.06 3 Above Moderate
Income
(Unidentified)
San Pablo Ave
Residential
Mixed Use Vacant 0.06 3 Above Moderate
Income
14433 San Pablo Ave Residential
Mixed Use Vacant 0.06 3 Above Moderate
Income
14400 San Pablo Ave Residential
Mixed Use
General
Commercial 0.58 21 Low Income
14375 San Pablo Ave Residential
Mixed Use
General
Commercial 0.24 8 Above Moderate
Income
14341 San Pablo Ave Residential
Mixed Use
General
Commercial 0.27 8 Above Moderate
Income
14260 San Pablo Ave Residential
Mixed Use
General
Commercial 0.44 14 Above Moderate
Income
14237 San Pablo Ave Residential
Mixed Use
General
Commercial 0.39 8 Above Moderate
Income
14205 San Pablo Ave Residential
Mixed Use
General
Commercial 0.36 9 Above Moderate
Income
Figure 5 depicts a map of the locations of the planned development projects outlined in blue, draft housing opportunity sites outlined in green, priority development areas highlighted in red, and planned land use by parcel.

11 Figure 5: Study Area Land Use and Potential TOD Housing Opportunity Sites

12 In response to the increased mobility needs generated by the planned housing and development projects, the City has identified over 20 transportation projects within the Study Area to enhance the existing transportation network. Six of those projects have a prominent effect on the travel patterns and mobility options in the Study Area. Therefore, the Study considered previously identified potential enhancements to the baseline network prior to developing additional recommendations. The projects are shown in Figure 6 and described below:

Figure 6. Planned Transportation Projects within the Study Area

13 Details on the planned transportation projects are included below. Three of these projects (El Portal Drive, Rumrill Boulevard, and Broadway Avenue) have received funding for the implementation of improvements. The San Pablo Bridge Replacement project is funded through planning and design.

1. San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Project was started in 2017, via a joint effort by Alameda CTC, WCCTAC, and CCTA. The 13.4-mile segment of San Pablo Avenue between Hilltop Mall in Richmond and downtown Oakland was studied to evaluate the feasibility of multimodal complete streets improvements. Elements of the Project include improving multimodal mobility, efficiency, and safety to sustainably meet current and future transportation needs.

Phase 1, concluded in 2020, identified short- and long-term improvements to address the increasing multimodal demands along the San Pablo Avenue corridor. Phase 1 concluded by identifying that additional location-specific design development and evaluation are needed to advance concepts in Contra Costa County due to: (1) greater variability in geometric and operational characteristics of the corridor; (2) different mode splits and travel needs; and (3) varying attitudes toward preferred improvements.

Phase 2 was completed earlier in 2023 and focused on identifying feasible and jurisdiction-supported improvement alternatives for San Pablo Avenue in Contra Costa County. Alternatives include dedicated transit lanes, protected bicycle lanes, and additional pedestrian and multimodal safety improvements. Phase 2 identified potential next steps as a pilot to create dedicated transit lanes on a portion of the corridor and advancement of a series of safety spot improvements throughout the corridor. WCCTAC and CCTA are currently strategizing on next steps for the effort.

2. San Pablo Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Study was completed in 2022 as an assessment of 10 bicycle and pedestrian corridors identified in the 2017 San Pablo Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP). The study sought to increase residents’ access to comfortable and connected walking and bicycling infrastructure throughout the City. Concept-level designs and cost estimates were developed for each corridor and will serve as a guide for future projects. Three of the studied corridors—San Pablo Avenue (North), Broadway Avenue, and El Portal Drive—are within the Project Study Area.

Study recommendations included:
 San Pablo Avenue (North): Buffered Class II bike lane to close the gap in bicycle connectivity from Road 20 to Rumrill Boulevard.
 El Portal Drive: Two-way Class IV separated bike lane between Broadway Avenue separated bike lane and Church Lane
 Broadway Avenue: Class IV separated bike lane between 11th Street and El Portal Drive separated bike lane

14 3. Rumrill Boulevard Complete Streets Project will revamp the existing four-lane arterial roadway and convert one lane in each direction into a Class IV separated cycle track.

This cycle track will span the entire length of Rumrill Boulevard, connecting from Costa Avenue to San Pablo Avenue. In addition to the cycle track, pedestrian safety improvements are being installed along the corridor. Newly striped pedestrian crosswalks will be receiving RRFBs (Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons) to alert drivers to pedestrians traveling across the corridor. Improved lighting, median islands, and ADA compliant curb ramps will enhance pedestrian safety. Wider sidewalks, new trees and landscaping, and benches will increase pedestrian comfort. The project is fully funded and is expected to be fully constructed by the end of 2023.

4. Broadway-El Portal Cycle Tracks is identified in the San Pablo Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Study. Along El Portal Drive, the project will convert the westbound travel lane into a two-way cycle track on the north side of the roadway. Along Broadway, parking will be removed two also provide a two-way cycle track on the north side of the roadway.

The new two-way cycle track will connect to existing bike lane infrastructure on Church Lane and El Portal Drive, and to other planned bicycle facilities at Rumrill Boulevard and San Pablo Avenue. The two-way cycle track will be at road level, separated from the westbound auto lanes by a raised buffer. Bus boarding islands will be placed at bus stop locations, with the two-way cycle track running between the boarding islands and the sidewalk. The City recently received an Active Transportation Program grant to fund the project.

5. San Pablo Avenue Bridge Replacement focuses on the San Pablo Avenue/Road 20/ 23rd Street intersection in the City of San Pablo. The bridge that spans over San Pablo Creek, is seismically deficient and in need of replacement. Considering the need for a new bridge structure, the City is using this opportunity to redesign the existing six-legged intersection. The study includes an alternative evaluation assessment of three different roadway configurations to alter the intersection configuration. The project will include new pedestrian and bicycle connections at the intersection.

6. I-80 High-Capacity Transit Study (BRT Corridors) was completed in 2017 by the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) to evaluate public transportation options and identify funding opportunities to expand high-capacity transit service and access for the more than 250,000 residents of West County. This transit study examined how to encourage transit use and improve service in underserved communities. The final proposal identified five projects to improve the quality and effectiveness of high-capacity transit in West County, expand alternatives to driving on congested streets and highways, and improve regional air quality. Projects identified for future consideration included Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on San Pablo Avenue and on 23rd Street. The San Pablo Avenue BRT configuration proposed by the Study would operate

15 on San Pablo Avenue between Robert Miller Drive and downtown Oakland, including through the City of San Pablo. The BRT would require converting an existing vehicle lane in each direction to transit-only use. The recommendations of this Study have continued to be analyzed as part of the San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Project.

Additionally, the study analyzed a BART extension from the Richmond Station north to a new Hercules Station, passing through a proposed stop at Contra Costa College in the proposed alignment. The proposed alignment for this extension would follow existing rail right-of-way along Rumrill Boulevard, before tunneling north towards Hilltop Mall and eventually to the City of Hercules.

3.3. Existing Transportation Conditions
Existing Study transportation conditions were analyzed to identify existing network gaps and safety conditions.

3.3.1. Existing Auto Network
A map of the local street network can be found in Figure 7. The map classifies each of the local street networks by roadway classification (private, local, collector, or arterial). Intersections with all-way stop control or signalized intersections are identified on the map. Additionally, speed limits on each of the main roadways surrounding the college campus are depicted.

16 Figure 7. Study Area Roadway Network

17 The Study area includes a mix of arterials, connectors, and local streets, as described below.  San Pablo Avenue is a north-south four-lane arterial located on the western edge of the Study Area. The portion of San Pablo Avenue within the Study Area has four signalized skewed intersections with channelized right-turn lanes and pork-chop islands.

Throughout the corridor, there is a center-dividing median landscape, providing a buffer between the opposing directions of traffic. The speed limit for this corridor is 35 MPH.

San Pablo Avenue is planned for transportation improvements, including those identified by the San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Project and the San Pablo Avenue Bridge Replacement Project.

Image: San Pablo Avenue at Purisima Street, looking north

18  El Portal Drive is an east-west, median-separated four-lane arterial located on the southern boundary of Contra Costa College. Certain segments along the El Portal Drive corridor have a posted speed limit of 25 MPH. Non-school zone segments have a speed limit of 30 MPH. Additionally, there are two pedestrian crosswalks equipped with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at the Mission Bell Drive intersection and just west of the Castro Road intersection. The City received Active Transportation Program grant funds to implement a two-way Class IV cycle track. This will reduce the number of auto travel lanes in the westbound direction from two to one.

Image: El Portal Drive looking west near Castro Road

19  Rumrill Boulevard is a north-south, median separated four-lane arterial located on the western boundary of the Study Area. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH throughout the corridor. The Rumrill Boulevard Complete Streets Project will construct a Class IV cycle track from Costa Avenue to San Pablo Avenue and improvements at the San Pablo Avenue intersection. The number of auto lanes in each direction is being reduced from two to one.

Image: Rumrill Boulevard at 20th Street looking southwest

20  Castro Road - Moraga Road Loop is located in the southeast corner of the College.

Castro Road is a two-lane collector street that splits into a loop road north of El Portal Drive. The western portion of the loop is known as Castro Road and the eastern portion is known as Moraga Road. Within the loop is a former US Army Reserve Center.

Currently, Castro Road has on-street parallel parking availability along the full length of the east and west sides of the corridor, while Moraga Road has angled parking areas on the east side of the street only.

Image: Castro and Moraga Road at Library Drive looking west

21  Mission Bell Drive is a north-south, two-lane collector street that serves as the main entrance path into the College campus. The street extends between the College Center shopping plaza south of El Portal Drive and terminates at Del Camino Drive. The posted speed limit of the corridor is 25 MPH throughout the length of the corridor. The section of the roadway that runs from El Portal Drive to College Lane includes an 18’ foot wide landscaped median divider with planted trees and a wide 8’ foot shoulder in both travel directions.

Image: Mission Bell Drive at College Lane Looking South

22  Campus Drive begins at the intersection of College Lane and Mission Bell Drive and travels along the perimeter of the College campus, before terminating at the intersection of Library Drive and Mills Avenue. The corridor is two lanes wide along its entire length.

The north-south running section between Mission Bell Drive and the Transit Center includes a landscaping median, in addition to a shoulder that is available for on-street parallel parking in both directions. At the Transit Center, a roundabout directs general traffic and transit vehicles to the internal campus road, the Transit Center, or to the continuation of Campus Drive. Along the length of the corridor, there are speed bumps placed to calm traffic speeds to the posted speed limit of 15 MPH.

Image: Campus Drive at the Contra Costa College Transit Center Looking South

3.3.2. Existing Bicycle Network
The only existing bicycle facility present within the Study Area is a Class II, partially buffered, bike lane on both sides of San Pablo Avenue, starting at Rumrill Boulevard and continuing north. There is a network gap between Rumrill Boulevard to Road 20 along San Pablo Avenue, where there is currently no bike infrastructure present. The Class II bike lane continues to the south at Road 20. In addition to the existing bicycle facility, there is a Class IV cycle track under construction on Rumrill Boulevard as a part of the Rumrill Boulevard Complete Streets Project.

The City of San Pablo’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was adopted in 2017 and identified locations for future bicycle facilities within the Study Area. Proposed improvements include a bike facility gap closure along San Pablo Avenue and a Class IV cycle track along El Portal

23 Drive. This two-way cycle track is planned for the north side of El Portal Drive and will extend the existing cycle track from Church Lane west to San Pablo Avenue. See Figure 8 for a map of existing and planned bicycle facilities.

Key gaps in the existing bicycle network identified by the community and the project team are summarized below:
 Gaps in bicycle network on San Pablo Avenue, El Portal Drive, Castro Road, Moraga Road, and College Lane
 Lack of bicycle crossings at intersections
 Lack of bicycle turn boxes along San Pablo Avenue

24 Figure 8. Existing and Planned Bicycle Network

25 3.3.3. Existing Pedestrian Network
Pedestrian facilities within the Study Area consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and RRFBs. RRFBs currently are located on El Portal Drive west of Castro Road and east of Mission Bell Drive. The Study Area mostly contains standard visibility crosswalks but has recently received upgraded high-visibility crosswalks at the intersection of Mission Bell Drive and El Portal Drive. Existing sidewalks are shown in Figure 9.

Along San Pablo Avenue, the average sidewalk width is eight feet and features street trees. El Portal Drive has narrow five-foot sidewalks but in certain locations in the eastbound direction they widen out to accommodate street trees. Mission Bell Drive and Campus Drive have five- foot sidewalks, with street trees on the east side of both streets. There is no sidewalk on the west side of Campus Drive.

Key challenges for the existing pedestrian network, as identified by the community and project team, are summarized below:
 Low pedestrian visibility at intersections
 Lack of pedestrian wayfinding
 Some crosswalks have minimal safety features
 Lack of street trees and streetscape treatments
 Non-ADA compliant curb ramps and crossings

26 Image: Missing & Deteriorate Crosswalk on College Ln at the Transit Center

Image: View of the Landscape Median along the Center of Campus Drive, Looking South

27 Figure 9. Existing Pedestrian Network

28 3.3.4. Existing Transit Network
There are eight AC Transit bus stops within the Study Area, excluding the College Transit Center. These bus stops generally lack enhanced amenities, such as bus shelters, benches, or trash cans.

A transit analysis identified the travel patterns of riders within the Study Area. The analysis focused on ridership, usage by time of day, origin and destination patterns, and characteristics of College Transit Center users. The analysis utilizes automatic passenger counter (APC) data and onboard passenger survey results provided by AC Transit from February 3, 2020 to February 23, 2020.

Figure 10 identifies ridership activity at the College Transit Center, the Mission Bell Dr & College Lane stop, and other nearby bus stops within the Study Area . Data was provided by AC Transit and was collected in February of 2020.

Figure 10. Average Daily Ridership for Bus Stops within the Study Area * Non-College Stops include:
• El Portal Dr & Mission Bell Dr
• El Portal Dr & Castro Rd
• San Pablo Av & El Portal Dr
• San Pablo Av & Purisima St
• San Pablo Av & Rivers St
• San Pablo Av & Rumrill Blvd
• San Pablo Av & Stone St
• San Pablo Av & Castro St
1124
270
1281
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Transit Center Mission Bell Dr & College
Ln
*Non-College
Number of Riders

29 Ridership at each bus stop within the Study Area is shown in Figure 11. Excluding the Transit Center, the top three stops with the highest weekday average daily ridership are:

1. San Pablo Avenue & Stone Street – 213 Passengers

2. San Pablo Avenue & El Portal Drive – 197 Passengers

3. Mission Bell Drive & College Lane – 74 Passengers
The first two stops are adjacent to the College Center shopping plaza. The stop at Mission Bell Drive & College Lane is adjacent to the College campus, south of the College Transit Center.

30 Figure 11: Existing Transit Service and Ridership by Stop

31 College Transit Center Utilization
The College Transit Center is located at the northwestern corner of the campus, on Campus Drive. The Transit Center has a total of 10 bus bays in a sawtooth configuration. A transit information panel is located at the entry point of the College Transit Center with route details and other service information. Bus stop signage and a shelter and bench are located at each bus stop location. Real-time transit is displayed at one of the bus shelters, with limited visibility due to shelter configuration. Other amenities present at the transit center include sidewalk lighting, a driver relief area, and mounted CCTV near the entrance.

The College Transit Center is served by 10 AC Transit lines and one WestCAT bus route. Of those 10 AC Transit bus routes, four routes are “Service to Schools Lines,” which only operate when school is in session and are scheduled around school bell times. The hours of operation and bus frequencies during non-holiday weekdays for the remaining six AC Transit routes and the one WestCAT route can be found in Table 4. Excluding the school routes, there are a total of 234 bus trips daily at the Transit Center. The most frequent bus route is AC Transit Line 72R (Rapid), with a headway of 12 minutes. The College Transit Center serves as the terminus point of Line 72R.

Image: Contra Costa College Transit Center

32 Table 4: Transit Service Characteristics at College Transit Center AC Transit
Route Frequency (min) Service Hours Bus Trips/Day
71 30 6:20 AM - 8:20 PM 29
72 30 4:50 AM - 11:50 PM 39
72R 12 6:12 AM - 7:14 PM 66
74 30 4:24 AM - 8:55 PM 34
76 30 5:15 AM - 8:15 PM 31
376 30 9:23 PM - 2:24 AM 11
WestCAT
Route Frequency (min) Service Hours Trips/Day
C3 30 7:30 AM - 8:05 PM 24

AC Transit is currently undertaking the AC Transit Realign effort, which is a full system-wide reassessment of bus service. The outcome of that process may result in changes in bus service through the transit center. A final service plan is anticipated to be adopted in the first half of 2024.

Table 5 summarizes data showing the average daily ridership per AC Transit line for the College Transit Center. February 2020 was chosen for the data analysis period because it contains the most recent data prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time the analysis was performed, more recent post-pandemic data was not available reflecting normal school operations. Line 72R is the most popular line for both boardings and alightings, with an average of 261 riders per day, representing approximately 25 percent of total College Transit Center ridership.

Table 5: Average Daily Weekday Ridership by Line at College Transit Center (February 2020) AC Transit Line Average Daily Boarding Average Daily Alighting 71 92 96
72 116 78
72R 158 103
74 118 97
76 74 65
376 14 8
Grand Total 572 447
Figure 12 and Figure 13 display the average daily boardings and alightings, respectively, by hour for the month of February 2020 at the Transit Center. AM ridership peaks at 9 AM with over 50 alightings. After the morning peak, the number of alightings per hour remains steady at around 30 alightings before decreasing after 3 PM. The peak boarding hour occurs at 3 PM, with an average of 60 boardings.

33 Figure 12. Average Weekday Boardings at College Transit Center, by AC Transit Line (February 2020)

Figure 13. Average Weekday Alightings at College Transit Center, by AC Transit Line (February 2020)

4 14
22 34
24 32
28 42
50 44
54 60
52 28 28
18 14 12
6 6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70Passengers
Time of Day
Route
376
72R
76 74
72 71
1 5
17 38
33 52
33 29
34 30 31 33
27 24
17 14
8 7 7 7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70Passengers
Time of Day
Route
376
72R
76 74
72 71

34 Based on on-board surveys provided by AC Transit, of the 1,124 daily trips at the College Transit Center, 74 trips (7%) involve one transfer and 9 trips (<1%) involve two transfers (Figure 14). Thus it can be surmised that most trips through the College Transit Center have an origin or destination nearby.

Figure 14. Estimated Trips with a Transfer at CCC Transit Center (February 2020) Table 6 depicts the number of average daily trips, sorted by trip purpose at the College Transit Center.

1041
74 9
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 Transfers 1 Transfer 2 Transfers
Number of Trips
Number of Transfers Taken

35 Table 6. Trip Purpose for Trips Through College Transit Center Home College/
University
School
(K-12) Workplace Personal
Business Shopping Airport
College/
University 48%
Workplace 16% 3%
Dining 1% < 1%
Escorting
Others 1%
Medical 2%
Personal
Business 1% 1%
School (K-12) 4% 1%
Shopping 1% 6% 4%
Social/
Recreational 5% 2% < 1% 1% 1%
Work
Related 1%
Hotel
Residence
0% 1%

As shown in the table, of the 1,124 daily trips through the College Transit Center, almost two thirds (62%) referenced “College/University” as either an origin or destination of the trip. Thus, it can be surmised that approximately one-third of the trips through the transit center do not relate to the adjacent College use.

Of the trips that involve a transfer at some point during the trip and originate or terminate at Contra Costa College, the top three transfer routing pairs are all at Del Norte BART Station. The survey results indicate that 79 percent of the trips that originate or terminate in the Study area Area do not involve any transfers. The top city pair of trips that originate or terminate in the Study area Area are between San Pablo and Richmond, with 1,078 trips daily, roughly 40 percent of the total daily transit trips (Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. and Table 8).

36 Table 7: Top 3 Transfer Route Pairs of Trips that Originate or Terminate at College Top 3 Transfer Route Pairs
Routing Pair Number of Average
Daily Trips
Line 72R and BART 161
Line 72 and BART 41
Line 76 and BART 40

Table 8: Top 3 City Pairs of Trips that Originate or Terminate at Contra Costa College Top 3 City Pairs
City Pair Number of Average
Daily Trips
San Pablo and Richmond 1,078
San Pablo and El Cerrito 383
San Pablo and San Pablo 198

3.3.5 Overall Network Issues

In reviewing the current transportation network, the Study identified the following bicycle and pedestrian gaps, safety issues, and accessibility issues for all modes.

Pedestrian Issues
 Low pedestrian visibility at intersections
 Lack of pedestrian wayfinding
 Missing crosswalk facilities
 Deficient or dated streetscape, including lack of pedestrian lighting  Several curb ramps and crossings are not accessible

Bicycle Issues
 Missing bicycle lanes on San Pablo Avenue, El Portal Drive, Castro Road, Moraga Road, and College Lane
 Missing bicycle crossings at intersections
 Challenges turning to/from major streets

Roadway Issues
 Unsafe or illegal U-turns at mid-block locations along El Portal Drive  Narrow parking shoulder along Campus Drive
 Vehicles making right turns at high speeds along San Pablo Avenue  Vehicles traveling at high speeds along certain corridors (Mission Bell Dr, Castro Rd, and El Portal Dr)
 Some streets are too wide

37 4. Outreach Round 1 Summary

4.1. Stakeholder Meeting #1
Stakeholder meeting #1 took place in Wednesday - August 31, 2022, from 2:00 P.M. – 3:00 P.M. via Zoom. The meeting was to solicit input on potential opportunities and improvement focus areas that would be of interest and provide the most benefits to the Study Area.

4.2. Round 1 Online Survey
An online survey was conducted to collect information about travel behaviors, preferences, and needs for users who travel to, from, or through the Study Area . The survey was hosted on the Alchemer platform, available in English and Spanish, and active between October 17, 2022, and November 28, 2022. The survey (Figure 15 and Figure 16) was advertised via a variety of channels, including:
 Social media: Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, and
Instagram
 Postcards mailed to 3,977 residents within a 1-mile
walkshed from the Transit Center
 An email blast from the City of San Pablo
 Project Webpage, hosted on the City of San Pablo
website
 City Manager’s e-newsletter
 Presentations to local community groups, including
San Pablo Youth Commission and the Richmond
Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee

Figure 15. Promotional Flyer

38 Figure 16. Promotional Postcard

Using parcel information from the Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office, parcels within a 1- mile buffer of the Study Area were selected to receive the promotional postcard at their mailing address.

A $25 gift card drawing was offered as an incentive to complete the survey. While the survey received 4,985 responses, most were identified as spam. A detailed spam removal process yielded 61 responses.

The results of the survey informed the overall vision and needs for improving multimodal access in the Study Area.

Of respondents, 69 percent reported that they live near the Study Area, and 44 percent reported that they drive through the area. Nearly 20 percent of respondents regularly use buses at the Transit Center, while nearly 10 percent bike through the Study Area.

Respondents were asked to select up to three factors that would encourage them to use transit more often. A full breakdown of the responses can be found in Figure 17. The top three responses were as follows:
 More destinations accessible by Bus (46%)
 Shorter wait times between buses (36%)
 Faster bus service (33%)

39 Figure 17. Round 1 Survey: Preferences for Increasing Transit Use Respondents were asked to identify their top three concerns about traveling through the Study Area. (Figure 18). The latter concern may also reflect a personal safety concern, which was noted in open-ended responses throughout the survey. The top three concerns all centered around traffic safety:
 Intersections feel dangerous (38%)
 Cars drive too fast (33%)
 Not enough lighting (31%)
46%
36%
33%
30%
28%
20%
18%
11%
8%
8%
5%
5%
3%
More destinations accessible by bus
Shorter wait times between buses
Faster bus service
More reliable bus service
Cheaper bus fares
Greater sense of personal safety
Easier transfers between transit services
BART station located in the study area
Better/more bus shelters
Bicycle lanes and sidewalks near bus stops
Bikes, e-bikes, and/or electric scooters…
Other (write your response)
None of the above
What would encourage you to use public transit more often (select up to 3)?

40 Figure 18. Round 1 Survey: Concerns for Travel in Study Area

The last part of the survey focused on how to encourage walking, biking, and wheelchair use in the Study Area. Figure 19 demonstrates the top three factors that would encourage people to use active transportation more often in the Study Area. The top responses are as follows:
 Safer crosswalks (39%)
 New or improved sidewalks (23%)
 Slower cars (20%)

38%
33%
31%
20%
15%
13%
13%
13%
13%
11%
11%
10%
10%
8%
8%
3%
2%
2%
0%
Intersections feel dangerous
Cars drive too fast
Not enough lighting
Sidewalks feel unsafe
Accessibility for people with disabilities
Lack of marked crosswalks
Not enough bike lanes
Bike lanes feel unsafe
Buses do not go where I want to go
Missing sidewalks
Too much traffic congestion
Sidewalks are not well maintained
Buses are unreliable or wait times are too long
Roads or bike lanes are not well-maintained
Buses or bus shelters feel unsafe
I don't have any concerns about this area
Missing bus shelters
Bus shelters are not well-maintained
Other (please specify)
What are your top 3 concerns about traveling in the study area (select up to three)?

41 Figure 19. Round 1 Survey: Preferences for Increasing Walking, Biking, and Wheelchair Use

Common concerns throughout the survey responses centered around personal safety and traffic safety. Key takeaways from open response feedback included:
 Transit Center location feels secluded and could benefit from being in a more central, visible area
 Intersections feel unsafe
 Cars travel too fast
 Not enough lighting
 Build more bike lanes (especially protected)
 Make existing shopping centers pedestrian friendly
 Sidewalks feel unsafe
Summary of Outreach Round 1 activities and results can be found in Appendix A.

4.3. Stakeholder Meeting #2
Stakeholder Meeting #2 took place Wednesday - February 1, 2023, from 2:00 P.M. – 3:00 P.M. via Zoom. The meeting was conducted after Round 1 of Public Outreach with the objective of reviewing public input, the initial network, and mobility concept alternatives.

42 5. Proposed Network Improvements

5.1. Proposed Access and Safety Improvements
Based on the findings of the network circulation assessment, desired connectivity improvements fall into three categories: bicycle improvements, pedestrian improvements, and traffic calming.

The assessment accounted for existing roadway network constraints and planned projects when developing proposed enhancements. The initial list of proposed improvements was reviewed and commented on by stakeholders and the community through project engagement activities.

Table 9 shows the final improvement categories that were established as a framework for the improvement identification process.

Table 9. Bike/Ped/Traffic Calming Improvement Categories Proposed Improvement
Categories Example Photos Study Objectives
Bicycle Improvements
• Bike Box
• Bike Crossing
• Bike Lane with/without
Buffer
• Cycle Track
• Multi-use Path
• Bike Parking

Create a connected
and comfortable
bicycle network

Shared-use Path
Raised Bikeway

43 Proposed Improvement
Categories Example Photos Study Objectives
Pedestrian Improvements
• Advanced Limit Lines1
• Curb Ramp
• Construct New
Sidewalk
• Existing Sidewalk
Upgrade
• Leading Pedestrian
Interval
• New or Improved
Pedestrian Crosswalk
• Pedestrian Signal

Close sidewalk gaps
and improve
pedestrian
connections
Traffic Calming
• Median Modification
• Raised Intersection
• Side-street Bulbout2
• Traffic Circle
• Signal Improvement

Improve safety for
vulnerable roadway
users, including
bicyclists and
pedestrians

1 Photo Source: Minneapolis Street Design Guide, 2021
2 Photo Source: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Advanced Limit Lines
Raised Intersection
Curb Ramp Upgrade
Side-street bulbout

44 An initial list of proposed improvements was developed based on the existing conditions assessment and community input. It was then commented on and reviewed by agency stakeholders and the community through public engagement activities. After receiving input, a total of 57 spot improvements (see Appendix B) are recommended to create a well-connected and comfortable circulation network within the mobility hub area.

The improvements focus on three major areas:
 Improving east-west bicycle and pedestrian connections across San Pablo Avenue into the College and the College Transit Center. This includes new bicycle facilities in the east-west direction along College Lane, upgrades to the existing pedestrian path along Mission Bell Drive and Campus Drive, and pedestrian crossing upgrades at important intersections.
 Improving intersection safety at high activity areas. Intersection improvements such as advance limit lines, side-street bulbouts, and ADA-compliant crossing ramps would improve safety and access through this area.
 Improving access improvements for facilities along the Castro Road-Moraga Road loop.

This includes sidewalk improvements, a Class IV cycle track on El Portal Drive, a Class II bike lane along Castro Road, a Class I shared-used path along Moraga Road, and other intersection crossing upgrades. A particular focus is on access to the new City Park.

Figure 20 and Figure 21 map the locations of the proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements within the Study Area, respectively.

45 Figure 20. Proposed Pedestrian Network Improvements

46 Figure 21. Proposed Bicycle Network Improvements

47 5.2. Streetscape Concepts
One of the community’s stated priorities for improvement in the mobility hub area is to improve lighting and pedestrian comfort. This can be achieved through upgrading the streetscape to include pedestrian-focused amenities such as lighting and wayfinding signage and improving corridor aesthetics through street trees and monumentation. See Table 10 for a list of proposed streetscape elements.

Table 10. Streetscape Improvement Categories
Proposed Improvement
Categories Example Photos Study Objectives
Streetscape Improvements
• Placemaking
• Gateway monument
• Wayfinding sign
• Pedestrian street lighting
• Landscape and
vegetation (tree, flower,
biofiltration tree)
• Barrier (fencing)

Create a sense of
place and improve
community open
space
The project team identified opportunity areas for placemaking elements at intersection corners and College entry roadways. For example, the plaza at the corner of El Portal Drive and Castro Road can be enhanced with wayfinding signage, monumentation, bench seating, specialty paving, and public art. Placemaking areas throughout the Study Area should complement each other with unifying site furnishings and features.

Three key corridors around the campus perimeter were identified as candidates for streetscape improvements as part of this planning effort. These corridors serve as the main ingress and egress roadways into the campus.

Placemaking
Tube Steel Fence

48  Castro Road-Moraga Road Loop – At the southeastern entrance to the College off of El Portal Drive, there is an opportunity for gateway features, wayfinding signage, and placemaking elements to enhance the entrance and make it more welcoming. The northwest corner of the intersection is in close proximity of a bus stop and the Performing Arts Center. As Castro Road leads into the campus, the addition of street trees and lighting will make a more comfortable corridor for pedestrians. The front of the future City Park site provides an opportunity for signage and site furnishings that blend into the future park space.

 Mission Bell Drive - Within the existing median along Mission Bell Drive, there is a row of healthy coniferous trees. The intent of the streetscape design is to retain those trees but reduce their lower canopy to improve visibility through the corridor. Removal of the existing paving in the median will provide room for the addition of ground plane planting.

The existing sycamore trees on the eastern side of Mission Bell Drive will also be protected in place. The sycamores will be adjacent to a new widened walkway and landscape area. On the west side of the street, by narrowing the travel and parking lanes, there is an opportunity for bio-filtration planters with trees and a widened sidewalk. The vision for the northeast corner of Mission Bell Drive and El Portal Drive includes reimagining the paved area as a plaza space and reinvigorating the planting with a swath of flowering trees.

 El Portal Drive - The San Pablo Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Study, completed in 2022, includes drawings for roadway improvements throughout El Portal Drive. There are opportunities to enhance the previously developed concepts for an improved streetscape. Median and street trees can remain, but the planter areas can be enhanced with new shrub and ground cover planting. New pedestrian-scale lighting will help illuminate the sidewalks and provide a night-friendly corridor.

49 5.3. Corridor Improvement Concepts
Corridor concepts were developed for the following three corridors, as shown in Figure 22:
 Mission Bell Drive
 El Portal Drive
 Castro Road-Moraga Road loop

Figure 22. Location of the Corridor Concept Areas

50 Mission Bell Drive
Existing wide travel lanes contribute to observed instances of vehicle speeds exceeding the posted speed limit of 25 MPH. By narrowing the lane width, studies have shown that vehicles will typically travel at lower speeds. The narrower lane width allows for new elements such as a raised bikeway and biofiltration planters, while still preserving existing amenities such as parallel street parking. These elements achieve the goal of enhancing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along the corridor. See Figure 23 for the existing and proposed cross-section views of Mission Bell Drive.

The proposed enhancements are as follows:
 Narrow the travel and parking lanes
 Widen sidewalk and install biofiltration planters as landscape strip to buffer pedestrians from autos
 Add pedestrian-scale lighting
 Install raised two-way bikeway on the east side
 Replaced paved median with landscaping

Figure 23. Cross Section View of Existing (Top) and Proposed (Bottom) Mission Bell Drive Improvements

Existing
Proposed

51 El Portal Drive
El Portal Drive borders the southern edge of the campus and is used by several bus routes and is one of the few east-west corridors in the city. The goal of the improvements is to create a connected bicycle network, provide for improved access to transit, and enhance bicycle and pedestrian comfort. Bikeway improvements were identified as part of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridors Project. See Figure 24 for the existing and proposed cross-section views of Mission Bell Drive.

Proposed enhancements:
 Narrow the travel lanes and median
 Widen sidewalk, add pedestrian-scale lighting, improve landscape on both sides  Improve transit stop area
 Install two-way cycle track on north side of street with raised concrete buffer  Add pedestrian-scale lighting the full length of the corridor

Figure 24. Cross Section View of Existing (Top) and Proposed (Bottom) El Portal Drive Improvements

Existing
Proposed

52 Castro Road-Moraga Road Loop
Castro Road-Moraga Road loop serve as the access point to the eastern portion of campus, including points of interest such as the Performing Arts Center, the College library, and Middle College High School. With the addition of a new City Park, as well as permanent supportive housing, new bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure will benefit all ages and abilities. See Figure 25 and Figure 26 for the proposed cross-section views of Castro Road-Moraga Road loop.

Proposed enhancements:
 Narrow the travel lanes and convert to parallel parking  Widen landscape area and add fencing
 Install shared-use path along northbound Castro-Moraga Road  Add pedestrian-scale lighting for the full length of the corridor

Figure 25. Proposed Cross-section for Castro Road

Figure 26. Proposed Cross-section for Moraga Road

Proposed
Proposed

53 5.4. Transit Improvements
Transit improvements are desired within the Study Area to make transit more reliable, safer to access, and a more comfortable experience for riders. Improvements are recommended at the College Transit Center, at bus stops within the Study Area, and in limited locations along transit routes.

The existing College Transit Center is functional but is lacking many of the modern amenities and features typical of other high quality transit hubs in the Bay Area. Improvements to amenities such as upgraded pedestrian-scale lighting, secure bike parking, a cohesive wayfinding system, electronic real-time information signs, modernized shelters and benches, and trash bins would create a more comfortable environment for passengers who are waiting at the College Transit Center. The College Transit Center would also benefit from improved accessible circulation and wider pedestrian paths to connect it with both the College and the surrounding community. Improvements to the College Transit Center should be coordinated with AC Transit as the primary operator and the College as the landowner.

To assess the need for bus stop amenity improvements outside of the College Transit Center, existing stops were inventoried, and existing ridership was analyzed. Higher-ridership stops are recommended for enhanced amenities, such as shelters, benches, trash cans, and wayfinding.

Bus stop improvements should be coordinated with AC Transit and may require an agreement between the City and AC Transit for maintenance of the additional amenities.

In a few locations, operational improvements provide an opportunity to make the bus more reliable and shorten travel times. The improvements may include transit signal priority (TSP) to reduce the delay for buses at right lights and intersection improvements such as a new traffic signal at the Mission Bell Drive and El Portal Drive intersection to allow for improved bus turning movements and reduced delay. Additional improvements on San Pablo Avenue were recommended by the San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Project Phase 2, and are incorporated into this Study, including bus stop consolidation and relocation and transit priority treatments, such as dedicated bus lanes and queue jumps.

See Table 11 for improvement categories and examples and how those are aligned with the Study objectives.

54 Table 11. Proposed Transit Improvements
Proposed Improvement
Categories Example Photos Study Objectives
Transit Center Improvements
• Shelter Upgrades
• Bike Parking
• Real Time Information
• Lighting
• Accessibility
• Wayfinding
• Clipper Vending Machines

Create a
comfortable and
accessible
Transit Center
for passengers
Operational Improvements
• Transit Signal Priority
(TSP)1
• Bus Stop Relocation
• Dedicated Bus Lanes2
• Queue Jumps

Improve bus
operation
performance,
decreasing travel
times and increasing
bus reliability

1 Photo Source: British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 2 Photo Source: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Stop Relocation
Shelter Upgrade
Real Time Info
TSP
Bus Lane
Bus Queue Jump

55 Proposed Improvement
Categories Example Photos Study Objectives
Bus Stop Improvements
• Bus Bulbs1
• ADA Accessibility Upgrades
• Amenities Upgrades
(Bench, Shelter)

Improve bus stop
locations with
additional amenities

1 Photo Source: Google
Amenities Upgrades
Bus Bulb

56 6. Outreach Round 2 Summary
The preliminary recommendations and streetscape designs described in Chapter 5 were presented to the community in the Round 2 outreach period. Feedback was requested from the community on their support for the improvements and whether other improvements not identified are needed to sufficiently address the needs of the Study Area.

Round 2 community engagement included:
 Two in-person, pop-up events:
o Contra Costa College Earth Day on April 21, 2023 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. o San Pablo Supermarket at the College Shopping Center on April 28, 2023 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.
 Virtual public info session:
o May 2, 2023 on Zoom from 6-7:30 p.m. (recorded and posted online, linked to the project webpage)
 Supplemental online survey:
o Survey was open April 21, 2023 through May 31, 2023.

All events were advertised via the project webpage and through the City’s various social media channels and email lists. All materials were provided in English and Spanish. Spanish-speaking City staff were present at the pop-ups and info session for interpretation. Figure 27 shows the website banner created to advertise the events and survey, and the social media graphics were designed in a similar theme.

Figure 27. Project Website Promotional Banner

6.1. In-person Pop-up Events
The Project set up a table during the Earth Day event at the College. Two 24x36” boards were developed for the pop-up events, see Figure 28. One board was map-based and focused on proposed bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and wayfinding/placemaking improvements and where these improvements would be located. The other board shared preliminary streetscape designs, highlighting key changes, for the three project streetscape corridors: El Portal Drive, Mission Bell Drive, and the Castro-Moraga Road loop.

57 Figure 28. Pop-up Boards

58 The project pop-up table was well attended, and over 30 people engaged with information board and our sticker-voting exercise board. The preliminary recommendations for the Mobility Hub were well received. Public participation at both events was captured in photos shown below.

Image: San Pablo Supermarket Pop-up
At both events, participants were asked to use stickers to respond to the questions on the board. Additional comments or concerns not captured by the questions and multiple-choice answers were asked to be written down on sticker note sheets. Visual representations of feedback received from each event are shown in Figure 29 and Figure 30.

Image: College Pop-up

59 Figure 29. College Pop-Up Feedback Board

Figure 30. Supermarket Pop-Up Feedback Board

60 6.2. Virtual Public Info Session
The virtual information session was a recorded presentation featuring similar information as the pop-ups. The recording of the session and bilingual slide decks were posted on the project website (https://www.sanpabloca.gov/2809/CCC-Mobility-Hub-Plan). The public was alerted to the availability of this media through the City mailing list and social media channels and was also encouraged to take the online survey.

6.3. Online Survey
The online survey was intended to provide an opportunity for input from the broader public who did not attend the in-person pop-up events. The online survey included the same information and questions as the pop-ups and info session and was advertised along with the other events.

As noted in the introduction of this summary, the survey was advertised through the same channels as the pop-ups and info session. Nine total responses (one of which was in Spanish) were received.

6.4. Results
Survey responses from all three outreach methods were compiled and summarized to reflect public perspective on the proposed pedestrian, bicycle improvements, and overall transit recommendations.

Most respondents (approximately 83%) felt the proposed sidewalk, crossing, and bikeway improvements would encourage them to walk, bike, or roll more in the Project area. Additional free-response feedback emphasized the need for improvements already identified in the preliminary recommendations, such as:
- Expanding transit service and making the College Transit Center safer and more comfortable.
- More benches at the Transit Center and throughout the Project area would be useful. - Supported safer, well-maintained, and expanded bicycle infrastructure. - Wanted to see bikes in the road and not on the sidewalk.

Summary of Round 2 Outreach activities including a list of open-ended responses can be found in Appendix C.

Participants were presented with a list of the preliminary transit improvement recommendations and asked “Which of the proposed transit improvements would encourage you to use transit more in the project area?.” Lighting and real-time bus arrival information were the top two choices across all participants (Figure 31).

6.5. Stakeholder Meeting #3

Followed Round 2 Public Outreach activities, findings and resulted gathered from both in-person events and the online survey. Wednesday – July 26, 2023, from 10:30 A.M. – 12:00 P.M.

61 Figure 31. Round 2 Survey: Most Desired Transit Improvements The three higher priorities for improvements identified by respondents were: “safer street crossings,” “more lighting,” and “improved landscaping/new street trees”, as shown in Figure

32. This input will be utilized by the City in determining which improvements to prioritize for near-term implementation based on available funding.

Figure 32. Round 2 Survey: Most Desired Improvements

10%
10%
13%
13%
23%
30%
Bus Shelters
Bike Parking
Benches
Directional Signage
Real-time Bus Arrival Info
Lighting
Which of the proposed transit improvements would encourage you to use transit more in the project area? (Select up to two)
16%
16%
16%
23%
26%
29%
35%
39%
42%
52%
Additional Bus Stop Amenities
Public Art & Gateway Monuments
Bike Parking
Directional Signs
Transit Center Improvements
New & Improved Bike Lanes
Wider Sidewalks
Improved Landscaping
More Lighting
Safer Street Crossings
Of all the improvements proposed, which three are most important to you? (Select up to 3)

62 7. Policy Recommendations

7.1. Curb Management Policy Recommendations
Demands on street curb space have continued to grow, placing pressure on cities to prioritize curb use to effectively meet resident and business needs. New services such as app-based Transportation Network Companies (i.e., Uber or Lyft), and on-demand public transit services such as micro-transit are becoming more popular and require curb space for pick-up and drop- off. Increased online purchasing and on-demand delivery due to the global pandemic is causing more delivery trucks to use loading zones or double parking on streets. However, the growth of micro-mobility options such as scooters, electric bikes, or mopeds often are also competing for the same space as passenger and delivery vehicles. This increasingly diverse mobility landscape raises concerns about conflicts between different modes and equity issues with space allocation. A well-rounded multimodal area requires a dynamic curb assignment with more than just space for private car parking.

With the proposed street improvements and an evolving urban landscape in the City, competition for curb space is increasing. This section provides strategies and a priority framework for the management of valuable curb space. These recommendations take on a flexible, dynamic, and responsive approach as an attempt to meet the City’s growing mobility needs.

The City and Planning Division can leverage these policy recommendations to help navigate the curb assignment process either as a standalone process or as part of fronting development project reviews. The strategy is developed through the review of key regulations and management documents from Contra Costa County and the City of San Pablo in the context of the mobility hub area.

Curb space is defined as the border between roadway and sidewalk which separates moving traffic and arrival activities. Effective curb assignment allows travelers to make that transition seamlessly and meet the trip purpose in the most convenient way.

Curb assignments should reflect the surrounding land use context, neighborhood history, and cultural preference. A corridor within an area with high concentration of shops and restaurants will have different needs and users than a residential neighborhood with single family homes.

63 There are five main curb functions for this urban area context:

Access for people: pick-up/drop-offs, transit boarding zones, shared mobility services

Access for goods: dedicated space for delivery trucks, short term loading zones

Storage for vehicles: on-street parking spaces for vehicles for extended periods

Protected curb space: curb lane for through movement of motorized or non- motorized usage (transit-only lane and bike lane), visibility zone (daylighting, sight-distance for turning movements and pedestrian safety)

Public space and services: parklets, bike parking, community services

To achieve a balanced and equitable curb space assignment, shared curb space should be managed thoughtfully and efficiently by following the policy of prioritizing sustainable transportation, aligning with the Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries, and complying with the Climate Action Strategy goal of promoting trips made by sustainable modes. These supporting policies help to prioritize the curb space allocation process. Below are five principles taken from the City’s supporting policies:

1. Improve traffic safety and support Vision Zero

2. Enhance and support transit operations (Transit First Policy)

3. Increase equity and access for all modes

4. Integrate land use and transportation

5. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
With these five principles at the forefront, the recommended curb function priorities are set for the four general land-use types, as shown in Table 12.

64 Table 12. Recommended curb function priorities
Low Density
Residential
Medium-High
Density Residential
Mixed-use
Neighborhood
Commercial
Major Attraction
(Public/Institutional)
Description
Predominately
single-family homes
or single-family
homes split into
several units. There
may be a small
number of
businesses serving
nearby residents
such as corner
stores, dry
cleaners, and
coffee shops.

Predominately mid-
to high-rise
apartments with
businesses nearby
serving residents
such as corner
stores, dry cleaners,
and coffee shops.

A mix of residential
and commercial
services such as
restaurants, coffee
shops, corner stores,
laundry services, and
small-scale retail.

High density and
intensity area. Areas
with institutions, or
buildings that attract a
unique set of users.

Needs may be specific
to time of day and
season.

Example of
areas within
the City
• West of San Pablo
Ave
• Willow Rd
Neighborhood
• Along San Pablo Ave
• Near City Hall
• Contra Costa College
• Elementary and HS
campuses
• Shopping centers

Priority

High

Low

The above priorities set the foundation for the curb space assignment process that is in line with regional land-use policy. When curb zones are being used for other non-motorized through movement, such as dedicated transit or bike lanes, those uses take priority over other curb functions. After first allocating curb space based on the highest priority functions, remaining curb areas will be allocated to the lower priority functions. Lowest priority functions do not mean that no space is being allocated for those functions.

65 Other opportunities for advanced planning of curb space allocation include:
 Prioritize accessibility in curb management
 Right-size loading zones according to latest land-use context  Consider pricing short-term parking for street-front business corridor  Proactively plan for City service vehicles
 Develop guidelines for motorcycle parking
 Develop guidelines for EV parking and charging facilities  Increase evening and weekend parking and loading regulations  Increase and prioritize enforcement, proactively citing misuse of loading zones  Develop a parking signage system and deploy signs proficiently with other transportation programs

66 7.2. Bike Parking Policy Recommendations
The City has plans to enhance the existing bicycle network and provide a reliable alternate transportation option to support regional and local active transportation policies. However, with additional bikes traveling through the area to visit commercial and residential destinations, the need for publicly-available bike parking will increase. The 2017 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan details how to develop and maintain a walkable and bikeable network but provides little guidance on implementation of bicycle parking.

This section explores additional strategies to establish a formulated process in determining appropriate bicycle parking types, quantity, and placements for the City of San Pablo. This section also describes bike parking options, their benefits, and implementation considerations.

There are two main types of bicycle parking that are commonly found at transit centers, community centers, and other mobility hubs: short-term and longer-term storage. Each type of parking serves a unique need for patrons who are accessing the mobility hub.

7.2.1. Short-term Bike Parking
Short-term bike parking serves people leaving bicycles for two hours or less. Short-term bike racks are designed to keep bikes vertical and prevent them from falling against each other.

These bike racks are typically installed on the sidewalk or placed in the parking lane on the roadway. Short-term parking should be designed, built, and installed with security in mind, and an overall emphasis on convenience and accessibility. Examples of various types of bike racks commonly used are shown below in Figure 33.

67 Inverted U-shape

Source: Premier Site Furniture Vendor
Artistic Bike Rack

Source: San Pablo Avenue Artistic Bike Rack by Patch

Bike Corrals

Source: Main Street – Santa Monica by LA StreetBlog
Ring Rack

Source: Ground Control Systems
Figure 33. Short-term bike parking examples

7.2.2. Long-term Bike Parking
Long-term parking is for bicycle parking needs of longer than two hours and for people who bike that may be willing to travel further to access it in exchange for greater security and protection from the elements. Long-term bicycle parking should be free or low cost to users, easy to use, and readily available at major local destinations with demand for secure facilities. Long-term bicycle parking options are found primarily at city-owned garages in and around downtown, at regional transit hubs, and at train stations. Typically, long-term bicycle parking reservations are available on websites or through online apps for advance trip planning. Examples of various types of long-term bike parking solutions commonly used are shown below in Figure 34.

68 Bike Cage/Room

Store multiple bicycles, flexible for bikes in different shapes or sizes. Self-serve: key, keypad or cardkey
access control locked with one point of entry.1
Locked Storage Box

Each box fits one bicycle, traditionally access by on-
demand electronic cardkey.2
Bike Shelter

Providing covered parking for outdoor bike racks.3
Bike Stations

A designated in-door space that provides vertical
storage.4
Figure 34. Examples of long-term bike parking solutions

7.2.3. Implementation Considerations
The quantity of bicycle storage is determined by the anticipated demand and site conditions, in collaboration with local jurisdictions and other stakeholders. New modes of access such as bike and scooter shares must be accounted for and may impact the amount of storage space provided for privately owned bicycles.

Placement should follow the following principles to maintain accessibility and safety:

1 Photo Source: Duo-Gard
2 Photo Source: BART
3 Photo Source: Ground Control Systems
4 Photo Source: Saris

69  Widely available and decentralized – an abundant supply of bicycle parking near destinations complements the inherent flexibility of bicycles as a mode of travel.  Intuitive – bicycle parking should be easy to understand and use for all types of people, including youth, seniors, and those on the neurodivergent spectrum.  Low maintenance – bicycle parking should be sturdy and require little or no work to maintain.
 Economical – to provide bicycle parking in sufficient quantity and begin to meet citywide demand, the racks themselves need to be reasonably affordable.  Well-connected with other modes – parking should be located at entrances of transit centers or other hubs with clear connections to path of travel for pedestrians and bicyclists.
 Safe – placement should be in a well-lit area, not hidden behind walls or tall features, and must not impede pedestrian traffic flow in the open space environment.

7.2.4. Land-use and Housing Policy
The City established several land-use policies that promote a bicycle friendly community by enticing local land development projects to trade parking spaces for bicycle facilities and amenities.

Namely, Section 17.54.050 of the San Pablo Zoning Ordinance provides waivers or reductions up to 10% in parking standards for mixed-use buildings located within a quarter mile of transit with addition of bike parking. The Housing Elements amended the Zoning Code to allow reduced parking requirements for all new residential projects located on San Pablo Avenue close to transit service and increased credits for bicycle use, up to one space upon provision of a bike rack. The San Pablo Municipal Code imposed bicycle facilities as part of on- and off-site required improvements for the residential subdivision process. In addition, the San Pablo Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan indicates that long-term parking is recommended at the College Transit Center and future TOD sites. Bicycle cages or rooms are required in the Planning Code for buildings of certain sizes within specific land use zones. The San Pablo General Plan 2030, which guides long-range physical development in the City, is centered around economic development, creating a pedestrian and bicycle-friendly community, and promoting residential development.

7.3. Streetscape Policy Recommendations
The streetscape of a project area is the holistic view of the purposes of a roadway corridor.

These purposes are split into two main categories: the functional requirements of a street, and the visual aesthetic of the overall corridor. Each element within a streetscape concept is carefully planned to be both visually pleasing as well as provide a functional need for its users.

These elements, in turn, create public spaces that utilize a local community’s assets, ideas, and potential with the intention of improving urban vibrancy. The overall project objective for the streetscape concept is to create a sense of place and arrival.

70 Landscaping

Landscaping elements along the corridor factor heavily into the overall visual appeal of the public environment. However, it is important to note the plethora of functional benefits a well- planned landscape plan can produce for a roadway corridor. Sustainable and habitat-friendly landscaping elements should account for local biodiversity, water, and energy conservation, while simultaneously providing a natural experience for the general public. Landscape elements along sidewalks provide shade for pedestrians and additionally act as a soft buffer against traffic.

It is a best practice to include materials that promote wildlife habitat and preserve local biodiversity. Tree species that are familiarized with the local microclimate, including native species and drought resistant plantings should be selected. If possible, existing trees and plants should be preserved as it is best to minimally disturb the habitat. However, in many cases, it is best to upgrade existing landscaping, especially if the existing landscaping is not being actively maintained by the City.

Biofiltration

Biofiltration planters provide water quality treatment in areas where right-of-way restrictions are limited. Planters provide water quality treatment and reduce water runoff volumes. Such right-of- way restrictions are present in building areas with constrained setback limitations. Additional limitations are present when existing soil conditions limit the amount of runoff capacity or are contaminated with other pollutants.

It is recommended to design planters to fully drain runoff within 24 to 72 hours. The surface footprint of the planter should be maximized to support the most optimal runoff amounts.

However, pedestrian access should be accounted for while maximizing planter size. It is best to provide a pedestrian cut-through every 20 to 40 feet to retain pedestrian access from the sidewalk to the curb. This will minimize pedestrian trampling of the planter and subsequent damage. Native plants should be prioritized, as they cause the least disturbance to the surrounding habitat.

ADA Compatibility

Sidewalks should be widened to 8 to 12 feet at transit stops, as narrow sidewalks create uncomfortable pinch points that can make it difficult or even impossible for those who use mobility devices or strollers to maneuver. Curb ramps should follow ADA guidelines on width and slope to allow greater public access to shared spaces.

71 7.4. TOD Integration and Planning Policy
TOD involves the synthesis of transportation and land use planning to promote lively communities that are concentrated to a geographic core, contain a mixture of land uses, and are walkable and engaging. In the context of this project, the frequent transit service at the College Transit Center and throughout the Mobility Hub will serve as the nexus for future transit-oriented development.

TOD can be applied to the Mobility Hub through the unification of land use planning and community development policies, which will then maximize transit as the primary guiding principle for improvement of the Project area. Taking inspiration from complete street principles, the Study recommendations will foster a dynamic public realm with the interface of transit, bike, and pedestrian users. By growing and investing in community development, especially in housing and climate impacted areas, the Study Area has the opportunity to develop into an attractive public district.

7.4.1. Implementation Feasibility and Challenges
TOD best practices consist of any new development that is designed to embrace transit facilities and integrate the pedestrian environment. It is important to utilize infill parcels for the revitalization of older urban communities and neighborhoods. The implementation of affordable housing within walkable proximity to transit contributes to a reduction in vehicle needs and cost.

Another good practice of TOD is to eliminate security fences, gates, and barriers between uses to avoid segmentation and provide physical and visual connections. An additional positive approach is expanding a city’s retail customer base by placing small retail spaces along streets instead of at single, isolated nodes. Reducing the number of parking stalls when they are located within walking and/or biking proximity to transit stations is also highly desired. Another best practice of TOD is utilizing trees, bollards, and other street furniture to protect pedestrians from the roadway and provide a more comfortable pedestrian friendly environment.

The following sites within the Study Area are viable for TOD, as outlined in the Housing Element Update:

 Parcel 416-120-012 at 14260 San Pablo Avenue currently serves as a general commercial use, but is zoned for residential mixed use and could accommodate up to 14 housing units on the 0.44 acres. This parcel is located on the San Pablo Avenue North Corridor near a corner that is adjacent to the Central District and Contra Costa College District, providing an opportunity for transit, bike, and pedestrian connectivity.
 Parcel 416-140-047 at 2555 El Portal Drive is zoned neighborhood commercial and features a vacant office building that is currently undergoing renovations to convert it into a permanent supportive housing project with 54 units. The project will house people who are disabled and homeless, who will pay 30% of their income in rent.

This project site is located near the edge of the project area, to the southeast of the Castro-Moraga Road loop. This location will allow these new residents pedestrian access to both the college and local retailers. Other resident amenities will include recreation areas, EV parking, a dog park, and arrangements for a future residents’ garden and rooftop solar.

72  Parcel 416-170-005 at 14650 San Pablo Avenue is currently used as a church but is designated as high density residential under the general plan. The 1.29-acre site has the opportunity for all of its 78 possible units to be lower income capable. It is across the street from Mission Bell Drive and a bus stop location. The Transit Center is also within bicycle and walking distance to this site.

To achieve successful implementation of TOD principles, a development project must overcome several challenges. These include:

 Funding: A project relies on funding to successfully be thought out, developed, and implemented. There are several funding sources and programs available. However, these opportunities are highly competitive. A tactic to present a more competitive candidate project is to demonstrate project readiness by means of planning and documentation (like this project) and public need within a disadvantaged community.  Constrained Right of Way: Right of way constraints can put additional pressure and restrictions on proper TOD design and implementation. Lack of physical space to adequately provide the public with the necessary improvements can, if not addressed, lead to negative impacts on the neighborhood and the users.  Use Demand Exceeding Supply: An unexpected increase in the number of transit riders on an unprepared or inadequately facilitated system may result in backed up or delayed service, which may discourage continued long-term use. By identifying and defining the needs in the TOD planning effort, potential use can be estimated and improvements designed to allow transit providers the flexibility to expand and adjust as necessary.
 Phasing the Improvements: Issues typically arise at the edges. The TOD improvements in the various project areas throughout the City of San Pablo will likely be implemented over time with varied stakeholders and project teams leading the efforts. Careful consideration of how these staggered phases interface will be critical to develop and maintain proper transitions of improvements and avoid unintended obstructions or omissions. Also, any planning of TOD improvements must be flexible in nature to successfully integrate new technologies and solutions as they become available. The ultimate goal is a community that is functionally and aesthetically cohesive.
 Maintenance: The last major obstacle of implementing TOD is related to maintenance issues and responsibilities. Some ways to overcome these issues are through designing projects that have low maintenance, water wise planting and irrigation, graffiti resistant coatings and materials, skateboarder abatement, and easily cleaned and durable site furnishings. The TOD solutions and materials must be sustainable from a maintenance standpoint by meeting the need of extending maintenance dollars and resources. Overall, it is important to consider whether transit routes, public gathering areas, and open spaces will be maintained frequently enough and to a high standard that the community continues to utilize all of the TOD elements.

73 7.5. Shared Mobility Feasibility
Shared mobility refers to transportation services where a vehicle is shared among multiple users, either at the same time or consecutively, and includes shared micromobility (bikeshare and scootershare), carshare, microtransit, and the more traditional shared modes of carpooling and vanpooling. Over the last decade, shared mobility has become integral to how people move in urbanized areas. Shared mobility can fill an important role in helping communities mitigate their transportation-related carbon emissions by making it easier for people to shift to more sustainable modes of transportation, such as bikeshare (which includes pedal-powered bikes as well as electric, or e-bikes). In 2022, 51% of all trips made in Contra Costa County were less than 3 miles — a relatively quick trip on a bike or scooter.1 Shared mobility can also improve transportation equity and accessibility for residents without access to a private vehicle by offering alternatives to driving, providing better first and last mile connections to public transit, and making motor vehicles more accessible through ride-hailing or carsharing.

This section focuses on two forms of shared mobility: shared micromobility (bikes and e- scooters) and shared vehicles. Initial recommendations on how to integrate each service into the Mobility Hub project are also provided.

7.5.1. Bikeshare or Scootershare Program
The most common type of these share programs includes docked bikeshare, dockless bikeshare, and dockless e-scooter. Bikeshare is usually available as pedal-powered or electric pedal assist (e-bikes); however, e-bikes are becoming increasingly popular, especially in dockless systems.

Docked Bikeshare
Docked bikeshare systems include a kiosk at each station where transactions and information are processed to release and lock the bikes at a series of inter-connected docks. In these systems, the locking mechanism and technology is provided at the dock. Although some systems offer independent locks for mid-trip stops, to complete a trip the user generally must return the bike to a designated station. This helps to significantly minimize sidewalk or public- right-of-way obstructions, but limits users’ travel behavior and is considered less convenient than systems with free-floating/dockless parking.

Docked bikeshare system assets (bikes, docking stations, etc.) are often owned by public agencies, with day-to-day operations contracted out to a non-profit or private company. The need for docking stations and kiosks in addition to bicycles significantly raises costs and can deter private investment. Capital costs are often covered by a mix of federal grants and local sources of funding, and operational costs are covered by a mix of user revenues, sponsorships and advertising, and/or grants or subsidies. This is the model used by LA Metro Bike Share in Los Angeles; MTC is looking to transition Bay Wheels to this model as well. In 2015, MTC and partner municipalities signed a zero-cost contract with Lyft (then Motivate) to own and operate a

1 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2023.

74 regional docked bikeshare system, now known as Bay Wheels.1 However, in February 2023, MTC approved $16 million to pay for an expansion of Bay Wheels e-bikes and stations – particularly in East Bay communities – as well as to lower fares and membership costs.2

Image: Bay Wheels E-bikes at a Docking Station. (Photo credit: Bay Wheels) Dockless or Free-Floating Bikeshare
Dockless bikes do not need a dock to park because they have a wheel lock that immobilizes the bicycle when the bicycle is not checked out to a user. Bicycles can be parked anywhere within the system’s service area, with regulations specifying general parking rules (bikes must be parked upright, bikes cannot obstruct pedestrian or driver paths of travel, etc). Users sign up and locate bicycles using the operator’s smartphone application.

Dockless systems may be set up with stations (often called “hubs”) to make them look and function like docked systems, but these stations can be as simple as standard bicycle racks with signage because a transaction kiosk and docks are not needed. In contrast to docked bikeshare, dockless pedal bikeshare systems are now relatively uncommon and most systems are electric.

While dockless bikeshare systems were widely deployed by private companies in the late 2010s due to their lower cost compared to docked bikeshares, these companies have since shifted to deploying even cheaper dockless scooters. Some operators, however, continue to operate dockless bikes, either on their own or in combination with electric scooters. Operators of dockless bikeshare systems often favor opportunities where municipalities share the cost of the

1 MTC, 2015. https://mtc.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11371492&GUID=09E91047-7D71-421B-BD01-8043846C9426 2 MTC, 2023. https://mtc.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11625493&GUID=0C7F3CF7-8DEE-45E6-94EB-D067161C9AFD

75 system, such as buying the equipment or providing a subsidy, which makes the business model more like that used for docked bikeshare.

In June 2021, the City of Richmond launched its e-bikeshare program with Bolt Mobility using MTC Bike Share Capital Program grant funds. The system was planned to comprise 250 pedal- assist electric bikes and 25 docking stations when fully deployed. After Bolt Mobility filed for bankruptcy and unexpectedly ceased operations in August 2022, the city partnered with LEAP Mobility to restart its bikeshare program, repurposing the bikes left behind. Phase 1 of the new program saw the return of 100 e-bikes, with the fleet expanding to 300 by the completion of an expected Phase 2.

Image: LEAP Bikeshare Station (Photo credit: Richmond Mayor Tom Butt's Office) LEAP Mobility was chosen as the operator because of its association with the manufacturer of the proprietary bikes that Richmond had bought, which are not compatible with other operators’ systems. Based on the information available, it is unclear whether the system remains in Case Study: LEAP E-Bikeshare (Richmond, CA)
Launched 2022
Partners &
Roles
City of Richmond: equipment owner
Element LEV: equipment provider
LEAP Mobility: operator
Fleet Dockless e-bikeshare Phase 1: 100 bikes; Phase 2 (planned): 300 bikes at 25 stations
Service Area City of Richmond (population: 115,639)

76 operation, what the results were from the pilot phase, and whether a Phase 2 expansion is being actively considered by the City of Richmond.

Dockless E-Scooters
Dockless e-scooters require no pedaling or knowledge of how to ride a bike, making them more accessible and popular with more users. Because the user mostly relies on the electric motor for propulsion, which is controlled by the electronic components onboard, operators and public agencies have the greatest control over the speed and where people can travel using a dockless scooter. Apart from these differences, dockless scooters are similar in operation to dockless bikes: they are checked out and returned using a smartphone app, they can be parked wherever they are allowed, and parking can be further limited with hubs and optional cable locks.

Dockless scooter operations are typically privately owned and operated with the municipality bearing none of the cost. The lower price per unit compared to bikeshare systems draws private investment to e-scooters. Host municipalities can exert control and oversight over the system by aligning permits with their mobility goals, creating spaces for orderly parking of scooters, and ensuring that the availability of scooters is equitable throughout their jurisdiction.

In Contra Costa County, the communities of Pleasant Hill and San Ramon piloted the deployment of e-scooters by Bird last year.

Image: Bird Dockless E-scooter

77 7.5.2. Carshare and Vanpool Program
Shared mobility services involving motor vehicles provide the benefits of driving without the full cost of car ownership by either sharing the vehicle or sharing a ride. Private and non-profit operators often operate these services, with some receiving direct governmental support.

Carshare and vanpool are two popular concepts being used across the country.

Carshare Program
There are two types of carsharing programs: two-way and one-way carsharing.

Two-way Carsharing:

Cars are borrowed by-the-hour and picked up and returned at designated parking spots, often located at a transit station or public facility. Rentals are conducted through an app, and fuel and insurance are included. Two-way carsharing is best suited for roundtrips of short-to-medium duration (e.g., grocery runs, medical appointments).

In Richmond, CCTA, via the California Energy Commission grant, funded an EV carsharing program with Míocar. Renting a vehicle costs $4/hour or $35/day. About 40-45 drivers use the cars each month.

Image: Míocar in Richmond (Photo credit: 511 Contra Costa) One-way Carsharing:

This system follows the same principles as two-way carsharing, but users can leave vehicles anywhere in a designated service area after they are done. While more flexible than two-way systems, one-way carsharing needs higher density land uses to ensure cars remain within walking distance for the next user.

78 GIG Car Share is a one-way carsharing program by AAA operating a fleet of hybrid vehicles in the Bay Area, including El Cerrito. Renting a vehicle costs $19.37/hour or $112.99/day.

Image: GIG Car Share in El Cerrito. (Photo credit: City of El Cerrito) Other carshare programs such as rideshare/Transportation Network Companies and microtransit cater more toward on-demand, transit supplemental mobility options. Ridesharing systems, also known as TNC via Uber and Lyft, use apps to reserve a ride with an independent driver working on behalf of a transportation network company (TNC) such as Uber or Lyft. Rides can be private or shared/pooled with other customers. Microtransit utilizes vans or small buses operated by professional drivers to provide transit service in communities where it is needed, but where fixed route transit is not productive. Microtransit is best suited for suburban areas that lack alternative connections.

Vanpool and Carpool Program
Carpooling and vanpooling involve sharing a personal vehicle with passengers heading to the same destination. Public agencies and workplaces often help coordinate the formation of vanpool groups, albeit most carpooling is often informal.

Typically organized by public agencies or workplaces, vanpools offer prearranged trips through a monthly subscription. Participants share costs like gas and insurance, making vanpooling significantly cheaper than driving alone. This service is well suited for frequent medium to long range trips, especially commutes where transit services are unavailable.

This type of program requires a dedicated pick-up/drop-off (PU/DO) zone that is visible from multimodal access paths and transit transfer zones and has sufficient wayfinding, as well as lighting to create a comfortable atmosphere for riders.

79 7.5.3. Funding Shared Mobility
Starting and sustaining new shared mobility services often requires a mix of funding sources, especially if the service is initiated by a public or non-profit agency. Potential funding sources identified for shared mobility program in the region can be found in Table 13.

Federal funds are generally only available for capital expenses, such as the purchase of bikeshare bikes or docks. Federal funds are usually distributed to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) that can determine further project selection requirements. Funding for operations is often disallowed or is non-competitive in federal grants. The table below lists out appropriate federal funding mechanisms and what they can support.

Table 13. Shared Mobility Funding Sources
• Funding Source • Description
Transportation Alternatives (TA or TAP) Set-asides for bikeshare projects Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ)
Has been used in the Bay Area to fund
carshare and bikeshare

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5307
Urban Area Formula funding
Can fund bikeshare docks and transit-
related enhancements

USDOT (RAISE) and FTA (Accelerating
Innovative Mobility, or AIM) Competitive discretionary grants

80 7.6. Feasibility of BART Extension
With the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) system expanding to reach new destination cities in recent years and the Orange and Red lines terminating in adjacent Richmond, the City of San Pablo is a potential candidate for a BART service extension.

7.6.1. Results of Previous Study
In May of 2017, the Western Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) published the West County High-Capacity Transit Study to evaluate multimodal high-capacity transit opportunities for the region. This study considered differing transit options, such as highway express bus service, bus rapid transit, commuter rail, and multiple BART extension alternatives.

The study identified a BART extension from the Richmond Station north to a new Hercules Station as a feasible solution to advance high-capacity transit for the region. The proposed alignment for this extension will follow existing rail right-of-way along Rumrill Boulevard until it reached the first proposed stop at Contra Costa College in the heart of the Study Area. Should the extension continue past the College, the route would tunnel below grade, continuing north towards Hilltop Mall and eventually to the City of Hercules.

The effects of a proposed BART extension would result in a substantial increase in ridership and decrease in travel time for users. The City of San Pablo would also be connected into the BART network, which would increase opportunities for commuters to access major job centers throughout the region. The High-Capacity Transit Study found the extension strongly supported by both the general public as well as established plans and policies set by the City.

However, the capital cost of the extension is very high and resulted in a finding of a relatively poor project cost effectiveness. When comparing the ratio of ridership benefits to the estimated cost of the project, a BART extension ranks lower than bus rapid transit or express bus alternatives. While BART will bring in the highest overall ridership, it is estimated that the proposed extension would cost $3.5 to $4.5 billion. Additionally, the time horizon from conception to delivery of the project would exceed twenty years. The High-Capacity Transit Study did not ultimately select a single preferred project to advance towards implementation.

7.6.2. BART Station Objectives and Goals
While no extension to the College is currently being advanced, this Study considers how Mobility Hub improvements, such as those described in this document, could help enhance the feasibility of a BART extension to the College by helping the City meet BART’s stated goals and principles when considering potential extensions. BART has recently updated its System Development Policy document, which sets guidelines on how the agency evaluates proposed new line extensions and stations. Any new extensions must provide clear and measurable benefits to the overall system and its riders, in addition to alleviating the growing transit needs of the Bay Area region. The goals and objectives are divided into three categories: Regional Livability, Improving Rider Experience, and Stewardship of the BART District.

81 Goal: Support Regional Livability and a sustainable, equitable, and prosperous Bay Area.

The policies outlined in this goal focus on the greater Bay Area region. An emphasis is placed on the need for transit-oriented communities to bolster future BART station areas. This is consistent with the TOD policies outlined in the previous section and being advanced by the City, which include planning for denser housing development.

BART TOD policy must remain consistent with other regional policy, such as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) policy. The MTC TOC policy dictates minimum TOD housing density requirements for any future proposed station, based on their planned level of transit service. For the College Transit Center area, the minimum density requirements are set at 50 units per net acre to be considered for any future BART station extension. This density requirement is set at this level because previous planning work has identified that there would be only one proposed BART line of service in the City of San Pablo.

Additional policies outlined in this section consist of advancing environmental climate resiliency and reducing vehicle miles traveled. With the implementation of the proposed bicycle and pedestrian network changes within the Mobility Hub area, future transit riders would have less reliance on vehicle trips and promote climate conscious activities.

Goal: Better serve communities and improve the rider experience.

BART policies in this goal highlight the need to prioritize the needs of transit dependent riders, with a special emphasis placed on low-income communities who have been systemically disenfranchised and underrepresented. The City of San Pablo has historically had a large minority population with a burden of mobility challenges.

Goal: Support stewardship of the BART District & taxpayer investment The BART District is primarily concerned with long-term financial sustainability, especially given the drop in overall ridership after the COVID-19 pandemic. The main analysis that is undertaken in this step is a comprehensive cost assessment that considers operational and maintenance costs of an additional system, in addition to core system operation cost and capital impacts. The proposed station must deliver cost-effective improvements to meet rider’s needs, by leveraging existing transit service at the location. Existing BART service must not be overburdened by cost or performance with the addition of the new station. A potential new station at the College Transit Center would leverage existing transit service provided by AC Transit and WestCAT.

However, an extension north of Richmond would incur significant cost to both build and operate, requiring further analysis on cost effectiveness.

82 8. Project Implementation

8.1. Project Benefits
The recommended improvements address corridor mobility needs and priorities as provided by the community. The improvements reflect current industry best practices for improving safety and promoting mode shift to sustainable modes. Collectively, the improvements will enhance the safety and comfort for all users of the corridor and expand multimodal options for the residents, students, and faculty in the area. Project benefits will:

 Encourage families and students to use pedestrian and bike facilities to commute to the nearby College, middle school, and high school;
 Reduce the risk of pedestrian and vehicle conflicts at high traffic intersections;  Reduce auto speeds to improve the safety of vulnerable roadway users;  Provide new and safe connections for bicyclists; and
 Provide accessibility for those using mobility devices or strollers.

8.2. Implementation Strategies
Collectively, the proposed improvements identified in the Study may exceed available funds or the capacity of the City to implement as part of one project. Therefore, they are grouped geographically or by enhancement type to allow for a phased implementation. These groupings are intended as separate construction packages that can be advanced independently.

Groupings can be consolidated based on available funds and capacity.

Opinions of probable cost were developed for each of the proposed improvements, consistent with the preliminary and conceptual level of engineering detail developed as part of this Study.

Table 14 aggregates the design and construction cost for each of the six implementation packages using current year 2023 costs. The total estimated cost for all improvements identified in the Study is $31,635,000. Detailed descriptions of individual proposed improvements and cost breakdowns can be found in Appendix D. Estimated costs include planning, design, and construction. Additional unforeseen construction costs, increases in raw materials, and increases in labor costs may cause the true costs of the improvements to be higher when implemented. Cost refinement on the final design will occur in subsequent project phases.

Note that the transit improvement costs are not included in these estimates as they require further coordination with AC Transit to confirm quantities and locations. However, it is noted that transit improvements are an integral component of the Mobility Hub and should be implemented in a similar timeframe as other identified improvements.

83 Table 14. Implementation Packages with Estimated Costs Improvement Package Improvement Description
Estimated
Cost*

1. Safety, access, and
streetscape
improvements on and
along Mission Bell
Drive/College Lane,
between San Pablo
Ave and Contra Costa
College campus
• Install new signal and improve intersection geometry at El Portal Dr and Mission Bell Dr
• Install new traffic circles
• Construct two-way shared-use path on the east side of Mission Bell Dr connecting El Portal Dr with Transit Center, Class II buffered bike lane on EB College Lane from Mission Bell Drive to San Pablo Ave • Install new pedestrian crosswalks, upgrade existing curb ramps, construct new sidewalk
• Add pedestrian lighting, median landscaping, biofiltration planters, curb extension
$8,300,000

2. Pedestrian and bicycle
improvements at
intersection along San
Pablo Avenue
between Road 20 to
Rivers Street
• Add new advanced limit lines at intersections along San Pablo Avenue • Improve turning signal and turning movement
• Add new and upgrade existing crosswalks
• Install two-stage bicycle turn box at NB and SB approach • Install Class II bike lane on San Pablo Avenue from Road 20 to Rumrill Blvd

$2,982,000

3. Access improvements
for facilities along
Castro and Moraga
loop, including
intersection at Library
Drive (0.4 mi total
corridor length)
• Add new pedestrian lighting and street landscaping
• Construct new sidewalk with protected landscape
• Install bike crossing, new pedestrian crosswalk, upgrade existing curb ramps, construct side-street bulb out, modify existing median • Construct a raised intersection at Library Dr and Moraga Rd • Install Class II bike lane along Castro Rd
• Construct shared-use path on Moraga Rd
$7,906,000

4. El Portal Drive
improvements (0.5 mi
total corridor length)
• Add bike crossing
• Construct Class IV cycle track on El Portal Dr from San Pablo Ave to Church Ln
• Add new pedestrian lights, median landscaping, and concrete raised buffer
• Upgrade existing pedestrian crosswalk with high visibility crosswalk at Broadway and San Pablo Ave
$6,880,000

5. Wayfinding, signage • Add new wayfinding signs, gateway monuments, and placemaking to various areas within the Project area
$323,000

6. Other streetscape
improvements
• Install steel tube fencing along Castro Rd
• Construct side-street bulb out
• Install new high visibility and upgrade existing pedestrian crosswalk • Construct Class IV cycle track on Broadway from San Pablo Ave to 11th St
• Add new covered bike parking in selected areas
$5,244,000
Total Estimated Cost $ 31,635,000
*Estimated costs in 2023 dollars

84 8.3. Steps to Implementation
This Study analyzed existing network conditions and received input from the community to define mobility needs in the Study Area. It then identified potential improvements and received community input to arrive at a set of community-supported recommendations. This has defined a universe of projects that the City can advance to future project phases.

Figure 35 shows a pathway to implementation for the recommendations contained in this Study.

Figure 35. CCC Mobility Hub Next Steps
Leveraging the findings in this Study, the next phase of the Project is to develop further analyses and advance conceptual design to refine the recommendations and estimated costs.

Additional assessments may be needed for specific improvements to assess their impacts on congestion or parking availability in the Study Area. Further coordination is needed with AC Transit, including the outcome of the ongoing AC Transit Realign planning, to confirm a specific set of transit improvements.

Based on these assessments and in an iterative process, initial engineering design concepts will be developed. These will be presented to the public for further input and will be used to update project costs and perform environmental studies. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) clearance may be needed, depending on funding sources. The projects may qualify for a reduced level of environmental analysis because they support sustainable use of the transportation system.

Once funding is secured, final design can be prepared to determine if any right-of-way acquisitions are necessary and to prepare construction-ready documents. After all of the necessary design documents and studies are complete, construction can proceed to deliver the proposed network elements.

The City has been awarded $2.95 million by MTC as part of the Regional Mobility Hub Program for project elements that support the Plan Bay Area 2050 Climate Program and are aligned with the regional goals set forth by MTC. The City also received $7.2 million from the State of California for the implementation of the Broadway and El Portal Drive Safe Routes to School improvements. The delivery of these grant-funded projects is expected to take place in the next few years.

Appendices

Appendix A: Outreach Round 1 Summary

December 21, 2022
To: Sarah Kolarik
Organization: City of San Pablo
From: Lauren Pepe
Project: Contra Costa College Mobility Hub

Re: Survey Results

The Contra Costa College (CCC) Mobility Hub project seeks to improve transit connections and multimodal transportation options around the existing CCC Transit Center, which serves students and staff associated with CCC as well as the greater San Pablo and Richmond communities. Many shopping options are in the vicinity of the Transit Center, and the buses originating from the Transit Center connect to a variety of cities in the San Francisco Bay Area and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART).

An online survey to collect information about travel behaviors, preferences, and concerns, hosted on the Alchemer platform, was opened on October 17, 2022 and closed on November 28, 2022. It was advertised to people who live, work and attend school in/near the study area and in the greater San Pablo-Richmond area. A $25 gift card drawing was offered as an incentive to complete the survey. While the survey received 4,985 responses, most were spam. A detailed spam removal process, described in a complementary memo, yielded 61 responses. The survey was available in Spanish and English, but none of the final 61 responses were from the Spanish version.

Survey Promotion
The survey was promoted in Spanish and English using a variety of channels, including:
▪ Postcards mailed to 3,977 people living in or near the study area ▪ An email blast from the City of San Pablo
▪ The City of San Pablo website
▪ The City Manager’s e-newsletter
▪ Social media: Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
▪ Nextdoor
▪ Through local community groups, including San Pablo Youth Commission and the Richmond Bicycle- Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Demographic Overview
As illustrated in Figure 1, below, approximately 1/3 of respondents identified as White and approximately 1/3 identified as Hispanic/Latino/a/x. Demographics for the precise study area are unknown and cannot be directly compared to San Pablo at-large. The targeted study area population includes CCC students and employees as 2 well as presumed Transit Center users. San Pablo’s racial/ethnic demographics are provided for reference, recognizing that the study area demographics are not the same.

Approximately half of the respondents identified as female; 1/3 as male; and the remaining as non-binary or did not identify gender. Approximately 2/3 of respondents were between the ages of 18 and 49.

The most popular source for hearing about the survey was through social media (28 percent), whether from the City’s account (18 percent) or another account (10 percent), followed by postcards (21 percent).

Results
Study Area
Sixty-one (61) percent of respondents indicated that they lived in San Pablo, while 23 percent indicated that they lived in Richmond. Home locations for other respondents included North Richmond, Bayview/Montalvin, El Sobrante, Fairfield, El Cerrito, and Hercules (one respondent from each community.) Respondents were asked about their connection to the study area and allowed to select as many connections as were relevant. Percentages refer to percent of respondents who selected a given answer; percentages add to more than 100% since respondents could select all answers that apply. Sixty-nine (69) percent reported that they live near the study area, and 44 percent reported that they drive through the area (Figure 2). Nearly 20 percent of respondents regularly use buses at the Transit Center, while nearly 10 percent bike through the study area. Two respondents wrote in additional details, with one noting that their ride lives near Contra Costa College and the other noting that they “would like to bike in the study area more often but don’t know good routes.” 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
African American/Black
Asian, Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian
Hispanic/Latino/a/x
Native American or Alaska Native
White
No response/Prefer not to say
Figure 1: Comparative Racial/Ethnic Demographics
City of San Pablo Respondents
3 Next, respondents were asked how they typically get around the study area, prompted to select all that apply.

Fifty-nine (59) percent drove themselves, and 36 percent drove with others. Transit was also a popular mode at 33 percent. One respondent noted that they don’t travel in the study area, while another noted that they do not have reliable access to transportation.

Transit Use
Transit-related behaviors were explored next, with respondents first asked to indicate how frequently they ride the bus. While 26 percent of respondents reported that they never ride the bus, 70 percent indicated that they ride it on occasion (Figure 4).
69%
18%
13% 15%
8%
20%
44%
10%
36%
Live nearby Work or
volunteer
nearby
Work at CCC Student at
CCC
Student at
another
school
nearby
Regularly
use buses at
the Transit
Center
Drive
through the
area
Bike through
the area
Shop nearby
Figure 2: What best describes your connection to the study area? 26% 23%
33%
59%
36%
13%
Walk or use a
wheelchair
Bike Bus or Paratransit Drive myself Drive with others Rideshare (Uber, Lyft, etc.)
Figure 3: How do you typically get around the study area? 4 When asked about riding the bus specifically to/from the Transit Center, the data for weekly transit users were identical to the previous question, but 36 percent indicated that they never take the bus to/from this location (Figure 5).

18%
20%
10%23%
26%
3%
Figure 4: In general, how frequently do you ride the bus? 3 or more times per week 1 or 2 times per week A few times per month Less than 1 time per month Never No response
18%
20%
5%
15%
36%
7%
Figure 5: How frequently do you ride the bus to/from the CCC Transit Center?
3 or more times per week 1 or 2 times per week A few times per month Less than 1 time per month Never No response
5 The next two questions explored respondents’ opinions about the Transit Center. When respondents were asked how they feel about the Transit Center in general, responses were generally positive (48 percent of responses ranged from “Somewhat Like” to “Strongly Like”) or neutral (28 percent of responses). Thirteen (13) percent of respondents disliked the Transit Center to some degree, and the rest either did not know how they felt or did not respond (Figure 6).

When asked about the location of the Transit Center, over 52 percent of respondents said they liked it as it is, 13 percent didn’t know if they liked the location, 10 percent didn’t care about the location. Five (5) percent said they “didn’t like the location and it would be better at”:
• Bike lanes
• San Pablo or Portola
• Giant Hwy
Eleven (11) percent of respondents selected they “liked the location but it would be better at”:
• If they were closer to each other
• Extending the range of the bus routes
• There should be a guard there because it's also a deserted area sometimes • Near or on San Pablo
• Closer to El Portal
• I think it's a little secluded and should be in a more central visible area • El Portal Drive
Not all the responses above matched the question being asked, but some takeaways from these open-ended responses indicate that the Transit Center location feels secluded and San Pablo Ave or El Portal Drive might be a more convenient location.

Next, respondents were asked to select up to three factors that would encourage them to use transit more often. “More destinations accessible by bus” was the most popular response, followed by “Shorter wait times between buses” (Figure 7).
16%
26%
5%
28%
8%
3%
2%
8%
3%
Strongly like Like Somewhat
like
Neutral Somewhat
dislike
Dislike Strongly
dislike
I don't know No response
Figure 6: In general, how do you feel about the Contra Costa College Transit Center?
6 Write-in responses included:
• Light rail system near study area kind of like Muni metro • Bike lockers
• Bus stop near my home would be awesome
Shared Micromobility
Respondents were next asked if they’ve used bike share and scooter share. While the most common response was “No, not interested”, most respondents either have used these services before or would be interested in using them in the future (Figure 8).

46%
36%
33%
30%
28%
20%
18%
11%
8%
8%
5%
5%
3%
More destinations accessible by bus
Shorter wait times between buses
Faster bus service
More reliable bus service
Cheaper bus fares
Greater sense of personal safety
Easier transfers between transit services
BART station located in the study area
Better/more bus shelters
Bicycle lanes and sidewalks near bus stops
Bikes, e-bikes, and/or electric scooters available to rent by bus… Other (write your response)
None of the above
Figure 7: What would encourage you to use public transit more often (select up to 3)?
18%
23%
23%
34%
2%
Figure 8: Have you ever used bike-share or scooter-share (i.e. bikes or scooters that are rented from an app or docking station)? Yes, regularly (>1 time per week) Yes, but not regularly No, but I'm interested No, not interested
No response
7 Walking, Biking and Using a Wheelchair in the Study Area Next, respondents were asked what would encourage them to walk, bike, or use a wheelchair more in the study area. Up to two choices could be selected. Thirty-nine (39) percent of respondents selected “safer crosswalks” (Figure 9).

Car Share and Electric Vehicles
Respondents were asked if they’ve ever used car share. While 41 percent were not interested, over half of the respondents either have used car share or are interested in using it (Figure 10).

39%
23%
20%
18%
18%
15%
13%
13%
10%
5%
0%
Safer crosswalks
New or improved sidewalks
Slower cars
Better lighting
Secure bicycle parking
New or improved bike lanes
More shade
Bikes, e-bikes or electric scooters available to rent
Shorter distance between destinations
None of the above
Other (please specify)
Figure 9: What would encourage you to walk, bike or use a wheelchair more often in the study area?
7%
28%
21%
41%
3%
Figure 10: Have you ever used a car-share service (i.e., hourly rental from a dedicated parking spot, like Zipcar)?
Yes, regularly (one or more times per week) Yes, but not regularly No, but I'm interested No, not interested
No response
8 Respondents were asked about what would encourage them to drive an electric vehicle and could select all that apply. “Lower cost to purchase an EV” was selected by more than half of the respondents; “Lower cost to charge an EV” and “Guaranteed availability of EV charging stations” were also popular responses (Figure 11). The one respondent who wrote in an answer noted that they already have a car and would only consider an EV if their car were destroyed.

52%
44%
43%
18%
15%
11%
10%
5%
5%
2%
Lower cost to purchase an EV
Guaranteed availability of EV charging stations
Lower cost to charge an EV
More availability of electric carshare
Better EV range
I don't drive
Higher gas prices
None of the above
I already drive an EV
Other (please specify)
Figure 11: What would encourage you to drive an electric vehicle (select all that apply)?
9 Top Concerns
Respondents were asked to identify their top three concerns about traveling from the study area, including the option of writing in a concern. The top concerns all centered around traffic safety: “Intersections feel dangerous”, “Cars drive too fast”, and “Not enough lighting” (Figure 12). The latter concern may also reflect a personal safety concern, which was noted in open-ended responses throughout the survey.

The final question of the survey allowed respondents to write in anything else they would like to share related to the survey. Most responses reflected an interest in more multimodal transportation options, for biking. Responses are organized by category below:

Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure
• Protected bike lanes and slower traffic is key, my family would like to bike and walk in the neighborhood more but it feels unsafe. Also shopping center across the street is not pedestrian or bike friendly; would like to get out of the car more.
• Bike lanes, sidewalks, hopefully more sometimes crowded. • Please make bike lanes on San Pablo.
• It'd be nice to see more transportation options like the City of Richmond has implemented recently like Richmond Moves and the e-bike rentals. Also providing residents with discounted prices or affordable monthly passes would encourage folks to try out alternative modes of transportation.

Transit
• I would like to see BART as an option of transportation in the city of San Pablo. 38%
33%
31%
20%
15%
13%
13%
13%
13%
11%
11%
10%
10%
8%
8%
3%
2%
2%
0%
Intersections feel dangerous
Cars drive too fast
Not enough lighting
Sidewalks feel unsafe
Accessibility for people with disabilities
Lack of marked crosswalks
Not enough bike lanes
Bike lanes feel unsafe
Buses do not go where I want to go
Missing sidewalks
Too much traffic congestion
Sidewalks are not well maintained
Buses are unreliable or wait times are too long
Roads or bike lanes are not well-maintained
Buses or bus shelters feel unsafe
I don't have any concerns about this area
Missing bus shelters
Bus shelters are not well-maintained
Other (please specify)
Figure 12: What are your top 3 concerns about traveling in the study area (select up to three)?
10 • City of San Pablo needs to work with Contra Costa County to facilitate integrated transportation solutions and facilities.

Other
• San Pablo is getting dangerous.
• I hope the traffic conditions will be more convenient for people to travel. • This is a working-class community. We have families, we are contractors, painters, and gardeners.

Please stop expecting us to walk, ride bikes or take the bus. • Thanks for focusing on the area. It's part of our effort to help students stay in school and improve their potential for success.

Key Takeaways and Next Steps
Though respondents typically get around the study area by car, 70 percent did indicate that they do ride the bus at least on occasion. Given this information, certain improvements to the transit system and transit access might encourage these occasional transit users to opt for transit more often. While faster, more frequent, and reliable bus service would certainly help, follow-up outreach efforts might explore which types of destinations people would like to be accessible by bus as “More destinations available by bus” was the most popular response for getting respondents using transit more. Also, as suggested by one respondent, discounted/affordable monthly transit passes might encourage more people to use transit.

Most respondents were happy with the existing Transit Center location, but others suggested El Portal Drive and San Pablo Ave as preferrable locations.

Most respondents either have used or are interested in using shared mobility and micromobility, as well as EVs.

Therefore, expanding car share, bike share and scooter share, as well as providing EV charging stations, may be of interest to existing transit center users and others who frequent the study area.

Common concerns throughout the survey centered around personal safety and traffic safety. Addressing the concerns listed below should be priorities when implementing the CCCMobility Hub:
• Transit Center location feels secluded and could benefit from being in a more central, visible area • Intersections feel unsafe
• Cars travel too fast
• Not enough lighting
• Build more bike lanes (especially protected)
• Make existing shopping centers pedestrian friendly
• Sidewalks feel unsafe
Hispanic/Latino/a/x respondents may have been underrepresented in survey responses given the fact that no surveys were completed using the Spanish version. Targeted outreach within this community, perhaps through partnering with community-based organizations is necessary to ensure a range of perspectives is reflected in this project.

Appendix B: Network Access Improvements

Count Location Item Description
1 Campus Dr & Sport Center Parking Curb Ramp Upgrade Upgrade curb ramps at Campus Drive and Parking Lot 2 Campus Dr & Sport Center Parking Curb Ramp Upgrade Upgrade curb ramps at Campus Drive and Parking Lot 3 Moraga Rd & Castro Rd New Pedestrian Crosswalk Install new high visibility crosswalk across Moraga Road 4 Castro Rd & Moraga Rd Upgrade Curb Ramps
Upgrade curb ramps on either side to meet ADA standards and upgrade existing crosswalk to high visibility crosswalk across Castro Rd.
5 Castro Rd & El Portal Dr Upgrade Curb Ramps
Upgrade curb ramps, shorten crosswalk with bulbout on both corners, and replace existing crosswalk to high visibility crosswalk across Castro Rd
6 Moraga Rd & Library Dr New Pedestrian Crosswalk Install new high visbility crosswalk and curb ramps at the east leg of Library Dr intersection
7 Library Dr & Moraga Rd New Pedestrian Crosswalk Install new crosswalk with raised ped xing at north leg of the Library intersection
8 Campus Dr & CCC Transit Center Existing Pedestrian Crosswalk Upgrade Install two new curb ramps and upgrade existing crosswalk to high visbility crosswalk to connect with proposed west Campus Drive new sidewalk or multi-use path and enhance pedestrian safety at this traffic circle
9 CCC Transit Center & Campus Dr Existing Pedestrian Crosswalk Upgrade Upgrade existing curb ramps and crosswalk at the north of transit center turn around connect to the center transit island and proposed adjacent east-west crosswalk and in extension connect to proposed multi-use path from River St & Del Camino Dr
10 Campus Dr & CCC Transit Center Construct New Sidewalk Proposed to construct new sidewalk or multi-use path on SB Campus Drive from ELC to Transit Center to near College Lane intersection, if no additional bike facility being constructed on the east side.
11 Mission Bell Dr Shared-use path Proposed two-way shared-use path on the east side on Mission Bell Dr connecting El Portal with Transit Center
12 Moraga Rd & Castro Rd Sidestreet Bulbout
Proposed removing striped porkchop and construct bulbout on Moraga Road to shorten crossing distance for new crosswalk, evaluate truck turn radius to confirm configuration.
13 Castro Rd & El Portal Dr W Sidestreet Bulbout
Proposed new sidestreet bulbout for Castro and El Portal west corner. Improvement is included in the San Pablo Bicycle Pedestrian Corridor Study.
14 Castro Rd & El Portal Dr E Sidestreet Bulbout
Proposed new sidestreet bulbout for Castro and El Portal east corner. Improvement is included in the San Pablo Bicycle Pedestrian Corridor Study.
15 Mission Bell Dr & College Ln Traffic Circle
Install new traffic circle at the intersection, recede median, upgrade existing crosswalk northleg, and install additional crosswalk for southleg
16 El Portal Dr & Mission Bell Dr New Traffic Signal
Install new traffic signal at El Portal Drive and Mission Bell Drive intersection, convert WB left turn lane into EB left turn pocket turning into Mission Bell Dr in addition to proposed changes for the WB direction funded in ATP project (with two-way cycle track with nearside bus boarding island). Require further evaluation for feasibility along with the San Pablo Ave Corridor Study project 17 San Pablo Ave & El Portal Dr Signal Improvement Update right-turn pocket and install right turn signal 18 Library Dr Raised Intersection
Reconstruct all three existing crosswalks as raised to promote safety and reduce auto speed for this main connection from transit center and main college area into the new City Park
19 Moraga Rd & Library Dr Median Removal Remove and reconstruct median to better align and accommodate new crosswalk
20 College Ln Buffered Bike Lane Construct Class II buffered bike lane on EB College Lane from Mission Bell Drive to San Pablo Avenue.
21 Moraga Rd Multi-use Path Construct multi-use path on Moraga Road between Castro Rd and Library Lane
22 San Pablo Ave & El Portal Dr Bike Box Proposed two-stage turn box at NB and SB approach. Included in the San Pablo Bicycle Pedestrian Corridor Study project. 23 San Pablo Ave & El Portal Dr Bike Crossing
Proposed bike crossing across San Pablo to improve east west connection. Included in the San Pablo Bicycle Pedestrian Corridor Study project for Broadway/El Portal Cycletrack .
24 San Pablo Ave & Rivers St New Pedestrian Crosswalk
Proposed new high visibility pedestrian crosswalk across San Pablo Avenue at Rivers St. Included in the WCCTAC San Pablo Ave Improvements project.
25 San Pablo Ave & Rumrill Blvd New Pedestrian Crosswalk Proposed new high visibility pedestrian crosswalk across San Pablo Avenue at Rumrill Blvd. Included in the WCCTAC San Pablo Ave Improvements project.
26 San Pablo Ave & Laurie Ln New Pedestrian Crosswalk
Proposed new high visibility pedestrian crosswalk across San Pablo Avenue at Laurie Lane. Included in the WCCTAC San Pablo Ave Improvements project.
27 Campus Dr New Pedestrian Crosswalk
Install directional curb ramp going west, install new high visibility pedestrian crosswalk across Campus Dr at CCC Transit Center, and install new curb ramp on the west to connect to proposed multi- use path through Rivers St & Del Camino Dr
28 Mission Bell Dr at College TC New Pedestrian Crosswalk Install new high visibility pedestrian crosswalk across Mission Bell Dr at College Center Plaza. Exact location to be determined to avoid conflict with stop drain and align with existing curb ramp. 29 El Portal Dr Cycle Track
Proposed Class IV Cycle Track on El Portal Dr from San Pablo Ave to Church Lane (Recommended 2-way Class IV in Bicycle
Pedestrian Corridor Study (2022))
30 San Pablo Ave Bike Lane
Proposed Class II Bicycle Lane on San Pablo Ave from Road 20 to Rumrill Blvd (Recommended 1-way Class II or Class IV in Bicycle Pedestrian Corridor Study (2022))
31 Broadway Ave Cycle Track
Proposed Class IV Cycle Track on Broadway Ave from 11th St to San Pablo Ave (Recommended 2-way Class IV in Bicycle
Pedestrian Corridor Study (2022)
32 Library Dr Sidestreet Bulbout Proposed new sidestreet bulbout for Library Drive and Moraga Road west corner
33 Campus Dr & Mission Bell Dr New Pedestrian Crosswalk Proposed new pedestrian crosswalk along with four new curb ramps across Mission Bell Dr and Campus Dr
34 San Pablo Ave & El Portal Dr Crosswalk Upgrade
Proposed existing pedestrian crosswalk and curb ramp upgrade with high visibility crosswalks across San Pablo Ave at El Portal Dr on the south leg (Included in Broadway/El Portal Cycletrack (from City's Corridor Study))
35 San Pablo Ave & El Portal Dr Crosswalk Upgrade
Proposed existing pedestrian crosswalk upgrade with high visibility crosswalks across El Portal Dr at San Pablo Ave (Included in Broadway/El Portal Cycletrack (from City's Corridor Study)) 36 San Pablo Ave & El Portal Dr Crosswalk Upgrade
Proposed existing pedestrian crosswalk and curb ramp upgrade with high visibility crosswalks across San Pablo Ave at El Portal Dr on the north leg (Included in Broadway/El Portal Cycletrack (from City's Corridor Study))
37 Broadway & San Pablo Crosswalk Upgrade
Proposed existing pedestrian crosswalk upgrade with high visibility crosswalks across Broadway Ave at San Pablo Ave (Included in Broadway/El Portal Cycletrack (from City's Corridor Study)) 38 San Pablo Ave & Laurie Ln Existing Pedestrian Crosswalk Upgrade Proposed existing pedestrian crosswalk upgrade, add advanced limit line and LPIs at intersection of San Pablo Ave and Laurie Ln 39 San Pablo Ave & Rumrill Blvd Existing Pedestrian Crosswalk Upgrade Proposed existing pedestrian crosswalk upgrade, advance limit line and LPI at intersection of San Pablo Ave and Rumrill Blvd 40 San Pablo Ave & Rumrill Blvd Advanced Limit Line Proposed advance limit line and LPI at intersection of San Pablo Ave and Rumrill Blvd
41 San Pablo Ave & Rivers St Advanced Limit Line Proposed advance limit line and LPI at intersection of San Pablo Ave and Rivers St
42 Moraga Rd & Library Dr New Pedestrian Crosswalk Proposed new high visibility crosswalk at the west leg of Library Drive intersection
43 Castro Rd & Moraga Rd Bike Crossing Proposed green bike crossing across Castro Road to connect to proposed bike lane on Castro Road and Moraga Road
44 Moraga Rd & Castro Rd Bike Crossing Proposed bike crossing across Moraga Road to connect to proposed bike lane on Castro Road and Moraga Road
45 San Pablo Ave & El Portal Dr Advance Limit & LPI
Proposed Advanced Limit Line and Leading Pedestrian Interval at San Pablo Ave and El Portal Dr (S) (Included in Broadway/El Portal Cycletrack (from City's Corridor Study))
46 San Pablo Ave & El Portal Dr Advance Limit & LPI
Proposed Advanced Limit Line and Leading Pedestrian Interval at San Pablo Ave and El Portal Dr (E) (Included in Broadway/El Portal Cycletrack (from City's Corridor Study))
47 San Pablo Ave & El Portal Dr Advance Limit & LPI
Proposed Advanced Limit Line and Leading Pedestrian Interval at San Pablo Ave and El Portal Dr (W) (Included in Broadway/El Portal Cycletrack (from City's Corridor Study))
48 San Pablo Ave & El Portal Dr Advance Limit & LPI
Proposed Advanced Limit Line and Leading Pedestrian Interval at San Pablo Ave and El Portal Dr (N) (Included in Broadway/El Portal Cycletrack (from City's Corridor Study))
49 San Pablo Ave & Rumrill Blvd Advanced Limit Line Proposed Advanced Limit Line at San Pablo Ave and Rumrill Blvd 50 San Pablo Ave & Rivers St Advanced Limit Line Proposed Advanced Limit Line at San Pablo Ave and Rivers St (S) 51 San Pablo Ave & Rivers St Advanced Limit Line Proposed Advanced Limit Line at San Pablo Ave and Rivers St (N) 52 College Ln and Del Camino Dr Sidestreet Bulbout Proposed sidestreet bulbout at the northwest corner of College Ln and Del Camino Dr
53 Del Camino Dr & College Ln Existing Pedestrian Crosswalk Upgrade Proposed existing pedestrian crosswalk upgrade across Del Camino Dr at College Ln. Placement of sidewalk to shift in conjunction with proposed sidestreet bulbout at the northwest corner of the intersection
54 San Pablo Ave & Laurie Ln Advanced Limit Line Proposed Advanced Limit Line at San Pablo Ave and Laurie Ln (S) 55 San Pablo Ave & Rumrill Blvd Bike Box Proposed two-stage turn box at NB and EB approach at San Pablo Ave and Rumrill Blvd (from City's Corridor Study))
56 College Ln & Del Camino Bulbout
57 Castro Rd Bike Lane

Appendix C: Outreach Round 2 Summary

June 8, 2023
To: Mel Mackson, Libby Tyler, Jimmy Zhou - City of San Pablo

From: Lauren Pepe - Toole Design

CC: Adam Dankberg, Gina Nguyen – Kimley-Horn

Project: Contra Costa College Mobility Hub Plan

Re: Round 2 Community Engagement Summary

The Contra Costa College (CCC) Mobility Hub project seeks to improve transit connections and multimodal transportation options around the existing CCC Transit Center, which serves students and staff associated with CCC as well as the greater San Pablo and Richmond communities. Many shopping options are located within the project area, and buses originating from the Transit Center connect to many cities in the San Francisco Bay Area as well as Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART).

In response to community feedback collected during Round 1, a set of preliminary recommendations and streetscape designs were developed for the project area to improve walking/rolling, bicycling, using e-scooters and other micromobility, and taking transit. The goal of Round 2 community engagement was to present this information to the public (specifically the neighboring communities, college students and staff population) and gain feedback as to whether these preliminary recommendations might address needs and concerns related to using multimodal transportation in the study area.

Round 2 community engagement included:
• Two in-person, pop-up events
o Contra Costa College Earth Day on April 21, 2023 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. o San Pablo Supermarket at the College Shopping Center on April 28, 2023 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. • A virtual public info session
o May 2, 2023 on Zoom from 6-7:30 p.m.
• Supplemental online survey
o Survey was open April 21, 2023 through May 31, 2023.

All the events (and the survey) were advertised via the project webpage and through the City’s various social media channels and email lists. Figure 1 is the website banner created to advertise the events and survey, and the social media graphics were designed in a similar theme. All materials were provided in English and Spanish and Spanish-speaking City staff were present at the pop-ups and info session for interpretation. 2 Figure 1: Website banner advertising Round 2 community engagement opportunities

Overview of Events
In-Person Pop-Ups
Two 24x36” boards were developed for the pop-up events. One board was map-based and focused on proposed bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and wayfinding/placemaking improvements and where these improvements would be located (Figure 2). The other board shared preliminary streetscape designs, highlighting key changes, for three key project corridors: El Portal Drive, Mission Bell Drive, and the Castro-Moraga Drive loop (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Map-based board created for pop-up events

3 Figure 3: Streetscape board created for pop-up events

The pop-up events were attended by over 30 people and the preliminary recommendations were well received.

Refreshments from Donut King (located within the project area) were provided at both events as an incentive for participation. Visual representations of feedback are shown below in Figures 4 and 5.

4 Figure 4: College Pop-Up Activity

Figure 5: Supermarket Pop-Up Activity

5 Virtual Info Session
The virtual information session was presented by the project team featuring the same information as the pop-ups.

The recording of the session and bilingual slide decks are posted on the project website. The public was alerted to the availability of this media through the City mailing list and social media channels and were encouraged to take the online survey.

Online Survey
The online survey is aimed to be a supplemental channel to support public members who are not able to attend the in-person pop-up events. The six-question survey similar to the ones asked on the pop-up boards (Figures 2 and 3) followed by two questions about pedestrian improvements, two questions about bicycle improvements, one question about transit improvements, and one about area-wide improvements. As noted in the introduction, the survey was advertised through the same channels as the pop-ups and info session. Nine total responses (eight in English and one in Spanish) were received. The screenshot of actual survey site is shown in Appendix A.

Results
As the pop-questions were identical to the survey questions, both data sets were combined and analyzed as one.

All results show the total number of responses to a question rather than percentage due to the small data set and ability of participants to select more than one answer.

General Satisfaction with Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Participants were asked “Will the improvements to sidewalks and crossings encourage you to walk or roll (using a wheelchair or other mobility devices) more in the project area?” Most respondents felt the improvements would encourage them to walk or roll more in the project area, with only one answering “no”, as shown in Figure 7, below.

Figure 6: Satisfaction with Proposed Pedestrian Improvements

25 1 5
Will the improvements to sidewalks and crossings encourage you to walk or roll (using a wheelchair or other mobility devices) more in the project area?
Yes No N/A - I do not walk or roll in the study area.
6 Similarly, participants were asked “Will the bikeway improvements encourage you to bike or use an e-scooter more in the project area?” Most respondents felt that the improvements would encourage them to use a bike or e- scooter more in the project area, with only one answering “no”, as shown in Figure 8, below.

Figure 7: Satisfaction with Proposed Bicycle Improvements

Both questions were followed up with an open-ended question prompting participants to describe any additional improvements that might encourage them to walk/roll or bike/scooter more in the project area. Some responses did not directly answer the question asked and instead addressed related concerns.

Many comments focused on transit improvements, such as:
 Expanding transit service and making the Transit Center safer and more comfortable  Providing more benches at the Transit Center and throughout the project area  Support of safer, well-maintained, and expanded bicycle infrastructure  The desire to see bikes in the road and not on the sidewalk The full set of open-ended responses are listed as Appendix B to this document.

Transit Improvements
Participants were presented with a list of proposed transit improvements and asked “Which of the proposed transit improvements would encourage you to use transit more in the project area? Select up to two. ”Lighting and real-time bus arrival info were the top two choices across all participants (Figure 9). 26 1 3
Will the bikeway improvements encourage you to bike or use an e-scooter more in the project area?
Yes No N/A - I do not bike or use a scooter in the study area. 7 Figure 8: Top Transit Improvements

Overall Improvements
Finally, participants were asked “Of all the improvements proposed, which three are most important to you? Select up to 3. “Safer street crossings” was the top choice, followed by more lighting, then improved landscaping/new street trees (Figure 10).

Figure 9: Top Improvements Overall

9 9
11 11
20 26
Bus Shelters
Bike Parking
Benches
Directional Signage
Real-time Bus Arrival Info
Lighting
Which of the proposed transit improvements would encourage you to use transit more in the project area? Select up to two. 5 5
5 7
8 9
11 12
13 16
Bike parking
Public art and gateway monuments
Additional bus stop amenities
Directional signs
Transit Center improvements
New/improved bike lanes/shared-use paths
Wider sidewalks
Improved landscaping/new street trees
More lighting
Safer street crossings
Of all the improvements proposed, which three are most
important to you? Select up to 3.
8 Key Findings and Takeaways
Pop-up attendees and survey participants overwhelmingly felt that the proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements would encourage them to walk, roll, bike, and/or use an e-scooter more within the project area.

Safer street crossings were voted as the most important overall improvement for the study area. Many people also felt that improved lighting would encourage them to use transit more in the study area (and lighting was also highlighted in the open-ended responses). In general, improvements to transit were a common theme across public engagement, whether in the form of increased frequency, more transit options/modes, or improvements to the Transit Center itself to make it more safe, comfortable, and user-friendly. 9 Appendix A: Online Survey Site

10 Appendix B: Open-ended Responses from Survey and Pop-Ups Are there any additional improvements that would encourage you to walk or roll more in the project area? Please describe:

1. Bart station, BRT down San Pablo and 23rd street, more pedestrian friendly retail, more park area along the creek

2. Add physical traffic calming to any shared bike/car lane situations to ideally bring vehicle speeds below 25mph. Use pedestrian scale lighting, not just oriented toward the roadway.

3. Yo soy estamos Disney de contra costa college y por lo regular camino porque vivo por la broadway y 20th st y hasta ahora he estado bien como esta… mi preocupación porque esa es una ruta que yo uso todos los días en mi auto que vayan hacer lo de la Rumrill ave ya tienen más de un año y Nantes nunca habíamos tenido tantos problemas de tráfico como desde que empezaron con ese proyecto… la rumrill era una vía rápida y ahora que la hicieron de un carril es estresante y desesperante manejar por ahí … hicieron lo mismo que la 23… y yo lo comenté en una de las juntas que hicieron cuando lo estaban planeando pero parecen que no escucharon… espero esta vez si escuchen a los que vivimos aqui y no nos hagan mas difícil la vida más estresante … igual como cuando cambiaron la entrada del freeway antes salíamos rápido al freeway por el portal y ahora tienes que estar atorados en el tráfico … ojalá que las personas que están tomando estas decisiones esta vez sean personas que realmente vivan aquí y saben de nuestras necesidades … Antes teníamos vías que circulaban y no vías que ahora son estresantes y llegamos con dolor de cabeza por estar atorados en el tráfico… así que espero y el portal no lo hagan asi [Summary: Do not reduce El Portal Dr. to one lane in each direction as was done with Rumrill Blvd. because it creates traffic.]

4. Keep bike lanes on major through fairs

5. Wider sidewalks!

6. More outside benches!

7. No smoking on public transit.

8. Fix roadway potholes.

9. Bikers ride on sidewalk, even in areas with separated bike lanes (i.e. El Portal)

10. Signs easier to read

11. Family has lived here for 100 years, [I] support the housing and roadway improvements.

Are there any additional improvements that would encourage you to bike more in the project area? Please describe:

1. Bike lanes all the way to point Pinole.

2. I am an elderly woman. I do not bike. Often changes that are for bikes are detrimental to me. I am more dependent on my car and public transportation l I actually get upset about the emphasis on biking as this excludes the needs of us seniors.

3. Make sure any trees are planted such as to not create uplifted pavement or concrete in the bikeways, sidewalks, or shared pathways. Make sure landscaping can be maintained to keep bike and pedestrian paths clear, and maintain visibility at intersections and driveways.

4. Para mi es más fácil caminar porque me gusta caminar espero que lo que hagan no afecte el tráfico porque aunque ustedes parecen que quieren que usemos el transporte público o usemos bicicletas o scooter muchos no trabajamos cercas o tenemos tiempo de usar transporte público espero de verdad no hagan más estresante nuestro viaje en las horas pico hacia nuestro trabajos o viajes por la ciudad [Summary: I like to walk, but many of us do not work nearby nor have time to use public transit. Do not make changes that will increase traffic/commute times.]

5. Keeping bike lanes separate from car lanes

6. Making the Transit Center more comfortable – more lighting, benches, safety

7. Safer area for younger students

8. It would be great to rely more on public transit (more times [increase frequency], longer going [extend hours])

Appendix D: Improvement Cost Estimates
Date Prepared: August 31, 2023
Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost Notes
1 Remove Concrete (Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk) SF 19,500 $10.00 $195,000 Includes removal of existing curb, gutter and
sidewalk on both west & east side between El Portal
and Transit Center
2 Curb Ramps EA 4 $10,000.00 $40,000
Includes existing sidewalk and curb/gutter
demolition, roadway excavation, new HMA, new
sidewalk, new curb & gutter for curb ramp installation
at each corner at Mission Bell and El Portal.
3 Bulbout (College and Del Camino Intersection) EA 2 $25,000.00 $50,000 Includes existing sidewalk and curb/gutter
demolition, roadway excavation, new HMA, new
sidewalk, new curb & gutter for curb ramp installation
at each corner. 2 Bulbouts and 1 standard curb ramp
4 Mountable Curb & Gutter LF 3,000 $175.00 $525,000
Includes mountable curb/gutter, 2' wide HMA
conform, and 2' wide roadway excavation on both
sides of the road
5 Concrete Sidewalk SF 24,000 $12.00 $288,000 Includes installation of new 8' sidewalk on both sides 6 Bus Pad Replacement EA 3 $50,000.00 $150,000
Includes removal of existing bus pad and installation
of new pad, and minor amenities upgrade
7 Shared-Use Path (12' Wide) SF 18,000 $15.00 $270,000
Includes installation of new 12' raised concrete walk,
and demolition of existing AC under 12' raised
concrete walk
8 Biofiltration Planter (5' Wide) SF 7,500 $25.00 $187,500 Includes installation of planter mix (18" depth),
roadway excavation (18" depth), and landscaping
along planter
9 Median Landscaping SF 27,000 $25.00 $675,000
Includes landscaping for entirety of existing median
and irrigation improvements. Includes removal of
existing stamped median concrete
10 Slurry Seal SQYD 6,333 $7.00 $44,333
Assume 38' roadway width and includes re-striping
necessary that is not included elsewhere in this
estimate
11 Traffic Circle EA 1 $175,000.00 $175,000
Assumes traffic circle installation, splitter island
construction, ramp crossings and roadway excavation
necessary for proposed traffic circle
12 Crosswalk Striping LS 1 $2,500.00 $2,500 Assumes refreshing/enhancing crosswalk striping 13 Class II Bike Lane Striping LF 2,100 $4.00 $8,400
Assumes 7 stripes for College Ln segments to install
buffered bike lanes in both directions
14 New Traffic Signal EA 1 $600,000.00 $600,000
Assumes new traffic signal and equipment at Mission
Bell and El Portal intersection
15 Pedestrian Lighting EA 30 $10,000.00 $300,000
Includes installation of street light pole and
foundation. Spacing assumed to match east side of
corridor which is assumed to be 50'
$3,510,733 Notes

3.0% $105,400
Utility adjustments and relocations due to sidewalk
and shared use path

0.0% $0 Accounted for in line items above

8.0% $280,900 Standard BMP & drainage inlet protection

5.0% $175,600
Adjustments, relocations, and potential new
infrastructure at new curb & gutter

8.0% $280,900 Standard traffic control %

10.0% $351,100 Standard mobilization %
Minor Contract Revisions 8.0% $280,900 Standard contract revisions % $4,985,533 Notes
Engineering, Environmental, & Permitting 18.0% $897,396 Standard design fee % Construction Management/Materials Testing 10.0% $498,553 Standard CM % $1,395,949
$6,381,483 Notes
Contingency (30%) 30.0% $1,914,500
$8,296,000
% of sub-total construction costs
% of sub-total construction costs
% of sub-total major construction items

SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Item
Contra Costa College Mobility Hub
Estimate of Conceptual Project Costs
Drainage
Traffic Control / Detour/Construction Area Signs
Improvement Package #1

SUB-TOTAL MAJOR CONSTRUCTION ITEMS
Mobilization
% of sub-total major construction items
% of sub-total major construction items
% of sub-total major construction items
% of sub-total major construction items
% of sub-total major construction items
Removals / Resets/Utility Relocations
Landscaping
Erosion Control & Water Pollution Control Plan
% of sub-total major construction items
The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs.

Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

SUB-TOTAL DESIGN AND PROJECT ADMIN

SUB-TOTAL
% of sub-total
Total Project Cost Estimate

Date Prepared: August 31, 2023
Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost Notes
1 Right Turn Pork Chop Removal EA 1 $750,000.00 $750,000 Includes removal of existingpork chop island,
tightening curb return, re-alignment of curb ramp,
reconstruction of pavement section where
necessary, utility relocation and signal
2 Bus Pad Replacement EA 5 $50,000.00 $250,000
Includes removal of existing bus pad and installation
of new pad, and minor amenities upgrade
3 Advanced Limit Lines/LPI EA 4 $7,500.00 $30,000
Assumes 4 intersections requiring LPI and
advanced limit lines. Assumes existing
infrastructure such as signal controller needs to be
upgraded for the purposes of implementing LPI
4 New Pedestrian Crossing EA 3 $25,000.00 $75,000
Includes curb ramp reconstruction at each end,
minor median reconstruction, and enhanced
crosswalk striping
5 Bike Box EA 2 $1,500.00 $3,000
Assumes green bike box and pavement marking.

No separate bike signal or detection assumed
6 Exisitng Crosswalk Upgrade LS 1 $80,000.00 $80,000
Assumes existing crosswalk and curb ramp
upgrade where deemed necessary (7 corners need
curb ramp upgrades) and 7 crossings of re-striping
7 Class II Bike Lane Striping LF 18,480 $4.00 $73,920
Assumes 7 stripes for College Ln segments to
install buffered bike lanes in both directions
$1,261,920 Notes

3.0% $37,900
Utility adjustments and relocations due to curb ramp
and pork chop removal improvements

0.0% $0 No landscaping assumed

8.0% $101,000 Standard BMP & drainage inlet protection

5.0% $63,100
Adjustments, relocations, and potential new
infrastructure at new curb & gutter for curb ramp
and pork chop removal location

8.0% $101,000 Standard traffic control %

10.0% $126,200 Standard mobilization %
Minor Contract Revisions 8.0% $101,000 Standard contract revisions % $1,792,120 Notes
Engineering, Environmental, & Permitting 18.0% $322,582 Standard design fee % Construction Management/Materials Testing 10.0% $179,212 Standard CM % $501,794
$2,293,914 Notes
Contingency (30%) 30.0% $688,200
$2,982,200
Landscaping
% of sub-total major construction items
Contra Costa College Mobility Hub
Estimate of Conceptual Project Costs
Improvement Package #2
Item

SUB-TOTAL MAJOR CONSTRUCTION ITEMS
Removals / Resets/Utility Relocations
% of sub-total major construction items
Erosion Control & Water Pollution Control Plan
% of sub-total major construction items
Drainage
% of sub-total major construction items
Traffic Control / Detour/Construction Area Signs
% of sub-total major construction items

SUB-TOTAL
Mobilization
% of sub-total major construction items
% of sub-total major construction items

SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
% of sub-total construction costs
% of sub-total construction costs

SUB-TOTAL DESIGN AND PROJECT ADMIN
% of sub-total
Total Project Cost Estimate
Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs.

Date Prepared: August 31, 2023
Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost Notes
1 Remove Concrete (Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk) SF 24,000 $10.00 $240,000 Assumes existing sidewalk on West Side of
Castro is to remain. All other sidewalk, curb and
gutter, and brick pavers to be removed to
accommodate proposed improvements
2 Curb Ramps EA 7 $10,000.00 $70,000
Includes existing sidewalk and curb/gutter
demolition, roadway excavation, new HMA, new
sidewalk, new curb & gutter for curb ramp
installation at each corner.
3 Bulbout (Sidestreet) EA 4 $20,000.00 $80,000
Includes existing sidewalk and curb/gutter
demolition, roadway excavation, new HMA, new
sidewalk, new curb & gutter for curb ramp
installation at each corner
4 Curb & Gutter LF 4,000 $175.00 $700,000
Includes curb and gutter, 2' wide HMA conform,
and 2' wide roadway excavation on both sides of
the road
5 Concrete Sidewalk SF 12,000 $12.00 $144,000
Includes installation of new 6' sidewalk along 1
side of Castro and Moraga Rd
6 Bus Pad Replacement EA 0 $50,000.00 $0
Includes removal of existing bus pad and
installation of new pad, and minor amenities
upgrade
7 Shared-Use Path (12' Wide) SF 14,400 $15.00 $216,000
Includes installation of new 12' raised concrete
walk, and excavation of exisitng planter strips to
accommodate shared-use path
8 Tube Steel Fencing LF 2,000 $100.00 $200,000
Includes removal of existing fence and installation
of new tube steel fence
9 Landscaping Trees EA 80 $1,500.00 $120,000
Assumes spacing to be 50' along corridor on both
sides
10 Corridor Landscaping SF 26,000 $20.00 $520,000
Includes landscaping for planter strips and
irrigation infrastructure. Assumes average 13' of
width throughout full corridor for landscape and
irrigigation improvements
11 Raised Crosswalk & Median Recontruction EA 1 $10,000.00 $10,000 Includes raised 6" crosswalk and median
reconstruction at Library Dr and Moraga Rd. Does
not include curb ramp cost
12 Raised Intersection EA 1 $175,000.00 $175,000
Assumes curb ramp work to upgrade to raised
crossings, and assumes 6" raised intersection.

Includes signing and striping markings
13 Slurry Seal SQYD 7,556 $7.00 $52,889
Assume average 34' roadway width and includes
re-striping of lane lines not included elsewhere in
this estimate
14 Crosswalk Striping LS 1 $7,500.00 $7,500
Assumes refreshing/enhancing crosswalk striping
throughout corridor
15 Green Bike Crossings LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000
Green bike crossing striping at Castro Rd and
Moraga Rd
16 Class III Bike Sharrows LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000
Assumes max 250' spacing of sharrows in both
directions on Castro Rd
17 Pedestrian Lighting EA 80 $10,000.00 $800,000
Includes installation of street light pole and
foundation. Spacing assumed to be 50' on both
sides
$3,345,389 Notes

3.0% $100,400
Utility adjustments and relocations due to
sidewalk and shared use path

0.0% $0 Accounted for in line items above

8.0% $267,700 Standard BMP & drainage inlet protection

5.0% $167,300
Adjustments, relocations, and potential new
infrastructure at new curb & gutter and raised
locations

8.0% $267,700 Standard traffic control %

10.0% $334,600 Standard mobilization %
Minor Contract Revisions 8.0% $267,700 Standard contract revisions % $4,750,789 Notes
Engineering, Environmental, & Permitting 18.0% $855,142 Standard design fee % Construction Management/Materials Testing 10.0% $475,079 Standard CM % $1,330,221
$6,081,010 Notes
Contingency (30%) 30.0% $1,824,400
$7,905,500
% of sub-total
Total Project Cost Estimate
Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs.

SUB-TOTAL
Mobilization
% of sub-total major construction items
% of sub-total major construction items

SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
% of sub-total construction costs
% of sub-total construction costs

SUB-TOTAL DESIGN AND PROJECT ADMIN
Erosion Control & Water Pollution Control Plan
% of sub-total major construction items
Drainage
% of sub-total major construction items
Traffic Control / Detour/Construction Area Signs
% of sub-total major construction items
Landscaping
% of sub-total major construction items
Contra Costa College Mobility Hub
Estimate of Conceptual Project Costs
Improvement Package #3
Item

SUB-TOTAL MAJOR CONSTRUCTION ITEMS
Removals / Resets/Utility Relocations
% of sub-total major construction items

Date Prepared: August 31, 2023
Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost Notes
1 Raised Concrete Buffer (3' Wide) LF 5,280 $325.00 $1,716,000 Includes mountable, 2' wide HMA conform, and 2'
wide roadway excavation on both sides of the
buffer,stamped concrete, and removal of existing
AC section for placment of stamped concrete
2 Bus Pad Replacement EA 4 $50,000.00 $200,000
Includes removal of existing bus pad and installation
of new pad, and minor amenities upgrade
3 Median Landscaping SF 31,680 $20.00 $633,600
Includes landscaping for existing 12' wide median
and irrigation infrastructure
4 Slurry Seal SQYD 12,907 $7.00 $90,347
Assume average 44' roadway width and includes re-
striping of lane lines not included elsewhere in this
estimate
5 Class IV Cycle Track (10' Wide) LF 2,640 $15.00 $39,600 Assume proposed Class IV to be on existing road
facility and no modifications to pavement necessary.

Cost includes a centerline stripe and pavement
markings through out cycle track indicating direction
6 Green Bike Crossings LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000
Green bike crossing striping at San Pablo/El Portal
Intersection. Does not include modification to traffic
signal to accommodate bike phase or detection
7 Pedestrian Lighting EA 53 $10,000.00 $528,000
Includes installation of street light pole and
foundation. Spacing assumed to be 50' on one side
of corridor
$3,212,547 Notes

1.0% $32,200
Minor utility adjustments and conflicts expected due
to raised buffer

0.0% $0 Accounted for in line items above

8.0% $257,100 Standard BMP & drainage inlet protection

0.0% $0 No impacts to drainage infrastructure assumed

8.0% $257,100 Standard traffic control %

10.0% $321,300 Standard mobilization %
Minor Contract Revisions 8.0% $257,100 Standard contract revisions % $4,337,347 Notes
Engineering, Environmental, & Permitting 12.0% $520,482 Design fee percentage revised to more
appropriately reflect design necessary for
improvements shown above
Construction Management/Materials Testing 10.0% $433,735 Standard CM % $954,216
$5,291,563 Notes
Contingency (30%) 30.0% $1,587,500
$6,879,100
Landscaping
% of sub-total major construction items
Contra Costa College Mobility Hub
Estimate of Conceptual Project Costs
Improvement Package #4
Item

SUB-TOTAL
Mobilization
% of sub-total major construction items
% of sub-total major construction items

SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
% of sub-total construction costs
% of sub-total construction costs

Date Prepared: August 31, 2023
Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost Notes
1 Wayfinding Signs EA 10 $2,500.00 $25,000
Assume large double sided, 2 posts custom
signage
2 Gateway Monument EA 3 $30,000.00 $90,000
Per example project images. Not assumed to be
large gateway arches requiring significant material
and foundation depth
3 Placemaking Sign EA 4 $10,000.00 $40,000 Per example project images $155,000 Notes

1.0% $1,600
No utility impacts assumed. Signage to be placed in
location with no utility conflicts

0.0% $0 Accounted for in line items above

8.0% $12,400 Standard BMP & drainage inlet protection

0.0% $0 No impacts to drainage infrastructure assumed

8.0% $12,400 Standard traffic control %

10.0% $15,500 Standard mobilization %
Minor Contract Revisions 8.0% $12,400 Standard contract revisions % $209,300 Notes
Engineering, Environmental, & Permitting 12.0% $25,116
Design fee percentage revised to more
appropriately reflect design necessary for
improvements shown above
Construction Management/Materials Testing 10.0% $20,930 Standard CM % $46,046
$255,346 Notes
Contingency (30%) 30.0% $76,700
$332,100
Landscaping
% of sub-total major construction items
Contra Costa College Mobility Hub
Estimate of Conceptual Project Costs
Improvement Package #5
Item

SUB-TOTAL
Mobilization
% of sub-total major construction items
% of sub-total major construction items

SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
% of sub-total construction costs
% of sub-total construction costs

Date Prepared: August 31, 2023
Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost Notes
1 Raised Concrete Buffer (2' Wide) LF 7,000 $310.00 $2,170,000 Includes mountable curb, 2' wide HMA conform,
and 2' wide roadway excavation on both sides of the
buffer,stamped concrete, and removal of existing
AC section for placment of stamped concrete
2 Slurry Seal SQYD 14,000 $7.00 $98,000
Slurry seal corridor aree with new improvements.

Assume average 34' roadway width and includes re-
striping of lane lines not included elsewhere in this
estimate
3 Class IV Cycle Track (10' Wide) LF 3,500 $15.00 $52,500 Assume proposed Class IV to be on existing road
facility and no modifications to pavement necessary.

Cost includes a centerline stripe and pavement
markings through out cycle track indicating direction
4 New Pedestrian Crossing LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000
4 new curb ramps, minor median modification, and
new crosswalk at Mission Bell Dr and College
Campus Lane
5 Covered Bike Parking EA 3 $20,000.00 $60,000 Assumes covered bike shelter with racks $2,430,500 Notes

1.0% $24,400
Minor utility adjustments and conflicts expected due
to raised buffer and curb ramp improvements

0.0% $0 Accounted for in line items above

8.0% $194,500 Standard BMP & drainage inlet protection

1.0% $24,400
Minor drainage impacts due to curb ramp
improvements

8.0% $194,500 Standard traffic control %

10.0% $243,100 Standard mobilization %
Minor Contract Revisions 8.0% $194,500 Standard contract revisions % $3,305,900 Notes
Engineering, Environmental, & Permitting 12.0% $396,708 Design fee percentage revised to more
appropriately reflect design necessary for
improvements shown above
Construction Management/Materials Testing 10.0% $330,590 Standard CM % $727,298
$4,033,198 Notes
Contingency (30%) 30.0% $1,210,000
$5,243,200
Landscaping
% of sub-total major construction items
Contra Costa College Mobility Hub
Estimate of Conceptual Project Costs
Improvement Package #6
Item

SUB-TOTAL
Mobilization
% of sub-total major construction items
% of sub-total major construction items

SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
% of sub-total construction costs
% of sub-total construction costs

San Pablo City CouncilNovember 20, 2023

San Pablo City Council
November 20, 2023